I am a little amused by the reaction to the Powerpuff Girls alternate cover, which has caused so much controversy due to its depiction of the girls in a quasi-sexualized pose (or at least as the complaint goes). It is a strange complaint for me because it highlights a lot of the things which I feel to be evident about the comic industry which I have mentioned before. A few of those thoughts have been captured by me throughout the course of my time on this website. In one I argued that comics has a tendency to overuse the "girl" concept. In another I pointed out that there is a tendency of female characters to wear miniskirts, even if it is not really practical in a meaningful way aside from providing a bit more coverage.

This all comes back to a list of common points though. There is often an objectification of female characters into a "girl like" mold in the industry. Take for instance the number of female characters that actually have the word "woman" in their name versus those that have "man". With many characters constantly kept at this pubescent stage of comics, it leads to some devaluation of the character while being pandering to the medium's fans as well. As I have long said, I am more so a fan of writing, either through characterizations or plotting. If there is a character that I feel drawn to, then I will read them. That having been said, I do not read that much DC anymore, and among the few titles that I do read, Wonder Woman and Supergirl are the most consistent. In one case, one is a woman, the other is a girl. Will Supergirl ever make it to being Superwoman? Or would she not lose her appeal that way? I think in this sense that there is an interest to keep her a girl, solely for the purpose of keeping her marketable. That having been said, if you are a trio of superpowered toddlers, who happen to be female, what are they likely to grow into? As far as this goes therefore, the depiction of the Powerpuff Girls makes the characters into what they would likely become anyway, if they were allowed to age in a medium which tries to keep its female characters as young as possible.

Another thought which came to mind is the idea of course that sex sells, and while it is wrong to sexualize toddlers in any case, that is not exactly what this is. This is more of a concept artwork that projected the characters forward. As we know from the publication history of Superman, Batman and many others, those characters are allowed to age, and they are seen continuing their heroics into late life. Why not therefore the Powerpuff Girls? I think in this sense what happened here is a process similar to what Grimm Fairy Tales utilizes, by using a cover which tricks readers into thinking that the inner story has something more than what is there, at least in a fan service sense. The Powerpuff Girls are actually a pretty good presentation of females, they are strong, opinionated and confident, so for someone that actually did bother to pick up a Powerpuff Girls comic, providing that they got past the cover, they would realize that the story is not about the sexualization of minors.

I suppose though that as long as there is mass media, that they will be the equivalent of the temperance movement, ready to pounce on any perceived wrong, especially as seen from the perspective of the one-off twitter battles, where people aim to get noticed by a throwaway line of 144 characters. In this case, it seems as though a comment became a controversy and that the entire situation revealed a lack of knowledge about the industry except by criticizing something for its cover. The comic medium is far from perfect, but as with anything, to criticize something while not understanding it will lead only to repeated truisms, and little actual change.

This likely not known to most people, but in my time at Comic Vine I have made the database here the "go-to" place on the internet for anyone researching the appearance of lipstick in comics, or the use of lipstick in comics. Maybe "go-to" is too self-aggrandizing but I couldn't find another single source on the internet where there is a mention of lipstick and comic together. Anyway, the above is not meant as a pat-on-the-back, but as an apology, as I am about to discuss lipstick.

Since the new 52 there has been a background character showing up in Superman and Supergirl books called Dr. Shay Veritas. She controls the Block, which acts as a training gym for Superman and a refuge for Supergirl. One of the bizarre aspects of the Block is that everyone there has taken on her specific DNA. Of course the background of the character has not been delved into very much, but one of the identifying features of her appearance is her purple hair and purple lips. Purples lips generally do not mean something good for the person bearing them unless they have been painted on, as they generally mean that the person is sick in some way.

Here the lips could be from one of a few explanations. One is that the scientific experiments which made everyone look the same caused them to develop purple pigments in their lips and hair. This could be the case, except other areas of their skin and their hair (like eyebrows) are not purple. If that is the case, then it would seem that it is a styling choice of the original character to wear purple lipstick and to dye her hair purple, in which case it would not be linked to her DNA, which the others have assumed. This is the more likely explanation but then it means either that the DNA of the character has a natural tendency towards purple, or that everyone simply chooses to copy her purple tendencies. The latter is the most interesting explanation from a fashion standpoint, as an aspect of fashion is self expression, which seems to be not present in this bizarre place, which is seemingly equally unrealistic. In my mind it makes the most sense, that Veritas just has hundreds of tubes of purple lipstick lying around, and that this is the only cosmetic (or lip balm) available and that is why there is so much uniformity, though I suppose mixing soft science with hard science with fashion will never work.

This blog is a companion to one that I wrote a long time ago, dealing with the complexities of the human brain. In that blog I argued that the human brain did not function exactly how it was being depicted because of a simplistic approach to the manner in which the different aspects of intelligence combine together. The newest issue of Supergirl sort of addressed this concept again, though in a less direct manner. The problem which arose was that of Dr. Veritas. Due to some anomaly of her interstellar travel, she was forced to place the Block at the center of the Earth, and everyone that had been on board her spaceship assumed her DNA, and thus her appearance.

As a soft science principle this works fine, but there are some gaps in the concept, namely that of the old debate between nature and nurture. The brain is a complex organ, the most complex in fact, but it is still nonetheless based somewhat on the genetics which make up the organism (the person.) Thus mental attributes, whether good or bad can be hereditary. They can also of course be nurtured that way. Take for instance two people that are intelligent in the same way, and if they are raised in different households, they are going to develop different abilities. The base of their genetic intelligence might be similar, but the end result is not. In general though, it is quite difficult to conceive of a world where humans have nearly identical genetic codes defining their intelligence. Even among siblings there are so many variables to make direct similarities almost impossible.

When extended to the sci fi concept of strangers taking on a consciousness of another where this doesn't really fit at all. Veritas is a super genius, and to push her mental ability on others wouldn't work, even if they were also super geniuses. The inverse also holds though, that putting other's mentalities in her genetic frame would cause much confusion (and this is what is described to have happened.) It would be like trying to pick up a building and putting it down on another foundation and expecting the electricity, plumbing and heating to still work perfectly accurately. In truth there are no such connections, as putting a person's mentality on another brain would lead to a mismatch. This is just a hard science approach to a soft science concept, but I had to say it after seeing it, as it was one thing about the issue which bothered me.

I should say first of all that this blog is based around the new comic series Hacktivist, which came out yesterday and which I found to be quite engaging. It is an interesting series and story and worth checking out. Aside from the main story, there was a separate little comic related concept, at least in terms of display that I found interesting, and that was the Arabic speech bubbles:

I do sometimes like to pick out minor details about comics, and this one was no exception. When it comes to speech bubbles, they can often be embellished without any specific purpose except if drawn thematically we might understand the context of the distorted voice - demonic, alien, computer. In this case though, instead of the usual manner in which to show foreign dialogue (usually with broken line and then identifying the dialogue), the dialogue is instead identified with some Arabic script, which makes the action fit in Tunisia. I do not speak Arabic so I do not know what is being said, but the simple use of a little script is much more effective than anything else I have seen when it comes to foreign languages.

(This is a blog reply to @cbishop blog)

My most recent blog was one about Dejah Thoris and the likelihood of her foot soldiers to die alongside her, which brought up a counter point of the cliche of the "Hero doesn't die." In short this rule depends on the maintenance of a main character to an overall saga, as the character and the saga become one and the same as opposed to two separate plot devices. The saga exists as a collection of stories, and could be considered the macro version of a single plot or story (which a single plot or story serves as a micro version of a saga.) With the lack of death for the main characters, there can be a lot less of overall tension, as unless one immerses almost stupidly into the story, that it is difficult to believe that the characters die and stay dead.

This has manifested itself in a lot of different ways recently and not so recently. There used to be a comic rule that "only Bucky and Robin stay dead" but now this is pretty much "only Uncle Ben stays dead." Of all the stunt deaths in the recent years how many will stay gone? Popular characters like Damian or Rogue? Likely not. The entire "Return of Bruce Wayne" was in essence fan service about how Batman cannot die, even being the most mortal of heroes. And in an episode of Secret Avengers, Black Widow discusses with normal civilians in a quasi-fourth wall approach about how heroes are unfortunate to die and un-die whereas the civilians argue that at least heroes experience un-death. Unnamed civilians die all the time, without consequence.

I am a writer of fiction (though unpublished at the moment) and so the problem of death at least in the "Hero doesn't die" role is different. I have played with some stories where the hero dies, but in essence if the hero dies then there is a point to the death, in that the death served a dramatic purpose or to somehow make a relevant point somehow. In the concept of a story, the victory over death (especially against the odds) is one which humans have to root for, because we are all afraid of death in one way or another. Because of this, stories generally tend to end with the character alive. There is nothing really wrong with this, at least on a superficial level, as the vast majority of notable fiction ever written ended with the protagonists on the better end. The problem where this arises in the serialized format is that it takes this one format, where characters overcome great odds, and it perpetuates it. In effect, any one adventure that any superhero lives through is somewhat of an "adventure of a lifetime" and in effect a version of that adventure, whether it be in a comic or in a television show could most likely be drawn out into a book/movie length story, and a large part of human literature depends on that concept. Even serialized movies highlight much more the direct threat to the heroes. For instance one never really believes that Indiana Jones is going to die, but his stories are shorter and more self contained than chasing away death every month.

The modern day is a good one for those with creative minds. Even a hundred years ago, writers of fiction were essentially limited to writing books or writing plays, but in the modern day there are other avenues openly, namely movies and comics (though it could be expanded to include video games and other media). It should be remembered though that writing in each medium poses a separate set of unwritten rules and cliches, and that death of characters is one among them which operates differently. This helps set up the unrealistic treatment of death in comics, but also serves as a reminder for writers to understand their medium or they become their own cliche.

I should remind everyone to begin with that while I do not consider myself a trekkie exactly, I do have a lot of exposure to Star Trek, having seen nearly every episode ever created. Exposure to the Star Trek universe gives a few insights into some of the inside jokes of the series (which was made fun of in Galaxy Quest.) Oen of these is the red shirt, the character that shows up, usually with very little dialogue and then ends up dying in short time. Over the series the creators realized what they were doing and toned it down a little on the Red Shirts, but even in the reboot of the Star Trek franchise a few years back, one goes to jump with Kirk and Sulu for their outer space freefall onto Vulcan, and promptly dies.

As I was reading the most recent issues of Dejah Thoris, it occurred to me that Dejah has her own version of a red shirt, that being pretty much every male character other than someone related to her. In this single issue, one was killed by giant wasps and another by a giant lizard (the Martian versions). The people of Helium are ready to sacrifice for their rulers, but outside of the fourth wall, it can be hard to watch these people volunteer for missions with Dejah, knowing that only she comes back alive.

The news probably passed over a lot of people last month, but I heard about an interesting new way of rating movies, called the Bechdel test (it is actually a lot older than last month.) This is a test which is probably going to be called "feminist" but for the wrong reasons. The test is actually feminist for the right reasons - it is not trying to promote a bunch of movies with an overwhelming number of women, or even female topics. Rather it is trying to promote a more accurate representation of women. It works by three easy steps - 1. Movie must have two female characters who ... 2. talk to each other ... 3. about something other than a man. It is a pretty simplistic scale, as it just means that two female characters at some point have to discuss something ... anything other than men, but it is interesting just how many movies fail this test.

I had mostly forgotten about this until reading today's Supergirl (#27) in which Supergirl is once again in the Block where every character has become a DNA replicate of Dr. Veritas. This means that everyone at the Block is in effect a female (though their original memories have been saved.) While it was a little cliched from old sci fi, it was a new enough concept, but the concept failed the Bechdel Test in one panel.

Granted there are two female characters discussing a lot of other things other than men, it just seems strange after it all to get to a point where that is what they end up discussing again anyway. Maybe in the future writers might consider something like the Bechdel test before writing dialogue which is mostly pointless and pandering to a portion of the readership.

As I have been saying for some time, Grimm Fairy Tales has a habit of somewhat misrepresenting its covers. Not in the usual way, where scenes on the cover never end up in the interior. This has generally been a step above that, as the covers are not even thematically accurate, as they feature scantily clad women versus stories with strong female characters (in fact GFT tends to write predominantly female characters.)

One interesting development in the recent years is the use of harlequin like figures, especially as it relates to the Wonderland series. While these are kind of thematically related, they are not an exact match. Harlequins represent whimsical fun, whereas Wonderland is a story based off of literary nonsense, while also incorporating in some modern themes - related if not similar themes. What is out of place are once again the covers, not necessarily exploitative in this case, but appealing to the eye as they capture the design aspect of the harlequin which has its own niche of popularity (the best example of which is Harley Quinn.) In terms of misrepresenting covers this is probably once again one of the ways in which Zenescope manages to appeal to female fans, as instead of exploiting women (though it does do that) it is exploiting a theme in a prominent way as well.

When talking in absolute terms it is easy to make absolute statements which are somewhat evident. For instance, most people would agree that white is the opposite of black (though in terms of the visible spectrum of light, there are no real opposites ... anyway not important.) With this in mind it would seem as though the creative team set out to create the concept behind the Gothtopia story arc/alternate reality with which in Batgirl #27 we have gotten the second part:

One of the underlying concepts here is that the city of Gotham is no longer the most dangerous city in America, but instead the safest. Instead of resorting to crime, citizens resort to lawfulness. That is until it starts to crack and the dystopian element enters in, kind of along the lines of the question of "can anything be so perfect as to not create its own demise?" This last question is in essence one of the main themes in every work of dystopian fiction, but it is one here which is a little off the mark. In the book Batman and Philosophy, there is a chapter based around the concept that if Batman were not Batman, then he would be the Joker, essentially that faced with such tragedy and loss, that one goes to one of two absolute directions, as the Ledger Joker says it "an agent of chaos" versus the dark knight of order. In that Gotham is a fictitious city, it already serves as something of a dystopian world, in that it is a place where there should be a perfect world (based on the abilities and determination of the Batman) but which is in itself inherently flawed. That is to say compared to classics in dystopian literature like Brave New World or 1984, that the world of Gotham is as dystopian, only further along the path, and with a modern setting. In terms of creating the world of Gothtopia, this is where the concept falls a little short. Instead of realizing Gotham for what it is already, it looks at it as something else, or to put it another way, white Gotham should be the same as black Gotham. They are not opposites, simply different representations of the same fractured dream.

One of the most enduring legacies of the otherwise forgettable 1960s Archie cartoon is the song Sugar Sugar performed by the band the Archies. Forming a band has been one of the constant themes of Archie comics through the years, perhaps not as big a theme as fighting over Archie, but when characters are locked perpetually in their high school years, that there are only so many story lines that can be pursued before they start repeating upon each other.

Gallery

The video for the song (or at least the animated video) is pretty outdated in terms of what we consider good animation in the modern day, but some of the more memorable scenes (at least for me) are of the solo dancing of Betty or Veronica, which is essentially just filler for the sequence, similar to how in the old Spider Man cartoons that they would recycle the background in order to save on the money and time that it took to animate.

Fast forward to ... yesterday. Archie Comics #651 has the theme of "Rockin' the World". On the cover the girls are looking unnaturally up to date in their clothing choices, especially that the last time that they had as much focus on them being in a band that they looked like they belonged in a Sears catalogue. As always, it is nice to see Archie comics updating itself, even if it does it slowly, as sometimes Archie comics are better than the corny theme which they usually typify.