The decline of DC’s sales figures as reported by Diamond has been a recent topic of interest lately both here at Blog@Newsarama and many other places.

Point:

Here at Blog@Newsarama, our own Chris Mautner’s got a lot of interesting responses catalogued in his post: How do you solve a problem like DC. He’s got a number of notable excerpts and links available there.

Counterpoint:

Dave Carter at Yet Another Comic Blog is much less pessimistic than most of the examples quoted in the previous post, asking instead What does it matter?

Excerpt:

What really should matter is profit. And that’s what’s missing from all the sales figures, because we have no idea how much it cost to produce any of these comics. Does Marvel make more profit from an issue of The Dark Tower than DC does from Justice League of America? We’ll never know.

Sure 52 was a huge seller for DC week after week, but how much did they have to pay Waid, Morrison, Johns, Rucka, Giffen and all the artists involved for each issue, not to mention all the editorial time necessary to push out a weekly series. (There are also opportunity costs involved; would DC’s relaunches of Superman, Flash, Wonder Woman et al. have floundered so badly if editorial’s attention hadn’t been distracted?)

Never mind the fact that the Diamond numbers are just one segment of the total comics market these days, and they present a very short term glimpse at that. I still maintain that one of the most successful comics of recent years must be Fables, given its strong trade sales in both the direct market and regular bookstores, and its seeming evergreen status.

He also has a point to make about who might really be in line to suffer:

When the big boys are playing market share games, they are likely to push out an enormous number of titles month after month, in the attempt to crowd each other off the shelves. This has two effects: One, Marvel or DC may keep a marginal selling title around a little longer just to keep shelf space (and I stress ‘may,’ as they are just as likely to cancel it and put something else in its place). Two, they potentially push titles from other publishers off the shelves, other publishers who do rely on profit (or at least breaking even) to survive.

The good news is that the trend–at least in dollar sales–is in growth. But in the direct market served by Diamond, most of the growth seems to be going to Marvel & DC, and there doesn’t seem to be much trickle-down. If everybody were playing the same game, “Let’s Make Profit,” then things might be different. But Marvel & DC aren’t playing for profit, they’re playing for visibility, operationalized as market share. It’s like a bunch of eight-year-olds playing tag on the same field that a bunch of junior high kids are playing tackle football.

So what do you think?

An unexpected cover switch has caused some controversy among Batgirl fans. 

Point:

Lea Hernandez speaks up against the new cover:

Excerpt:

Thanks, DC, for a Showcase of Barbara Gordon Batgirl, the only Batgirl myth I will ever care about. Batgirl matters to me. In a crap neighborhood full of latchkey kids preying on each other, I had someone (even a myth) to show me to fight back. I never thought about a college education or trying to get good grades until I read that Barbara Gordon graduated summa cum laude. That gave me something high to shoot for.

And this, DC, is how you see your accomplished heroine. Hisssss.

Counterpoint:

Blogger Marionette looks closer at the cover choice and points out the general lack of other options.

Excerpt:

It is a bit cringeworthy, but if you can’t accept that women were written clumsily in the 1960′s then you won’t be reading this volume anyway. Is it better to try to depict a female character having issues different from male characters and do it poorly, or to have no characterisation at all and the only difference between male and female characters is the girl is the one in the skirt, as you’d find in Teen Titans or JLA from a similar period?

So what do you think?

Considering the stereotypes of the general comic book fan (or creator) it’s always interesting when people share their own experiences and observations, even when they don’t always match up. Especially when they don’t match up.

Point:

Sean Kleefeld of Kleefeld on Comics shows with some pictorial examples his observations regarding male or female creators and fans.

Excerpt:

Notice anything different? Okay, obviously, there’s a noted gender disparity but, more significantly, the women are healthier-looking than the men. That’s not to say they necessarily are, mind you since we’re not privvy to what health issues might not visably apparent, and I’m sure some of the women wouldn’t mind shedding a few pounds. BUT, on balance, they look healthier, more vibrant, and more vital.

I mean, look at them. The men look like they’re tired and worn out and didn’t really get enough sleep last night in the first place. The women look like they’ve got energy and verve, even in the shots where it looks like they’ve actually been running around all day.

Counterpoint:

The Occasional Superheroine counters with a number of males within the comic industry that defy the stereotypes and addresses some of Mr. Kleefeld’s points.

Excerpt:

3. As way of a personal example: when I met David the G., I thought he did not fit the stereotypical fanboy profile. I thought he was a hottie, and nearly knocked down another comic fan at the convention to get to him & give him my phone number.

4. As I get to know more fans, I do not see the fanboy stereotype really bourne out in the numbers one would expect based on the way the media/entertainment industry typically portrays them.

5. When I worked with Silver Bullet Comics, one of the projects we discussed was having a “Mr. Fanboy” beauty pageant. Contestants would be judged on hotness and comic book knowledge.

6. It is far more common to see heavy dudes with skinny chicks than heavy chicks with skinny dudes. It’s a societal thing. It’s a “World According to Jim/King of Queens” thing. The pressure is on women to be teh sexy — but not just teh sexy, but society’s vision of teh sexy. It’s ok for men to gain a few pounds and wear one of those cool oversized shirts with the dice on it. I’ve just gained 15 pounds because I was 15-20 pounds underweight. I’ve gone from a size 0 to a size 4. This is a healthy step, and it is nice having an ass again. But such a process is accompanied with fear — fear of not being teh sexy. Why does there seem to be much more skinny women in the comics industry than men? Maybe women try harder because they are afraid of not being teh sexy.

What do you think?

It’s kind of a long-running comic joke at this point. Whenever Kyle Rayner (Green Lantern/Ion) is close to a woman it seems like something will happen to her. Whether the base for feminist complaint or a silly joke, it usually makes for a good conversation starter.

Point:

In his review of Sinestro Corps, Smith Michaels links the phenomenon to changes in Kyle’s life.

One final observation: isn’t it odd how every major change in Kyle’s life is predicated by the death of one of the women in his life? (Kyle becomes GL = that poor girl in the fridge, Kyle becomes Ion = Jade dies, Kyle’s mom dies of yellow space cancer = Kyle goes evil)

Counterpoint:

Rich from Comic By Comic wonders how important gender is in the equation.

Excerpt:

Would it have been that hard for a male support to die? Actually, yes – because outside of coffee-shop owner Radu and new landlord Schuyler he didn’t really have any. Every guy needs pals, but Kyle’s were really Wally West, Guy Gardner or Roy Harper – far too important to kill off. And killing Terry would probably have caused even more outrage.So what does this mean?

I haven’t a clue. I think each death served an important story purpose but I’m left wondering if each character killed had to be a woman. It happens that the important people in Kyle’s life were women – but then that in itself is a function of the writing; if he had a close straight non-super-powered male friends then I like to think that they would have been killed off instead.

I like to think that.

I’m just not sure its true.

So what do you think?

It’s hard to discuss feminism with regards to comic books online without encountering the Bingo Card, a tongue in cheek way of highlighting common responses to feminist concerns. (An explanation can be found here.)

Point:

Dick Hyacinth, in a post previously linked on Meanwhile, points out the problematic nature of the Bingo Card.

Excerpt:

Maybe you should give the bingo thing a rest. Yes, we might find it funny, but I think it alienates people who might otherwise be sympathetic to complaints about sexism/misogyny. The post which explained the whole bingo concept (which I can’t find right now) does a fairly good job in explaining everything, but I still think this is a fairly exclusionary rhetorical device–you’re for us or against us! You get it or you don’t! In the present landscape, I don’t think this is a useful way to frame the argument. People are much more willing to consider your perspective if they think you’re inviting them to do so, rather than telling them they’re too stupid to understand.

Counterpoint:

Lyle Masaki, from Crocodile Caucus, points out the rationale behind the Bingo Card.

Excerpt:

The thing about the BINGO post is that, yes, the point is that there are some people who just won’t get it and, frankly, aren’t worth attempting a conversation with. ‘You’re for us or against us!’ isn’t the point, ‘You get it or you don’t!’ is. Maybe you have to get stuck in a few dozen conversations with someone who truly believes that The Thing is a good example of a sexually idealized male superhero to counter Witchblade, to understand the feeling. But too damn many conversations that go on in comics fandom are like discussing global warming with someone who thinks a cold winter’s day is reason to start questioning if global warming happens. Sorry, the vast majority of people who bring up one of those BINGO points aren’t worth treating credibly for one who values their sanity — any of those arguments usually ends up in a circular conversation with someone who just isn’t listening to you.

So what do you think?

Heroes for Hire wasn’t the only controversial cover in the August solicits last month, though it did seem to overshadow any of the discussions. The solicited cover of Captain America #29 was also a point of fan discourse.

Point:

Dorian, in his solicit overview last month, was one of the first to point out the questionable nature of the cover.

I sometimes wonder how some of Marvel’s covers get approved. I’m sure nothing was intended with this image, other than to create a dynamic cover that makes you say “what the hell? I have to own that!” But, I don’t know…an African-American man, on fire, in front of an American flag…did it not occur to anyone that an image like that could be easily misconstrued?

Counterpoint:

Recently, Pedro Tejeda from Funnybook Babylon examined his own feelings about the issue:

Excerpt:

There seems to be some outrage here but the problem for me is that I just don’t get the questioning on this topic. I don’t understand what makes the Falcon cover offensive. I asked blogger and respected black man David Brothers if he saw anything wrong with this cover and he saw nothing to be offended about either. This is where the disconnect is. These well meaning white guys saw this cover and saw a black man on fire, we instead saw that the main focus of the book was now shifting towards Snap. This period of time following the death of his friend would be painful and possibly question his feelings about America. At no time did either of us just see him as a brother on fire. Why did we miss it? Are we just insensitive? Are we quislings to our respective races? Do we need our ghetto passes revoked?

So what do you think?

Recently, a podcast held by Paul Dini and Misty Lee has been causing a bit of a stir, most of which centers around a particular quote spoken by Ms. Lee. (The podcast can be found here, and the link is courtesy of Thom Wade at In One Ear…

Point:

Tamora Pierce strongly disputes Ms. Lee’s statements.

Excerpt:

Would Ms. Lee care to explain what person of intelligence, whatever their appearance, in proper possession of her or his mental health, is jealous of comic book characters? Are we talking the same hyper-sexualized, anatomically incorrect, over-inflated, fatally `roidally ripped, negative-ribbed, under-genitalized, nipple-less, balloon-breasted, spinally deformed, ball-jointed-backed, out-of-plumb, spider-ankled, football butted, collagen-pumped-lipped, shallow-socketed eyed, permanently-affixed made-up, uterus-, bladder- and colon-less, kelp-haired wild hair fantasy as ever came out of a creator/creatrix’s sleep deprived imagination?

Counterpoint:

The Video Store Girl points out a different interpretation to Ms. Lee’s statement.

Excerpt:

RETRACTION: After a closer reading of this passage, pointed out by the David the G. Esquire, I find that my interpretation of it was incorrect and taken out-of-context.

Misty Lee is NOT saying that “ugly fat chicks” are the only ones who complain about cheesecake in comics. She was saying that *she has heard* that other people on the Internet have said this (and that she does not necessarily agree with that)

So what do you think?

Well, it might be Blog@Newsarama’s anniversary week, but Point/Counterpoint is a much newer column, so here it’s business as usual.

Point:

The Manga Jouhou forum has posted a translation of an article by Yoshikazu Hayashida about what makes the globalization of Japanese comics successful.

Excerpt:

American comic magazines typically serialize only one or a few works, while Japanese magazines serialize ten or more works in their thick phone book-like volumes. This has had the following effect: Japanese magazines need to serialize only a small number of strong works to boost their sales. With the rest, they can adopt new writers and experiment with new manga. Through trial and error, a brilliant new work may be born, and it can become one of the strong works that support their sales. In this way, Japanese comics have always been aggressive, dynamic and exciting. Comic writers and publishers have been sensitive to trends and transferred them into comic pages. Thanks to the lure of big money, many talented people who might have become actors or authors chose to become comic writers, creating fascinating comics.

Counterpoint:

At Yet Another Comics Blog, Dave Carter agrees with some of Mr. Hayashida’s essay, but points out areas where he feels it is flat out wrong when it comes to American comics.

Excerpt:

Hayashida makes the common mistake that American Comics = Super-heroes. They’re not. Outside of comic specialty shops, they’re not even in the majority.

Oddly, it was the exact same historical market conditions that led to the slimming and ghetoization of American comics which also led to the small-press and self-publishing movement. This movement has led not only to greater creative control and ownership, but also to great creativity and experimentation. I would argue that the past 30 years has seen at least as much experimentation and creativity in North American comics as in Japanese Manga (though admittedly my knowledge of the underground and art-manga movements is spotty at best).

So what do you think?

This week’s Point/Counterpoint column will be a little different than usual. Because this week, we have no point!

Or rather, we do have a point, but it’s not a blog/livejournal essay or forum/interview link. This time it’s an idea.

Point: Today’s point is the stereotype of comic book fans that we see or hear about everywhere. The Simpsons’ Comic Book Guy if you will. We’re all geeks here, I’m sure we’ve all heard them.

Counterpoint: Which brings us to Heidi Meeley who pulls apart and counters many of these stereotypes.

Excerpt:

With the great success of comic book movies and the raising of awareness of the characters in mainstream pop culture, it continues to amaze me that comic book fans are still treated like they have the bubonic plague. The general public is only too happy to go spend their hard earned dollars seeing the fantasy played out on the big screen, but they stay away from comic book shops in droves. Why must it be that way?

So, what about your experiences? What do you think?

Okay, so the commotion surrounding the Mary Jane statue has largely given way for something even more offensive, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t still good discussion points out there.

Point:

Matt Brady’s got an interview with Adam Hughes up here at Newsarama, in which Mr. Hughes defends the statue.

Excerpt:

AH: Well, that’s how I end up looking at this – is it really a sexist or misogynistic act if it wasn’t intended that way on the part of the people doing it? If you perceive something that way, but it wasn’t meant to be that way, and it’s not sending people back to the stone age, is it really a sexist or misogynistic thing that’s going on, or are you seeing something that’s either not there, or that the artist never intended to be there?

Counterpoint:

Blogger Melchior del Darién found issue with some of Mr. Hughes’s arguments.

Excerpt:

My response to Hughes’ assertion is simple:

Yes, it is indeed sexism no matter what you intended. What you intended isn’t the issue.

Where I live, you still get the traffic ticket even if you tell the cop you didn’t intend to run the red light.

What Hughes doesn’t understand is that telling women who are already offended by his work that their judgment is ill-founded is not the solution.

The artist problematically presumes that those aggrieved would support rather than condemn him if only they knew more, knew what he knows, or simply knew better. This isn’t a valid defense.

It is actually an additional offense.

So what do you think?

It’s always interesting when comic fans start to discuss what makes a good or bad product. While there is rarely actual agreement, there’s a lot of interesting discussion about various storytelling tricks. One recent topic has been storyline decompression.

Point:

The Absorbascon’s Scipio declares war on decompression.

Excerpt:

Decompression, by the way, makes comic book myth very opaque to new readers; too little information is conveyed about who’s who and what’s what. Decompression is only possible if you rely on the reader to know a lot of information you aren’t willing to stop to explain (What is that purple starfish? Who are Felix Faust, Prof. Ivo, and T.O. Morrow? Who the heck is Trident? Geez, I don’t even know who Trident is). Decompression is the enemy of comic books because it’s the enemy of new readers.

Counterpoint:

Blogger Mallet explains his support of decompressed stories.

Excerpt:

Out of all that a few titles stuck out, most prominently Daredevil, the poster child of decompression. I guess the whole reason was that I had to drive over a hour and a half to get to my LCS, and I wanted a reason to go. I wanted serialized content that actually carried to the next issue.

I want Soap Opera Comics.

Is decompression a good thing or not? What do you think?

DC’s 52 wraps up this week with one heck of a resolution and the reintroduction of an old friend: the multiverse! So how do some folks feel about that?

Point:

Blogger Kimota94 appears doubtful about the possible use of the multiverse.

Excerpt:

And that’s all we know at this point. Which raises the obvious question: what’s the point of having these worlds? In most cases, the characters shown already exist on “Earth-1″ (the regular universe version) so I assume this means that those folks now have dopplegangers on other Earths, allowing DC.. what? To tell more “out there” tales about those versions, ala the Marvel Ultimate Universe line? In other words, the Earth-2 JSA could be featured in a mini-series in which they decide to take over the world, which would clearly be a tough thing to do in the main DCU. Is that where this takes us?

Counterpoint:

But Ray from Super Underwear Perverts is jubilant.

Excerpt:

52 confounded me the past few month – it seemed like DC had introduced all these incredibly cool racially and sexually-diverse characters just so they could kill them all-off in a single series never to be seen again. That seriously bugged. Now not only does it look like some of their stories will continue – but we also get all the characters from DC’s half-century-long publishing history restored to continuity and available for more fun-and-fantastic story-telling. Vic Sage lives. Jade is alive. Half-naked Condor is alive and well. Ted Kord is still fighting the good-fight. Damn. I’m actually excited about reading DC comics again!

So where do you fall?

DC’s new Amazons Attack miniseries debuted this week to a surprising commotion, particularly surrounding the current brutal, militaristic characterization of the Amazons. (Be warned, the following links contain spoilers)

Point:

Ragtime at the blog Comic Book Thoughts has a rather cynical response to the characterization:

Maybe you’ve been thinking recently about Amazons, and how the peace-loving women of Paradise Island could attack in the new mini-series, “Amazons Attack.” I mean, they lived separately for years, and they didn’t attack any of the other times that the world almost got blown up, or Wonder Woman got killed or captured or depowered, or the OMACs attacked.Apparently, they are now all really, really evil. Not just the leaders, but all of them. Evil evil evil.

Counterpoint:

Blog@’s Ragnell thinks that the characterization isn’t so farfetched:

These are not a peaceful people. The Themiscryans are a warrior race patroned by a war-goddess, a hunting-goddess, a love goddess who is not the nicest of love goddesses, and a mother goddess who didn’t mind letting the entire world starve to death over her daughter. They’re also the reincarnated souls of women who were violently killed by men, and who have characteristically distrusted the male gender since Perez was writing. They had peace because they were on an isolated island. The Bana-Migdall tribe, which is now intermingling with the Themiscyran tribe, was not nearly so peaceful when we met them. They are also, by tradition, a Monarchy.As far as they know, they have just been grievously wronged as a people again, through the treatment of a member of their Royal Family.

Please weigh in with your opinion!

JLA’s been undergoing a rocky start since the relaunch and this week marks the beginning of the big JLA/JSA/Legion crossover. So far, there have been mixed reviews.

Point:

Shelly of Shelly’s Comic Bookshelf enjoyed the comic.

Excerpt:

I love all the banter and byplay between the members of the two groups. I know a lot of folks don’t like how Meltzer paces his stories and if all books were like this, I’d get annoyed. But I’ve got the action-packed, fast pacing of JSA and the solid mix of a BoP, so the more leisurely pace of Meltzer’s opening chapters is fine by me, especially because of the character bits he includes and the payoff later on that I’ve come to expect.

Counterpoint:

Steven of the Roar of Comics is not as happy with the comic.

This comic pissed me off in so many ways that it’s hard to know where to start. As always, the most frustrating thing about Meltzer’s writing is that it is has so many good ideas running through it that my hopes get raised, only to be dashed against the rocks of piss poor writing. For example, this issue has a fist fight between BATMAN and KARATE KID! Unfortunately, it happens ALMOST ENTIRELY OFF-PANEL so that Meltzer can devote nearly seven full pages to Arsenal being unable to play capture the flag without breaking his neck!

So did you like the issue? Dislike it?

Power Girl’s always a source of conversation in the blogosphere. In this case, an upcoming JLA cover by Michael Turner is the catalyst, prompting comparisons with other cheesecake artist Adam Hughes.

Point:

At feminist_fandom, lj-er lies_d explains her issues with images of Power Girl as drawn by Michael Turner and Adam Hughes.

Excerpt:

One of the special magic of reading comics (reading books, watching movies), is that for a little while you can experience the world of the story through the characters that you see – for a while, you inhabit those characters. Even if you don’t identify with them per se, you can still ‘be’ them. They’re strong, intelligent, honourable, attractive, and even if they have flaws they’re somehow heroic ones. And yes, they have perfect, idealized bodies, even the male characters.It’s be easy for guys to want to be Superman or Batman – their kind of idealized bodies are the stuff of action movies. All women want perfect bodies too, but when I see Power Girl, you know what I see? A PORN STAR. Only porn stars have bodies like that. Yes, the male ideal can be harmful and/or impossible to attain, but the kind of ‘ideal’ in the above pictures is demeaning and ridiculous, and it clearly only exists for men to fetishize.

Counterpoint:

At Occasional Superheroine, Video Store Girl looks at the same Turner drawing and a different Hughes drawing and explains the different reactions she has to them.

Excerpt:

I find Adam Hughes’s covers to be, for the most part, sexy but not sexist. Sexy but not sexist means that your subject has some glimmer of humanity in her and is not just a blow-up doll. Sexy but not sexist means that you can see that the artist has a genuine love and understanding for the subject. Sexy but not sexist encompasses, at least for me, not only Hughes but the work of Rags Morales, Frank Cho, Darwyn Cooke, Alex Toth, Will Eisner, and many more.

What do you think?

Last week Jodi Picoult’s first Wonder Woman issue came out and reactions were decidedly mixed.

Point:

B@N’s own Ragnell was not happy with the issue:

Excerpt:

Yes, every bad review you’ve read is true. She treats the character like a complete fish out of water even though Diana’s been underground pretending to be a regular person for an entire year, and before that had been around for years and gotten her lumps in during Perez and Messner-Loebs runs.Beyond that, she’s being vain and petty and existential and it makes me roll my eyes. Why does Wonder Woman give a flying fuck about being “cool”?

Counterpoint:

Over at Comic Book Thoughts, Ragtime disagrees:

Excerpt:

I will say that I did enjoy the can’t-pump-her-own-gas type issues, and while some people saw them as unrealistic, I was reminded of the parallels to President Bush the Elder who was chided for not understanding the grocery store scanner, as he was so patrician he never did his own shopping. (Also, I live in New Jersey, were self-serve is illegal, so it is not surpring to meet adults who have never self-pumped).I will also admit that part of what made me enjoy it was not an explicit part of the story, but what I saw as the implied question of whether she should reveal here (new) secret identity to Nemesis. Nemesis seems like a bright guy, so I can’t see him being fooled forever, and eventually he’s going to be pretty upset that he spent whatever-number of issues chasing down the woman who turned out to be his partner. She could probably trust him with the secret, and get on with it.

So what did you think?

Point:

Over at livejournal community scans_daily, Wonderfish explains the awesomeness of Jaime Reyes.

(Warning, since it is Scans_Daily, one can assume that there will be many many spoilers and it is not particularly designed for people on dial-up connections)

Excerpt:

I’m a mathematician and a liberal arts student to boot, so we’re going to do this proof-style, with examples.Claim: Jaime Reyes, the third Blue Beetle, is wicked awesome.

Support:

Fact: I’m just going to get this out of the way first – Ted did not die so that Jaime could be the Blue Beetle. Don’t believe me? Check out this word from the writer himself. Long story short: DiDio said to Keith Giffen “We’re killing Ted Kord. You want to do anything with the scarab, or should there just be no more Blue Beetle?”. It’s never been about Jaime or Ted; it’s Jaime or nothing.

Fact: The kid fought Guy Gardner on his first day as a superhero. That’s pretty awesome.

Counterpoint:

At his livejournal, Jarodrussell elaborates why he has no interest in Jaime Reyes.

Excerpt:

This isn’t to say, “OMGWTFBBQ they made someone teh Blue Beetle!” Maybe Jaime’s a good Blue Beetle. Maybe he’s the best there will ever be. I don’t really care about Blue Beetle. It was the industrialist, inventor, goof-ball Ted Kord that I liked. I bought the entire run of old the 1980′s Blue Beetle series and issue #5 of the old Charlton book, not because he was Blue Beetle, but because he was Ted Kord. Jaime Reyes isn’t an industrial, inventor goof-ball, ergo he’s not interesting to me, ergo I’m not going to spend the time, effort, and money getting his book.

Both posts have particularly interesting discussions in the replies.

The current Brave and the Bold issue featuring a team-up of Supergirl and Hal Jordan has been a topic of conversion among the blogosphere lately.

Point:

Melchior del Darién examines both Supergirl and Brave and the Bold #2 and finds the latter disappointing.

Excerpt:

I was cringing so vigorously as I read The Brave and the Bold #2 that I honestly can’t exactly recall the incremental ways the over-arching plot was moved forward. For panels on end, Hal Jordan reminds himself that Kara is 17 years old. For panels on end, Supergirl bats her 17-year-old Kryptonian eye-lashes at him.

Counterpoint:

Shelly, on the other hand, enjoyed the issue.

Excerpt:

I can see that, in light of all the other questionable or objectified portrayals of Kara recently, that her flirting with Hal can be viewed as more of the same. But for me, it isn’t quite that. She comes across as a 17-year-old girl who has serious issues about belonging somewhere and being properly socialized, an area in which she’s lacking.

If you read the issue in question, what did you think?

The main Civil War storyline is over now, but the ramifications are felt all over the Marvel Universe. In many cases, the actions taken by certain characters during the event and afterward have changed many fans’ opinions about the characters.

Point:

Over at the Fortress of Fortitude, the Keeper is unhappy with the current portrayal of Ms. Marvel: [Link contains spoilers for Civil War: The Initiative #1]

Excerpt:

For a heroine who aspires to be the “best of the best,” Carol has made a lot of mis-steps lately. She’s turned her back on Captain America, alienated the X-Men and generally appeared more concerned with personal glory than making a positive difference.(Her record with spider-women is especially abysmal, when you factor in Julia Carpenter and poor Arana. Somebody keep Ms. Marvel away from May Parker!)

Counterpoint:

At her blog, Comic Love, Brainfreeze has a more favorable opinion about Carol’s portrayal post-Civil War: [Link contains spoilers for Ms. Marvel #12]

Excerpt:

Well, actually, I’m still enjoying Carol’s search. Carol has, for a long time, been portayed as someone with feet of clay, and that’s all right. (I am glad they haven’t been touching on her alcoholism–that’s a well-beaten horse and her current issues are far more interesting in any case.) Civil War may have sidelined her story somewhat, but it’s still there–her attempts to become a better hero, a noble goal that, it’s become apparent, she isn’t guaranteed to be up to in the long run.

I’m sure everyone can guess what the hot-topic of this week is, what with everyone up to including CNN spoilering the whole of the United States…

But in case you do live under a rock and/or haven’t obtained your weekly comics yet, I’ll give you a very strong warning that the links and excerpts below have VERY BIG SPOILERS FOR CAPTAIN AMERICA #25.

(more…)