Comic Book Resources

Agreed on both counts.

On the green lantern thing, I actually thought that it showed how weird Kara is by hitting on Hal, while Hal was completly business, and only thrown off when kara started to flirt.

Yeah, it’s a dopey sequence, but weirder for how she’s such a big flirt. And in such an obvious way. Good grief, is this what they brought her back for?

I don’t have too much interest in distaff versions of heroes to begin with. I’d rather see a well-written character who can stand on her (or his) own. The Barbara Gordon Batgirl is the one huge exception I can think of, but she was an interesting character in her own right, even early on, and she’s only improved as Oracle. I never cried over losing any earlier version of Supergirl, but I really don’t understand what the point is to this version. Zero interest in B&B now.

Rebis said…
“Zero interest in B&B now.”

I’m still interested in B&B, especially the issue with Blue Beetle & Batman vs. the Fatal Five, but I just can’t stand the new Supergirl. It’s one thing if a single writer wrote her badly, but it seems like every writer that touches her just makes her more and more unlikeable. She’s well on her way to becoming this generation’s Jason Todd Robin…

Is it so hard for most superhero writers to write a teenage girl as a teenage girl rather than some weird fantasy object?

I thought the sequence was kind of funny…only in that I have encountered girls like that before.

Having said that, I don’t read Supergirl, so unless that is her normal behaviour, it doesn’t make much sense.

Basically, haven’t you ever met a 17 year old girl who would flirt with someone like Hal?

Now if Hal flirted back…that would be creepy.

In my experience, yeah, they do that, but often without realizing it’s flirting. Middle aged men often read more into the attention than they should. Again, I think the whole “KNUCKLE BITE SHE IS 17!!!!” stuff is grosser than her behavior.

Well remember, back in the 80s Hal was dating a girl who was, mentally at least, 13 years old. At least lusting after a 17-year-old is a step in the right direction.

And it’s still in better taste than underage Supergirl appearing topless or fully naked in almost every issue of her solo title.

The only comic Supergirl is tolerable in is Legion of Superheroes. I think Supergirl is a wonderful example of how DC has no idea what it’s doing right now. Everything about her has been handled so badly starting right when Jeph Loeb brought her back in Superman/Batman.

I really don’t understand the huge need for a Supergirl. After she was killed in COIE, we’ve had at least 3 versions of her before the current one. Not counting that the original Kara showed up in the previous Supergirl’s comic and that Power Girl is once again the Earth-2 Supergirl. Can’t we make it alright without a Supergirl?

Oh, and the Unseen Peanuts thing is awesome. I can’t wait for Free Comic Book Day now.

Are there any unseen Calvin and Hobbes comic strips?

“Is it so hard for most superhero writers to write a teenage girl as a teenage girl rather than some weird fantasy object?”

By not qualifying the fantasy as sexual, this sentence becomes quite funny.

The Peanuts book, along with Comics Festival, is a must-grab on Free Comic Day. And that’s gonna be close to my limit right there - it’ll be between Owly and a couple others for my final choice.

Sean: excellent observation.

That is seriously creepy. Thanks for saving me some money this week, Joe.

This blog’s never going to like BRAVE AND THE BOLD, is it?

:sigh:

Hey, never say never. They might change creative teams!

Grrrrrrr…

“You have food in the refrigerator older than her.”

not to mention a girlfriend.

The Waid/Perez Brave and the Bold is just fine for me, and I’ve never been a fan of Perez’s work. I think it’s fun. It’s not great and it isn’t bad. It’s solid.

I still prefer Haney.

Is that new one supposed to be Mary Marvel? Ugh.

Man, just when I was beginning to think DC knew what they were doing with the Marvel Family. Ick.

Thank God I’m not the only person who was severely skeeved out by the “badgirl Mary Marvel” cover. My exact thought was something like, “So, when there were metric tons of complaints over the sexist treatment of Supergirl and the oversexualization of a supposedly underage character…they heard them, and said ‘Bet we could get more if we did the same thing to Mary Marvel…’?”

Sometimes I wish I was in charge of publishing these comics.

And I had a cattle prod.

“Man, just when I was beginning to think DC knew what they were doing with the Marvel Family. Ick.”

I’ve decided it’s wisest to just ignore any Marvel Family books DC is publishing that aren’t Monster Society of Evil.

Yeah, pretty dang creepy. Having never been a Hal Jordan, New Supergirl, or Mark Waid fan and having been left cold by George Perez’s artwork in issue #1 of B&B, I wasn’t planning on coming back for issue 2 anyway. Still, at least this confirms that I’m not missing anything good! Seeing how this title’s first issue didn’t even crack the top 10, I have a feeling that I’m not the only person who was underwhelmed.

Corey

So Unseen Peanuts will mostly be Peanuts we already saw in the last seven volumes? Free is cool and all, but I was really excited by the title.

I wish they would reprint the sixties Gold Key Peanut series. I have a couple issues, and they’re good stuff, even if Schultz didn’t do them.

You just know Hal was trying to think of an oblique way to ask how fast Krypton used to revolve around its sun.

“TWICE as fast as Earth’s orbit? Heyyyyy, she’s 34…awwwwww-riiiight. Giggety.”

Yes, totally unheard of for young women to flirt with older men. I work in a high school. I know it’s not true.

And an older man would never be attracted to a younger woman, regardless of “age of consent,” so that’s just crazy thinkin’!

Even in a country like America, where age of consent is under 18 in about half the states… hey wait, I forgot my point…

Oh yeah, it’s that goofy moralizing is, well… goofy.

i tend to roll with Rob on this one, in terms of the background realities that might inform the GL/Supergirl exchange. (that’s an odd turn of phrase, methinks)

what’s probably actually jarring about it isn’t the idea that GL would be experiencing untoward feelings of attraction toward Supergirl. it’s that this level of character interaction and complexity really has no context in a book like Brave and the Bold–hell, nabokov took an entire book to examine it. i don’t think mark waid’s gonna nail it with a couple thought balloons.

Hey, Rob, I never said it didn’t happen. I said it was stupidly unnecessary in a basic superhero book. Your snippy attitude can take a hike.

What bothers me the most about the Mary Marvel picture, is that it was only a year or two ago they had an evil Mary Marvel in the Justice League miniseries. It was played for laughs, but still. DC seems big on rehashing stuff. The whole current Black Adam storyline in 52 is just a rehash of his origin. It would have been much more intersting if they had kept Isis and Osiris alive, instead of returning him to his usual psyho self. I didn’t get the whole point. Anyway, evil Mary Marvel, seen it, don’t care. I have a feeling I will be dropping Countdown after an issue or two, as I should have with 52.

Awwwww-riiiiight

Well, if teen hero cheesecake sells to 30 something fans, then I guess that is a realistic thought for Green Lantern to have. The choice of the writer to include it in a thought bubble is odd, though. It might work in an Ennis book that consistently uses that kind of humor.

Fans of this B&B say it’s this great, old-style, traditional superhero book with no modern bull. Then why is Children’s Character 1 inappropriately lusting after Children’s Character 2?

Because mainstream superhero books are no longer targeted towards children and haven’t been for multiple decades? Because the average single male would probably feel just a bit attracted to a flirty blonde in a miniskirt? It would be far more offensive if he actually did make a move, rather than telling her to cut the act. It’s a harmless scene, and the comic was entertaining on the whole. We even get a young female superheroine who (spoiler) uses her head and figures out how to catch the bad guy (rather than the experienced male hero).

I can find fault with Perez, who does some unneeded things in this ish, but I really don’t see anything major to gripe about in the script. The characters act in-character, the plot moves forward, good and amusing action scene, two reasonable cliffhangers to set up later issues. Some of the dialogue is off. It’s not perfect, but it’s still a better book than most of the DC/Marvel team titles. The heroes get along and fight bad guys; who’da thunk it?

Just as a question: what do you see in New Avengers that makes it preferable to B&B (the whole issue)? Is it just the art? Certainly the Cage-Elektra scene from #27 is worse/more offensive than the Hal-Supergirl scene in B&B?

My only problem with this column is that Didio and company have established by now that they plan for the mainstream DC Universe to be lowest common denominator crap borderlining on exploitative, from the prolonged torture and death of Spoiler, Identity Crisis, Countdown to IC brain splatter and sexpot teen Supergirl. That’s why I wouldn’t be disappointed by the examples you show, if anything, I’m impressed that they’ve shown restraint compared to how trashy they’ve shown they CAN be. But yeah, expecting Didio’s DC to exhibit any good taste is like expecting romantic connections in porn plots.

I liked B&B #2 for taking the most annoying Silver Age story concept ever in the Luck Lords and making it readable.

The fact that DC’s target audience for the Supergirl character appears to be sweaty 30+ year old virgins who want to nail a barely legal superheroine fills me with dismay.
Other than that, I liked Brave and Bold. Good, solid superhero tights and fights. Just drop the Humbert Humbert shit.

I don’t believe I’ll be hiking

And like others have pointed out, the average age of a reader of a “basic superhero book” is plenty old enough to deal with it without getting all “Gosh golly we didn’t need to see that! I may even catch the vapors!”

I thought it was kinda funny, personally…

I thought it was funny too…at first. But the longer Waid went with it, the more skeeved out I got, and by the time Hal gives his little speech about, “Oh, I’d never try anything with you because Superman would come after me,” well…ewwwwww. Wwwwwwwwwwww. Ew.

Shame, though, because I thought there was a lot of stuff elsewhere in the issue to like. I wish DC’s writers could get their heads out of their pants long enough to write Supergirl without having to turn every page into an exploration of her sex life.

“Because mainstream superhero books are no longer targeted towards children and haven’t been for multiple decades?”

I’d say two at the most . . .two of the worst decades in superhero comics, at that.

“Because the average single male would probably feel just a bit attracted to a flirty blonde in a miniskirt?”

Even if that’s true, the average single male doesn’t have a magic ring, so we’re not talking about him.

“It would be far more offensive if he actually did make a move, rather than telling her to cut the act.”

And repeatedly reminding himself she is an illegal sexual conquest. Yeah, it would be more offensive your way, but that doesn’t make this scene any less lame.

“It’s a harmless scene, and the comic was entertaining on the whole.”

If it was anything like the first issue, I doubt that. Mostly harmless on the whole, sure. But Children’s Character 1 salivating after (underage) Children’s Character 2 is enough to put me off the book.

“We even get a young female superheroine who (spoiler) uses her head and figures out how to catch the bad guy (rather than the experienced male hero).”

While, from what I gather, wearing a pig-tail, straight-out-of-Japanese-Adult-Video little outfit. Right, totally innocent.

“I can find fault with Perez, who does some unneeded things in this ish, but I really don’t see anything major to gripe about in the script.”

17. 17. 17.

“It’s not perfect, but it’s still a better book than most of the DC/Marvel team titles.”

Not exactly stirring praise.

“The heroes get along and fight bad guys; who’da thunk it?”

Basic foundations are not enough to impress, even when most things lack them.

“Just as a question: what do you see in New Avengers that makes it preferable to B&B (the whole issue)? Is it just the art?”

No, but the art is SO much better. The writing is crisper, for one thing. Darker situations also go more hand-in-hand with Marvel characters, who were pretty much always intended for adolescents and up, rather than the DC stable, which were mostly made for smaller children. The dialogue isn’t full of painful throwbacks while still trying to seem modern. It doesn’t seem like something that would come free with an action figure and yet still have middle-aged men ogling underage girls.

“Certainly the Cage-Elektra scene from #27 is worse/more offensive than the Hal-Supergirl scene in B&B?”

I don’t see how. In the middle of a fight between two hardened fighters, one goes for a low blow. It’s fighting . . .it’s not like that’s a pristine thing to begin with. Whereas Humbert Lantern added nothing to the story except titillation and further objectified a child created for little girls.

“I don’t believe I’ll be hiking”

Not you, the snippy attitude.

“And like others have pointed out, the average age of a reader of a “basic superhero book” is plenty old enough to deal with it without getting all “Gosh golly we didn’t need to see that! I may even catch the vapors!” ”

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said and the way I handled it. And that’s exactly how everyone else bothered by the scene reacted. We’re fanning ourselves now, for we surely have never seen such a thing before.

No, it was stupid and inappropriate for the style of book they’re going for.

“I thought it was kinda funny, personally… ”

Takes all kinds. I work with kids. It’s tough to see their casual exploitation so lightly.

“While, from what I gather, wearing a pig-tail, straight-out-of-Japanese-Adult-Video little outfit. Right, totally innocent.”

Yeah, that’s what I was talking about with the unneeded stuff from Perez. He definitely went over-board there.

“….rather than the DC stable, which were mostly made for smaller children. ”

The line as a whole is no longer written that way. They aren’t children’s characters anymore, and haven’t been since DC decided they could sell more books by imitating Marvel ideas. Kids have their own line of comics these days, and by most accounts I’ve seen the Johnny DC books tend to be of better quality than the main titles anyway.

“Takes all kinds. I work with kids. It’s tough to see their casual exploitation so lightly. ”

IIRC, you work with far younger kids than “17. 17. 17.”, so it’s a little disingenuous to draw that connection. If the book came out in ‘08 (post-Countdown), and Hal was going “18. 18. 18.”, would you take the same kind of offense? 17 isn’t even underage in a good chunk of the US, and lusting after a girl that age wouldn’t be interpreted as illegal in those states. Probably inappropriate, and it’s an unnecessary plot element, but I certainly don’t think it kills the whole book. I’d much rather read this clever and energetic Supergirl than the one that appears in other books.

“I don’t see how. In the middle of a fight between two hardened fighters, one goes for a low blow. It’s fighting . . .it’s not like that’s a pristine thing to begin with.”

The entire scene was setup to create that moment, with dialogue and reaction shots that are probably a bit inappropriate.

You seem to like an even older-school portrayal of these characters, so the book may not be for you. Other people enjoy the book, so let’s just leave it at that. I definitely don’t see a need to take to take pot-shots at the title by taking a harmless scene as a great offense.

Agreed on the Mary Marvel cover. That seems a lot more skeevy to me than the Supergirl sequence.

I thought there was some awkward writing when Hal rebuffed Supergirl’s flirting (but the Ollie line was tops), though it was just a speedbump on a decent, straight-ahead superhero story.

I don’t keep up with Supergirl that much (at all), but if she’s seeking male attention this brazenly, maybe she’s damaged. And maybe there’s a interesting take: Little girl lost, except little girl lost has godlike powers. I think it could be compelling; of course in lesser hands, it could get superpervy. And it would probably fall into lesser hands.

The Mary Marvel cover is a bit over the top, but the same shot using Captain Marvel could be considered kinda beefcakey … and there’s none of that in comics, is there?

Me, I prefer the Niteowl-style o’heroes: kicking ass with a pauch. Hell yeah! Bring it on … with beer. Bring more beer.

There was nothing wrong about Jordan’s thoughts in the least. He had an attractive girl flirting with him, and he simply noted to himself numerous times that’s she’s incredibly young when compared to him. He didn’t say anything out loud, and he didn’t flirt back with her. To those that are complaining about this, what exactly is the problem? If it’s because that kind of character shouldn’t have sexual thoughts, I think the reaction of those who disliked that scene has more to do with their interpretation (brought on from anything to dislike of one of the creators to the age of the reader) of the scene than anything else.

I saw it as nothing more than an older man having a younger woman flirt with him and the man reminding himself that it doesn’t matter how attractive she might be because of the difference in age. It was just a humorous scene that put Jordan in an uncomfortable spot.

The lamest thing about that scene to me was the “Greentooth” comment. The rest of the scene seemed rather innocent and not nearly as perverse or lustful as others are making it out to be. When trying to point out the downward spiral of comics because of some “maturation” mandate put on them, this is not a good example.

Oops, that last one was posted by me. I forgot to put my name in the box.

Yeah, the “Greentooth” joke was terrible.

But, let’s say a buddy of mine had a similar situation with a girl similarly younger. Would I give him hell? Oh, yeah. Would I lose some respect? Depends on what he did and how much he talked about it. But this isn’t my buddy. This is a children’s character, even if he’s currently being misused otherwise. It added nothing to the story except base titillation. It’s lame. And when I see something like that, I’m going to make fun of it.

In real life, yeah, this stuff happens, whatever. But in a story where you actively choose each word for effect, what’s the point of including it?

“In real life, yeah, this stuff happens, whatever. But in a story where you actively choose each word for effect, what’s the point of including it?”

EXACTLY.

Apparently, some people think it’s majorly important that Hal Jordan be creepy. Necessary to the story, even.

That one scene doesn’t make him creepy to me. It made him seem a bit more honest because Jordan felt uncomfortable at the prospect of a cute, too young girl flirting with him. The short scene came off as more cute and harmless than not. Now, when Lobo shows up to team up with Supergirl, that’ll likely be a whole other type of situation. Hopefully, Supergirl will punch him when he makes his expected lewd comments.

What was the point of including that scene? I can easily think of several off the top of my head. Really though, I don’t see a point in leaving the scene out.

Leave the scene out and you lose two stupid jokes, a superhero with an inappropriate attraction, and two pages of padding. You also make it something that some people other than the same old same old might want to read.

Hal Jordan=Chalky White

“Leave the scene out and you lose two stupid jokes, a superhero with an inappropriate attraction, and two pages of padding. You also make it something that some people other than the same old same old might want to read.”

Leave the scene in and the inverse could be true too: two funny jokes (to some, yes, it might be true), a superhero who doesn’t act on an attraction, and two pages that contain character moments and one of them that has exposition to catch new readers up.

The Greentooth joke was not a good move, but not just because it was unfunny. It made Supergirl look dumb too.

I don’t find the attraction inappropriate and think it’s plain foolish to think so. I’ve had girls who I thought were too young for me (I’m 30, so too young would often be anyone under the mid-20s) flirt with me, and I’m not going to deny I found some attractive. Acting on it most certainly would have been appropriate though, and GL didn’t do that.

Really, I think there are two problems. One, the “lesser” one in the eyes of most, is that Hal spends several pages rebuffing the affections of Supergirl. (I felt it was funny once, vaguely creepy the second time, and a major mis-step in the writing when it got to the third time and he gave the speech.)

But the bigger problem in my eyes is that Mark Waid decided to write Supergirl as someone who’d spend the entire issue flinging herself at Hal Jordan. Yes, Hal’s behavior was about as good as you could expect when dealing with an amorous seventeen-year-old; he didn’t, for example, ask what the age of consent was on the casino planet. (Remember: What happens on the casino planet stays on the casino planet.) But Waid decided, as too many writers have on the recent incarnation of Supergirl, to write her as an out-of-control Paris-Hilton-esque sexpot, and it’s hard to avoid feeling that this is a sexist and creepily inappropriate thing for them to be doing. In essence, by deciding to make the issue about Supergirl’s attraction to a man twice her age, Waid forced this to become a creepy sexist comic, and Hal comes off looking bad.

Ummm, is there any way to edit what I said earlier? Because, in my last post, I said, “Acting on it most certainly would have been appropriate though…,” but I meant to say, “Acting on it most certainly would have been inappropriate though…”

“Hal Jordan=Chalky White ”

I think you mean Rusty Brown but HAW!!!

“Takes all kinds. I work with kids. It’s tough to see their casual exploitation so lightly.”

Yeah, well… see… the girl you’re fretting about being “exploited” is a fictional super powered character who could crush Hal Jordan’s head with one pinky. So without that imbalanced power dynamic the only exploitation going on is delusional.

As for your inference that I’m the “kind” who’s pro-kid exploitation, well, you’re just kinda a jerk for that.

“Not you, the snippy attitude.”

What you call snippy, my wife finds endearing One would think that when writing a missive about “Things we don’t need” and “Oh: Just no” you’d have a thicker skin. Or is it only okay to mock the professional writers if you think they write something goofy?

“No, it was stupid and inappropriate for the style of book they’re going for.”

No, you - and some others - think it inappropriate… which is fine, everybody’s entitled. But it’s all just part of the continued Sturm und Drang of late about the “inappropriate” sexualization of comic book characters because they are “near and dear to me” or “that’s not what I what I would write” or “how dare they ruin my childhood memories.”

Comic book characters have been sexualized from their get go. WW and lovely bondage ropes while fighting crime in a bustier and high heel boots can attest. For all the stupid comments about the size of, say, Power Girl’s breasts lately, everybody seems to have forgotten that from day one you could stare right into her cleavage.

And on the whole, 17 year old girls, on average, yes, they are sexual beings, with or without the necessary maturity modern day society requires. And probably have been sexual creatures for years. Jesus, the oldest girls I work with are all of 15, and according to the school nurse, having quite a bit of the sex. Denial of that and not writing about it serves nothing and no one.

It’s just like Britney Spears was the #1 pop star in America while “underage” [in some states] because of her marvelous singing voice. Pshaw.

You want to make the argument that the character of Supergirl should be “better” than the average 17 old, fine. [And of course “better” means asexual or nonsexualized here, for some reason, because we all know sex is dirty and evil and bad, kay?] I buy that you don’t want the character to be that way. Make that argument instead of the “sex in comics? we don’t need that” argument. Cause that flies in the face of what comics have always been and have always had.

Personally, Supergirl as Paris Hilton doesn’t appeal to me, but since that’s how she’s being written mostly these days, I give props to Waid, imo, for making her a bit sweeter and wide eyed than of late and softening the edges of her characterization.

Rob, you throw up so many straw men here I can’t even see the crops. I’ve never said comics should be unsexualized, I’ve never said teenage girls aren’t really unsexualized, I’ve never said that sexualization makes people or comics bad, and I’ve never even professed any love for these characters as concepts. I couldn’t care less about them.

What I do care about is sharp writing in comics, even superhero comics. And this scene was cheap, exploitative, and added nothing to the story. It was base titillation and soured what was otherwise a basic, child-friendly tights story.

“What I do care about is sharp writing in comics, even superhero comics.”

Actually, what you said you cared about was making “Supergirl a lust object.”

“And this scene was cheap, exploitative, and added nothing to the story.”

Again, exploitive of what actually? The character who was the ‘aggressor’ and more physically superior and powerful? Or are all women automatically the exploited, regardless of the situation? Or is inferring the biological truth of teen sexuality in and of itself exploitive?

And actually, it added characterization. Just characterization you don’t like or approve of.

“It was base titillation and soured what was otherwise a basic, child-friendly tights story.”

Here’s where we differ, I guess… broaching the subject of attraction between characters doesn’t serve as “titillation” to me, nor am I particularly interested in having my comics be “child friendly.”

I look at that Mary Marvel cover, and the awful JLA cover with Power Girl and I can’t help but think DC has clearly found the demographic they want…and they seem to be a hybrid of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons and John Candy’s character from Splash.

All this makes me think about Valerie D’Orazio’s blog about making Identity Crisis: raping Vicki Victim is only the start. I have officially become depressed about mainstream superhero comics.

“Again, exploitive of what actually? The character who was the ‘aggressor’ and more physically superior and powerful? Or are all women automatically the exploited, regardless of the situation? Or is inferring the biological truth of teen sexuality in and of itself exploitive?”

Rob, enough with the bullshit rhetorical style and straw-man stuff. You want to hurt my argument by making implications that I’m saying ridiculous things I’m not saying. Hooray for you, you thought cartoon characters hitting on each other across age-appropriate boundries was fine and dandy for an average tights book.

Me, I think it’s a book about people in bright costumes hitting each other in what could be a delightful escapist fantasy. Doesn’t seem too “adult” too me. And until you drop the bullshit tactics, that’s my last word to you.

From the great Jog:

Far and away the most awesome bits of The Brave and the Bold issue #2 were the ‘flirtatious’ comments tossed in Green Lantern’s direction by Supergirl (they’re this issue’s official team-up), mainly because they’re about on par with what you might hear at the beginning of a pornographic video on the internet:

“It’s just… a little chilly out here, is all. Maybe we can… share your aura…?”

Mark Waid may be able to entertain me with superhero lines like “He doesn’t know Ventura is continually patrolled by the Hounds of Chaos” since I’m a huge, awful nerd, but his teenage girl lines? Not so hot. And his ‘flirtatious’ teenage girl lines? “So, Green Lantern… tell me… what does a man like you do for fun when the mask comes off? It does come off… right?” Actually, that kind of stuff predates the internet by a good while, I think.

So, why is it awesome? Easy! Because after all the snuggling in deep space, pornography does not, in fact, ensue - actually, Hal continually reminds himself that Supergirl is only 17, and they go have their exciting superhero mission, albeit one that offers various opportunities for Supergirl’s arguably underage figure to be viewed through a decidedly non-neutral gaze. I like to think that this is really Hal’s gaze; Mark Waid is his mouth, but George Pérez is his eyes. And gosh Hal, you can’t escape how you truly feel!

All the better for all the readers of the comic, by the way, since that means that we get not only cheesecake, but muscular reinforcement as to the rugged heroism of not having sex! Wow! This is really a superb psychosexual funnybook trick - not only is the reader invited to leer at the pretty girl(s) on the page, but they’re also congratulated for being put into the position of looking but never touching, the perfect way to assuage any lingering bad vibes that might be flittering around! It’s perfect! Kind of cynical and pandering, so perfect!

Oh wait. Hey now. I know what you’re saying (because I am conducting surveillance on your home): “Jog, you bum, Hal Jordan would never, ever act in that way. And are you saying older superhero men should be having sex with teenage superhero girls? I am pretty sure that stuff is prohibited by an apocryphal verse of the Green Lantern Oath!” And that’s perfectly fair. Hey, I don’t have anything against cheesecake either.

No, it’s that special combination of cheesecake and harrumphing about sexual mores that kind of scratches at me, like Hal delivering a speech to Supergirl about how she ought to stop flirting with him and perhaps look for a boyfriend from a different galaxy because all the guys who know her fear her power or something, which naturally prompts Supergirl to dress in a porno-pink ensemble, no doubt rented from a local Barely Legal Outfitters retail location, and save the day whilst allowing Pérez to dish out the upskirts (and on a side note, it certainly was fortunate that all of the gamblers at the biggest-stakes game around on a planet devoted entirely to gambling had apparently never seen a gladiatorial contestant play the ‘looks small, actually very strong’ card before). It’s awash with prurience, yet presumes guilt or anxiety over such things, so it also argues staunchly against what it so clearly wants to present.

Sort of old-fashioned in that way. Kind of happily old-fashioned when compared with THE HIGHER MARY MARVEL’S HEMLINE THE BLACKER HER HEART. God, this is an old-fashioned book, isn’t it?

Rob - “Again, exploitive of what actually? The character who was the ‘aggressor’ and more physically superior and powerful? Or are all women automatically the exploited, regardless of the situation? Or is inferring the biological truth of teen sexuality in and of itself exploitive?”

Joe - “Rob, enough with the bullshit rhetorical style and straw-man stuff. You want to hurt my argument by making implications that I’m saying ridiculous things I’m not saying. Hooray for you, you thought cartoon characters hitting on each other across age-appropriate boundries was fine and dandy for an average tights book.”

No. You stated the scene was exploitative. He asked what was being exploited, then laid out a few (unlikely) reponses. Rather than pursuing an actual conversation/argument, your response was to ignore the question and imply moral inferiority for not being outraged by adult themes in a superhero book.

Was the scene exploitative because there was a possible sexual motive involving a teenaged character? I imagine this is where you’re aiming, and I could see it. However, I would hardly consider the dialogue to be exploitative, given that it leads to nothing and there’s no crude language from either character. It certainly wasn’t “base titillation”, as I don’t see how it’s possible to get worked up by “OMG Supergirl is hitting on Hal Jordan! That’s so hot!” It’s a believable interaction between the two characers, which you’ve admitted yourself (though Waid does get repetitive with Hal’s end). It’s even a viable characterization of Supergirl to have her desperate to attach herself to someone, given that her entire planet is dead aside from one cousin and a dog.

The only actual exploitative scene I see in the book is the panty shot fest in the fight scene. Totally avoidable and unnecessary, taking away from an otherwise fun scene. I’m not a huge fan of Perez’s work outside of Teen Titans and Avengers, and I’d prefer a different artist on this book. Then again, I’d put Darwyn Cooke or Frank Quitely on nearly everything, and we can’t have all that we want.

Here’s a possible summary of the issue: “Supergirl meets Green Lantern, the fearless and powerful superhero. SG is a lonely teenager from a nearly extinct race, and starts pursuing a relationship of some kind with the older man. GL is unnerved, and doesn’t think SG is being much of a help on their case. He eventually tells her to cut the crap. Though intially offended/dumbstruck, SG gets an idea from the reprimand and is the driving force in tracking down the bad guy. Along the way there is some janky dialogue and unnecessary art.”

Does that really sound so bad, execution issues aside? That seems like a valid use of the characters to me.

You seem to have a problem understanding that the characters are not children’s characters, at least in this book. Would you consider Batman Begins a children’s movie? Doesn’t seem like a movie most children would enjoy, what with all of the talking and the Scarecrow scenes. Or, if you would prefer I stay in medium, how about Batman Year One? Surely, if Hal Jordan is a children’s character, Batman has to be one as well? Yet, Year One has Catwoman as a prostitute and the police as villains. Hardly themes suitable for kids. One of Selina’s fellow pros is even well underage! Commissioner Gorden commits adultery, despite a newborn son! Batman contemplates bleeding to death rather than calling for help! Is the story an inapproproate use of Batman, given that he is a “children’s character”?.*

I realize this is a long post and reading it might detract from taking potshots at Peter David and Greg Burgas, but I’d like to see an actual well-reasoned response. I’m sure you’re capable.

* obviously TB&TB is light years behind Year One in quality

William: Throughout this discussion/arguement/whatever Rob has continually painted what I’ve said in false, negative ways and I just got sick of it there. You don’t do so, and I’ve no problem answering your questions.

My assertation that it’s exploitative is that it doesn’t actually help the story along at all, it is simply the suggestion of sex just for the suggestion of sex and for the subsequent denial thereof. Like Jog says, it’s titillation through false denial. If you’re going to further objectify both a child and a child’s character sexually then at least have it MEAN something other than this.

You assume I equate Batman and these characters in ways of age appropriate-ness. I do not. I think Batman CAN be a kids character and more easily lends itself to more adult stories as well. I do not think Green Lantern or Supergirl tend to do so, though, and they are not being done in that manner here.

If you’re going to do an “adult” Supergirl and Green Lantern story, fine . . .I think it’s a bad idea and I doubt most writers can pull it off, but whatever. But the expressed idea behind this book is not to do that, but to go to an older-style, supposedly-more-reader-friendly superhero comic. To me, that doesn’t involve needlessly bringing in grown men mentally biting their knuckles over teenage girls.

“Throughout this discussion/arguement/whatever Rob has continually painted what I’ve said in false, negative ways and I just got sick of it there.”

You know, if you feel I’ve painted your argument incorrectly, which has so carefully been laid out in “just no” and “things we don’t need,” then explain what it is you mean… don’t simply wave your arms in the air and say “exploitive” again and again.

And I’ve painted your argument negatively, because I think the argument you make is a negative one.

This concept that the introduction of any sexuality in these comic book stories equates with exploitation and titillation, is, imo, a negative one. And smacks of the same denial of reality possessed by abstinence only educators. The idea that “adult” stories with comic book characters is a bad idea and broaching the very topic of sexuality with those characters is as ludicrous as returning to the Dick Van Dyke show with separate single beds. Because the implication of sex during the family hour is surely the kind of titillation we can’t accept in our wholesome entertainment.

And in my opinion the point of B&B is not to do the same exact “old style” stories, but like all forms of art, extract the coolest parts of the old stories and craft them for a new, and yes, more experienced and mature audience. And in the world of internet even if the target audience of comics was kids, and it’s not, then even the “kids” know a great deal more than the kids growing up in the good old days, and ignoring sexuality and possible sexual themes smacks of head in the sand silliness.

But the truth of the matter is that these four color stories have had “adult” themes since their inception, and will always have them. [Chapter 3, V 7, the Holy Book of W.M. Marston.]

Finally, it takes a bit of nerve to say I paint you negatively and you got sick of it… you remember when you implied I was pro-kid exploitation? - “Takes all kinds. I work with kids. It’s tough to see their casual exploitation so lightly.” - Yeah, good times…

You’re still doing it.

I never said anything about sex not belonging in comics.

I said THIS scene didn’t belong in THIS comic.

“I said THIS scene didn’t belong in THIS comic. ”

So your saying that comics shouldn’t have scenes anymore?

Everything should be splash page after splash with no narrative?

Can’t comics grow up or do they all have to be like the Lifield comics YOU grew up with?

“I never said anything about sex not belonging in comics.

I said THIS scene didn’t belong in THIS comic.”

Unbelievable. I know that’s what you’re saying.

And I strongly disagree with that argument. And almost every reason you’ve given for it.

Your argument seems to say, that somehow these characters, or this title, or some abstruse combination thereof, should avoid themes of sexuality because, in your view, they’re “child’s characters” and that since your definition of what “older style, more reader friendly” somehow is this imaginary Leave-it-to-Beaver comic book that never existed, absolutely and especially considering that sexual themes have pervaded comics and these characters in the DC Universe since their inception.

What’s more, even if you’re writing an “old style” story, once again, the audience you’re writing for is older [and hell, even the younger audience having probably experienced the breadth and depth of manga, including, yes, sexuality, is a vastly more sophisticated audience than before].

Ignoring the whole swath of sexuality of THESE characters in THESE comics, [and in this one in particular] because you don’t think they reflect the appropriateness of “child’s characters” despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of readers are not children, and those who are “children” are mature and intelligent enough to probably appreciate something approaching relatively realistic character interaction and relationships, even in, yes, books that feature magic power rings and last survivors of doomed planets.

i’m confused why did he call himself ollie?
isn’t ollie - Green Arrow?

i thought green lantern was hal jordan or Jon Stewart.

no i dont’ read the comic. but i like to keep track of these things.

besides since supergirl first appeared in Action Comics #252 (May 1959) - i’d say she’s old enough to do whomever she wants. besides how many freaking decades does someone tolerate being called ‘girl’