SHOCK: No One Knows Which Diets Work

No one really knows which diets work and which are a waste of time, with the possible exception of Weight Watchers, U.S. researchers are reporting.

""With the exception of one trial of Weight Watchers, the evidence to support the use of the major commercial and self-help weight-loss programs is suboptimal," Dr. Adam Tsal and Thomas Wadden of the University of Pennsylvania wrote.

The pair started out scanning more than 1,500 diet studies, but rejected most because they were done outside the United States, had fewer than 10 participants, lasted only a few weeks or differed from the diet as offered to the public."

Now let's all count the nanos before a follow-up to this article appears in which someone who should know better says, "But there's no reason not to diet if you want to."

Suddenly, I Ache with Sympathy for Martha Stewart

Okay, it ought to be funny that Stewart lost a Christmas decorating contest, themed "Peace on Earth", at Camp Cupcake. But then, there's the description of the winner:

"They lost out to a competing team that built a nativity scene showing "pictures of snow-covered hills and sleds and clouds on the wall,""

that's from an article posted to the People magazine website. "Stewart and a team of fellow inmates at a federal prison camp in Alderson, W.Va. crafted paper cranes to be hung from the ceiling."

So, Team Stewart does something tasteful, paper cranes, a symbol of peace. She probably taught them the traditional folded ones, too, which are really cool. And the winner is a Baby Jesus scene with sleds and snow. Of course it was.
Even in prison, judges of art are stupid.

I think the lifestyle put forth in Stewrat's magazine and other products is hilarious, unachievable by anyone but a woman supported by a very wealthy man. (As is the case with all lifestyle magazines, including the Real Simple and Breathe--which make me rage because of their appropriation of simple and spiritual living as a means to sell crazy expensive shit. That's right, poor people: simple and spiritual are for rich, skinny, white folks.) I think the excess, though presented with class, is vulgar.
But, dammit, Baby Jesus on a ski trip?

Bookslut's Kross Reviews Reviews of 2004 comics

Karin Kross at Bookslut:

"I am, however, more than happy to poke holes in the lists offered by two of the nation's more visible cultural sounding boards, namely Time and Salon, which by virtue of being relatively high-profile soapboxes for their writers, provide the rest of us with tempting targets. I'm not throwing completely gratuitous stones, however; the composition of these lists points towards an interesting shift in mainstream coverage of comics.
"Sophie Crumb, Lea Hernandez, Trina Robbins, and Jessica Abel are just a handful of other artists who published this year: did their works even get a moment's consideration? It's tiresome to even be asking this question in the first place, but the fact is that, faced with lists like these, largely free of any feminine influence, I'd like to be confident that they were left off for reasons beyond shortsightedness, sexism (unintentional or otherwise, on the part of either the individual or the industry), poor promotion, or just plain laziness."

I can say in the case of Arnold that Rumble Girls not being on his list is because he either didn't read it, or it didn't make his indie-cred cut: he was sent a copy. NBM's really good about sending out review copies. (And about sending me clippings of reviews as they appear.)

I'm still leaning towards shortsightedness and sexism. Best of lists of comics have expanded beyond one obvious set of parameters into a whole new set of obvious parameters, both sets overlap like a Venn diagram, and women's works are still largely...not there.

It's The Way I DRAW, Okay?

Aside from the many reviews of Hardy Boys that suggested my style on the book was affected (rather than I was selected for the way I drew), there's another common comment about my work which is really beginning to get up my butt:

Sketchy.

Like all comic art is supposed to be slick. Like there's a Manual of Lea Hernandez Style somewhere (I didn't get a copy) that puts down clearly that Lea Hernandez is Required to have a Clean Line, and I'm not following that.
Good Grief, Darwyn Cooke's art on Selina's Big Score is big swashes of Sharpie'd black. I don't recall reading any review of an indy comic that mentions "sketchiness".
At Amazon, Marjane Satrapi's art on Persepolis is "minimal and stark yet often charming and humorous as it depicts the madness around her." (Publisher's Weekly)
By contrast, my art on Rumble Girls is "somewhat sketchy". (School Library Journal)

And, my GOD, where was the "sketchy" criticism of critical darling comics by animators like Zoom's Academy and Herobear and the Kid? They're energetic, and have a tastiness that animators bring to sequential work, but it's NOT FINISHED art. It IS sketchy. It's SKETCHES. (I think probably they get a pass because animators are like rockstars to comics readers.)

I do long, sometimes, for a sleek and slippery line, but then Texture demands I make mad, sweet love to it (in point of fact, my inking style evolved to help preserve the energy of my pencils), and what am I to do?

It's the way I draw. Along with a style influenced by anime and manga, starting with Rankin-Bass cartoons as a tot, all the way down the line.

So, spread the word: Lea Hernandez does not draw "sketchy". She draws with texture and verve. It says so right here in MY copy of The Lea Hernandez Manual of Style.

"Sketchy": pfah.