Windblade comic discussion (starting on page 2)

[andersonh1]

Well, we WERE back to talking about the book itself, buuuuuutt....

Here's where Scott lost me:

1. women only exist in aberration 2. being a women is inherently traumatic 3. being a women has any correlation to mental illness

There are so many problems with these statements it's ridiculous. This is her specifically misreading into SL Arcee for her own feminist agenda. And here's why this breaks down when you really analyze it:

1. women only exist in aberration

Bullshit. This is one instance where a female TF was forcibly created and was the only one shown, but that unto itself does not mean that all women everywhere are an aberration. The evolution of Gorlam Prime itself implies that much of that planet probably evolved female TFs (and I'll pour through the artwork when I get home to see if there are any shown) and therefore is not an aberration.

2. Being a women is inherently traumatic

Again bullshit. Arcee isn't traumatized because she's a woman, she was traumatized because of the torture forced upon her by Jhiaxus. One does not equal the other like Scott would have us believe. And nowhere in SL Arcee is that even implied.

3. Being a women has any correlation to mental illness

And here we are at the bottom of the slippery slope she pushed us off of. Again, Arcee's mental illness is because of the trauma (the trauma of being forcibly reformatted, not the "perceived trauma" of "being a woman"). In fact, with the example of Monstructor and Sunstreaker we have two other clear examples of characters in the IDW universe that went insane from being forcibly restructured. Sure, the bots may change their forms pretty often and not go crazy, but those are instances where they change them BY CHOICE. When it's forced on them, it causes trauma. Monstructor went insane from being restructured into a gestalt, Sunstreaker went insane from being forcibly restructured into a headmaster and Arcee was really just the latest example of a TF going insane from a forced restructuring. So, to sit there and say that all of these things are because she's female is projecting an agenda to a story where none exists. Again, the insanity isn't due to being female, those were two separate elements in the story, and it wasn't Furman's way of saying "Bitches be crazy" like Scott would have us believe.

The fact that she backpedalled so quickly after that post only strengthens my belief that the whole thing was a stunt to artifically drum up interest in her book by attempting to create a controversy.

And I'm off work. I may post more when I got home.

This. You and I are largely in agreement here.

Again, it's the author and her stated views that have put me off her work, not the work itself. And despite the fact that gendered Transformers make no sense to me, they've been a part of the brand since G1, and I've never had any real problem with that. I still don't.

Shockwave, I think you may be right... it may have been a publicity stunt. If so, it's certainly backfired with me.

[Sparky Prime]

I guess subconsciously I was trying to give Furman some level of credit for being a professional writer who totally and completely misunderstood the written word of another professional writer, that and Furman seems to be reacting out of the scuttlebutt around Scott's comments rather than directly from her posting of them.

Again, how did Furman completely misunderstand what Scott said? I'll give you Scott was careful to direct her comments towards the book itself. However, if someone says any book is offensive to any given group, then what does that say about the author who wrote it? How can you say those comments, to at least some degree, doesn't fall back to the writer who wrote it in the first place? That's not misunderstanding what she said. Again, all of this Furman explains in the comments on his blog. And his main post, even if it was mainly quoted from someone else, it breaks down some of inaccuracies Scott made about the book in the first place which really seems like she was out to make it out to be something it really is not. That's not to say Spotlight Arcee doesn't have its problems though. Which again, Furman does say he's aware of those opinions in the comments and feels that's their right.

Furman says so in that same link, the second comment gets a reply from him with the response starting "I never understood why people found SL: Arcee offensive..."

"The second comment gets a reply from him"... Hrm, nope, you're wrong about that. I see the post you're talking about, but that wasn't Furman who said it. The post you're talking about was actually from a user by the name of Tori.

The irony of Furman getting butthurt from his perception of Scott's words mis-portraying him appears lost on everybody, by the way.

Knew I should have stayed out of this topic when there were such erroneous comments being thrown about... I don't believe anyone here is saying what you're suggesting with this accusation.

The story has the entirety of Cybertronian females at that time in that universe being represented as a damaged, insane freak. Whether it was the book's intention or not, that's what happened; you even said it yourself, Monstructor is in a similar situation. But the difference there is that Monstructor's singular defining feature is that he's a gestalt, while Arcee's defining feature is that she's a female. And what damaged her psyche? Making her a woman. Whether or not you agree with Scott and other's interpretations, you should be able to admit that there is enough room for someone to feel that way based on that description - especially a female, no?

Technically the story has a singular Cybertronian transgender being represented as a rightfully angry 'bot for having been experimented on to make her a female against her will. Makes a bit of a difference, no? That certainly doesn't mean Arcee represents women everywhere as Scott implied. You can't judge everyone to be the same based on only the first person you've met. Arcee's not damaged. She's not insane. She's not a freak. She just wanted justice against Jhiaxus for forcing her through those experiments and was willing to go through any means to find him. You also completely missed the point I raised with Monstructor. Again, it's not what they are that defines them and it's not that they were the first we'd seen that defines others like them as a whole. And yes, I have expressed that I can see room for someone to feel that way, in the very same paragraph you just quoted no less. I don't agree with everything Furman set up in Spotight Arcee either. But that's not the exact issue we're discussing is it? The issue is how Scott expressed her opinions about the Spotlight Arcee, as Shockwave and Andersonh1 point out above.

Being an angry psycho.

No, that's not the foundation for Arcee's character. Yes, she was angry and for good reason. She was forcibly experimented on against her will. I think that would make anyone a bit angry, don't you? But once she had the chance to get her revenge on Jhiaxus, she says it was like therapy for her. She isn't nearly so extreme in RID.

[JediTricks]

Well, we WERE back to talking about the book itself, buuuuuutt....

Here's where Scott lost me:

1. women only exist in aberration 2. being a women is inherently traumatic 3. being a women has any correlation to mental illness

There are so many problems with these statements it's ridiculous. This is her specifically misreading into SL Arcee for her own feminist agenda. And here's why this breaks down when you really analyze it:

1. women only exist in aberration

Bullshit. This is one instance where a female TF was forcibly created and was the only one shown, but that unto itself does not mean that all women everywhere are an aberration. The evolution of Gorlam Prime itself implies that much of that planet probably evolved female TFs (and I'll pour through the artwork when I get home to see if there are any shown) and therefore is not an aberration.

She's talking about Cybertronian women, not women everywhere, you are overreaching. The tampered-with people of Gorlam Prime are not Cybertronians in any way.

2. Being a women is inherently traumatic

Again bullshit. Arcee isn't traumatized because she's a woman, she was traumatized because of the torture forced upon her by Jhiaxus. One does not equal the other like Scott would have us believe. And nowhere in SL Arcee is that even implied.

Arcee is the only woman, she is traumatized, the implication therefore is that all Cybertronian women are traumatized. I will agree that she stretches, but she's talking about how it feels to her to read that material, the "suggestion" that she and other women she's talked to have taken away from the material.

3. Being a women has any correlation to mental illness

And here we are at the bottom of the slippery slope she pushed us off of. Again, Arcee's mental illness is because of the trauma (the trauma of being forcibly reformatted, not the "perceived trauma" of "being a woman"). In fact, with the example of Monstructor and Sunstreaker we have two other clear examples of characters in the IDW universe that went insane from being forcibly restructured. Sure, the bots may change their forms pretty often and not go crazy, but those are instances where they change them BY CHOICE. When it's forced on them, it causes trauma. Monstructor went insane from being restructured into a gestalt, Sunstreaker went insane from being forcibly restructured into a headmaster and Arcee was really just the latest example of a TF going insane from a forced restructuring. So, to sit there and say that all of these things are because she's female is projecting an agenda to a story where none exists. Again, the insanity isn't due to being female, those were two separate elements in the story, and it wasn't Furman's way of saying "Bitches be crazy" like Scott would have us believe.

I can't follow you there. The character is the singular representative of Female Cybertronians and was designed to be an aberration by Furman's decree, and the character was set up to have mental illness from being turned into a woman. Whether Furman wanted to imply it or not, the material suggests it, and it acted as foundation so that it continued to define her. Sunstreaker and Monstructor are not tortured by being forced to wear a human characteristic that defines a large group of the potential audience.

Shockwave, I think you may be right... it may have been a publicity stunt. If so, it's certainly backfired with me.

And that proves why it wasn't a publicity stunt - it had the OPPOSITE effect, and clearly was going to from the beginning had it been planned.

Again, how did Furman completely misunderstand what Scott said? I'll give you Scott was careful to direct her comments towards the book itself. However, if someone says any book is offensive to any given group, then what does that say about the author who wrote it? How can you say those comments, to at least some degree, doesn't fall back to the writer who wrote it in the first place? That's not misunderstanding what she said. Again, all of this Furman explains in the comments on his blog. And his main post, even if it was mainly quoted from someone else, it breaks down some of inaccuracies Scott made about the book in the first place which really seems like she was out to make it out to be something it really is not. That's not to say Spotlight Arcee doesn't have its problems though. Which again, Furman does say he's aware of those opinions in the comments and feels that's their right.

Furman:
But for Scott to (wrongly) accuse me of apparently setting out to be offensive to women is the kind of personal attack that really needs a response.

Scott:
Do I think Furman was trying to make a statement about human women with Arcee’s origins? No. In fact, the largest share of blame lies with the tokenization of women in the brand in general. If Arcee was one of many women transformers and she became female in this manner, it would not be an issue for women writ large (although still troubling for the transgender community). It is because she is the ONLY women (and that this story ensures that she will ALWAYS BE the only woman) that Arcee’s story becomes untenable.
That is a misread on Furman's part. Other misreads...

Furman:
Essentially, Mairghread Scott (whose work I’m only passingly familiar with, so I cannot and anyway would not comment on how qualified she is to sit in judgement of mine), has elected to retcon my take on the character Arcee (in Spotlight: Arcee, part of the IDW G1 continuity) in some fashion.
Is that true? No. Not only did she not retcon it, she wasn't the one to "elect" to, it was Hasbro.

Furman:
The idea of taking something firmly established as in-continuity (in the the issue itself and plentiful collections) and saying, ‘oh wait a minute – we didn’t mean that, we meant this’, is insulting both to the original creator(s) and the fans who shelled out the money to buy it in the first place.
Sorry, didn't realize Furman created The Transformers, oopsie. Don't like it? Don't work on licensed books.

"The second comment gets a reply from him"... Hrm, nope, you're wrong about that. I see the post you're talking about, but that wasn't Furman who said it. The post you're talking about was actually from a user by the name of Tori.

I see, the colored posts all looked like his separated out from the others.

The irony of Furman getting butthurt from his perception of Scott's words mis-portraying him appears lost on everybody, by the way.

Knew I should have stayed out of this topic when there were such erroneous comments being thrown about... I don't believe anyone here is saying what you're suggesting with this accusation.

There's nothing erroneous about it, I am saying that Simon Furman being butt-hurt by his perception of Scott's words mis-portraying him is ironic in this circumstance given the nature of Scott's comments about Furman's work mis-portraying her gender, and that nobody else has voiced this irony.

Technically the story has a singular Cybertronian transgender being represented as a rightfully angry 'bot for having been experimented on to make her a female against her will. Makes a bit of a difference, no? That certainly doesn't mean Arcee represents women everywhere as Scott implied.

No, it doesn't. Furman is claiming they're not male, so it's not "transgender", it's not going from one gender to another. And it also doesn't make a difference because, singular or not, she is the entirety of female Cybertronians and was designed to stay that way, in Furman's mind.

I don't agree with everything Furman set up in Spotight Arcee either. But that's not the exact issue we're discussing is it? The issue is how Scott expressed her opinions about the Spotlight Arcee, as Shockwave and Andersonh1 point out above.

To me they're part of the same thing, cause and effect. And what we're discussing is Windblade #1, the outside stuff just seems to hover about.

But once she had the chance to get her revenge on Jhiaxus, she says it was like therapy for her. She isn't nearly so extreme in RID.

She is very extreme until Prowl is exposed as being under Decepticon control, and the book mentions her madness in early issues, IIRC.

[Sparky Prime]

She's talking about Cybertronian women, not women everywhere, you are overreaching.

Shockwave isn't overreaching at all. Scott litteraly is saying the book suggests that about women not just Cybertronian women.

Furman:
But for Scott to (wrongly) accuse me of apparently setting out to be offensive to women is the kind of personal attack that really needs a response.

Scott:
Do I think Furman was trying to make a statement about human women with Arcee’s origins? No. In fact, the largest share of blame lies with the tokenization of women in the brand in general. If Arcee was one of many women transformers and she became female in this manner, it would not be an issue for women writ large (although still troubling for the transgender community). It is because she is the ONLY women (and that this story ensures that she will ALWAYS BE the only woman) that Arcee’s story becomes untenable.
That is a misread on Furman's part. Other misreads...

No it is not. If anything, you've misinterpreted. Scott is saying the book suggests offense to women even if Furman didn't intend it that way. Furman took that critism personally and argued against that. That's not a mis-read on Furman's part.

Is that true? No. Not only did she not retcon it, she wasn't the one to "elect" to, it was Hasbro.

You're forgetting that all of this was things that were said several months before the issue even came out. Furman didn't know at that time that it wouldn't actually be retconning Arcee did he? No. Doesn't mean Scott wasn't suggesting it at the time, which is what he was reacting to.

Sorry, didn't realize Furman created The Transformers, oopsie. Don't like it? Don't work on licensed books.

What, Furman isn't entitled to his own opinion about retcons? Again, not a misread.

There's nothing erroneous about it, I am saying that Simon Furman being butt-hurt by his perception of Scott's words mis-portraying him is ironic in this circumstance given the nature of Scott's comments about Furman's work mis-portraying her gender, and that nobody else has voiced this irony.

It is erroneous. Just because no one has mentioned it when the topic of conversation hadn't gone that far doesn't mean its lost on everyone.

No, it doesn't. Furman is claiming they're not male, so it's not "transgender", it's not going from one gender to another. And it also doesn't make a difference because, singular or not, she is the entirety of female Cybertronians and was designed to stay that way, in Furman's mind.

It certainly does make a difference. If Arcee is now considered female, what did that make her before? Furman might prefer the idea of the Transformers as genderless, but despite that, the Transformers have inherently gendered traits, the majorty being clearly presented as male. And again, to judge a group based on one individual is just stupid. It makes no difference if she was the only one (at the time). You have to take all the circumstances into account, otherwise it is dishonest to the story.

To me they're part of the same thing, cause and effect. And what we're discussing is Windblade #1, the outside stuff just seems to hover about/

Part of the same thing perhaps, but very different aspects. I wouldn't call it cause and effect because I feel Scott misrepresented Spotlight Arcee in the first place. And I'd say this topic went well beyond the omic long ago.

She is very extreme until Prowl is exposed as being under Decepticon control, and the book mentions her madness in early issues, IIRC.

I would disagree. She's good at her job, that's not the same thing as Arcee still being as extreme as she had been.

[Onslaught Six]

Scott litteraly is saying the book suggests that about women not just Cybertronian women.

Do I think Furman was trying to make a statement about human women with Arcee’s origins? No.

Do you even into reading or do you just skip over everything she says?

[Sparky Prime]

Do you even into reading or do you just skip over everything she says?

The question is, do you? Look at how that one sentence is worded as well as the context of everything else she's saying in that paragraph. Does Scott think Furman was "trying" to make a statement about human women? No. But all that statement means is that she doesn't think Furman intentionally intended Spotlight Arcee to be commentary about human women, not that she isn't applying the book toward human women anyway. Given the rest of the context to that quote you overlooked, she makes it clear that is how she thinks it reads despite whatever Furman's intentions were:

The issues I have with Furman’s choice is that we don’t exist in a vacuum and the suggestion that 1. women only exist in aberration 2. being a women is inherently traumatic 3. being a women has any correlation to mental illness are extremely upsetting.

Notice her choice of words here? Do you see her saying the word Cybertronian anywhere there? No? She's talking in a very generalized fashion there, applying the book as an outlook towards all women. And then she reaffirms that towards the end of that paragraph:

If Arcee was one of many women transformers and she became female in this manner, it would not be an issue for women writ large

As you can see from what I bolded, there should be no question about this! She's literally saying it's an issue for the greater magnitude of women here!! And as she's wrapping up...

TLDR version: Arcee’s origin is offensive because we don’t have any other female origins to balance it. We’re working on it, stay tuned.

If she's talking about Cybertronian women, yet Arcee is/was the only one, then there shouldn't be anyone to offend, right? But that clearly isn't what Scott is talking about if you actually read what she posted. She's saying it's offensive to all women, not to Cybertronian women.

[JediTricks]

Soooooo....

Windblade #2 - this is much more a traditional mystery story, and the conflict is shaping up either to be a whodunit or a political whydunit, but either way it seems to leave the story with some answers and some red herrings (either that or it's a painfully, bleakly simple story). The book is largely just walking around talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, while also narrating and narrating and narrating, and narrating that might be talking, and talking that might be narrating. Very little actually happens: they recover from the last issue, they discover a thing that is most likely the driving force of the miniseries, and there's interpersonal conflict, and they try to reveal the truth only to get ambushed. It's not TERRIBLE, but it really is too much blah-blah and not enough zoom-zoom, pew-pew or even punch-punch. The majority of the resolution to this issue's small driving force - getting a character to explain themselves - really should at least have more of the work of the book than just conversation, and it all ends up feeling very .

The art unfortunately fell off a cliff and is clinging to a small root sticking out of the face of the rock partway down, slowly watching the dirt loosen and erode as the slim lifeline slips away. This feels not like intentional art at all, but pre-art - roughs and sketches that are sloppily filled in for pre-visualization purposes, like a colorful storyboard that got filled out - while nowhere does it seem as if it's intentionally saying anything or garnering any emotion with an attempt at that particular "style". The tech detailing is minimized while the faces are enlarged and expressions exaggerated. The bodies largely feel more feminine for the male characters and less feminine for the female characters, I had to check twice that Starscream wasn't a girl while also re-checking panels to make sure I was looking at Chromia and not Blurr (they have similar coloring and are on facing panels). Mostly it gets by conveying what it needs to convey, so it is still clinging to that loose little root, but only just.

There may be interesting ideas here, but it's difficult to be sure, there isn't nearly enough worldbuilding with Metroplex and the living city or its denizens. The Macadams scenes feel especially shallow and don't really contrast well to previous takes on the bar, it's a human bar cliche too far. Starscream gets inappropriately handsy in one panel feeling Windblade's injury to her left waist, and the matter simply doesn't land on any level, if it's sexual harassment then MEAN IT, have Starscream assume an unacceptable control position, it's not difficult to believe here in that scene; but if it's just him being creepy and he would have done it to anyone, then at least have that expanded upon a little better. Then again, Starscream is so poorly defined as a character that it's hard to know who he really is or what he really is about in this series.

My biggest problem with this issue is that it feels like it's padding time when it's halfway through, leading to a woefully simplistic conclusion or a confusing one that backloads the bulk of the story onto the weight of the last issue.

[andersonh1]

Still not reading, but had a question about this series. Does it feel like it belongs in the "old" RID? In other words, political shenanigans on Cybertron? Or is it doing its own thing?

[Onslaught Six]

I haven't looked myself (I'm off the wagon unintentionally) but if the art really has taken a turn for the worst, I'm not surprised. I haven't done research, but it wouldn't surprise me for someone new to TF to struggle initially with doing a monthly run of it--even a short monthly run like 4-5 issues--without having done a few one-offs and warm up issues first. Guys like Roche and Guidi didn't become great from the start, they had to build up to it.

[Mako Crab]

I forgot to post here about it. So I finally got issues 1 and 2 and I enjoyed them both. The art looked fine to me in both issues. The biggest thing I can say about them, is that as soon as I was done reading, I wanted to read them again. It's not a deep story, but again- it's supposed to be a jumping on point for new readers. I like Windblade and Chromia (and some others) and it's all very pretty. I see everyone citing the sketchy lines and how Stone is doomed to failure and can't keep up with the workload, but I really like her art. Sketchy or no, I like her style and I like all the facial expressions and body language.

It's a good comic.