Pardon My Language:

I was thinking about something David Arroyo said regarding White Tiger.

I also hate that spanish curse words can be printed in a marvel comic because they "dont count" as real swear words. Puta and Puto are not said in casual conversation. I could never say cocksucker or motherfucker in a marvel comic unless its MAX.

Now, I've been enjoying White Tiger. It'll never be one of my favorite books, but I think it's reasonably fun and exciting. I like the main character enough to want to give the book some time to really wow me. But this complaint is something I agree whole-heartedly with.

Farther down in the comments, Ms. Pierce defends her use of Spanish curses:

We use those words--and the word bitch--precisely because they count. This is the street. These are criminals. And we hear these words every day in New York City.

This is a truly disappointing response. I respect Ms. Pierce a lot, especially as it's rare to see a creator in polite discourse with a critic. It's very nice that she's willing to respond seriously to these complaints.

However, this answer is not good enough.

This answer makes it look like she's not reading David's complaint at all. Or at least not thinking about it. Because David, who speaks Spanish fluently, doesn't equate "puta" and related words to "bitch", he equates them with "cocksucker".

Not all curses are equal, and the specific difference here is that "bitch" is something we will see said on television and in print in general young-adult oriented material. "Cocksucker" is not.

I don't doubt that Ms. Pierce has heard words like "puta" used on the street very often. I myself heard the word "cocksucker" on a near-daily basis. (My father would drive me to high school via I-75, and freeway traffic first thing in the morning tended to turn my Dad's Bruce Banner into a veritable verbal Hulk.) That does not make the word printable.

I also, pardon me for saying, doubt "bitch" was the worst English profanity Ms. Pierce has heard in her experience. But there is a reason the harder words aren't used in non-MAX type comics. This is a standard that should be applied to foreign languages as well as English.

I understand the temptation to use foreign curse words. To get away with saying things the censors/editors would NEVER allow in English. To pull a fast one on the bureaucrats. It's fun and adds color!

But it's stupid. Especially in the case of Spanish, which is, if you'll recall the second most prominent language in the United States. The same reasons that we feel "cocksucker" to be inappropriate for a comic book page should certainly apply to "puta" considering how much of the audience likely speaks both languages.

From the sound of Ms. Pierce's response, I don't think she is using the words maliciously. It sounds like she's making the common non-native speaker's mistake of underestimating the level of her profanity. Curses are the hardest part of a foreign language to learn, as teachers tend to avoid the subject at all. It's natural to hear a word in context and assume that it is the equivalent of "bitch" versus "cocksucker".

I'm not saying Ms. Pierce should avoid using Spanish curses altogether, however I would suggest that she consult with a few native speakers first (I suggest a few because no one ever completely agrees on a question of "how offensive is this?"). It's not a matter of censorship here, it's a matter of respect.

Misanthropy Rising...(Non-Comic Rant)

This is not normally the sort of post I would make here at PFP. I usually keep personal matters over at my never-updated Livejournal and save this blog for more interesting and fun things like comics and television. But I've been thinking for quite a while and I honestly can't bring myself to blog about comics today.

I'm too disgusted with humanity right now.

I work at a toy store. That's my preamble. I genuinely like it. Even during season, even when I clumsily make all sorts of trouble because I can be a real ham-handed ditz sometimes. People on a whole tend to be nice, if frustrated and rushed, and there's something uplifting to help people find things to make the kids in their lives happy.

Even with the seventieth repetition of "No, we don't have any Wiis/Playstation 3s/Tickle Me Elmo/Kidtough Cameras in stock. We're all sold out."

I mean sure there are mild irritations consisting of things like "So can you go INTO the delivery truck and find this toy I want?" (answer = no, there's a long process for new arrivals. You have to wait until tomorrow. Deal with it) or "Even though I've already left my name and number to call when product A is in stock, I'm calling to find out if product A is in stock." (answer = no, you're on a LIST. WE WILL CALL YOU)

But they're minor. And even a little funny. The guy who needed the cops called on him because he wouldn't leave, ranting that we were hoarding PS3s was less funny, but it was an isolated incident.

Yesterday though, I saw a side of people that I really didn't like. It wasn't the manic batshit crazy "I NEED THIS TOY NOW AND YOU HAVE TO GET IT FOR ME!!!" side, I work in a toy store, I can deal with that. This was something else. It even happened *after* work technically.

I got off work at 5:30 and headed into the back to grab my coat, purse, et cetera. Well, I found something very unpleasant. My poor co-worker was sitting in the break room, looking positively dreadful, gasping for breath and coughing fluid from her lungs. She didn't have insurance so she wasn't going to call for an ambulance, but her physician on the phone did convince her to go to Urgent Care. With good reason, by this point her chest was hurting and her arms tingling. NOT a good sign. She was in agony.

My co-workers were horrified and worried. I was having my roommate pick me up from work anyway, so I offered her a ride to the place if she couldn't get in touch with her boyfriend. So we headed out to wait in the enclosed cart area at the front of the store. (My awesome co-workers didn't even make us sign out, human compassion: 1 bureaucratic red tape: 0)

So we were waiting in the indoor cart area. She DID ultimately get in touch with her boyfriend and understandably preferred to go with him. But she was genuinely scared and my roommate hadn't arrived yet so I decided to wait with her.

In the meantime, the store's still open. Customers are walking past us to get into the store as well as to leave. My co-worker is gasping for breath and moaning in very audible pain and you know? Not a single person stopped to ask if she was okay!

Not one!

I'm not saying I expect someone to drop everything and go all Florence Nightingale on us, but a simple expression of concern would be appreciated! It wouldn't take much for a "Are you okay?" I know no one wants to get involved in these things but heck, an offer to call for an ambulance (or get the people inside to) would have gone a long way, even if she would have refused it.

And to the middle-aged couple that rubbernecked by us, pausing to stare, give us dirty looks and march into the store without a word: Fuck you! You can pause to gape but you can't say anything? And what the hell was that glare? I'm pretty sure my collegue's gasping for air is NOT meant to ruin your shopping trip.

And to the lady bringing back her cart, we appreciate you not leaving that in the parking lot. But honestly, taking one look at us and the long line of carts and then rolling the cart AT US?! Fuck you, too. I hope you never find that toy Junior needs so preciously! It's pretty fucking easy to put back a cart and having a red shirt doesn't make us your slaves. Especially not when there's a serious blooming EMERGENCY going on.

I don't get it. I seriously don't. To me, the toy store is a place where I actually try to be on reasonably good behavior and manners. Even if no kids are around to watch me right then, the store makes me think of kids and the kind of impression I want to give them. I could only imagine what they'd get from that callous dismissiveness toward someone obviously suffering. Clearly no one should let concern for other people get in the way of what they want.

Fuck. Fuck-fuck-fuck. I've had bad days at work before. But this was something else. Thank god I have today off, because I really don't want to have to go back in that store and face those people, smile and take their shit for a measely seven-something an hour. Maybe it's not fair, but right now I can't think of my customers without seeing those people. The countless who just walked by. Cart-lady. Glaring couple. I don't want to help them. I don't want to look at them. I want them to fuck off to some lost forgotten slime-infested bog where they can be with their own kind.

Merry fucking Christmas.

My Two Cents on Criticism:

You know what the best part of doing my Newsarama column is? I find myself with opinions on comic-related subjects I would never have considered before. Like this stuff.

I probably never would have noticed it once upon a time, but since this column has me trying to keep up with things that are going on in blogs and livejournals, I'm actually finding myself reacting!

So, I have my own little message to creators like Rikki Simons, even though I'm not a comics creator myself. Three actually.

1. For every online reviewer that gets paid or free things for review, there are a good number who do not. For example, me. I only review sporadically, I admit, but I have reviewed both positively and negatively. And aside from three people who cared enough to send me first issues of their indy publications, I've never recieved anything free for my trouble.

So before you throw around comments about how hard it is to find your hard work berated by someone who's actually getting benefits from doing so, stop and think, please.

I work for 7.25 an hour at a local toy store. I love my job but it's hectic. When I plunk almost three dollars on a comic, that's almost half an hour dealing with irate customers and screaming children and stupid upper management hinderances. Maybe that doesn't seem like a lot in comparison to the weeks/months you've put into your project, but it's a fair bit of time when added up. I'm not saying I expect everything I buy to be good, but I think I've definitely earned the right to express my opinion about it.

(And most OEL manga and other such publications tend to be a bit more than three dollars thank you)

Besides, most reviewers who do get free things get them because they're considered to be influential reviewers. Their opinions are heard by a lot of people. You'd do much better to conduct yourself with grace and dignity.

(Also, it's not EVER a good idea to defend yourself on a review. Even politely. Because your work should speak for itself. If someone missed what you consider to be the most glaringly obvious point of your work, it means that your point is NOT glaringly obvious. It's not the duty of the reader to dig through the work for any given easter eggs, it's the duty of the writer to make such things readily apparent)

2. Be careful! You are probably a few good steps above an indy creator in terms of job security, but you're still a writer. Your success depends on people buying your product.

Now you may see complaints about the cavalier and even callous manner in which comic companies like DC and Marvel treat their fans. But you are not DC or Marvel (usually). While fans continually bemoan the downfall of their favorite series or the decline of superhero comics in general, the truth is that neither company is in much danger of failing. Not when movies like Batman Begins, Spiderman or X-Men continue to do so well. Not when X-Men Evolution, Teen Titans or Justice League continue to reach new fans.

Batman and Superman are products that have existed since 1939 and 1938 respectively. The X-Men and Spiderman from the sixties. That's a long time to establish themselves in the public consciousness.

So what does that mean for you? Absolutely nothing. This has absolutely nothing to do with you.

So don't do like the big companies. If you see major writers getting cocky, don't for a moment think you can do the same. Because you do not have that level of security that those companies have.

Their products, in some sense, sell themselves. While many fans will drop a bad run of their favorite superhero comics, other completists will keep collecting them regardless. Many readers buy the comics solely to pick at them. In some cases, notoreity can help with that. Like watching a trainwreck, it's sometimes hard to look away at the batshit craziness befalling favorite characters. (*cough*AllStarBatmanAndRobin*cough*)

In general, you don't have that. Your product, for better or worse, stands on its own. This is great in some sense, you have more freedom most of the time. You have the pride of creating work that's your very own. But it also means that the only factors in your story's success are your work and you. So how you conduct publically could DRASTICALLY affect your further success.

3. Not every reader is going to like your work. And many of them are going to say so. Deal with it.

As a comic creator, you are an entertainer and an artist. Which means without an audience, you don't really have a job. Whereas there are always more people in the wings waiting breathlessly for the opportunity to show us what they can do instead.

You need us more than we need you. So suck it up, shrug it off, and focus on what you really love...creating your art.

Or find another line of work.

Just for Kids? (incoherent rambling warning)

Well, this post is going up later than I'd expected. My internet conked out last night, much to my irritation. :-)

I was thinking actually about the argument "comics should be for kids". Because when a (superhero) comic geek makes the argument "comics should be for kids", they're not truly arguing that principle. What they're doing is saying "I don't like THIS, so I'm using children as an excuse to argue that they should get rid of it."

The argument makes sense coming from family groups and politicians, but it definitely doesn't make sense from the standpoint of most superhero comic book fans, as it comes up in ways that clearly don't fit.

For example, "comics should be for kids" popped up a lot when news of the new Batwoman started springing up. Naturally, what provoked this argument was the fact that Batwoman is a lesbian. But when you look at the Bat franchise as it is today, the argument really doesn't make sense. Batman's a dark character and his books are dark. Innocent people die and heroes become wounded both physically and psychologically. Some of the villains are plainly terrifying, conceptually speaking, the Joker and Two-Face in particular. Poison Ivy is a character that blatantly uses sex as well as violence. Most Bat villains utilize mass murder or the threat of it.

And the heroes? Batman is scary, brooding and scheming. Barbara was permanently maimed. Jason Todd (until recently at least) suffered a terribly messy death and Stephanie Brown, more recently followed. Huntress and Batgirl are not really characters designed for children either, given the propensity for violence and the very traumatic, blood-stained backstories.

If nothing else, Dick Grayson's sexlife isn't really geared toward children either.

But Batman is popular. And much as we may protest certain things that happen, most comic geeks are reasonably fond of the franchise. But one would have to be pretty blind to consider the Bat franchise, pre-Batwoman, to be any more child-friendly than post-Batwoman. One lesbian is not going to make much of a difference.

I've seen it argued among JLI fans as well. It's a little more understandable there, as quite a few JLI characters have died and others have developed in far different, darker ways than their origins. But the thing is, the JLI comic wasn't really any more kid friendly either. It was more light-hearted, sure, but there's a notable difference in light-hearted vs. kid-friendly. The tone of often-malicious adult humor during that time frame really isn't something I could see appealling to many younger children.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't complain about the changes, but to use the kid argument doesn't make sense. It's just a low attempt to put more weight on the argument of "Jean shouldn't have killed Sue" or "Blue Beetle shouldn't have been shot in the head."

Now, I have to admit, there are cases where I sympathize a little more. Heck, I've made the argument myself when it came to Supergirl. I do consider both the Marvel-family and Supergirl to be innately more geared toward children.

But the thing is, Supergirl hasn't been geared for children since I was three years old. (Cartoons aside, but the DCAU is different. And it's not like DVDs and comics aren't around to explore that characterization). Peter David's Supergirl was no more kid-friendly than the new version. Shape-shifting alien merges with murderous satanist to become an angelic being and then split and venture with a demonic ex through lots of chaos until ultimately meeting up with her predecessor and making a very hard, morally grey choice?

It wasn't for kids. And as much as a part of me wants to see a Supergirl more geared toward young people, a part of me was just making the argument because I didn't like the way the current Supergirl was going. After all, I did like David's. And I'm liking Kelly's as well. Which is probably why my complaints have petered off. It probably isn't any more kid-friendly, but since I'm starting to enjoy it, I'm not complaining.

I do think it's important to have comics geared toward younger children. Comics like Krypto, Teen Titans Go, and other impossibly cute things. But I think it's also important to acknowledge that most comic fans are adults, and thus, having comics geared toward adults is hardly inappropriate. Most of us wouldn't want all the comics to *actually* become geared toward children anyway. It's just an excuse to try to say "my opinion is more important because I'm thinking about other children."

Honestly, it's silly. And at least for me, tends to hurt arguments more than it helps. For the record, if anyone sees me use it again, please call me on it. It's an embarrassingly dumb argument from someone like me. And I'm embarrassed to have used it.

The Problem with POW

I'm going to preface this complaint with the disclaimer that I haven't gotten around to reading Green Lantern #14, so I honestly can't evaluate the storyline as it's currently being presented.

But that said, I think it's fair to say that I have a problem with this POW storyline. A big one.

I'm usually a big fan of Geoff Johns. I like his character moments and his ideas tend to be a lot of fun. I have nothing against real world issues being used in comic book storylines (though my personal preference is that if Green Lantern is involved in a POW experience, it should be with aliens, darnit!). But I have a real big problem with this. Because it relies on a plot point that simply does NOT make sense.

From what we've seen, (pre GL #14), the whole reason Hal got into this mess was that he didn't bring the GL ring on his mission.

I repeat, he DIDN'T BRING HIS RING.

Now, I've joked about how stupid Hal (hell, all Lanterns really) can be sometimes. And I've definitely blogged about Hal's self-absorption. But leaving behind his ring on a mission simply doesn't make sense even for Hal. Especially for Hal.

I'd imagine the leaving the ring behind is indicative of some sort of death wish. Which I can appreciate. Hal's been through a lot and is carrying a metric ton of guilt with regards to the whole Parallax experience. I didn't have a problem with the scene in Recharge with Hal flying without his ring.

In the Recharge scene, I got the impression that Hal was courting death. Certainly there are many ways fighter-piloting can go wrong. Without the ring, Hal's possibilities for survival decrease dramatically. But the reason that scene worked for me is that I was under the impression that it was a practice flight. Not a mission.

I have a big problem with Hal not bringing his ring on a MISSION. For one thing, it's incredibly irresponsible. Sure Hal himself may have a death wish, but he's not the only person on this mission. Cowgirl and the kid who's name had something to do with Rockets were there too. And there are many ways such a mission can go wrong. What if there was a mechanical failure? Or a freak supervillain attack (this IS the DCU after all)? Both innocent people on his team would be in danger!

What if someone needed saving on the way? Say...a weapon goes wonky and lots of lives are suddenly at stake. Or an attractive woman falls off a building. What if, since this is during the missing year, some sort of huge alien invasion kicks in? Clark, Bruce and Diana are gone. That leaves Hal as one of the heaviest hitters they've got left. Which means, he's basically an emergency room doctor, on call at any given moment. A mission is a LONG time to be incommunicado.

This changes things considerably. Recharge was before the Crisis. Before the worlds split and reformed. Before Clark, Diana and Bruce went AWOL. When there was a Justice League rather than a Lex Luthor funded band of misfit amateurs. Even ignoring the very likely event that a hero is needed on Hal's own mission, he's got a responsibility to the world.

And Hal might be occasionally stupid and an asshole, but he's responsible. His guilt and culpability in the Parallax Affair would, I'd think, make him MORE hypervigilant in an attempt to atone. Not less. (I'd have preferred to see Hal's death wish take the form of being TOO gung-ho with the superheroics. Biting off more than he can chew. Not calling for help when needed. That seems like a more organic way of utilizing a subconscious death-wish element)

Besides, while Hal is arrogant enough to assume nothing would ever go wrong on his own mission, he does have a huge ego and a savior complex. What if the WORLD needs him? What if something happened to everyone when he was incommunicado? (Considering that his own lack of vigilance could be considered to play a big part in the Parallax possession to begin with, it definitely doesn't make sense)

I usually love Johns's characterization of Hal but this seems like a serious misstep. It's completely illogical and feels like an contrived and ill-concieved attempt to shoehorn Hal into this new traumatic and angst-ridden storyline. And it'll have to be a damn good story to make up for that, for me.

I'm honestly not holding my breath. Sorry.

My Heartfelt Appreciation

I never intended to post on the subject of "How to Make Money Like a Porn Star". I've never read the comic. I have no interest in reading the comic. I have also never read "Lost Girls". Shelling out 80 dollars for what amounts to glorified femmeslash doesn't appeal to me, Alan Moore or not.

I have no opinion of whether one is better than the other. I have no interest in said subject and if it weren't for the fact that the various discussions surrounding made for a workable Point/Counterpoint piece for Newsarama, I would have been comfortable enough not acknowledging it at all.

However, this post from Occasional Superheroine has finally mattered enough to me to provoke a response.

I have a lot of respect for the proprietor of this blog. She's thoughtful and intelligent, fun to read. But this entry did something very few things over the internet are capable of doing for me.

This entry sent me into a BLIND CAPS-LOCK ABUSING RAGE.

It's a novel feeling, one that is rare and thus appreciated.

So I thank you for that.

Thank you, for belittling the sincere efforts of female comics fans in making our voices heard.

Thank you, for implying that the sole reason any of us complain about matters such as the over use of rape or dehumanization of female characters is out of some sort of misguided attempt to change the industry.

Thank you, for not acknowledging that sometimes we express our horror, anger or disgust simply because the object deserves to have such feelings expressed.

Thank you, for caricaturing the whole of online comics feminism into a blind, regulation happy, creativity stifling bunch of feminazis who can only be happy with a list of impossible, idiotic rules.

Thank you, for reducing us into some sort of hive mind that all blindly rage at the same issues with the same priorities.

Thank you, for including on the aforementioned list of rules, that no woman should be portrayed above a C-cup, which, when considering that real women do occasionally exceed this measurement, satirizes us as misogynistic and self-hating as well

Thank you, for constructing this image that is so very much like those that our opponents use to deride and lambast all those who take up the feminist cause.

Thank you, for providing our opponents with another weapon to use against us.

Thank you, for reminding me of my feminist pride.

Because, frankly put, I don't care about "How to Make Money Like a Porn Star". I don't care about "Lost Girls". I DO care about feminism. I may not be as outspoken or direct as most. But I AM a feminist and I'm proud of that.

And I don't care to be derided, caricaturized or belittled, not even by one of my own.

There Are No Lions Here

A couple of months back, I remember, there were a couple of entries floating around on a few blogs complaining about the portrayal of Christianity in Comics.

They were very eloquent, well reasoned arguments, but something about them left a mildly bad taste in my mouth. I decided to file it aside for later thought.

Very recently I found myself revisiting the idea in my mind. On one level, I sympathize completely. It absolutely sucks to see one's belief system and life-path reduced to a caricature. I've complained about that very thing in my post about Catholicism. It's not fun and can be downright meanspirited.

So I sympathized with the bloggers in that sense, but there was something about their entries that grated on me. A sense of persecution that left a bad aftertaste. Not all of the complaints were like this, of course, but there were quite a few that seemed to be claiming victimhood.

And I'm sorry, but when you are a member of the dominant religion of this country. When your religious creed is regularly used to deny basic human rights to a group of people (regardless of whether you yourself believes this is right or wrong). When people have to fight to keep a scientifically supported theory like evolution taught in science class over religious doctrine and to keep organized institutionalized prayer out of public schools...

Then you can NOT play the victim card here. You CAN'T. Your religion runs this country. Your religion is being shoved down the religious minority's throats every minute of every day. Even if it were true that Christianity is unfairly portrayed in this one area, you still hold dominion over every other aspect of our lives!

Besides, I'm reasonably certain that if you got the major decision making personnel of Marvel, DC, Image, Dark Horse and so on together and asked each one what their religion is, the majority of them would answer some denomination of Christianity. This is hardly astonishing as Christianity is the dominant religion of this country.

(At the risk of making swift generalizations, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine men named "Didio" and "Quesada" were at least raised Christian, regardless of their religions now.)

Actually, I'm not even sure that the complaint ultimately holds weight. I mean, sure, those mean intolerant preacher caricatures are infuriating, but let's look for a moment at Adherent.com's website cataloging the religious affiliations of comic book characters.

This site is incredibly useful because it categorizes all of the superheroes by their religious affiliations as established in the comics themselves. If you click on the links provided, you'll see that they've gathered a variety of evidence for each, based on creator quotes, scholarly theories, and examples within the text/graphics themselves.

Now, I'd estimate 1/2 to 2/3 of the names on that list to be some denomination of Christianity. Admittedly, the amount that they practice within the text can be debatable. But still the number of Christian heroes vastly outnumber those of any other religion.

Under-represented? Really?

Sure, we rarely see outward expressions of faith by these characters. Except for celebration of Christmas, naturally, or the giant church scene in Infinite Crisis. But we rarely see a Jewish person do anything more than wear a Star of David or light a menorah. Diana gets a little more focus on her pagan religion, sure, but given that the gods created her... It's really not any more focus though, than is received by characters such as the Spectre, Zauriel or Peter David's Supergirl, all of whom became living representatives of a (usually) benevolent Judeo-Christian God.

Even the atheists don't get very much lip-service, honestly. When they do, it's designed to contrast them as a minority against the rest of the DCU. That's hardly counting.

I can see why this can lead to the desire to show more outwardly religious characters in the DCU. And I'm always glad to see that sort of character exploration.

But when you think about it, most of these characters are already living up to the ideals of the Christian religion. They're just, kind, brave. They protect the weak. They act with honor. They do unto others and all that.

Basically, they're living the Christian ideal already. In as much as anyone humanly can.

Finally, there is one main reason that I think the complaints ultimately lose momentum...

Superman.

According to Adherents.com, Superman is a Methodist. While it's not overtly stated in the text, as far as I know, it's pretty clearly a part of the man's life. We've seen him enter into religious dialogues with clergymen. We've seen him attend church. We've seen that he does NOT drink alcohol.

He's pretty clearly portrayed as a quietly pious religious devotee. Perhaps not all the scripture means everything that it once may have, but the spirit is clearly there.

And he's brave, wise, true. He makes mistakes, but only out of the best of intentions. He believes in the goodness of people, in helping where needed and stepping back to let people live their own lives.

He's tolerant. He makes a very visible effort to respect everyone's different beliefs. He's attended Shabbos dinner and made a very sincere attempt in following the customs that were very different from his own.

Superman is one character, yes, but he is the flagship character. Superman IS DC Comics. The image of Superman standing on the world, cape waving like an American Flag. That's an image recognized by people all over the world. He is SUPERMAN.

And he's one hell of a good Christian.

I admit, Superman and other devout Christian heroes will never get the attention with regards to their religion that the loud, obnoxious preacher gets. When people think of Christianity in comics, they're not going to think of the good guys, of the moderates and the temperates, tolerants and true. They're going to think of that raving preacher, threatening fire and brimstone, demonized for hatred and intolerance.

They do say that Art is a mirror of Life.

It's Not All About YOU

The other day, I read a person's idea for Nightwing. I'm not a Nightwing fan, but I tend to think I should be, and I would be, if the writing ideas behind him were different, so I find these neat.

Now the idea itself wasn't bad. Having Dick do undercover work in Baltimore. It's not my choice as I'd prefer him to interact with a group of supporting characters he could be himself around. But it definitely seems workable.

Then I got to this part:

"As a side note... Dick belongs with Babs - there will be no interference in this area."

That's it really. The writer then digressed into how he needs his spine back and a good job.

I'm not sure why this bothers me. Maybe it's the lack of justification. I mean, this is this person's blog, so naturally she has no obligation to explain her opinions to me. But, the blind "this is the cold hard truth" way it was stated bothered me.

Not to mention that there's no explanation for how to get them back together. Because, face it, proposal or not, the two are NOT together right now. We don't have a case of two magnets being drawn together until a piece of paper is placed in between. These are two characters clearly moving in opposite directions. Inertia is against them, not for them. Interference is required to get them back together.

It reeks of fan-entitlement to me. "This should be this way because *I* want it this way" even though it doesn't make sense in the narrative.

Look, I admit to my own biases against the pairing. I've even posted about it. But this attitude rankles me.

Possibly because (and this is not fair painting everyone with the same brush, I know ) every time I've gotten into a discussion about the pairing it'd go as follows:

Random Person: Oh! Dick should get with Babs!
Me: Hmm, I'm not a big fan of the pairing.
Random Person: Aw, why? Dick and Babs would make a great couple!
Me: Well (insert a few reasons basically stated in the post I linked above)
Random Person: But...Dick and Babs belong together!

I'm not saying that every Dick/Babs fan is like this. There are many with, I'm sure, very reasonable and logical reasons why they're compatible. And they certainly don't have to justify themselves to a skeptic like me.

But the fact is, I haven't read a single justification that went beyond: "But they were together before and it was good!"

Which is true enough. A good writer could probably pair Darkseid and Catwoman together and make it fun.

That hardly means characters belong together. Even history of having been together before does not make the characters compatible now.

I admit, I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here. I've argued that Steve Trevor and Diana belong together. Even though they haven't been for twenty some odd years. Even though as current continuity has it, some massive retcons would be needed to make the couple work.

But I think there's a big difference. Steve and Diana were together for the Golden Age and while dicked with a lot in the Silver Age, still tended to end up together. He was created to be her Lois Lane, created as a partner/love interest.

In contrast, Barbara wasn't created to be Dick's girlfriend or vice versa. And as for history...honestly, the pairing itself is a relatively modern invention. When Babs was originally introduced she was quite a bit older than Dick and didn't see him as love interest material.

It's only later that she was actually tweaked to be the same age as Robin. And it took quite a while for them to actually start dating anyway.

Besides, if you are going to be using past stories to justify a couple in comics, he was dating Kory a lot longer than Babs. And even almost married her. More than once. I'm not saying that makes this pairing more valid than Dick/Babs. But it makes it AS valid.

Babs might have gotten a proposal. But Kory had a wedding. I'm just saying.

I've never read a Dick/Babs manifesto posted by any fan of the couple that really convinced me that they could work. And in general, they didn't tend to give many reasons behind it.

Except occasionally the "Well, she's a distant, shy geek, but Dick could bring her out of her shell" reason.

Which I'm sorry, but you have to WANT to come out of your shell for that to work. And even then...you've got a very independent person who likes her space, bristles when someone offers to help PUSH HER CHAIR and a very effusive guy, public with his emotions and very demonstrative in his gestures. It sounds pretty, but it basically requires Babs to either CHANGE WHO SHE IS, put up with the invasion of personal space that gets irritating and uncomfortable, or be closed off and make DICK miserable.

The thing is, most fans of the Dick/Babs pairing I've seen that use that justification are academic, scholarly, bookish women. They are, if I may be so bold to conjecture, very confident online but possibly less so in real life.

The fantasy of the hot guy noticing the shy geeky girl and reaching out for her is not uncommon.

I tend to think that when certain of these fans say "Barbara" they actually mean "Me".

Because honestly, Barbara IS a geek. But shy? Unassuming? Unnoticed? No way. This is a woman with highly trained operatives at her command. This is a woman that the Justice League considers invaluable. This woman has contacts and connections throughout the world.

If she's not reaching out, it's not because she needs rescue. It's because she DOESN'T WANT TO.

It says something, I think, that pretty much every female fan I can think of who insists this pairing should be tend to be more vocally fannish regarding Dick Grayson than Barbara Gordon.

Straight male fans I think tend to be similar, from the opposite perspective. Most are huge Babs fans rather than Dick's. And why not? She's beautiful, sexy and smart. A geek's dream girl. I don't think it's necessarily a stretch to suggest that most of these fans might like to imagine they're a superhero, able to reach out and win this attractive unattainable woman. They tend to be less militant about it and more "wouldn't it be cool if..."

I'm being uncharitable. I do know there are fans of this couple that genuinely like both characters. But they tend not to be the ones that have that streak of fan-entitlement. The "DICK MUST BE WITH BABS!" extremeness.

But when I consider the rabid usually female fans that rage at Dan Didio for publically saying the characters are not and will not be together as long as he's Editor. They're not reasonable.

I've heard the argument that it isn't Didio's place to say that a couple shouldn't be together.

Honestly. YES IT IS. The man is EDITOR-IN-CHIEF. Which means whatever product comes out, comes out with his creative fingerprints on it. If he thinks that pairing two characters together is a bad idea in terms of characterization, then it is HIS JOB to make sure that it doesn't happen.

For the record, while I'm sure he has business justifications as well, I know for certain that many of his objections to the couple are on a character level.

Because I asked him. He phrased his answer in terms of how Dick or Babs (or more accurately people like them) would really react. Now I'm not saying that we should always agree with his interpretations of the characters.

I'm saying that as EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, he has the responsibility to veto changes that he thinks defy the core characterization of the characters.

Look, I'm not saying that Dick and Babs can't be written well as a couple. Or that they shouldn't ever be a couple.

I'm saying they're NOT A COUPLE.

They don't "belong together". They're not "starcrossed lovers kept apart by the cruel hand of Didio Fate."

It's time to deal with reality.

FACT: Dick and Babs are not together.

This is not a matter of interpretation. It's not a matter of debate. They are NOT together. Now what happens next, do they meet other people, do they get back together...that's up to you.

Until it's contradicted by the next issue of course.

Stargirl =/= Kitty Pryde

I was surfing around the Internet today when I saw something interesting at one particular comic book fan's site. It was a rant about Stargirl. Specifically about how in an interview at Newsarama, the interviewee described Stargirl as bubbly.

The reviewer took offense, stating that Stargirl is "not some bubblegum popping, bubbling cheerleader." (The original post is here if you're curious)

He believes that Stargirl has more in common with Kitty Pryde, as an intelligent, super-competent character far wiser than her years than say Jubilation Lee.

Now I have a lot of respect for this reviewer's opinions, though we rarely agree, but in this case, I really and truly disagree. I've in fact, I think, never disagreed so much with a character assessment in my life.

I love Courtney Whitmore. I honestly do. She's one of the few teenage girl characters in anything that actually reads like a real teenage girl. She's bright, sunny, optimistic. She's grown out of her very irresponsible and flighty stage, but she still knows how to have fun and when to not take things so seriously.

What makes Courtney work for me is her humanity and relatability. She's not a genius and she doesn't have superpowers, she wasn't born to some great destiny. She's just a kid who seized the opportunity to annoy her stepfather and discovered her true potential in the process.

Kitty Pryde and Courtney Whitmore couldn't be more different, honestly. Kitty is an extraordinary young woman. She's a veritable, verifiable genius. She's got, debatably, the most versatile power on her team. She's got incredible martial arts and computer skills. She speaks many languages. She's had nothing resembling a normal life since she was thirteen years old.

Courtney's not like that. She's not a genius. She's never been characterized as one. She's clever and quick-witted, with a very refreshing dose of common sense most of the time, but that's hardly the same as Kitty's academic expertise. Courtney is adaptable, she's made her converter belt and cosmic rod her own through clever usage. However, she does not have the technical skills or capability to reverse engineer a prototype or even make modifications on the ones she has. If they're broken, she'll need to go elsewhere to fix it. She also does not have the experience that Ted Knight or Jack had with the rod, yet, or Sylvester with the belt. She's got a lot of ways to go before she's as capable with her powers as Kitty Pryde is with hers.

Courtney's had some physical training with the JSA, but she's no hyper competent ninja. She can use the monitor systems and a lot of Pat's inventions, but that's scarcely the same as Kitty Pryde's expertise. She's had a very normal life, even with her stepfather's hobbies and past. Her herodom is very much incorporated into every other aspect of her otherwise reasonably normal life.

Aside from being the token youngest in her group, she's really nothing like Kitty. But honestly, she's very much like Jubilee. They're both bright and friendly, they're both very open-natured and more "doers" than "thinkers". They're both very clever, though it's occasionally deceptively hidden behind layers of *teenageness*. They're more adaptable/clever than they are book smart. They have healthy social lives. Heroing is fun and a responsibility but it's a part of their lives, not the whole thing.

Stargirl and Jubilee tend to both be portrayed as much more human than Kitty or most of their teammates. Both girls can be irresponsible and immature and very flighty, but both girls have their hearts in the right place. Both girls are something of the emotional hearts on their teams. Kitty was more of an equal, but Jubilee and Courtney are definitely junior members, but it's through their openness, honesty, loyalty and forthrightness that they become as much a symbol to the team as a member.

In that sense, she's the cheerleader of the team because she's what keeps morale up. (By the way, I'm pretty sure that he wasn't talking about her literally being a cheerleader.) She's a visible reminder to the rest of the team exactly why they keep fighting. She's a symbol of hope and the future, the next generation primed to carry the good fight into the future. And that's what she does! She's mature enough to even understand this. She does this bravely, knowingly and with all of her heart.

And that's why Stargirl is amazing. Not because she's a ballet dancer/ninja/hacker with a pet dragon. Not because she's got Ted Knight's Cosmic Rod or Sylvester Pemberton's belt. But because she's a normal, and yes, bubbly, teenaged girl who steps forward to do what she needs to do without ever sacrificing who she is in the process.

I've never liked the phrase "I don't know what book/movie/show, he's talking about..." because it's presumptuous and rude, dismissing any disagreement or differing opinion. In this case, though, our opinions are so directly opposite that it does seem as though we've been reading two completely different comic books altogether. Honestly, I wouldn't trade for a heartbeat.

And I'm pretty sure that if I scanned through Stars and S.T.R.I.P.E or JSA, I'd find at least one occurrance of Courtney chewing gum.

My So-Called Supergirl

I have mixed feelings about this month's Supergirl, I really do. On one sense, I actually like that they're giving Kara a personality. Sure, she's being an angsty, angry, self-absorbed little twit, but she's also a teenager. And I remember my own teens regretfully well enough to be stuck acknowledging that she's a pretty natural example of a teenager.

Getting Kara out of Kandor was probably a good idea. I still haven't forgiven Kelly for the whole Kal-El thing, mind control or not. I still don't believe the plot needed to have gone there. But now she gets to be free of that, and seems to be actually developing a personality suiting her age.

Though, NO, awake in stasis or not, she's STILL only got sixteen years of life experience and thus is NOT an adult.

Supergirl this month was interesting enough in establishing a screwed-up teen hero in a way that I could buy and even sympathize with as she makes her idiot mistakes. It's a good sort of character to have, a good perspective for storytelling.

I have one problem with it though.

This isn't some new edgy teenage girl superhero that's free to explore these sorts of issues with no baggage. This is Supergirl.

I was always a little shaky concerning arguments against Cassandra Cain and Kara saying that Batgirl and Supergirl should be characters for kids. I despised Kara for her very male-reader oriented lolita-characterization that seemed to lack any sort of recognizable depth. But I don't mind Cass in general (though I've never connected with her).

I have argued for Supergirl to be written with teenage girls in mind because that's the natural audience, and thus certain elements should be toned down. But she's got an interesting angsty dynamic that I think would appeal to teenage girls right now.

I've never agreed with censorship, and I do think mature topics can be handled in a way to make them suitable for young adults.

But there's something I was missing, something that I only understand now. Because now I work in a toy store.

At the very large toy store chain where I work, we have a lot of comics related goods. Among them, we have Supergirl. Supergirl lunchboxes, Supergirl skates, Supergirl bike helmets. And the girls that light up seeing them, the girls that convince their parents to buy this stuff for them...

Well, they're not teenagers. They're nowhere near teenagers. They're little girls ages 5-10. They're little girls who like pink and they like sparkly and they like the thought of Superman as a pretty blond girl that can fly.

Their moms like her too. I've seen mothers and grandmothers light up seeing those lunchboxes, thrilled to see something sparkly and pretty that their little girls would like that doesn't involve something like Barbie or Bratz dolls. They think, "Well, Supergirl is a step up."

As a sales associate, it isn't my place to tell guests what I really think about their purchases. I can sometimes (depending on customer mood) strike up a conversation, make some recommendations, but that's about it. Critiquing is out of the question, of course. Guests just want to shop in peace.

But I keep seeing the mothers pick up the lunchboxes with interest, and I wish I could say "Oh! Supergirl! You know, the comic book is really good right now!" Sure some parents are against comics in general, but a lot of parents are always interested in ways to get children interested in reading. A lot of mothers are looking for role-models and cute idols for their young girls that don't involve the distorted body image and fashion obsessed mindlessness of the usual fare. (Speaking of, what happened to being able to dress Barbie as an astronaut or airline pilot? It seems a lot of the career doll costumes have gone out of style!)

I'm not saying that I think the series should be written for five-ten year olds. I don't think it's a bad thing to have mature topics in comics. Subjects like grief and loss, action and horror always make good stories. And children are quite capable of dealing with them. Supergirl could easily be a book like that. One that does occasionally deal with adult subjects, but manages to keep it on an accessible level for young people.

It'd be nice to be able to tell interested parents, "Well, the series does cover some mature topics, so it would be a good idea to read it ahead of time to decide if your little girl is ready for it."

I can't do that with this Supergirl though. Pre-Crisis Kara, definitely. Peter David's Linda, possibly, with a warning that it might be a bit complex in scope for a young one. This Kara? With her cigarette masochism, inappropriate relationships, and over-sexualization? No.

It's possibly a good story, sure. She could be a really interesting character, definitely. But Supergirl's supposed to be more than that. Supergirl's an icon. Supergirl's recognizable to even non-comic fans. She's got a decades-old reputation for wholesome, child-friendliness. She's a young girl with special powers that can inspire little girls to be proud of their own abilities and strengths, while still being non-threatening and sweet enough to appeal to both mom/dad and child.

Times change. Characters change. That's a good thing, in general I think. But when it comes to Supergirl. As interesting as this new angry, edgy adolescent is, she's not one that can be recommended toward kids anymore. And I can't help but think we've lost something important in the trade.