Quote from: Acejughead on January 12, 2017, 01:41:35 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 12, 2017, 01:28:39 AM

Quote from: Acejughead on January 12, 2017, 01:11:35 AM
I don't have to prove anything to you. I am not the writer of Jughead, I can't get him to make some panel where Jughead looks straight at us and goes "OH BTW I'm asexual". Please stop trying to back me into a corner about how Jughead is being portrayed. The asexuality is being handled really well in the comic and I'm sorry that isn't enough for you.

True you don't, and you're not. So you don't need to feel sorry that the actual writer didn't do enough for me personally.

Why do you feel like this is about you?

Because this isn't the "argue about Jughead's asexuality" thread, this is my "Hi! I'm a new user!" thread! And you directed the "I'm not convinced" comment at me! I don't care that you want Jughead to explain in detail that he's asexual before you will believe it. Why would I, an asexual, want to hear that you don't believe that one of the only asexual characters I get as representation is actually ace? (that's a rhetorical question please don't try to give me a reason I would want to know because trust me, I did not need to know)

Perhaps we should move to a new thread then. These things often go off on tangents. I apologize if you feel like my criticism of the writing on Jughead somehow translates into a criticism of you personally, but I really said nothing about you personally.

That said, I probably would not be as critical of what I'm reading in the comic, were it not for the internet statements made by the author. After reading the statements, and then the actual story, the way that his asexuality is addressed in the story just seems somehow underwhelming, since it made me expect something a little more definite in terms of delineating NR Jughead from prior versions of Jughead. Or "over my head", if that's the interpretation that makes you happy.

Quote from: Acejughead on January 12, 2017, 01:11:35 AM
I don't have to prove anything to you. I am not the writer of Jughead, I can't get him to make some panel where Jughead looks straight at us and goes "OH BTW I'm asexual". Please stop trying to back me into a corner about how Jughead is being portrayed. The asexuality is being handled really well in the comic and I'm sorry that isn't enough for you.

True you don't, and you're not. So you don't need to feel sorry that the actual writer didn't do enough for me personally.

Why do you feel like this is about you?

Quote from: Thestereotypebuster on January 12, 2017, 12:59:45 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 12, 2017, 12:28:51 AM

Quote from: Acejughead on January 11, 2017, 10:36:02 PM

IT'S SAID IN-COMIC AND BY THE AUTHOR I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU WANT FROM THEM

I want to hear it coming from Jughead himself. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask, for the author to take what he's saying on the internet and put those words into Jughead's dialogue. I've read the comics, and it doesn't matter what Kevin decides to label Jughead, only what Jughead labels himself. Kevin can speak for himself, but not for Jughead.

You shouldn't have to read what the author says on the internet to interpret what's in the comic (that's a DVD extra 'commentary' track). It's entirely possible (even more than possible if you're not keeping up with the internet buzz) to read what Jughead himself says or doesn't say in NRJ as not particularly different from a lot of the classic Jughead stories. Maybe ACP feels that in an all-ages comic it can't be as overt as that, but I don't see what the big deal is. Just show me where he refers to or identifies himself as asexual, that's all. If you want to make a definite statement about something, then just have the character say it out loud, instead of implying it, or having the author explain what he meant, outside of the context of the story. Otherwise it isn't a strong statement of an idea; it's not conclusive.

I guess maybe I have to state in no uncertain terms that what I'm criticizing here isn't some issue of whether Jughead is or isn't asexual, I'm criticizing the writing itself. The story should speak for itself so that the author has to add no out-of-context commentary.

I think that's kind of the point. He HASN'T been changed as far as characterization. All that's changed is the terminology. And he's the rest of that page, where Jughead confirms Kevin's assessment:

Actually, this is exactly what I mean. Instead of Jughead addressing Kevin's identification of him directly, he immediately deflects that into a tangent about Jughead's own relative lack of vulnerabilities or weaknesses compared to Kevin or anyone else. At the same time he isn't challenging what Kevin says about him, he isn't committing to it in principle by reiterating that same identification that Kevin mentioned in his own words, unless you're satisfied by "Yeah, well..."

Quote from: Acejughead on January 11, 2017, 10:36:02 PM

IT'S SAID IN-COMIC AND BY THE AUTHOR I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU WANT FROM THEM

I want to hear it coming from Jughead himself. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask, for the author to take what he's saying on the internet and put those words into Jughead's dialogue. I've read the comics, and it doesn't matter what Kevin decides to label Jughead, only what Jughead labels himself. Kevin can speak for himself, but not for Jughead.

You shouldn't have to read what the author says on the internet to interpret what's in the comic (that's a DVD extra 'commentary' track). It's entirely possible (even more than possible if you're not keeping up with the internet buzz) to read what Jughead himself says or doesn't say in NRJ as not particularly different from a lot of the classic Jughead stories. Maybe ACP feels that in an all-ages comic it can't be as overt as that, but I don't see what the big deal is. Just show me where he refers to or identifies himself as asexual, that's all. If you want to make a definite statement about something, then just have the character say it out loud, instead of implying it, or having the author explain what he meant, outside of the context of the story. Otherwise it isn't a strong statement of an idea; it's not conclusive.

I guess maybe I have to state in no uncertain terms that what I'm criticizing here isn't some issue of whether Jughead is or isn't asexual, I'm criticizing the writing itself. The story should speak for itself without ambiguity so that the author has to add no out-of-context commentary.

Hey, Thestereo!

Quote from: Acejughead on January 11, 2017, 01:19:44 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 10, 2017, 11:06:26 PM

Quote from: Acejughead on January 10, 2017, 08:52:15 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 10, 2017, 05:58:58 PM

Why does "asexual" even matter?  He's a 16 year old goofy kid. Draw some "X's" on his hand.  He's probably straight edge, too.

It, uh, may not matter to you, but it matters to me. There isn't much asexual representation, so it's really encouraging to see characters with my orientation being accepted by the people around them, along with so many Jughead readers.
It shows people like me that being asexual isn't weird or wrong, that we shouldn't sacrifice who we are to find acceptance.

Also I'm not quite sure what you meant by drawing "X's" on his hand???

Jughead has always been weird. That's what's kept him interesting all these years. Now granted, he's a comic book character, so in a sense he'll always be eternally sixteen. But at sixteen, it's a little soon to start labeling people as this or that, because a lot of things can change between sixteen and adulthood. Just because he's a certain way at sixteen doesn't mean he'll never ever change.

Sorry, to clarify: Jughead is wonderfully weird, I meant that it is not his asexuality that makes him weird.

Regardless of the age it is suitable to "label" someone, Jughead is a fictional character. His identity is whatever his author decides it should be. So Jughead, in this iteration at the very least, is definitely asexual, and always will be - because Zdarsky and North have labeled him as such. So there's not much point in pointing out his age, because a sixteen year old was not the one who decided his orientation.

Well, the writer can think whatever he wants, but I wonder what's the point of blabbing that he's asexual all over the internet, if he isn't going to put the words into Jughead's mouth? And though the writer may be Jughead's "voice" currently, NOBODY wants to be labeled, unless it's a self-declarative statement of identity. But so far, I've seen no such thing in the comics.

Not only has Jughead not declared himself "asexual and proud" (or whatever) to his friends, but as readers we haven't even been given a peek into his private thoughts that indicates that this is the way he thinks of himself. Because that's the only thing that's important here with these labels -- the ones people decide to stick on themselves (even fictional characters) as some sort of statement of intent. He may not be displaying any interest in sex or romance now, but he hasn't exactly issued any manifestos stating that he never ever will be interested in those things, or that his mind is made up and unchangeable. I mean, isn't that the whole point of these labels? "Gay", "Straight", "Bi", "Asexual"... It's like a permanent condition, it's not something you do for a while before you change your mind and switch labels to something different. I say permanent, but with asexuality it's how everyone starts as an infant. It's pretty hard to say that someone is asexual, unless that's what they declare themselves to be, because ALL of us at one time lived through a time of our lives when we weren't interested in sex or romance, but it's a extremely variable phase for each individual, so someone who isn't interested in those things at 12 could be at 15, and someone else might not be interested at 16 and could be at 19. So the only way asexual is going to apply to Jughead is if it's a conscious choice of Jughead's that he has decided to label himself as identifying that way. I've seen a lot about what he thinks of hamburgers, but nothing about that.

Without that, all we've got for concrete evidence is "Oh, didn't you hear? The new writer of Jughead definitely says he's writing him as asexual", which seems like a pretty wishy-washy commitment to an idea to me.

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 11, 2017, 12:53:55 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on January 10, 2017, 11:26:57 PM

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 10, 2017, 11:03:10 PM
I know some people won't agree but I think it is so annoying how some people are all "oh this character needs to be bi, this one needs to be gay, this character needs to be asexual, etc.etc.
No, they do not need to be that. They never were. If you want characters to be gay, transexuals, lesbians, whatever, how about creating new characters. Don't try to make the straight characters something they are not.

I guess you can never be 100% sure about Jughead, though. There are some stories where the label mysogynist would not be inaccurate (although they're mostly older ones), and some stories where he dates girls like Debbie Dalton, Joani Jumpp, or Anita Chavita quite happily, with no food reward motive (and even earlier, there were Cheryl* and Lori, and a magic hatpin that made Juggy into a chick magnet). In fact, I'm pretty sure that Debbie and Joani got interjected into Jughead's title specifically as an editorial reaction to rumors that Jughead might be gay. Things have changed a lot since the late 1980s, when I don't think anyone had ever even heard the term 'asexual'.

*No, not THAT Cheryl!

True. Juggie was always a mystery. Still I never really thought of him as being gay or asexual. He was just his own person and that's it.

I always felt the same. Jughead is so one-of-a-kind that he resists any attempts at quantification or labels.

Quote from: BettyReggie on January 10, 2017, 07:52:25 AM
Archie #17 & the Archie coloring Book are all coming out on February 15 2017 that's 35 days from now.

The Archie Coloring Book is cancelled.

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 10, 2017, 11:03:10 PM
I know some people won't agree but I think it is so annoying how some people are all "oh this character needs to be bi, this one needs to be gay, this character needs to be asexual, etc.etc.
No, they do not need to be that. They never were. If you want characters to be gay, transexuals, lesbians, whatever, how about creating new characters. Don't try to make the straight characters something they are not.

I guess you can never be 100% sure about Jughead, though. There are some stories where the label mysogynist would not be inaccurate (although they're mostly older ones), and some stories where he dates girls like Debbie Dalton, Joani Jumpp, or Anita Chavita quite happily, with no food reward motive (and even earlier, there were Cheryl* and Lori, and a magic hatpin that made Juggy into a chick magnet). In fact, I'm pretty sure that Debbie and Joani got interjected into Jughead's title specifically as an editorial reaction to rumors that Jughead might be gay. Things have changed a lot since the late 1980s, when I don't think anyone had ever even heard the term 'asexual'.

*No, not THAT Cheryl!

Quote from: Acejughead on January 10, 2017, 08:52:15 PM

Quote from: steveinthecity on January 10, 2017, 05:58:58 PM

Why does "asexual" even matter?  He's a 16 year old goofy kid. Draw some "X's" on his hand.  He's probably straight edge, too.

It, uh, may not matter to you, but it matters to me. There isn't much asexual representation, so it's really encouraging to see characters with my orientation being accepted by the people around them, along with so many Jughead readers.
It shows people like me that being asexual isn't weird or wrong, that we shouldn't sacrifice who we are to find acceptance.

Also I'm not quite sure what you meant by drawing "X's" on his hand???

Jughead has always been weird. That's what's kept him interesting all these years. Now granted, he's a comic book character, so in a sense he'll always be eternally sixteen. But at sixteen, it's a little soon to start labeling people as this or that, because a lot of things can change between sixteen and adulthood. Just because he's a certain way at sixteen doesn't mean he'll never ever change.

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 10, 2017, 10:14:07 PM

Quote from: Thestereotypebuster on January 10, 2017, 12:38:37 AM

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 07, 2017, 11:15:57 PM

Quote from: apple on January 07, 2017, 10:48:29 PM

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 07, 2017, 10:41:40 AM
Political Correctness is a cancer. It ruins everything.

I'm sorry but I really don't see how changing the race of a couple characters is harming the source material. That's not even what "political correctness" is. The characters that are most changed from their comic counterpart are actually the ones who were kept white anyway.

  I didn't even mention anything about race. But now that you mention it, it does harm some because the characters were actually based on real people. For example Josie was based on Decarlo's wife. But the people doing the casting are all "screw that" let's make her black, heck, let's make all three of them black. But that is a secondary thing, it doesn't affect the story (I hope). I stand by what I said about political correctness, though.(and I am not talking about race here) It needs to stop. People have become such pussies nowadays.

Maybe if you clarify what you mean by "political correctness" we could have a more constructive discussion. Because right now, "political correctness is a cancer" seems like kind of an inflammatory statement.

I was talking in general. Besides, I wasn't the first one that brought the political correctness, somebody else did. I simply stated that PC is wrong.

It offends me in the New Riverdale comics when they revise Betty Cooper into a politically correct character. Seriously, every piece of dialogue out of her mouth is something critical of what someone else said or did, and how it doesn't conform to her sense of correctness. This is not the Betty Cooper I know, who is sweet and fun, smart and talented. Yes, she's concerned about real-world stuff, but she's not on a huge downer about it. The NR Betty is really a drag, not someone I'd want to be around at all. What burns me up even more is that in all ACP's rah-rah hype for the New Riverdale comics, they have the cojones to go on and on about "they are all the same characters you've known and loved, updated for a modern audience, blah blah blah". That's complete BS, and if they claim it's not, then they don't even know their own characters.

Quote from: SAGG on January 07, 2017, 02:57:59 PM
"Bolling's work on Little Archie has earned him comparisons to Carl Barks for the wide emotional and stylistic range of his work. Scott Shaw! has written that "Bolling's clever, sometimes surprisingly emotional writing, his imaginative storytelling and staging and his dramatic, Will Eisner-ish inking" make Little Archie "add up to a comic book series unlike any other ever published by Archie Comics.""

Little Archie isn't like any other series published by ACP, because Bob Bolling wasn't in charge of any other series. Other stories he worked on for ACP appeared in many different titles, not just a few specific ones. And everything Scott Shaw has to say about Bolling's Little Archie pretty much applies to all the other stories Bolling wrote for ACP, too. It's harder to see, because those stories appeared all over the place, as opposed to regularly in a single title. But when Bolling wrote a story about regular teenage Archie and his friends, or Sabrina, pretty much all of those things apply. Bolling's stories are just different from a lot of the other regular writers' handling of those characters. Those stories really should appear in an all-Bob Bolling collection of (regular) Archie stories sometime. It would make that fact more obvious. However, unlike the Best of Archie artists hardcover collections published by IDW, it's not ACP's thing to spotlight the writer or artist as somehow more important an attraction than the company-owned characters. If they did that, the artists and writers might start thinking they were important somehow, and not replaceable like cogs in a machine.

This might sound confusing coming from me, as I've gone on record many times as having no interest in Little Archie (or any other "Little" versions of ACP's main teenage cast), but it isn't because I don't like Bob Bolling's writing. I find him to be much more interesting as writer than as an artist for ACP, to the degree that his later artwork on the standard Archie characters looks very 'off-model' in terms of adhering to the ACP house style (and his earlier artwork actually seems pretty consistent with the house style, although you can still tell it's him... even if I sometimes I confuse his earlier artwork with Dick Malmgren's though, because they looked awfully similar). As a writer, he definitely displays a unique viewpoint and interesting take on the characters (particularly his use of fantasy or supernatural elements in the story), compared to most of ACP's writers, which I appreciate. I simply have no interest in whatever Archie and his friends were doing at age six (or whatever), in terms of a basic premise for a story.

Quote from: apple on January 10, 2017, 02:11:34 AM
"political correctness" usually refers to changing how you say/word/do something to avoid offending anyone. I don't really see how Riverdale is doing this at all?

Interesting point. The biggest group (which is actually pretty small in TV viewership terms) of people likely to be offended by this show are the people who actually know the classic Archie comics and liked the characters the way they were. 90% (or better) of the viewing audience probably won't know or care. Then you can subtract the people who recognize the changes made from classic Archie comics, but aren't bothered by them.

Quote from: BettyReggie on January 10, 2017, 05:37:47 AM
When Reggie wanted a fake id in Archie. Archie gave him a id with a June birthday. I think that was Archie #5 by Veronica Fish.

Fake ID = fake birthdate, so it could have been anything, not just a different year than his real birthdate.

Quote from: 60sBettyandReggie on January 09, 2017, 12:58:21 PM

Same here. Although, if we are talking about comics,  I do like those Life with Archie and Archie at Riverdale High stories, that while they weren't funny, they were interesting to read.

They are interesting only in the context of the array of titles ACP was publishing at the time, as were the mystery/adventure phases that JOSIE & THE PUSSYCATS, THAT WILKIN BOY, and MADHOUSE GLADS went through -- and even those stories weren't entirely bereft of comedic moments. But imagine if those were the only Archie titles that were being published at the time. That changes the big picture.

I actually have no problem with having a single title like Life With Archie Magazine, Afterlife With Archie, or even New Riverdale Archie -- as long as it represents a mere tangent universe to the rest of ACP's publishing. As long as it's a mere variation on business as usual, it simply adds to the variety of choices to read. Those kinds of titles belong in the category of "Archie Adjacent" or "Archie Supplemental", because they don't have anything to do with what Archie is really all about. When those kind of books are representative of 90% or more of the new Archie-related stories that ACP publishes, it's a whole different ball game.

There just aren't enough classic, comedic Archie stories when it's split up (240 pages a year/divided by 52 weeks = 48 five-page stories). Then there are the reprints, which increasingly aren't "new" reprints to me, as it seems each new digest has fewer and fewer stories, percentage wise, that I haven't read before.

Now, I haven't closely kept track of the release dates of the New Riverdale titles (4 ongoing series as of now, plus one 5-issue miniseries), and Archie Horror titles (2 onoing titles that hardly ever come out with a new issue), plus now they're adding a TV-based Riverdale title (I don't know if it's supposed to be ongoing or a miniseries), so I can't actually tell you how many new 20-page stories they've published in those titles over the course of a year, and (owing to frequently missed shipping dates particularly on Archie Horror titles and Betty & Veronica) it may actually not be more than 480 pages a year (but that's what it would be if they managed to ship 2 new issues of any of those comics every month), which is twice what the digests publish in new classic Archie stories (240 pages) per year. I haven't counted Dark Circle titles in there either, since they hardly ever come out with a new one, like Archie Horror, but in any case those don't feature any of the comedy characters in some other genre. Actually, I don't think they published 48 previously-unpublished 5-page classic Archie stories last year - I think they missed a few of those digest issues.