••

This part of the shift we've seen in the kind of people producing the comics, and the audience they are targeting.

When I was a kid, eight, nine, ten years old, even into my early teens, I had no problem at all with the conventions of the form. I did not think the characters wore their underwear on the outside, I did not think Superman had blue hair, I did not think there was anything inappropriate in the relationship between Batman and Robin. Nor did the stories I read ever contain snide asides to the audience, as the writers expressed their contempt for the characters and the concepts, and invited their readers to do likewise.

It seems that as the fan base has grown older (mostly by attrition), and the "professionals" working on the books has been drawn more and more from that shrinking pool, the OVERTHINKING has begun to dominate -- and with overthinking comes, it seems, derision.

••

Not an entirely fair call. Homer is, after all, supposed to be an idiot. When the Simpsons crew does "real" superheroes, the costumes are played straight (or as straight as the show allows)!

Most terms of derision have fairly innocent origins. Words have no intrinsic power of their own, after all. It all comes down to how they're used, and when a reporter refers to a superhero wearing his or her "underwear", you can be reasonably sure there is no love in the term.

••

With no control over the content of the article, what would be the point? When you've given as many interviews as I have, you may have a better understanding of what happens -- that what gets into print is only that which supports the reporter's story.

JB:  "(Remember, too, that the comicbook in which Spider-Man first appeared had been called AMAZING ADULT FANTASY just one issue earlier. Put a book with that title on the stands today, and what would most potential buyers expect?)"

Yeah, I was re-reading the Amazing Adult Fantasy Omnibus the other day and I got a dirty look from my wife until I explained the series to her and showed her some of the contents.

":Considering that we're talking about a journalist who is more than likely neither four or nine, I think that we can exclude your analogy.  I'm quite sure no one here is slamming kids for not understanding the correct terminology. 

As a journalist, however, it's their job to know the subject they are writing about is it not?  To at least be familiar enough with the subject to write about it accurately?  I certainly hope that we hold journalists to a higher standard of research than we would, say, anyone off the street or your own children. 

It seems as though you like to pop in and declare people "wrong" in a ton of threads.  Don't know if that's your nature or if you really do disagree with people more often than you agree with them.  In any case, can you at least see that decades of derisive behavior and attitudes from people who don't read the form against those that do might somehow influence a perception that calling something worn on the outside of your clothing "underwear" is at the very least demeaning if not down right contemptuous?"

Sorry, your argument isn't convincing. The first question to consider is that of intent. For instance, do you think the journalist intended to mock, demean, or hold the subject in contempt when asking about Wonder Woman's underwear?  You are correct, it is their job to research a subject before writing about it. But, isn't that what the journalist was doing? Emailing JB was still part of the "before writing" stage, wasn't it?  

It is only contempt if they know the correct terminology and then refuse to use it. Otherwisewe are the ones choosing to feel contempt when there really isn't any there.