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'

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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, 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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

I think you mean Rusty Brown but HAW!!!

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.

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.

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.