My thoughts on the upcoming Archie 1941 miniseries taking the main series place by ASS-P
[Today at 10:12:35 pm]
What are you currently watching? by BettyReggie
[Today at 10:04:16 am]
What comics have you been reading? by BettyReggie
[Today at 10:02:55 am]
ARCHIE COMICS FOR NOVEMBER 2017 by CanScatC
[September 21, 2018, 01:07:00 pm]
What have you done today? by Archiecomicxfan215
[September 20, 2018, 10:18:25 pm]
Days we look foward to as Archie Fans. by BettyReggie
[September 20, 2018, 04:00:34 pm]
Latest Hauls, what did you buy? by DeCarlo Rules
[September 18, 2018, 11:25:10 am]
An Archie Comics timeline (2009-2018): highlights & lowlights by DeCarlo Rules
[September 16, 2018, 10:50:09 am]
So I bought Archie Archives Vol. 1 and ... by Terry1
[September 14, 2018, 05:58:14 pm]
Riverdale Reviewed by Tuxedo Mark
[September 13, 2018, 07:33:58 pm]
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - daren
« on: January 12, 2017, 04:13:14 pm »
Hi everybody, sorry I dropped off so suddenly and thanks for the questions about what happened, I was on hiatus from Archie fandom because my life got way too busy but I'm sort of getting back into it now. I hope you guys are all okay, the stuff I've seen lately about the new tv show scares the crap out of me.
I also wanted to say I'm taking part in Fandom Trumps Hate, a fan art/ fanfic fundraiser for some marginalized groups that might be affected by our new commander in chief. Sorry to any of his fans on this board, I don't like him.
If anybody wants to commission fan art or something like that from me to raise money for a good cause then PM me. You can read more about it at fandomtrumpshate.tumblr.com, there's a list of charities to pick from, I support most of them so almost any one would be good. They have a lot of other artists and fan writers too if you want to check them out. Peace.
« on: January 12, 2017, 04:01:56 pm »
And finally, a Halloween variation on a classic cover illustration.
These are awesome, I have one of your fan art in my gallery from before you came on here and I was going to post more but you beat me to it.
By, like half a year.
« on: July 19, 2016, 02:41:42 am »
« on: July 19, 2016, 02:37:26 am »
I finally manage to get back on this board but I don't know if I want to put my entire reply yet since tomorrow I might have another connection problem and won't be able to answer anyone so I'm just answering one thing today, your comment to Thrillho
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.
Since I've been saying the same things as Thrillho and I also said I might not want kids this must apply to me too.
Seriously, saying you don't want kids does not mean you're insensitive to them or a bad person, Thrillho seems like one of the nicest people on the board not deserving of that remark.
Now switching channels I just read (or reread, I don't remember) a Mark Waid interview about Jughead and Veronica from earlier this year, so to answer Thrillho's post three pages back wondering what he plans for them here's a piece of it.CA: The idea of conflict between these characters seems like it’s tough to pull off when you’re dealing with a cast like this. Obviously, that’s not a concern with Reggie, since he’s always been a pretty die-hard jerk, but how do you approach it when it’s someone like Veronica? Is it tough to show us what Archie sees in her and what Jughead sees in her at the same time? [/size][/color]MW: No, because Jughead cannot abide her. Nonetheless, he makes some peace with her specifically because he knows it’ll hurt his best friend if he doesn’t. The thornier relationship is between Betty and Veronica. You know, come to think of it, Betty and Jug are pals, but I don’t know that any of the other character combos work in this world without Archie in the middle as cement.
[/color][/size]CA: Speaking of, the biggest change for the characters came with Jughead, who gets an origin story involving his family’s fall from wealth into bankruptcy. How did you approach that, and why?
[/color][/size][/size][/size][/color]MW: It was all about the hat. I love Jughead. I love his one-step-removed perspective on everything in Riverdale. And I love the fact that he wears that stupid hat. The only way a high school kid can get away with wearing that hat each and every day is if he just doesn’t care what other people think of him, not one bit — a rare emotional maturity for a teenager.
[/font][/size][/color]So I asked myself why Jughead would be that bulletproof emotionally, and the answer I hit upon — which also plays on the real secret of the Archie comic as I see it, which is that it’s at heart a story about class warfare — was that Jughead had to learn the lesson young that it doesn’t matter what people think about you as long as you’re cool with yourself.
[/font][/size][/color]Showing that, as a boy, he was rich and thus surrounded by friends, and then was poor and most everyone turned away from him, cemented to Jug that if you’re going to survive in this world, you have to develop a thick skin when it comes to the slings and arrows of other kids.
[/font][/size][/color]CA: Does that give Jughead’s enmity towards Veronica a sharper, more personal edge?
[/font][/size][/color]MW: Oh, yes. I mean, in my mind, Jughead and Veronica have always been oil and water, and the only reason Veronica’s body hasn’t been found floating in the reservoir with Jughead’s fingerprints on her throat is because Jughead can’t really work up enough energy to care that much about anything other than food.
I don't know if I like the sound of this. Class warfare, wtf? I might make my reading hiatus on this book permanent.
« on: July 19, 2016, 01:55:06 am »
I'm sorry she's leaving, even though I'm not reading the reboot anymore she did a good job, who knows what they'll get next full time.
« on: July 08, 2016, 03:54:43 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.
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.
« on: July 08, 2016, 03:42:50 am »
here's my thought (not that you guys care, but whatever). I both agree and disagree with Musical Necrophilia. He/She/It makes a valid point when they say its not that good of a reboot. As do I agree with you daren, when it comes to the term "when" it dies. My thought is thus, what if ACP still did the reboot, but instead of having multiple floppies, they just make it all into one big digest, that they either release monthly, or bi-monthly (6 per year)? I personally think that would work. Plus, charge $10 to $15 per issue for it, (256 or so NEW pages of Stories) (Mmm Mmm Mmm)!
Love it! Please do this ACP. And make the stories Life with Kevin like.
I'd like it to happen but a lot of people wouldn't buy it because not everyone is into every reboot.
« on: July 06, 2016, 03:44:18 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.
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.
« on: July 06, 2016, 03:32:27 am »
WARNING REBOOT NEGATIVITY AHEAD
I told Musical Necromancer near the beginning of the shoutbox fight that I would answer his replies to me in a new thread so here it is if you're still reading.
MN: what was unsustainable is Keeping Archie the same and expecting that to save them forever...people these days want more from their comic books and archie wasn't delivering
I don't think they should have stayed exactly as they were but this is a huge divorcing step away from 75 years tradition, they could have tried something closer like hybrid classic Archie/Disney style art, the classic Archie artists probably would have done a good job with that. At least they could put that in the digests, most people would probably accept it as part of the main Archie continuity too, we can't say the same for the reboot stories, is there anyone who sees the reboot events as part of main Archie canon? THeres nothing wrong with that but I don't, I doubt most fans or ACP do either, when the art styles so changed it's hard to link them.
This leaves us fans in a strange place where the most dramatic emotional revelations that happened to the characters...never happened to the only versions of the characters that really matter in the long run. If we're going to find out Reggie has issues with his parents I want to find out in CLASSIC Archie where it means something, I mean think of your favorite touching or funny stories from classic Archie history, now imagine that instead of being classic Archie they were done in some AU reboot like the current titles. Suddenly they don't seem so special do they, because they're not happening to the characters who have experienced all the 75 years of Archie history that make the reboot events meaningful in the first place. Of course classic Archie can do its own stories about Reggie having family issues later on but by then it'll feel like a retread and the same for the other dramatic reboot moments. When this all began I was happy because I assumed it was going to be more of an adventure title with a narrower focus of the characters doing something specific like working for the Lodge company together or SOMETHING exploring new ground, instead it's just like regular Archie comics with more drama and much less humor.
comic book sales naturally decline after the first few issues it's the way of the industry it's not as huge as it once was so keeping steady sales is damn near impossible unless Your A Top Tier Superhero Book
If it's going to drop that fast then maybe it's not worth doing, the Jughead title is down to 9,000 something in shop sales last month down from 30,000 something for the first issue, the Archie title is down to 16,000 something from 100,000 something for the first issue and it's been just one year (less for Jughead). You think Fernando is just doing indie doodles but it won't be that long before those indie doodles will be outselling the reboots.
What are they going to follow this up with if (or lets face it, when) these reboots die? What titles can they try, I have no clue what direction they would go in now that they've dropped classic Archie almost completely from their regular titles, after the drastic move of the main reboot probably now anything else will feel anticlimactic even if it's actually better in quality. And Archie isn't like Marvel or other superhero companies, their universe isn't so wide and versatile that they can reboot many times and still find new angles that work.
« on: July 06, 2016, 02:35:53 am »
Great Vera scene, she's my favorite and you did her right!
« on: July 06, 2016, 02:17:28 am »
« on: July 06, 2016, 02:10:19 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:
Ah, 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 --"
I 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.
If 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.
On 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.
The 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.
On 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.
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.
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.
It'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.
« on: July 06, 2016, 01:47:46 am »
He 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
« on: July 04, 2016, 03:04:57 am »
You don't agree with that because you and Thrillho, despite the fact that you're insisting that there's no continuity between this story and "Beach Blanket Babysitters" are paradoxically insisting that there IS continuity between Veronica's character in THIS story, where she shows us (and Jellybean, who's forming a first impression of Veronica in this story) no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and OTHER stories where Veronica displays redeeming qualities that go into making up your composite mental picture of Veronica's character.
Saying an Archie story has continuity with the events of one story
isn't the same as saying it has continuity with characteristics repeated in many stories
. Thrillho and I only denied that one
story was supposed to be a sequel to another, the dates don't match up, they read well that way so I can see why it'd be your headcanon but headcanon is not canon. This is why I said earlier "I'm not counting continuity from any single story
here." But characteristics that have been shown in MANY stories (like the fact that Veronica has almost never been shown to be mean or iresponsible with children, in fact the opposite) do count. Are you really suggesting we should look at the characters as total blanks in this story with no memory of their repeat characteristics, thats silly. And then why are you saying things like "If Veronica fails to take care of her goldfish, well then, she just flushes it down the toilet and buys a new one, the same way she does with most things she tires of" and "No, she's talking from her usual selfish perspective. She'd rather not acknowledge that children exist in her world and have needs -- there's one sitting right next to her when she makes that insensitive comment. Isn't that the kind of chore that we usually have servants for?" Those are ideas you
formed from other stories than these.
So mentally, what you're saying is "That's ridiculous! We ALL know that Veronica isn't AS BAD AS SHE SEEMS in this story, so she can't possibly have done anything here to warrant making Jellybean not like her."
I didnt say Veronica can't possibly have done anything to warrant making Jellybean not like her, I said Jellybean disliked her just because of the goldfish comment which is not proof of Veronica being mean or irresponsible, if Veronica did anything else to justify Jellybean not liking her it's in your head not in the story.
Jellybean has NO composite picture of Veronica's character. All she knows of her in this first story where the two appear together is what's in THIS story, and NOTHING else. Not all the stuff YOU know about Veronica's character from other stories.
Well yeah in fact less than that, she's judging Veronica on one comment, that's why I pointed out toddlers are not the best judges of character. Adults know it doesn't make a person bad just to say "I'll stick to goldfish instead of having children, they're less work." If you were able to tell good people from bad when you were two years old you were a lot smarter than me, at that age I thought almost any stranger was scary as hell and my doctor must be a mad scientist because he wanted to stick a needle in me. The only reason Veronica shouldn't have taken Jellybean out is because it made Jellybean unhappy, that's enough reason not to make a kid do something unneeded even if their reasons for being unhappy are based on poor judgment, as they VERY often are in toddlers. but like I said Jellybean didnt show her feelings much about it.
Oh and if saying you don't want children (now or in the future) because bringing them up is too much work makes you rotten and irresponsible then that might include me.
As an aside, Betty's lapse in ethical judgment in this story can be put down to (as most of her infrequent lapses in good judgment can) the way that her competition with Veronica sometimes causes her to use poor judgment -- in this case, seeing Veronica's display of hubba-hubba goo-goo eyes when she spots Brad causes Betty to lose her better sense (knowing that once again, it looks like Veronica is going to try to grab Brad before Betty can even have a chance with him)
What was that thing you said earlier?Veronica is expected to be imperfect, so the severity of any ethical violations she commits is reduced, while Betty, on the other hand IS expected to be perfect, so the severity of any ethical violations SHE commits are treated that much more harshly.
Wow I did not think you would prove your own statement wrong so soon. So almost anything Betty does wrong is because Veronica manipulated her into doing it? Oh and then this:
Veronica has several stories like this, but she gets away with a lot because boys will give her a pass on her actual behavior due to her beauty, her wealth, and how impressive she looks to them in her expensive clothes.
You keep repeating this near groundless statement, the fact is Veronica hardly gets away with anything because her wealth and expensive clothes are partly what CAUSE a lot of people to magnify anything bad she does out of proportion, you being the prime example, I even remember seeing you said once you couldn't feel sympathy for Veronica because she's too rich. Well I guess I understand that, if I had read Archie comics growing up I would have found it hard to sympathize with Betty, Archie and Jughead because as middle class kids their families had far more luxury and money than mine and I would have wondered what they were whining about when they called themselves "poor" comparing themselves to Veronica. A teenagers family having more money than yours isn't a good reason to not give them sympathy though so I would have warmed up to them as I matured. Oh and name me these stories where boys excuse Ronnie because she's rich, I see far more where they bring up her money when they talk crap about her.
Seriously I don't know what it is with this hate-on you've got for Veronica, you so many times love to read the worst into her. Or you keep insisting she's at fault for every bad thing that happens or you say she deserves some punishment when she doesn't, for instance, when you thought that "Beach Blanket Babysitters" was a sequel to "Oh Nanny Boy" you crowed about Jellybean teaching her a lesson in "Babysitters" because of Veronica's actions in "Oh Nanny Boy" but Veronica was already punished in "Oh Nanny Boy," she doesn't need to be punished AGAIN for the same thing, but in your mind somehow she does. I wonder why, it can't be because she's mean because you dont have these issues with even meaner characters like Cheryl or Reggie and "they're only minor characters" cant be the reason because they're not so much more minor than Ronnie, especialy Reggie, that it would explain why you never talk this way about them and constantly do about Ronnie, it can't be just because she's rich either because their families are too. Frankly you remind me a little of those guys in my other post who talked about Al Hartley like he was the antichrist.
« on: July 03, 2016, 05:24:33 am »
See, now that's what I'd call mental gymnastics. You're trying to jump through hoops
My favorite pastime.
The Archie character names and likenesses are covered by the registered trademarks/copyrights of Archie Comic Publications, Inc. and are used with permission by this site. The Official Archie Comics website can be visited at www.archiecomics.com