In de door Snorri Sturluson geschreven verzameling koningssagen Heimskringla (‘De schijf van de wereld’) staat veel waardevolle informatie over het leven in de Vikingtijd. De verhalen zijn rond 1225 opgeschreven door Snorri Sturluson en zijn ontstaan in de periode van 850 tot 1177. De verhalen…
Locas II : Maggie, Hopey & Ray Love & Rockets Fantagraphics (September, 2009)
I have a lot of friends who love comics, collect comics, even write about comics and who have never read a single issue of Love & Rockets. It’s a brutally shocking omission - imagine being an aficionado of Westerns and never having seen a John Ford film, or blogging about manga without having ever cracked a single Osamu Tezuka volume - unthinkable, right?
Love&Rockets represents probably the greatest American work produced within the comics medium ever, but it’s kryptonite to the uninitiated. The most common concern I hear from folks is that there’s so much of it, and I dig - there are literally thirty years of stories which build upon an internal continuity in two distinct storylines from individual authors collected under a single volume, plus ancillary stories which are thematically united but independent from the core storylines, AND both books happily dabble in magical realism, introducing the absurd and unnatural in equal measures with the quotidian and the narrative.
BUT trust me, no one expects you to absorb all of that on page one; you just pick a story and start reading - there are excellent guides out there, like Fantagraphics’ “How To Read L&R”, but I honestly feel you could pick up any volume and immerse yourself in that particular arc right from the git-go, the stories are just that appealing.
And then? Then you’ll have literally thousands of pages of more comics to enjoy. It’ll be like finding an album that blows your mind and then discovering the musician who recorded it produced fifty more, each improvising on its core themes in a new and exciting way…
Love&Rockets is a comic you owe yourself, particularly if you’ve ever waxed philosophic or raged online about indy titles, creator ownership, auteurship, literate comics for grown-ups, breaking the corporate mold, comics not dependent on franchise, varied and deep depictions of women, strong female characters, representation of the female form, questions of race and identity in comics, gender and sexuality, comics driven on character and relationships rather than spectacle - that’s all in here, and more.
There’s more I can tell you to prepare you or try to sway you - the differences in Beto’s and Jaime’s storytelling, the premises of Hoppers and Palomar, where Birdland fits into the whole shmear - or in the best case scenario you can just discover it for yourself…
surgeon re-ultrasounded my neck and it looks like my thyroid cancer has recurred. I would like to read or make a mini comic on what you should physically do after getting bad news. I don’t think you’re supposed to run around buying things but it’s what I’ve done every time.
God damn it. Good luck and strength to you, Laura.
At least that’s the verdict of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which today struck down a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order from 2010 that forced Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable to abide by the principles of network neutrality. These principles broadly stipulate that ISP network management must be transparent, and that ISPs can’t engage in practices that block, stifle or discriminate against (lawful) websites or traffic types on the Internet.
That’s the bare bones story, wrapped in ugly acronyms (FCC, ISP, etc.). But why should you care that network neutrality (“net neutrality”) may be gone for good?
1. No more net neutrality means ISPs can now discriminate against content they dislike.
Everyone gets their Internet from an Internet service provider — an ISP like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast or Time Warner Cable. Under net neutrality rules, these ISPs have to treat all content you access over the Internet “roughly the same way" — they can’t speed up traffic from websites they like or delay competitor’s traffic.
3. Destroying net neutrality is bad for small businesses.
Put together items one and two and it becomes clear — negating net neutrality is bad for small businesses. If ISPs force website owners pay for faster load times, tiny retailers and personal websites will be the ones to suffer from slower content delivery.
Alternately — or additionally — ISPs will have no reason not to favor partner sites: Time Warner Cable, for instance, might favor the website of CNN (owned by the Time Warner Corporation) over the websites of competing cable news networks MSNBC and Fox News. Still, it’s the indies again that will lose out here. While Time Warner Cable might favor CNN and Comcast MSNBC, independent news networks almost certainly won’t get special treatment from any ISPs. Expand this out to music sites, web publishing, etc., and you begin to see the problem.
4. Without net neutrality, entire types of online traffic (like Netflix) may be in jeopardy.
Netflix watchers and BitTorrent users might want to beware — soon your beloved services may not work like they used to. Now that net neutrality’s down for the count, ISPs can discriminate against entire types of traffic: For instance, an ISP could slow or block all peer-to-peer file sharing, or all online video streaming.
Think it sounds unbelievably stupid for an ISP to stifle a certain traffic types indiscriminately? Comcast has seen reason to stifle both streaming video and peer-to-peer in the past.
5. Without net neutrality, your ISPs can make even more money without actually improving the Internet.
Right now, America’s broadband is slow. It’s slow because ISPs can already make gobs of money by charging the rich a ton for high-quality Internet while leaving the rest of America with subpar (or no) service.
Having this sort of discrimination in the hands of companies has political consequences in addition to the ones mentioned above. Think of the influence these ISPs would have if allowed to keep these powers? Any ISP with a political bias, or influenced by a political party, would have the power to direct access to information on the internet at their will.