An Editor Writes About The Big Bang Theory And Comic Shops

[Rich Johnston]

A Big Two Comic Company editorial staffer got in touch with Bleeding Cool last night. She wanted to share her thoughts on the recent coverage Bleeding Cool had run on tonight's episode of The Big Bang Theory and the online reaction. She writes;

Hey, Rich! Just wanted to say I LOVE the pieces you?re running about the Big Bang Theory ? I saw a lot of people on your boards yesterday up in arms about ?not being able to take a joke?, and I think you?re approaching the whole endeavor with exactly the right mix of cheek and righteous indignation.

I don?t think that a lot of comics fans realize how much of a downer it is when something in the mainstream culture basically says, ?this thing shouldn?t be for you??especially when it?s for a joke that?s at their expense! For every poster on your board who claims that everyone knows women read comics, there are literally thousands of people who still think of comics as soft core pornography for man children. And this show is one of the worst offenders in propagating that (don?t even get me started on their idea of lady scientists).

ANYWAY. I love this piece and I hope you keep doing it for as long as you get submissions!

Well, that's a thought. I'd only ever thought of running this article as a one off. Maybe it's worth continuing...

[StarCruncher]

Which editor was it? Too complimentary towards Rich to be the Wackman. Breevort, maybe?

[Arvandor]

Finally. Someone who understands why I hate the program. (That, and it is painfully unfunny.)

[toodoor]

Surely the reason people think they are "soft core pornography for man children" is the way women are so often drawn in them. Yeah, I'm looking at you Aspen.

[BobMarket]

I mean, yeah, not ALL of comics are soft core pornography for man children. Not ALL of them, definitely.

There are definitely some comics that aren't that at all.

Oh wait, this was someone from the Big 2 talking?

......

Well. I mean...yeah, not ALL of them, definitely.

[BobMarket]

Surely the reason people think they are "soft core pornography for man children" is the way women are so often drawn in them. Yeah, I'm looking at you Aspen.

Or Marvel (project hawkeye) or DC (catwoman catwoman catwoman power girl catwoman)

[Maybeland]

Rich if ou plan to use this website to crusade against BBT then I'm going o have to give you a round of applause.

No clapping gif close enough

[cartoonistaaron]

I've only seen this show once or twice - is it really the barometer for how the nation perceives the relationship between women and comics?

And for the record, I've taken my wife into three comic shops in town, and she flat-out won't go in two of them with me. (As a consequence I don't frequent those shops anymore.) She's creeped out, not nearly so much by the staff as by the strange comic fans that linger and have those stereotypical vociferous "who'd win" discussions. Also, when drawing my own comics, she's chastised me for "not drawing the boobs big enough, like they're supposed to look in comics." Her perception of modern comics is, well, that they are exactly what this mystery editor says - softcore porn for man-children.

So if this show is perpetuating a stereotype, well, that stereotype is perpetuating itself out here in the real world. (Or maybe this says more about my wife and a couple local comic shops than anything else....)

[Matt Spatola]

Which editor was it? Too complimentary towards Rich to be the Wackman. Breevort, maybe?

Yeah and why didn't Rich share that information?

[Timberoo]

Why doesn't Bleeding Cool run articles about the BBT's unrealistic portrayal of theoretical physicists, experimental physicists, waitresses, actresses, aerospace engineers, astrophysicists, microbiologists, neuroscientists and Will Wheaton?