Wolf Gnards

On the Controversy Surrounding The Werewolf's Guide to Life

One thing about Milwaukee I never could stomach… all the damn werewolves. The news is reporting two young women were arrested and accused of luring a teenage boy to their apartment for fun and ritual stabbing in Milwaukee. Ritual sacrifice is never good. Only bad things can happen be it mutilation or Cthulhu, but Goths will be Goths after all. The worst part of the story might be they did the wrong ritual (no, actually the worst part was the stabbing). According to the media sources they used a book called The Werewolf’s Guide to Life to perform these dastardly deeds, and somehow this comedy book has been vilified as the source of all evil, and if not the cause of all mayhem as we know it then at the very least a legitimate manual for demonology.

I have three problems with this…

It’s Milwaukee!
The first problem is Milwaukee. You can’t blame The Werewolf’s Guide when you’re in Milwaukee. Bad things happen in Milwaukee be you wolfman or mummy or one of them Frankensteins. I’ve been to
Milwaukee. I've eaten their cheese, I've drank their beer, and I've gotten the hell out of Dodge. There's nothing to do there but drink alcohol and perform satanic rituals, and drink alcohol at satanic rituals. On a long enough time line and with enough booze anyone would perform a blood rite. Average time: 8 hours per satanic ritual.

And being in Milwaukee means there’s no way to get access to real books on the occult or books in general. You have to make do with what you got.

That’s Not How You Become a Werewolf!
How can you blame The Werewolf’s Guide to Life when that’s not even how one would become a werewolf? You don’t become a werewolf by ritual stabbing: you become a werewolf by either being bitten by a werewolf or being the offspring of a werewolf. Or being bitten by a werewolf offspring. Or having your parent bitten by a werewolf then having your birth certificate changed to legally become a werewolf (although, you probably wouldn’t be accepted as a full fledged werewolf and the wolfman/son picnic). Or being birthed from a shewolf and being bitten by a separate werewolf as you’re born (perhaps creating some sort of werewerewolf). But stabbing? That’s not very werewolf.

How can you blame a book for a satanic ritual that doesn’t promote said ritual?

Behold the Werewerewolf

It’s Not a Real Guide
Now the biggest problem I have with the story (yes, besides the stabbing) is that they supposedly used The Werewolf’s Guide to Life as a manual for arcane ritual. This is according to the news, which used some very fuzzy if/so/then logic. Such as… if a ritual was performed so the users could become werewolves and a book was found on the premises that was about werewolves then that book must be used to perform the ritual. But even if it was used, it shouldn’t have been used. The Werewolf’s Guide to Life was not created for practical purposes. It’s a comedy book with the words “humor-parodies” printed on the spine. This is like making military strategy with GI Joe Comics. There’s a book about how to be Batman, but if you jumped off a building with nothing but a bat-shaped boomerang tied to a piece of string, it’s not the book's fault; it’s your crazy batass’s fault. This is like using Wolf Gnards as a guide for TaunTaun vivisection or Greek genealogy. Or really taking my advice on anything at all. The best advice I can give to you is not to take my advice (sorry, I think I just created a paradox).

Some helpful advice to troubled youths: when searching for a book to perform arcane magic it is best to find a legitimate book not found in the humor section.* Your spell still won’t work, but at least you’ll look slightly less stupid (slightly).

But don’t listen to me, check out the book and decide for yourself (And check out their weresponse, it's much more thoughtful and heartfelt than this one). Although, if you become a werewolf or try to commit murder, please don’t blame me.**

*Remember that I did say not to take any of my advice.
**I really mean it about not taking my advice.

Continued from Part I

As you might have read earlier for some unknown reason, Busy Beaver Buttons asked me to make a superhero button. I said yes as I don’t need to be asked twice to self promote, but the problem then arises that I have to actually make a button. Or do anything in general, which is not really my bag. If you wonder why I only do an update about once a week, it’s because coming up with ideas and committing to ideas is just exhausting (especially when there’s more important video games to be playing). You would think if I was designing a superhero themed button it’d be easy. That I would just slap a cape on a wolf and call it day, but I went with Taft instead. Who's the fat president that's a sex machine to all the chicks? Taft, ya, damn right.

The Real Man Behind the Button

William Howard Taft is my favorite president because while he is the only man to ever serve as both the President of the United States and Chief Justice of the United States, he will best be remembered for getting stuck in a bathtub. I just like a fat president, or a fat guy in general. Marlon Brando is better fat. Steven Seagal: better fat. Val Kilmer: better fat. In politics though, it’s like hot chicks that have fat friends to make themselves look hotter; the same thing works with president. You look more politically savvy when you stand next to the politically portly.

Who’s that dynamic, well-informed leader of men standing next to Taft, you ask.

Why that’s Wolfie G. Nards, they say.

My god, he’s as sexy as he is up on current politics. Fantastic.

Read more »

Busy Beaver Button Co, best known for dancing beavers (and affordable buttons, I guess), is launching a new button series for their Button-O-Matic vending machines: Superheroes! And naturally they needed some heroes to design these super buttons. So, they scoured the Internet to find the very best geeks with tons of superhero and design street cred. The kind of people who would be invited to secret button design tournaments to the death on remote private islands (if they had secret button design tournaments to the death on remote private islands)… and for some reason Wolf Gnards. Here are the details:

Busy Beaver Button Company
Button-O-Matic Release Party
3279 W. Armitage
Chicago, IL 60647
Friday, September 9
6 – 9 PM

And check out the Who’s Who of featured artists:

Jeffrey Brown – Comic book writer and artist of Clumsy, Bighead, and Cats are Weird.
Lilli Carré - From the highly regarded Tales of Woodsman Pete and even an MCA exhibit.
Anders Nilsen – Of Big Questions fame. Dude’s even got a tour.
Laura Park – New York Times Bestselling illustrator of Middle School, The Worst Years of My Life.
Travis Lampe – Illustrator and vinyl toy designer.
Jay Ryan – Famous poster maker and squirrel guy.
Shawnimals – Inventor of ninjas with mustaches. NINJAS with MUSTACHES!
Cakespy - Writer-illustrator and head spy at dessert detective agency.
Box Brown – Successful webcomic artist of Bellen! and Retrofit Comics. Also known for his Hobo themed wedding, and his hobo themed backlash.
OhNo!Doom - Chicago artist collective of designers, illustrators, and plush artists. Each one more capable and talented than myself.
And our very own Wolfie G. Nards – Best known for liking Bill Murray.

All of which meaning that I am the least famous person asked to make a button. Like this is some serious nerd envy. These people have Wikipedia pages. My god, Wikipedia pages! How do I compete with that? I can’t even guarantee that I’m the biggest Bill Murray fan. For all I know, Laura Park has a shrine to What About Bob? in her bathroom. But what I lack in celebrity status, I make up for in plug appeal. Beaver, you’ve been plugged!

Continued in Part II: Same button time, same button channel!

A lot of hubbub has been made of this J. Crew ad that has a kid with pink nail polish on his toes. The argument is being made that J. Crew is pushing the boundaries of gender identity, and some have gone as far to say that J. Crew is somehow promoting transgender lifestyles (Oh, silly old, Fox News bear). If you think about it, it really is in the best interest for one of the blandest, most conservative clothing companies to promote transgendered children. Because what do angry parents cover up their transgendered children with... lots of clothing. And what kind of clothing... the blandest, most conservative clothing they can find. Win, win... they promote a liberal agenda and milk conservative sales in the process.

Maybe, it's just me, but it's kind of a stretch to say they're sending out some sort of subliminal message about gender roles through the color of nail polish. The biggest problem I have with this is colors have no gender. Any gender role that is applied to a color is something we as a society have applied to that color. And these societal norms and values have a tendency to change over time. Pink used to be a masculine color in American society. 100 years ago pink was the color associated with baby boys, and at the very least was considered a gender neutral color. It wasn't until the 50's when the color pink heavily entered French fashion that pink took on a more feminine undertone. This being the case, I don't think it's anything particularly gender bending about pink nail polish. It's just a kid with any of his favorite crayon colors on his toes. And how do know that's it's about the color and not the nail polish itself? Maybe, he wants to be goth? We don't know.

I think the bigger question is what's up with his shirt? This is what they're actually selling. It's interesting that French fashion helped changed gender roles 60 years ago because that shirt is awfully French looking. Is J. Crew really trying to say something about France? This is the same exact shirt popular with ol' timey French sailors and baguette salesmen from Paris to Marseille. Are they trying to promote sex in every port? Bread? Underage wine drinking? Amelie? I don't know, but that kid is a beret and a pencil thin mustache away from being a famous painter. And is that what J. Crew is trying to say? I see that shirt and I just want to paint and be all kinds of artistic. Are they trying to turn our children into French Impressionists? Visible brush strokes, unmixed colors, capturing the natural changing qualities of light? Is this how we want our children raised? No sir, this is America and if they're going to be any sort of Impressionists it is going to be Freedom Impressionists. But why would J. Crew want to create a generation of French Impressionists? Well, what happens when you paint? You get paint on your clothes, you ruin them, and you have to buy more clothes. You're sly, Mr. Crew, but I'm onto you.

Or is this something about sailors? Are they trying to get our children to join the Navy? Has the United States Navy paid J. Crew to create fashionable nautical friendly attire to inspire our children to enlist 15 to 20 years from now. Or is J. Crew still trying to promote gender ambiguity, not through nail polish, but through sailor suits. Striped shirt = sailor = Navy = In the Navy = Village People = mustaches = gay sex. Is that what you're up to J. Crew!? Is it!? IS IT!?

Most likely. I can't see how it's not.

If J. Crew is trying to send some sort of message, French Impressionism and any of this is just as likely as transgendered lifestyles.

When Joseph Gordon-Levitt was first announced as being in Christopher Nolan's third Batman film the rumor mill immediately spouted tails of Gordon-Levitt being the new Robin. It's since been announced that he'll be playing Alberto Falcone, whether this is just a smoke screen or the real deal is yet to be seen. Then Juno Temple was rumored to be a female Robin based on her character description of “a street-smart Gotham girl” reminiscent of Frank Miller's Carrie Kelley in The Dark Knight Returns. Both rumors have been met with mixed reviews. Nolan has been fairly dead set about Robin never being in a Batman film he's directing, and I think the fan community has largely been in support of this.

Few people are willing to say good things about Robin. Even fewer people want to see a modern, realistic Batman standing next to a boy in red and green tights. Why do we resit Robin? Is it just some sort of deep seated homophobic impulse left over from Fredric Wertham? It seems after he mentioned the gay overtones of their relationship that's all we've been able to think about. Are we saying that a man and boy can't sit in a cave together or a roof top together without something inappropriate happening? What does this say about roofers or chimney sweeps?

And because we're so worried about what it would look like and the questions that might arise, we've tried to annex Robin from films and Batman history in general. Tim Burton avoided Robin. Christopher Nolan has vowed against Robin. And, of course, all our worst S&M, rubber nippled Robin nightmares were realized in Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin fiasco. But this isn't how it has to be, there can be a place for Robin in motion pictures. In fact, Robin is integral to the Batman story

Batman needs a Sidekick

Unlike some superheroes, Batman actually needs a sidekick. Flash doesn't need a Kid Flash, Aquaman doesn't need an Aqualad, but Batman needs a Robin. You see Batman doesn't have superpowers—he can't run faster than a speeding bullet or talk to fish—but the world doesn't know he doesn't have superpowers. The average criminal doesn't know that he's just a man, to them he's the GODDAMN BATMAN. To that cowardly lot, he's a supernatural being on par with Superman. And to pull that off Batman needs help. I like to think of Robin as a magician's assistant. Batman needs someone setting booby traps, throwing batarangs, lighting smoke bombs, creating distractions, and generally watching his very mortal back.

The Batman Mythos

Batman debuted in May 1939, Robin made his first appearance in April of 1940... meaning Batman spent 11 months by himself. A Robin has been with Batman for 71 years of storylines, he's been a lone vigilante for 11 months. Robin haters will argue that Batman has always been a lone avenger and him being alone is him getting back to his roots, but he's almost never been alone. This is a story of hero and his sidekick. Batman's mythology doesn't stop at vengeance, vengeance is just the beginning. Batman's tragedy isn't the death of his parents or the life of vengeance he chose, Batman's tragedy is he enlists a partner to keep the cycle alive. His legacy isn't getting revenge for his parents, but the lives of thousands of Boy Wonders who will follow in his footsteps.

Motivation

Robin keeps Batman grounded, and this actually doesn't help their questionable sexuality. Batman doesn't have an iconic love interest. Oh, he gets a couple of smooches here and there, but there's no Lois Lane waiting for him to come home at night. But let's face it, he's too busy knocking skulls together to ever come home at night. So, Batman doesn't have a typical damsel in distress or someone to champion for. But he does have Robin. Robin is someone for him to care about and to fight for. Fighting for some faceless society or concept is one thing, fighting for a real, live human being is another. Of course, he has Alfred, but do you put up your best fight for an old man with one foot in the grave or a young boy full of life? Without Robin, Batman is a homicidal maniac, with Robin he's a champion for justice. Without Robin, Batman's just The Punisher, and while I like The Punisher, he sure as hell ain't Batman.

Batman is a Symbol

This is probably the most important reason to include Robin in the new Batman films. Nolan's version of Batman keeps coming back to the theme of symbol. Batman is a symbol for justice, Batman is a symbol for Gotham City. As a symbol, as Batman, Bruce Wayne is bigger than a man. Except he's still a man. We know this, and he knows this. A man that could die at any time: shot by any thug, stabbed by any goon, slipped in any shower. To be this powerful, everlasting symbol for Gotham City, Batman cannot die. Which means Bruce needs a backup—a break in case of emergency Batman—he needs someone to take his place should anything happen. He needs Robin.

Are we going to let our own sexual hangups ruin an iconic relationship? Are we so uptight that a man and a nubile young boy cannot dress up in colorful costumes and frolic to all hours of the night? Robin can be more than just a Boy Wonder, but a symbol for tolerance and understanding.

Actually, maybe, Batman and Robin are a little gay.

I had fun at Chicago Comics and Entertainment Expo this year, perhaps, more fun than San Diego. It should be said though that I'm not huge on conventions (or gathers or public) mostly because I'm not very big on signatures or dropping large wades of cash on said signatures. If a signature from a celebrity is just a symbol meaning you were in this place at that time and met this person than the signature is worthless because you were there. A signature doesn't validate the meeting, the experience does. All of this meaning, Robert Picardo's signature is worthless... ipso facto, you're worthless, Picardo. I'm kidding, of course, Robert Picardo is wonderful and his surprisingly forceful minions are equally enjoyable.

But back to C2E2, I liked it better because it was a little more laid back. I just liked my big booming spectacles to be relaxed. San Diego Comic-Con was my first convention, which is not really your convention starter set. That's like the first time you've had sex being with a Vietnamese prostitute: Comic-Con is dirty and confusing with a couple of okay moments but mostly not, and don't touch me there, and you walk away somewhat mostly scarred. C2E2 was the girl next door: sweet and familiar, a little frumpy, but a bit of a wild cat that you can't discount. The best part of C2E2 was that I could breathe and there was room to move. The ability to move should never be under appreciated. Orderly lines, accessible booths and panels, these are all good things. The only problem was once you got there, there wasn't much to see. C2E2 was billed as a 3 day event, but there was really only about 1 and quarter days worth of fun.

The main problem was it's mostly comics, which I know shouldn't be surprising at a comic convention, but it was supposed to be Comics and Entertainment. It was really COMICS with a very special appearance by entertainment. And they're growing the other aspects, and from what I heard it was even a more lopsided comics to entertainment battle last year. So, it should continue to get bigger and grander and all encompassing as the years go on. But is that a good thing?

The bigger a convention is, the more fun it will be. Sorry to say, lads, but bigger sometimes is better. It will attract bigger celebrities and companies will pay more money to pimp out their booths. But with better booths and a better breed of celebrities, also, come more conventioneers, longer lines, and a general sardine feeling. With the rate C2E2 has expanded, it will be probably be the perfect comic convention next year, however, this will quickly be consumed by all the will be C2E2 of two years from now, which will result in C2E2 either becoming self aware or a black hole.

In conclusion, did I have fun? Yes. Could I have had more fun? Probably. Did I want to have more fun? Not really.

Other things I enjoyed:

• Knowing my way around town
• Not sleeping in a motel
• Getting a Press Pass
• A ton of free comics at Archaia
• Katie Cook's mini pet paintings
• Lonely Robot Comics (they drew costume covers)
• Mjolnir (By the Hammer of Thor, this list is getting long)
• Missing work
• They didn't let me spectate at the Geek Speed Dating... but I would have enjoyed it if they did.
• And did I mention sleeping in my own bed?