Comics & Things

A tumblr for comics-related blather (and other things).

I used to do stuff like this for a living... but then I got a real job. Then I kind of missed it a little...

Dagar: Desert Hawk #19 (1948) gets my vote for one of the worst comic book covers ever published.

I don’t even know where to begin … the weird class of patterns; the poor use of shadows; the freakin’ horse with 1/3 of its body obscured; the lassoing of the logo but not quite; the proportions of the brunette’s left hand; the green hat(!). So much wrong going on with this comic book cover.

The end of the Golden Age of Comics, that is to say, “post-war comics,” as a lot of researchers call them, experienced a weird and precarious glut of material. The late 1940s and early 1950s saw changing tastes among the comics readership in the absence of war stories and (eventually) in reaction to the CCA; a lot of stuff was thrown at the wall (and a lot of it wasn’t particularly fascinating).

Dagar: Desert Hawk #19 (1948) gets my vote for one of the worst comic book covers ever published.

I don’t even know where to begin … the weird class of patterns; the poor use of shadows; the freakin’ horse with 1/3 of its body obscured; the lassoing of the logo but not quite; the proportions of the brunette’s left hand; the green hat(!). So much wrong going on with this comic book cover.

The end of the Golden Age of Comics, that is to say, “post-war comics,” as a lot of researchers call them, experienced a weird and precarious glut of material. The late 1940s and early 1950s saw changing tastes among the comics readership in the absence of war stories and (eventually) in reaction to the CCA; a lot of stuff was thrown at the wall (and a lot of it wasn’t particularly fascinating).


Always enjoy Colon’s Amethyst art (but again, tiny waist is tiny) … and I know he’s the artist behind the character’s origin story, but the upskirt isn’t really necessary.

(from Who’s Who #1)

Pixar’s ‘Toy Story’ and the Burden of Evolutionary Ethics

dunesen:

In the Toy Story movies the toys act inanimate when people are around, but they have the ability to demonstrate their conscious existence to humans, as we see at the end of the first movie when they traumatize Sid.

But it’s never explained why they have to or choose to act inanimate. Why the lack of self-preservation in maintaining the illusion that they are nothing but bits of plastic and other materials. So why do they?

The toys do not belong to any species capable of reproduction. And as such, it is possible the standard theories of evolutionary self-preservation need not apply. They are truly altruistic entities in every way possible.

In terms of the ancestral environment, this is generally impossible. Although a tribe of selfless people might have prevailed longer and with better health than a tribe of selfish persons (i.e., sympathy over savagery), a tribe of selfless people would never in any historical context ever truly exist due to actions wrought by their biological impulses (e.g., for food, battle, mating, and other intratribal skirmishes).

The moral responsibility, then, for the toys in Toy Story is less aligned with behaving in a manner that will sustain their existence in a society filled with other (competing) species (i.e., they have no biological impulses) and has more to do with the unconditional compassion necessary to participate in (or maintain) a paradigm in which their primary function is, ultimately, utilitarian.

In this context, the moral discourse is clear: the toys can bring happiness if happiness is the end goal, and they can bring suffering if suffering is the end goal. Any evaluation thereof is bereft of knowledge (or interest) of one’s biological basics.