Quote from: Thrillho on July 06, 2016, 01:27:28 AM

Quote from: daren on July 03, 2016, 05:09:59 AM

QuoteHe also wrote the Spire Christian Comics were Reggie date raped a girl. That made me think he might not like them much.

Okay I think I found the site that might have given you that idea. http://80pagegiant.blogspot.com/2011/09/archie-metaphors-sex-and-al-hartley.html Are those the panels?


I also found the page they come from.






In context it doesn't look like date rape. The Jughead oranges story is more like a metaphor for a guy who tells girls he loves them to get them to sleep with him, it doesn't work as analogy for rape. Besides it would make more sense for this sermon to tell girls "don't put out just because a guy says he loves you" (standard Christian warning) than to say "don't get date raped," there's no way a girl can avoid that unless she doesn't go on dates or doesn't kiss boys in cars, the other story on that site shows Al wasn't against girls going on dates and kissing boys in cars. It DOES look skeevy that Reggie's jumping on her with a sneering smile but he always drew Reggie sneering and always put characters in that pose when they're going after something they want, it probably symbolizes Reggie's a predator in the emotional not physical sense.


I just found another site where this story is discussed: http://www.toonzone.net/forums/threads/archie-goes-there-talkback.5224681/


and someone else says the same thing I'm saying, he also points out the lipstick marks on Reggie's face and the girl's appearance are probably meant to show it wasn't rape, a good point. (Then another guy says date rape victims don't always look raped and that kiss marks are just comics shorthand for sexual activity of any kind, well actually, they're just shorthand for CONSENSUAL making out, what comics would use them to convey rape? I mean you might see them in real life date rape and yeah, real victims don't always look victimized but in cartoons they do, the cartoonists tend to make sure we know what happened. Al Hartley's drawn rape victims in other stories and they did not just look bewildered with messy hair like this girl. Then this guy tries to claim Al mixed his metaphors (why?) and was "too stuck in the 50s to understand that date rape was what he was portraying", er, if he didn't understand he was portraying it then it's probably not what he was portraying. At this point I just can't take him seriously, for some reason he's hellbent on seeing the worst in Al no matter how weak his arguments are, same for the site that took those two panels out of context. I guess they're venting in revenge for all the Spire comics or something.  )


I think the most important point the other guy makes is that Al Hartley wasn't the kind of guy who would show Reggie raping someone (if ACP even would have let him, unlikely). Frank Doyle is the one who came closest to writing Reggie as an in-context date rapist, Al's portrayals of him weren't that bad.

Yeah, that was the story I am referring to, and I know Al Hartley probably didn't intend to make Reggie a rapist but that's definitely what it looks like, and at the very least it looks like sexual assault as the girl never looks willing. I don't want to get too into here but I agree with that poster you're talking about even if Al Hartley didn't intend to portray sexual assault, that's exactly what he did. It's just like the Game of Thrones controversy where the audience interpreted a scene as rape though the creators denied it but honestly where is the ambivalence if the woman in question is constantly saying no, trying to fight him off, and then crying for him to stop? The girl in question looks terrified that Reggie is coming at her and the other panel we see her in she is upset.

I can see what you mean, I think back then he never thought anyone would believe an Archie main five character would rape anyone, rape probably just was not a possibility for a member of the Archies in that more innocent time and I don't think ACP would have allowed him to draw that, I think he relied on everyone knowing that and interpreting it as Reggie just being greedy and selfish and like I said predatory in the emotional sense. I didn't think she looked upset in the last panel comparing her to the rape victims Al Hartley's drawn in other stories. I guess we have to agree to disagree, I admit Al Hartley should have been more careful about how he drew this scene, it does LOOK reminisent of rape, he should have known some people would see it that way.

I think the scene you describe from Game of Thrones is a little different, we don't see this girl saying no, telling Reggie to stop or fighting him off and we don't see what happens after he leaps at her. Dammit Al why couldn't you have been clearer

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 04, 2016, 03:41:39 AM



If there's NO continuity, then the Veronica in this story is NOT the same as the Veronica in any other story, Daren. No matter how much you'd like to believe it.  Because just the idea of having SOME continuity of character is there does NOT mean that that character cannot or does not ever change.  You're saying that whether there is continuity between the stories or not, the characters remain unvarying, they have consistency and never ever change, not even in context with the events of the story that surrounds them, and that's complete BS.

I never said that, point to where I said characters can't change within a story or act differently from one story to the next, I only said the characters have recurring characteristics (and Ronnie's are so diverse she could act like almost anything in any story) and that you were wrong that "Beach Blanket Babysitters" is a direct continuation of "Oh Nanny Boy," remember when you said:

QuoteAh, but this isn't the first Veronica/Jellybean story, it's the second (or possibly even the third). In the first one, Veronica doesn't like Jellybean because she thinks that she's just like a little Jughead. Nevertheless, it doesn't prevent Veronica from trying to exploit Jellybean's innate cuteness when she tries to babysit her as an excuse to get an "in" with a hunky male nanny that she meets in the park. In that one, Jughead finds out what's going on, and with Jellybean as an accomplice, teaches Veronica a well-deserved lesson.

The above story is kind of sweet, because after Jellybean senses that Veronica has learned her lesson, she only torments her a little bit for good measure --"

Then,

QuoteI assumed in "Beach Blanket Babysitters" that it was referencing the first story where Veronica basically uses Jellybean for selfish reasons to cast herself in a favorable light as a caring person who loves children (when the opposite is the true case, in reality, in that first story), and that Jellybean was somehow remembering that.

and

QuoteIf Veronica is paranoid that Jellybean's mind has been "poisoned against me" in "Beach Blanket Babysitters", she need look no further than that panel there. If she wants to know the name of the person who poisoned Jellybean's mind against her, her name was Veronica Lodge.

But you're wrong, there's no event continuity between the two because Archie stories always reset to the beginning of the timeline at the end unless something in the story shows the writer meant it to continue from another story, these don't have that.

QuoteOn the other hand, sometimes she can just behave badly, and NOT learn(snip)

De paragraphs are your friend, I know my own writing style is crap but that wall of text was hard on my brain.

QuoteThe characteristics can change for the specific story, but it might fall into a pattern for a particular story trope, like "Veronica behaves selfishly" or "Betty shows poor judgment because of her desperation to compete with Veronica". Well, you might say why isn't it "Veronica shows poor judgment because of her desperation" or "Betty behaves selfishly" instead? Don't ask me, I didn't write them. In most stories, Betty is the underdog. Even in the stories where Betty does something stupid, she's rarely portrayed as entirely unsympathetic, she's usually shown with some redeeming aspects to give it some perspective. Veronica doesn't always get that in a story. Sometimes she's just bad, and no contrasting redeeming qualities are shown to balance that. Blame the writers.

I don't 'blame' the writers, the fact that characters like Veronica and Reggie sometimes do bad and have true flaws with no sanitizing justifications is what makes them great characters with human dimension, in Ronnie's case a pioneering one too because heroines rarely get hard faults the way heroes do, I have no problems with these stories or most others where Ronnie acts up, I have a problem with you saying that Ronnie doing a few mildly bad things and saying she doesn't want kids in "Nanny Boy" means we should assume she's rotten and deserves someone to go ballistic on her. There are stories where Veronica acts nice, stories where she acts rotten and stories where shes in between, "Nanny Boy" is one of her in between stories, NOT one of her rotten stories.


And again too with your 'Betty only acts badly because Veronica makes her do it.' "Betty shows poor judgment because of her desperation to compete with Veronica"? 'Desperation' is something you feel in more dire straits than just Betty wanting to beat out Veronica.

QuoteOn the other hand if there IS continuity of character, then not only IS this the same Veronica as exists in the other story, but she's allowed to change her behavior over time, and to be mean, cold, aloof and irresponsible sometimes, and then to learn a lesson and become more responsible.

She's not the same Veronica in either the sense of having experienced the events of "Nanny Boy" or in having her attitude towards Jellybean being the same, in "Nanny Boy" she ignores Jellybean because she's indifferent, in "Babysitters" she ignores her because shes bothered by Jellybean's hostility.

Quote
In another story, but not here. In this story she doesn't do that. She doesn't do anything nice at all. There's absolutely no proof in this story that she cares one iota about Jellybean, except to use her for her own selfish purposes. It's not anything negative in particular that she does to Jellybean, it's the lack of anything positive, the fact that at no point in this story does she ever acknowledge that Jellybean is any different to her than a goldfish, by her treatment of her. There is a distinct lack of evidence in this story that Veronica thinks of Jellybean or treats Jellybean as a person, that's what I mean. That's entirely an assumption on your part, and the goldfish comment, in which she acknowledges her own lack of responsibility or lack of any desire to take on responsibility (which is what a babysitter is really for) is saying something about that lack of any positive interaction between Veronica and Jellybean in this story. That makes Veronica irresponsible as someone who is supposed be the guardian of a small child. That's not to say she'd mistreat a goldfish she owned either, but is she really that concerned about the goldfish? I don't think so, because the preference for goldfish over human children is based on "less work" for Veronica, and that's exactly the qualifications she brings with her in her role as Jellybean's babysitter -- she does nothing, she makes no effort.  She simply sits far away from Jellybean on the couch, and leaves Jellybean to her own devices. No different than a goldfish she might own. Dan Parent might as well have drawn a goldfish bowl around Jellybean sitting in the middle of the floor by herself. If the goldfish remark is simply some topical humor, a bit of commentary about Veronica's future plans regarding having children of her own, and otherwise has no bearing on the rest of the story, and specifically the part of the plot that requires Veronica to babysit Jellybean, then the removal of that panel should result in a story that reads exactly the same. However, if you remove that panel, then very little about the story makes sense, at least as far as Jellybean not liking Veronica goes.

Again. Veronica hired a babysitter in that story. She made sure Jellybean was taken care of and not harmed, the fact that she didn't do any bad to Jellybean combined with the fact that she was humiliated at the end should be the end of it, just "not doing anything positive" isn't enough reason for her to be punished further. It's your own assumption that she doesn't think of Jellybean as a person just because she's not into kids in this story. And the fact that the goldfish remark is what made Jellybean dislike Veronica is what I've been saying, Jellybean is a toddler, she thinks everyone should like to take care of toddlers, not see it as 'work', I wouldve felt the same way when I was two but I sure dont now.

Quote
In "Beach Blanket Babysitters" Veronica's behavior is different. It starts out with her behaving towards Jellybean much as she does in the earlier story. She just wants to nap on the beach, and leave Jellybean to play by herself, as long as Jellybean is quiet and doesn't disturb her nap. Once again in that story, she's just not even paying attention to Jellybean. Jellybean could be choking on a lego block, as long as she did so quietly. But then by the end of the story, Veronica has changed.

Veronica ignoring Jellybean in "Babysitters" is the best thing she can do under the circumstances, Jellybean here has an attitude problem towards Veronica (which began long before the nap), furthering contact with her might make it worse. Besides, Betty's supposed to be the one paying attention, she brought Jellybean along without telling Veronica first so Jellybean is her responsibility. Veronica says she's going to nap right before Betty says she's going for a dip too so the understanding must be that Bettys going to keep her eye on Jellybean while she's dipping, she can't expect Veronica to do it when Veronica had just said she wanted to sleep, if you think Veronica's irresponsible in "Nanny Boy" for hiring a babysitter to look after Jellybean instead of doing it herself (and even then Ronnie was always in the room with Jellybean) then you must think Bettys very irresponsible in "Babysitters" because she doesn't hire anyone, she pressures her friend into helping at the last minute even though that friend is trying to ignore Jellybean for good reason and then Betty neglects to watch Jellybean long enough for her to completely cover Veronica with sand which is a long time. Jellybean could be choking on a lego block yknow. I kind of don't blame you since the story is sort of set up to make us feel Betty's actions aren't so bad, I wouldn't point it out except to show how silly youre being for insisting Ronnie is scum for not playing with Jellybean in "Nanny Boy." Or do you think its okay for Betty to neglect Jellybean because she likes her and that makes up for it.


Yeah it's a cute ending to the story because it shows Veronica's niceness and patience not because she got some experience in toughing out crappy situations that arent her fault. The main one who should learn a lesson in this story is Jughead but of course Jughead doesn't actually learn a lesson or do anything nice in this story, even though he was mildly punished that's not enough according to you right? So you'll be pulling for him to learn a lesson from Veronica in a future story based on the events here right?


Yeah and in November I'll be the new president.

QuoteIt's not some Veronica "hate campaign."

No I don't think you have a "hate campaign" against Veronica, a campaign is a conscious decision and I doubt you're aware of how negative your attitude towards her is or how many criticisms you make of her, you criticize her more than all other characters put together times two. Even I don't criticize Archie that much.

Quote from: daren on July 06, 2016, 02:10:19 AM
I have a problem with you saying that Ronnie doing a few mildly bad things and saying she doesn't want kids in "Nanny Boy" means we should assume she's rotten and deserves someone to go ballistic on her.

Who went ballistic on her? She got embarrassed, and got revealed as the big phony that she was (in THAT story). Big whoop. Nobody laid a finger on her. It's not like Jughead faked evidence of her kidnapping Jellybean and turned her into the police. All he did was ruin her chance with one guy.

Seems like you're hypersensitive here to any possible damage done to Veronica, and insensitive to any damage Veronica may do to anyone else. Basically you maintain that she deserves to get away with using Jellybean to convince Brad that she cares about children (which she doesn't), and that she deserves to get hooked up with him. You even try to imply that she's calling Brad for JELLYBEAN'S benefit. If that's what you believe, there's no point in further discussion.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 06, 2016, 03:32:17 AM

Quote from: daren on July 06, 2016, 02:10:19 AM
I have a problem with you saying that Ronnie doing a few mildly bad things and saying she doesn't want kids in "Nanny Boy" means we should assume she's rotten and deserves someone to go ballistic on her.

Who went ballistic on her? She got embarrassed, and got revealed as the big phony that she was (in THAT story). Big whoop. Nobody laid a finger on her. It's not like Jughead faked evidence of her kidnapping Jellybean and turned her into the police. All he did was ruin her chance with one guy.

Im talking about how you implied Mrs. Jones would be justified if she went ballistic on her.

Quote
Seems like you're hypersensitive here to any possible damage done to Veronica, and insensitive to any damage Veronica may do to anyone else. Basically you maintain that she deserves to get away with using Jellybean to convince Brad that she cares about children (which she doesn't), and that she deserves to get hooked up with him. You even try to imply that she's calling Brad for JELLYBEAN'S benefit. If that's what you believe, there's no point in further discussion.

No I didn't, I never said she deserved to get away with it and I even said it was okay with me that Betty came out ahead, and I said she had a babysitter there to watch Jellybean not that she called him specifically for that, he can serve more than one purpose you know, and the fact that you think the way I respond to your constant negativty towards Veronica is hypersensitivity shows how unaware you are of all your remarks about her, let me refresh your mind, do you remember that you actually criticized her once for liking Kevin so much but not being the one to save his life at the end of The Married Life? I remember reading that on the old board and it was an old thread so I didn't answer it but I couldn't believe my eyes, I guess Veronica adoring him is supposed to give her psychic powers to sense a gunman suddenly appearing at a party out of her range of vision. I could name many more but I'd like to know how you answer that.

Quote from: daren on July 06, 2016, 03:44:18 AM
let me refresh your mind, do you remember that you actually criticized her once for liking Kevin so much but not being the one to save his life at the end of The Married Life? I remember reading that on the old board and it was an old thread so I didn't answer it but I couldn't believe my eyes, I guess Veronica adoring him is supposed to give her psychic powers to sense a gunman suddenly appearing at a party out of her range of vision. I could name many more but I'd like to know how you answer that.

I said it in the context of, if you look at Kevin's own title, it's ARCHIE'S PAL KEVIN KELLER, which is like... wtf? Archie's barely even IN it. No, if the title were accurate, it should be VERONICA'S title-stealing PAL KEVIN KELLER. It's Veronica who claims she's his BFF (or he's her other BFF, or something like that). Of course it's "Archie's Pal" because the other title isn't very sell-able. How do I know he was out of her range of vision -- she's his campaign manager, shouldn't she be right there with him? But really, even though it's Archie who has to die, him doing so by saving Kevin doesn't have the gravitas it would if Archie had died saving Veronica or Betty (because it doesn't matter who the gunman was trying to hit), or if Veronica had died saving Kevin (or vice-versa), because honestly, Archie and Kevin just are not that close.

So you see me heaping scorn on Veronica, when all I'm really doing is criticizing the writing of the story. You're just hypersensitive to anything someone says about Veronica, even though she's often written in such a way as to portray her in the worst possible light. Take it up with the writers. Note that while YOU'VE started threads about Archie being an a-hole or whatever, I've never started a thread about Veronica that encourages people to heap scorn on her. The writers do more of that than is necessary already. Or used to, whatever. I'm not sure if new classic Archie stories are pretty much headed for the last roundup here, but it looks that way. It's as if I'm supposed to read every story where she's written in a negative light and say it isn't so, she's really NICE deep down, even though that story says otherwise.

Whew! For a moment there, I thought you guys were gonna be bosom buddies! Thank God THAT'S not happening!

Quote from: daren on July 06, 2016, 03:44:18 AM

Im talking about how you implied Mrs. Jones would be justified if she went ballistic on her.

I'm sorry, Daren. I didn't mean to imply that.

I meant to be a little more definitive in stating that as a fact, and If I was unclear on that, let me restate it differently. Mrs. Jones would be perfectly justified on going ballistic on Veronica for deceiving her into thinking that she cared about Jellybean, when in reality all she wanted to do was use her to get a date. Perfectly justified.

Quote from: daren on July 06, 2016, 01:47:46 AM
]I think the scene you describe from Game of Thrones is a little different, we don't see this girl saying no, telling Reggie to stop or fighting him off and we don't see what happens after he leaps at her. Dammit Al why couldn't you have been clearer 

Ah, but you see, an absence of a no does not equal consent. That's why activists are trying to drive the point home with affirmative consent, only yes means yes.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 06, 2016, 04:03:51 AMSo you see me heaping scorn on Veronica, when all I'm really doing is criticizing the writing of the story. You're just hypersensitive to anything someone says about Veronica, even though she's often written in such a way as to portray her in the worst possible light.

I don't care that people will dislike/hate Veronica or judge her harshly but these two stories don't even rank as any of Veronica's worst moments, especially not "Beach Blanket Babysitters" where you know, she didn't actually do anything to warrant Jellybean being mean to her.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 06, 2016, 04:03:51 AM
Note that while YOU'VE started threads about Archie being an a-hole or whatever, I've never started a thread about Veronica that encourages people to heap scorn on her.

That's because there already was/is a Worst of Veronica thread, and pretty much a negative thread for every character. Why should Archie be left out of the fun? 

Quote from: Thrillho on July 06, 2016, 06:15:57 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 06, 2016, 04:03:51 AM
Note that while YOU'VE started threads about Archie being an a-hole or whatever, I've never started a thread about Veronica that encourages people to heap scorn on her.

That's because there already was/is a Worst of Veronica thread, and pretty much a negative thread for every character. Why should Archie be left out of the fun? 

Archie certainly deserves it as much or more than the rest ...

Quote from: Thrillho on July 06, 2016, 06:15:57 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 06, 2016, 04:03:51 AMSo you see me heaping scorn on Veronica, when all I'm really doing is criticizing the writing of the story. You're just hypersensitive to anything someone says about Veronica, even though she's often written in such a way as to portray her in the worst possible light.

I don't care that people will dislike/hate Veronica or judge her harshly but these two stories don't even rank as any of Veronica's worst moments, especially not "Beach Blanket Babysitters" where you know, she didn't actually do anything to warrant Jellybean being mean to her.

Where did I say that they were among the worst examples of Veronica's behavior? I can think of many worse examples. Just because "Nanny Boy" isn't among the worst, doesn't mean that it automatically should be held up as an example of the opposite. It's true that in "Beach Blanket Babysitters", Veronica doesn't actually DO anything to warrant Jellybean being mean to her. But children like people to pay attention to them, and will often do things to GET attention. The other thing that would help to explain that somewhat is Jellybean's continuity of character from previous stories with Veronica, like "Nanny Boy". Jellybean's character in that story doesn't contradict her character (at the beginning of the story, before she changes her mind) in BBB, it reiterates it, as Jellybean not having a good relationship with Veronica, just as the Veronica/Jughead feud is reiterated in certain stories, including NB, HS and BBB. The "continuity of character" thing has less to do with when the stories first appeared than it does with how it agrees or disagrees with the story currently under examination. To the extent that aspects of Veronica's character or Jellybean's character in other stories agree with the one you're looking at right now, to the degree that those details reiterate, reinforce, echo, help to explain or contextualize the same characters' behavior in the story now in question, it applies.

To the extent that it disagrees with or contradicts the characters' behavior in the story under examination, you have to reject it. What the story tells you is paramount -- including things that the story specifically omits telling you, which would otherwise tend to give a more balanced picture of one character, or two characters' relationship to each other. If there's contradictory behavior between a character in one story and another, then continuity of character from the contradictory story doesn't apply. For example, in "Hey, Sister" Veronica's behavior towards Jellybean doesn't align with or help us understand her behavior towards Jellybean in BBB, it contradicts it. In HS, she's getting somewhat obsessed with Jellybean, and treats her like her own little sister. In BBB, she's not doing that at all (at the beginning of the story). Then later in the story, she TRIES, and makes an EFFORT to build a relationship with Jellybean -- something she did NOT do in NB, where she regards children as too much work (by contrast to goldfish). I prefer these type of Veronica stories, where she's shown as being less one-dimensional than she is in others like NB, and has redeeming character traits. When those redeeming character traits aren't shown in the story, then they don't apply in that story.

If continuity of character applies to the Jughead/Veronica feud in all three stories, then why don't I just accept the premise that Jughead has "poisoned" Jellybean's mind towards Veronica in BBB? Simple, because what the story tells you about Jellybean contradicts that directly -- it shows you that Jellybean is capable of making up her own mind about whether or not she likes people, and is not just Jughead's little minion. Did she just somehow magically gain the power of free will the moment she announces to Jughead "NO! Veronica is my FRIEND!"? No, she always had it. She's still a child, but also a human being who has free will. She made up her own mind about how she felt about Veronica in NB, and she does the same in BBB -- and she has the ability to change her mind as well, when Veronica's behavior towards her changes for the better. It's far easier for me to accept that premise than it is to accept the idea that Jughead (who has never shown much ability to manipulate people psychologically to do things against their will, like say, Trula Twyst has) is even capable of doing this, never mind that he's able to issue a complex series of instructions to Jellybean, a young child, in regards to how to go about tormenting Veronica at the beach, which she in turn is capable of following to the letter. Nor are we shown any of that "mind poisoning" in the story. At best we can tell he's given her a plasic spider, and possibly suggested to Jellybean that she use it to pull a prank on Veronica. The rest of the stuff with Veronica deciding to take a nap and Jellybean throwing cold sand on her, and then burying her in the sand, doesn't seem reasonable to believe that Jughead can foresee or control. Jellybean's attitude towards Veronica in the story has a lot more to do with how Veronica treats her (even if it's just that Veronica ignores her, before Veronica makes an effort to be friends with her) than it has anything to do with Jughead, and Jellybean changing her mind to become Veronica's defender proves it. When she pulls those pranks on Veronica on the beach, it's because she wants some attention from Veronica, not because she's programmed to think of her as "the enemy". She doesn't have any idea that she's "being mean", because she's a child that doesn't have a fully-formed sense of right and wrong (but later in the story, we get the idea that she's beginning to develop that). She just doesn't like being ignored, she wants to interact with people. When Veronica shows her some positive attention, she decides she likes Veronica, and refuses to do those things any more, when she recognizes her as a friend. It's a really sweet story, and I like it a lot, both as a Veronica story and as a Jellybean story.

Quote from: Thrillho on July 06, 2016, 06:15:57 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 06, 2016, 04:03:51 AM
Note that while YOU'VE started threads about Archie being an a-hole or whatever, I've never started a thread about Veronica that encourages people to heap scorn on her.

That's because there already was/is a Worst of Veronica thread, and pretty much a negative thread for every character. Why should Archie be left out of the fun? 

Right. And I didn't start that Worst of Veronica thread, or any other thread devoted to her behaving badly. But somehow when examples are posted of her behaving badly, I'm just supposed to shut up and not comment about it, because there are other stories where she doesn't behave badly. The fact that people overwhelming choose to post those stories where she behaves badly, as opposed to the ones where she doesn't, is hardly my fault. That's about all I have to say about it, except that there's usually a direct correlation between stories where Veronica behaves badly (and no redeeming qualities are shown) and she comes out the loser, and those where she shows the better aspects of her character and comes out the winner -- "Nanny Boy" versus "Beach Blanket Babysitters".

Quote from: Thrillho on July 06, 2016, 01:27:28 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 04, 2016, 03:41:39 AM

In "Beach Blanket Babysitters" Veronica's behavior is different. It starts out with her behaving towards Jellybean much as she does in the earlier story. She just wants to nap on the beach, and leave Jellybean to play by herself, as long as Jellybean is quiet and doesn't disturb her nap. Once again in that story, she's just not even paying attention to Jellybean. Jellybean could be choking on a lego block, as long as she did so quietly.

How dare she do her own thing as opposed to watching the child her friend (who left to go swimming) is being paid to babysit. What the hell is wrong with her? Instead of enjoying herself at the beach she should clearly be watching any and every child at the beach like a hawk. How heartless can she be?

That's one vote for the "choke on the lego block" option. How dare Jellybean interrupt Veronica's nap with such meaningless and annoying behavior? I don't know, most people might say the 16-year old should be more mature than the toddler, but... you never can tell. And of course, who's being paid makes all the difference in who should be mature. Because watching every child on the beach like a hawk isn't worth the money she isn't being paid to do so -- or watching one single child entrusted to her care, which of course, is exactly the same thing. Or we can blame Betty, who should know better than to expect Veronica to be more responsible and mature than a toddler?

I take this to mean that were you walking along in the park, and happened to see a child sitting by herself, obviously choking on something, you'd do absolutely nothing, because it's not your problem. You chose wisely in avoiding having children.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 07, 2016, 11:13:51 AM
That's one vote for the "choke on the lego block" option. How dare Jellybean interrupt Veronica's nap with such meaningless and annoying behavior? I don't know, most people might say the 16-year old should be more mature than the toddler, but... you never can tell. And of course, who's being paid makes all the difference in who should be mature. Because watching every child on the beach like a hawk isn't worth the money she isn't being paid to do so -- or watching one single child entrusted to her care, which of course, is exactly the same thing. Or we can blame Betty, who should know better than to expect Veronica to be more responsible and mature than a toddler?

I take this to mean that were you walking along in the park, and happened to see a child sitting by herself, obviously choking on something, you'd do absolutely nothing, because it's not your problem. You chose wisely in avoiding having children.

Wow, you're way out of line. I can only imagine what you wrote before you edited. Seriously, my defending Veronica is not a personal attack on you so don't make it a personal issue. You know nothing about me.

Like daren said upthread, Betty was the one entrusted to Jellybean's care, Veronica didn't even know Jellybean would be coming with them and she shouldn't have had that responsibility foisted on her unexpectedly. So yes, if you want to blame anyone for Jellybean not having a minder, blame Betty, she knows Veronica is going to take a nap yet she goes for a swim anyway, even though she is the one who agreed to babysit Jellybean that day. If Betty is the one being paid or even just agreed to babysit without compensation, she is the one who has to follow through with her promise. Now if this was an emergency situation where Betty had to run off, I would fully expect Veronica to step up, but this wasn't it. Furthermore, there's no legos in this story for Jellybean to choke on so there was no risk of that happening.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 07, 2016, 03:10:16 AM

Where did I say that they were among the worst examples of Veronica's behavior? I can think of many worse examples. Just because "Nanny Boy" isn't among the worst, doesn't mean that it automatically should be held up as an example of the opposite.

Well you did write blocks of texts condemning Veronica, and alluding to her actions leading to Jellybean's death, so it's not a stretch to infer you think this is the worst she has been.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 07, 2016, 03:10:16 AM

Right. And I didn't start that Worst of Veronica thread, or any other thread devoted to her behaving badly. But somehow when examples are posted of her behaving badly, I'm just supposed to shut up and not comment about it, because there are other stories where she doesn't behave badly. The fact that people overwhelming choose to post those stories where she behaves badly, as opposed to the ones where she doesn't, is hardly my fault. That's about all I have to say about it, except that there's usually a direct correlation between stories where Veronica behaves badly (and no redeeming qualities are shown) and she comes out the loser, and those where she shows the better aspects of her character and comes out the winner -- "Nanny Boy" versus "Beach Blanket Babysitters".

No one said you can't express your opinion but you start these debates when posters are not looking for one and you can't be upset when someone responds or disagrees with you.

Quote from: Thrillho on July 07, 2016, 12:58:30 PM
Like daren said upthread, Betty was the one entrusted to Jellybean's care, Veronica didn't even know Jellybean would be coming with them and she shouldn't have had that responsibility foisted on her unexpectedly. So yes, if you want to blame anyone for Jellybean not having a minder, blame Betty, she knows Veronica is going to take a nap yet she goes for a swim anyway, even though she is the one who agreed to babysit Jellybean that day. If Betty is the one being paid or even just agreed to babysit without compensation, she is the one who has to follow through with her promise. Now if this was an emergency situation where Betty had to run off, I would fully expect Veronica to step up, but this wasn't it. Furthermore, there's no legos in this story for Jellybean to choke on so there was no risk of that happening.

In hindsight, I can see where Betty made a fundamental error in judgment in choosing to ask her best friend to accompany her and Jellybean to the beach, and imagining that while at the beach she might still do a little swimming. I guess people sometimes do stupid things when they let themselves be influenced by friendship, and it was unreasonable of Betty to presume on that friendship and burden Veronica. Obviously she should have asked Brad. Or Midge, or Nancy, or Ethel, or one of those otherwise unnamed girls who walks through the foreground of the panels in those beach stories who she knows that also attends Riverdale High. Anyone but her best friend.

Jellybean's welfare in this situation is ultimately Betty's responsibility, and she's the one that's going to have to make explanations to Mrs. Jones if anything were to happen to her. Let's say, hypothetically, that while Betty is off swimming and Veronica is napping, Jellybean chose to wander off somewhere, and when Betty came back, she was nowhere to be found. (If Veronica doesn't take a nap, and instead stays awake and pays attention to what Jellybean is doing, then Veronica doesn't wake up buried up to her neck in sand. I think that's called irony.) Betty would probably be frantic when Jellybean was missing and Veronica couldn't tell her where she was. She'd probably go to the Beach Patrol office or lifeguards' office, and tell them to institute a search for the missing child. With luck, after several hours of seaching the crowded beach, they'd find her, but then Betty (being the honest type) has to explain to Mrs. Jones when she brings Jellybean home what happened that afternoon (it's possible that Mrs. Jones expected her back by dinnertime, and is herself very worried about what's happened).

BETTY:  "Mrs. Jones, I am SO sorry about what happened! Jellybean just wandered off and got lost, and was missing for several hours until one of the lifeguards finally located her. It's ALL MY FAULT! I'm so ashamed...! I... I left her with Veronica while I went to take a swim, and when I got back, Veronica had fallen asleep and didn't know where Jellybean had gone, and I was going out my mind with worry...! I'll never do that again!!"

MRS. JONES: "BETTY!! You left my daughter all alone with Veronica!!? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?! And I trusted you...!"

BETTY (she's crying now): "Sob! OH, I feel just so AWFUL about it, Mrs. Jones!" (At this point, Betty isn't going to point out that Mrs. Jones did exactly the same thing in leaving her daughter with Veronica in "Nanny Boy".)

MRS. JONES: "Betty, I am severely disappointed in you. I thought you were more mature and responsible, and had better judgment! I think you can understand that I won't be availing myself of your services as babysitter in the future. I have here the business card of a nice young man named Brad, who's studying to be a pediatrician, and who is working his way through school as a nanny, and I'll be using him as Jellybean's sitter from now on -- and I'm afraid if any other mothers ask me about you for babysitting references, I'll have to be honest with them and tell them how you let me down. I won't mention this to your parents, but I strongly suggest you go home and THINK about what you've done, and if you're the person I think you are, you'll tell them yourself. I know Veronica is your best friend, but your faith in her sense of responsibility is misplaced, and you should remember that in the future."

BETTY (still crying): "Sniff! Mrs. Jones, will I... never see Jellybean again?"

MRS. JONES: "Betty, I can see that you're truly sorry, but try to understand. Of course you're welcome to visit with Jellybean anytime, and I think she'd be sad if you never came to see her again. I know Jellybean really likes you, and I know you like her. I... just can't leave Jellybean alone with you any more. I'm sorry, Betty, but that's the way it has to be. You'll understand someday, when you're a mother."


As the story ends, Betty goes home and has a deep sense of shame and remorse, and a reality check regarding her misplaced trust and mistakenly high opinion of Veronica's character, but she feels even worse about herself, and her friendship with Veronica is never quite the same after this stressful incident.

THE END.

Boy, THAT was a downer. ... Nah, I think it's funnier if Jellybean just buries Veronica up to her neck in sand.

Quote from: Thrillho on July 06, 2016, 06:15:57 PM

Quote from: daren on July 06, 2016, 01:47:46 AM
]I think the scene you describe from Game of Thrones is a little different, we don't see this girl saying no, telling Reggie to stop or fighting him off and we don't see what happens after he leaps at her. Dammit Al why couldn't you have been clearer 

Ah, but you see, an absence of a no does not equal consent. That's why activists are trying to drive the point home with affirmative consent, only yes means yes.

That's a good point, what I was trying to say was that we only see two panels so we miss the part that would tell us what happened for certain.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on July 06, 2016, 04:50:52 AM

Quote from: daren on July 06, 2016, 03:44:18 AM

Im talking about how you implied Mrs. Jones would be justified if she went ballistic on her.

I'm sorry, Daren. I didn't mean to imply that.

I meant to be a little more definitive in stating that as a fact, and If I was unclear on that, let me restate it differently. Mrs. Jones would be perfectly justified on going ballistic on Veronica for deceiving her into thinking that she cared about Jellybean, when in reality all she wanted to do was use her to get a date. Perfectly justified.

At least you admit you said something wrong. 




This is a lot, I'm going to have to answer the rest of everything tomorrow if I don't just give up but Ill post one thing, the cover to the issue with Beach Blanket Babysitters which surprised me.







Betty's meant to be irresponsible in this story a little.

Quote from: daren on July 08, 2016, 03:54:43 AM
Ill post one thing, the cover to the issue with Beach Blanket Babysitters which surprised me.



Betty's meant to be irresponsible in this story a little.

It's funny when Archie gets buried in the sand on the beach, and the same applies to Reggie. Why is it suddenly irresponsible when it happens to Veronica and a toddler instead of a teenager is doing the burying? When Archie or Reggie gets buried in the sand, it's usually left up to them to extricate themselves, but this story never implies that that's the case here with Veronica.

It's just a funny cover gag, and in the actual story Betty's not even there when Ronnie gets buried. Well, before she left to take a dip, she DID ask Ron "Can I trust you two together?" and Ronnie just said "Don't be long" instead of "NO! Don't LEAVE her here with me! I don't TRUST her!", which makes it kind of odd that Ronnie is relaxed enough to take a nap, for a girl that's so paranoid about a toddler that she thinks of as "This little troublemaker is out to get me!!" As soon she came back, Betty dug her out.

Seems to me that what's meant to be funny in this story is Ronnie's paranoia over the idea that she's convinced herself that Jughead has programmed Jellybean to do her bodily harm. Veronica's making those comments even in the beginning of the story, before anything has happened yet, and Jellybean is aware of her attitude towards her and doesn't like it, so it becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ultimately, it's Veronica showing Jellybean that she has the ability to laugh at herself that puts an end to Jellybean's mischievous pranks and wins Jellybean over, and changes her opinion of Veronica. A little humility and humanity, and proving to Jellybean that she was sincere in her efforts to make friends with her -- not trying to buy her affection with gifts, that's all Jellybean needed to see in Veronica to like her.