#“Johnstantine isn't a monsterboinker pre-200 issues of og heckblazer” WRONG

[jesncin]

hiiii it's the anon you replied to with the taonui hugging a shark doodle (which is absolutely adorable btw) (also I know there's no proof of my identity but I doubt anyone is claiming to be me anyway).

I was not at all kidding when I said your work motivated me to read comics, even the notoriously badly written ones, because I think it's important to actually know the original material a fandom is based around.

I'm not new to the dc fandom space but I haven't had too much of an opportunity in my free time to actually engage with the comics as source material, only really tv shows and movies. A lot of what I know comes from other peoples discussion of comics as well as further interpretations of the characters in fanworks. A lot of what I see in the DC fandom is this sentiment to "disregard canon", which i think is fair if you take that to mean how comics contradict each other all the time, and there's a certain canon to each person based on what runs you actually enjoy the writing and character interpretations. However, what I actually see most of the time in fandom is the characters being put into boxes based on what they get known for within the fandom, and thus they become one dimensional comedy figures more often then not. They get assigned a couple of traits and then those traits are explored sometimes, but sometimes those traits don't even come from the comics but fandom wide hallucinations.

Completely opposite to that, is the way in which you researched and wrote your taonui mun and nanaue comic. Although you alter a lot of the original backstory and presentations of the characters from the Superboy comics, it's done with understanding of the source material, before you reconstructed it into something new. You analysed all the parts of both characters, how as characters they could be taken in interesting directions, as well as understood why they were written the way they were in the first place (blegh racist misogynist white men) and combined that knowledge into something new with more respectful cultural portrayals than they originally had. That's what motivated me to read more comics. Not the knowledge that the source material can be shittly written, or that I was disillusioned by your portrayal of characters, but by understanding the effect and critical analysis it took you to grow these characters from the potential they had in their original appearances. Better source material understanding often leads to more interesting interpretations and ideas for characters, because you have to know the rules from canon in order to break them in new and interesting ways. And your work is an absolute masterclass at this concept.

Sorry for the essay in your inbox, I just really enjoyed your comic and will def be looking into more of your art bc it's absolutely gorgeous. Thanks for the luck for seeking out more comics, I definitely need it.

You're good, I take the many anons' self-claims word for it :3c

I get that! Even though I think it's totally fair game to call yourself a fan of these characters when you primarily interact with them through adaptation, it's understandable to want to seek out more of them through their source material. Part of what makes cape media endearing to me is having insight into the transformative process when something gets adapted a bunch.

While I was hyped for my copies of Superman Smashes the Klan to arrive, I listened to the original Clan of the Fiery Cross radio show arc so I could see what Gene Yang was revitalizing in his take. And it was SO rewarding to know the broader context! The things that stayed, the things that were flipped and expanded upon, it's a whole other layer of appreciation.

When people say things like "oh I see you took the quirky bit trait (from the Superman movies) that Lois Lane can't spell and actually expanded it into something that explores her character". It's the kind of awareness of source material + how I changed it that I love! I get a lot less of that when I tackle niche characters -and it's fine since I make my comics accessible regardless of whether people get the references- but when people seek out that source material to better understand my adaptation, that's just so kind! It's an intellectual curiosity that's very healthy and I praise it (regardless of the source material's quality)!

I very much get the fandom tendency to flanderize and mistake fanon for canon. I'm fascinated by how fandom culture creates this collective conscious of rules + correct interpretations that ironically re-create the hierarchy of authorial intent. Because so much of the time when I enter a character tag on here and see discussion on these characters as they exist in canon, I'm thinking "some of y'all need a refresher on the source material, because [x thing you got from fanon] wasn't canonically thing." Being surrounded by fanon constantly can make people lose sight of the material.

Anyway thank you! As I've said before, I revisit canon to to be informed in my retelling, not to be loyal to it. I learn the source material and the context from which it's made before I break it and appropriate it. It's the most fun kind of research homework I could ask for haha.