Pet Peeves Series - #1 The Plucky Amateur

Everyone has certain pet peeves in life. Little insects of annoyance that burrow under your skin and just itch and itch and burn until you just can't take it anymore, trading in your annoyance for fury and finally exploding in a blaze of anger and frustration that can be likened to an atomic blast. Or you can just rant about it.

When it comes to storytelling everyone has certain pet peeves that keep burrowing away, mocking you with their beady little eyes. Sometimes it's a storyline that you've seen just too many times, sometimes it is a character that seems to serve no useful purpose other than to torture you with their presence, sometimes it's the least convincing deus ex machina ever but it just keeps getting reused anyway, whatever. As a result of my ever-increasing frustration of seeing the same crap used over and over again I've decided to being listing some of my peeves in an effort to vent my frustrations like so much noxious gas.

Pet Peeve #1 - The Plucky Amateur

Everyone has heard/read this bit of dialogue at some point:

Plucky Amateur: "I'm coming with you."

Hero/Heroine: "No, you're not."

Plucky Amateur: "[completely unconvincing argument]/This involves me, too!"

Hero/Heroine: *caves*

*sigh* This happens all too often in movies/tv/books/etc. You have some sort of danger that must be faced. There are anywhere between 2 to a whole group of characters in the scene including a Hero/Heroine and the Plucky Amateur. Likely, the Hero/Heroine has gained that role because they have some sort of experience with what they're doing, either gained throughout the course of the film or else beforehand. If you need a gun to take this baddie down, then they have a certain degree of firearms aptitude. If stealth is required then they have it in spades. That sort of thing. Basically, it is implied that the Hero/Heroine is someone who knows what they're doing.

On the flip side of this coin we have the Plucky Amateur who does NOT know what they're doing. They can't fire a gun, they can't sword fight, they don't know the proper ritual or spell, they can't protect themselves in any manner. If they had to go up against the baddie all by themselves then the universe within the story would be S.O.L. Worst of all, they're dragging around some huge sense of entitlement. They think that regardless of their severe lack of knowledge, experience, and expertise they should still be allowed to follow the Hero/Heroine into battle to "help" them defeat the danger that threatens them all.

More often than not in these situations, the Plucky Amateur is a child (sometimes made into a protege after they save the day) or else a female character (usually inserted as an example of "grrl power" or as an ill-conceived/forced love interest). They end up being a "help" after all because they've been written in for that reason. The "help" in question either comes from them magically gaining the proper skills they need through, I don't know, osmosis or something or else somehow managing to foul up in just the right way that it happens to save the day and "hey, how 'bout that?"

The problem with the Plucky Amateur scenario, though, is that it requires too much suspension of disbelief. You're asked by the storyteller to accept that this completely incapable character could just randomly save the day and, what's more, you're asked to believe that someone as experienced/knowledgeable as the Hero/Heroine would willingly allow a rank amateur to tag along in a hugely dangerous situation.

Recently, the CW show Supernatural has struggled with their own Plucky Amateur character. Joanna Beth "Jo" Harvelle is the daughter of Ellen who runs Harvelle's Roadhouse, a regular hangout for Hunters (those who fight the supernatural evils on the show) and their ilk where they can swap cases, information, or just lay low and get drunk. The Roadhouse acts as an information hub for the Hunters, sort of like their central intelligence office. For Sam and Dean Winchester, the show's protagonists, Ellen has become one of their main contacts to go to for new cases or information and, though she sometimes seems intimidated by what they're capable of, she's not afraid to throw her weight around as is the case in the episode "No Exit."

"No Exit" is Jo's first significant appearance in the series. In the two prior episodes in which she appears, Jo's character is shown to be:
a) plucky
b) Ellen's daughter
c) a bartender and
d) not very good with weapons
In her first appearance she holds Dean at gunpoint with a shotgun but, as he demonstrates for her, she's holding it in just the wrong spot because he's able to grab it away from her easily.

When "No Exit" opens Ellen and Jo are arguing loudly (well, yelling) as the Winchesters walk into the roadhouse. Apparently, Jo wants to be a Hunter and Ellen is telling her to go back to school. The boys end up taking the case and leaving Ellen to try and wrangle her daughter. Yet, when they get to the haunted apartment building detailed in Jo's notes, she arrives and finesses her way into working the case with the boys. Sam seems to not care much either way but Dean points out that she's an amateur and shouldn't be getting mixed up in this stuff. However, when Ellen calls to see if Dean's seen Jo he caves, lying to Ellen, one of his few acquaintances, in the process. As the episode progresses, Jo fiddles with her daddy's hunting knife, revealing to the audience that Bill Harvelle was a Hunter and he died when she was a little girl. Later, while the three of them are investigating the building, she throws out some lines about how Grrls can Hunt, too! and that she just wants to do this to be "closer to [her] father." Dean has thankfully regained enough of his senses by this time to point out to her that "this isn't a Gender Studies thing" and that while he's sure a woman could Hunt just as well as a man he doesn't think an amateur should thrust themselves into this kind of danger, especially if they have a chance at a "normal" life. Thank you, Dean!

See, the elder Winchester has a point. Dean and Sam have been trained for almost their entire lives to be Hunters. They've been packing heat since elementary school and following their father around the country since Sam was a baby chasing down supernatural beings and killing them before they kill more people like their mother. Though it may not always seem so because we see the show from their P.O.V., the Winchesters are really good at what they do. The fact that they've managed to stay alive and out of jail this long is evidence of that. And the thing is, even though they're among the best in the "business", they get into nasty scrapes and all sorts of "just barely got out alive" scenarios. Jo is a student and a bartender. Her Hunting knowledge is secondhand from the Roadhouse patrons, Ellen, and the eccentric genius that crashes on their pool table. Yes, she said that she has a knife collection (likely inherited from her father) and can probably handle one fairly well with a target. But she doesn't even know where to hold a shotgun on someone. She's never had any hands-on experience. She doesn't have any training or actually know what she's doing but she wants to go in solo to show the boys what she can do. Compare this to John Winchester, the boys' father, who didn't know much about the supernatural when he started Hunting but was a Vietnam vet ex-Marine with several medals to his credit.

Arguments aside, Jo ends up going off on her own and gets captured (which was obviously going to happen since the spirit was established as attacking young blondes like her) and the boys have to save her. However, first they have to use her as bait so they can trap the spirit, something that Jo's not really cool with now that she knows how scary this job is but she brought it on herself. Ellen, who Dean has admitted Jo's whereabouts to, shows up and the four of them have to drive back to the Roadhouse in dead silence.

Jump forward to the episode three weeks ago, "Born Under a Bad Sign", in which Sam is possessed. Midway through the episode, Demon!Sam heads up to the Roadhouse alone where Jo is closing up the bar by herself. Despite the fact that at the moment they aren't speaking and despite Demon!Sam's highly suspicious behavior, Jo lets him stay for a drink. Even after she notices the unusual mark on his arm and he gives the Lamest Excuse Ever she still lets him stay. Even worse, she makes the profoundly stupid decision to turn her back on the rather large, very suspicious, and extremely dangerous Hunter, thus opening herself up to attack. Jo is, once again, bait - this time the demon's bait for Dean as she is the closest Winchester contact at the moment - and manages to sit through both his mockery with her and his argument with Dean before she realizes that he is, in fact, possessed (she only realizes this after Dean douses him with holy water). Later on, after Demon!Sam has gone to threaten the next closest Winchester contact, Dean goes to chase after him and Jo says "I'm going, too." *headdesk* Luckily, Dean's senses are once again at the fore and he tells her that no, she's not. What makes this version of the scenario different from "No Exit", though, is that Dean succeeds in getting her to stay behind. A Hero character tells the Plucky Amateur that they're not coming with and it actually takes. And thank goodness for that because if it weren't for the demon's next mark, the even-more-knowledgeable-than-the-boys Bobby, Dean might not have exorcised Sam. If Jo had tagged along it would've been highly likely that either the demon would've just killed her or else she would've been much worse for wear and possibly in the way.

The way that Jo, our Plucky Amateur, has been established as a character means that she can never be a strong female character - she blew her chance. Jo should just stick to being a student and she should know that being a student doesn't make her weak as a woman. She's basing her own self-worth on a memory of her father and the Hunters that frequent her family's bar. In the process, she's also rejecting her mother. She says she wants to Hunt to prove her worth to the bar patrons and to be closer to her dead father. In so doing, she's rejecting her alive mother and rejecting the possibility that her expertise in life lies elsewhere. I don't feel like less of a woman or less of a person because I don't work in computers like several of my male acquaintances. I have my own area of expertise in which to excel that has nothing to do with them. Likewise, Jo shouldn't feel like this is her only route in life. Sam and Dean are Hunters because they've trained their whole lives as Hunters. That's what they do. And neither of them can just walk away because, as has been established, several of the supernatural baddies out there have their number and the Hunting would just (and has) come to them. If anything, it demeans Jo as a woman to have her flit about the "menfolk" trying to be something she's not simply because she believes it's the only way to assert herself in this patriarchal world as an equal citizen. Ellen commands attention in a room because she's a strong character. Jo cannot escape your attention because she's an irritating twit and you can't ignore her.

I'm grateful to the show's creators that although they have a Plucky Amateur they're trying to resist the urge to utilize her as a deus ex machina. But it is, nevertheless, a dangerous line they're walking and so we must wait and see what they decide to do with her in the future.

Then there's Ava.

Unlike Jo, Ava Wilson is a favorite of most SPN fans although to date she has only appeared in one episode. A "normal" civilian in every other aspect, it turns out that she has 'death visions' just like Sam and at the beginning of "Hunted" she has a vision of Sam's death. Using the information in her vision, Ava tracks down Sam and tries to convince him not to go anywhere near the place in her vision. She doesn't have any grand designs of becoming a Hero, she just sees the opportunity to prevent someone from dying and tries to do what she thinks is right. Though Sam has her distract a therapist/psychologist during one scene while he gets information he never brings her into a situation he knows is dangerous and she does not try to insist. It is only at the end of the episode when Sam is about to go to the location in her 'death vision' that she tries to go along simply because she has that knowledge of what will happen and wants to do her best to prevent it. Sam convinces her that he will be fine, that he will heed her warnings, and that she should just go back home for her own safety since she doesn't really know what she's getting into and he wants her to stay safe just as much as she wants him to be.

Sadly, when the boys' return to check on Ava she's not there. Instead, they find her fiance dead in a pool of blood along with her engagement ring and some sulfur on the windowsill. This is an ambiguous ending because while it implies a supernatural cause of death it is uncertain whether this was the work of a demon or if it was Ava herself, either possessed or turned evil.

Ava was a spirited female character just like Jo. She was also an amateur, just like Jo (even more so in that she had never known about the whole Hunting thing until she followed her vision). Ava tends to have more fans than Jo because she acts more like a real person and has realistic reactions to situations that people can relate to. Ava succeeds where Jo does not as a character because in "Hunted" she didn't try to be someone she's not. She wanted to help out in any way she could, wanted to prevent the people in her dreams from dying, but she also wanted to marry her fiance and live her life in peace. She wants to be a decent person and she wants to be the best Ava she can be as opposed to the best Sam Winchester she can be. She got swept up in the supernatural stuff against her will but she did the best with it she could and she let the professionals take care of the rest. Jo needs to learn to be the best Jo she can be and stop trying to be Bill Harvelle or one of the guys at her family's bar.

Granted, this is just a bare minimum comparison of the characters. I could go into more details of "Why Ava Rocks" (a.k.a. "Civilians on SPN Can Be Awesome, Too") or "Why Jo is Lame" (a.k.a. "an Immature Amateur Several Years Younger Than Dean Does Not a Love Interest Make") but that would be getting off task. What I'm really getting at here is that well-written characters trump cheap constructs and that if you're going to insist on having a Plucky Amateur then they had better have a damn good reason for being in that baddie showdown because they cannot instantaneously learn how to defeat the baddie by sheer force of spunky attitude.

What the hell is "canon", anyway?

A friend of mine recently brought up an interesting question. How do you know what is considered to be 'official canon' in a fictional universe when there are several supplementary materials and/or the universe spans more than one form of media? Not a simple question, not an easy answer.

First, a little refresher glossary of terms:

The literary meaning of the term canon, as I use it here, refers to what within a series of related fiction counts as "authoritatively correct" to the overarching story and history of the fictional universe. It is essentially the same principle that is used in the Christian religion in terms of Biblical writings - those that are considered "canonical" are official holy scriptures whereas those that are "apocryphal" have questionable authenticity or authorship and are therefore not considered the official Word.

Example: Turk and J.D. from the show Scrubs went to college together. This is considered canon because it has been established several times both via flashback and the characters themselves acknowledging it.

Within the literary universe there is another term, fanon, that has sprung up in the world of fandom. "Fanon", much like canon, refers to facts and details about a particular fiction that are generally accepted amongst the audience of that particular work. It differs from canon, however, in that fanon consists of material that has never been officially established within the canon. Fanon usually arises as a result of the fandom's need to "fill in the blanks" of a particular universe. Most often, fanon is simply the audience supplying details that make the most sense in terms of canon but for some reason or another have never been touched on within the actual canonical writings. Material can also be considered fanon if it comes from a supplemental material that has never been officially claimed as "canon" but the audience holds it to be true, anyway. It is not unusual for fanon to be eventually accepted by a creator as canon although it is not unusual for an author to clarify a detail in later canon simply to eliminate the fanon from the record.

Example: Though a description and gender were never given for the character, much of the Harry Potter fandom took it to be fanon that Blaise Zabini was, in fact, a white male (though there was a healthy amount of debate against this). In book 6, a description and gender are finally given and while the fanon that Zabini was male was now proved to be canon, the fanon that he was white was disproved as it has now been canonically established that he is black.

To a lesser extent, personal canon is what each individual fan holds to be true, their own personal mix of canonical and fanonical beliefs.

To add further confusion to the mix, retroactive continuity, or retcon, is the alteration of past canon into a new form. Retconning generally occurs when an author wants to change some of the history or back story within a fictional universe. Sometimes this is for the purpose of clarifying some conflicting events or details, sometimes this is simply to allow the author the opportunity to completely alter something they did not like within the current story. Retconning is most widely known within comics, superhero comics specifically, where both DC and Marvel have been known to completely change characters, histories, or universes at the drop of a hat both to make things fit together more consistently and to completely change a character's image.

Examples: Retconning can occure slowly over time. Superman originally only had the power to leap very high and did not develop the ability to fly until later. Over time the writers slid more and more powers into his arsenal but they never came right out and declared the change.

Retconning can also occur in one fell swoop. In the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" crossover event in the DC Comics universe, many loose ends were eliminated, characters and alternate worlds killed off, and things were generally juggled around in an attempt to simplify the DC canon.

This all may seem fairly clean-cut but problems arise as a fictional universe sprawls out more and more. Often, when you have many supplemental materials floating about in various forms of media beyond the original canon it is difficult to determine what "counts" and what doesn't. If creators all came out and declared one thing or another to be officially part of the original canon and dismissed the rest then it would make things much easier. The difficulty lies in that authors/creators don't always come right out and declare what's what. Also, sometimes there is more than one author or creator with conflicting ideas on what is canon, which is when you begin to see various camps spring up within fandom for those in favor of one author or the other as being the last-word authority on these things.

Basically, you have to make do with what you have and learn to live in a world full of fanwankery. Fanwank refers to a long, drawn out discussion/argument within fandom. The wank is usually an attempt to clarify canon and justify plot holes or continuity errors but it can also degenerate into a petty, ultra-geeky argument complete with slinging of personal insults. The ultimate purpose of fanwank, however, is to establish that the author/creator had complete knowledge of what they were doing when they wrote something that seems out of step with canon and to explain how it could possibly fit in with everything else.

Before you go wanking away, however, here are some basic guidelines to follow in terms of what can ultimately be considered "canon":

1) If the author/creator declares something to be canon then it is. Bottom line. Example: Generally a comic book adaptation or novelization of a TV show or movie is not considered canon. Neither are ongoing series in those media based on the original canon. However, if the creator of the original canon comes right out and declares them to be canonical then they are and all subsequent canonical material must take all of those works into consideration as part of the universe.

2) If an original pilot episode for a TV show is rejected and a new pilot is subsequently made and picked up then the second version is canon. Anything that has been changed from the first version to the second is considered to be a complete retcon of the original work and is therefore held to be canonical. The first version was like a first draft that was rejected. Example: There were actually two pilots originally made for the television series Star Trek. The first one was rejected and so Roddenberry altered some details and submitted the second one which was then picked up. The first one was rejected and now only exists as a special feature on the DVDs and is therefore NOT canon. It has been retconned out of existance and should be treated as such.

3) In terms of a film based on a TV show or vice versa: if both were made/written by the original creator then any changes made in the second incarnation are considered retcons of the first and are therefore canonical. Even if there are no changes, the second incarnation is considered canonical. Examples: There are a few alterations between the television show Firefly and the subsequent film Serenity. Both were created/written by Joss Whedon and therefore any changes made in Serenity are now considered retcons of things that didn't work in Firefly and are therefore canonical. Just as well, the film X-Files: Fight the Future is to be considered an extended episode in the middle of the regular X-Files show continuity because both were the work of Chris Carter.

4) In the case that rules 1 & 3 cannot be applied then different media incarnations of a text are considered to be alternate universes that exist unto themselves. For example, a book series and a television series are considered separate canons, a "bookverse" and a "TVverse". The one that came first is usually considered the "main" universe while any others are considered alternate or supplemental universes. The main "verse" for The Dresden Files is the book series itself, the main canon. However, the TV series of The Dresden Files is considered to have its own self-contained canon that, while it exists separate from the book series, is still considered "authoritatively correct." Each is independent of the other and each is considered a canon in its own right.

• addendum: In the event that an alternate mediaverse fits in with the main canon and is able to exist as a supplemental material without conflicting with the original text then that verse is to be considered canon until proven or declared otherwise. Example: the forthcoming comic book based on the television series Supernatural has not been declared as official canon. However, series creator Eric Kripke has stated that the comic will focus mainly on John Winchester and not his adult sons. This implies that the comic will be able to serve as backstory for the TV series, touching on events that happened before the show takes place and focusing on characters other than the show's main two. Therefore it is not likely to conflict with the main canon of the show and is also quite likely to be able to serve as background for the show. Thus it can be considered canon until stated otherwise. However, any disparities that arise between the comic and the show should be noted and the show should always be considered the ultimate canon and final word of the text.
  

Even with these rules at hand it can still be tricky to determine what is canon and what isn't. The best you can do, outside of asking the creator(s) themselves (which is somewhat easier in this day and age what with the internet and conventions), is go with what makes the most sense to you, what fits together best in terms of continuity with the fewest discrepancies. Authors are not infallible. Sometimes they miss out on continuity errors that the audience spots easily. And sometimes you need to goose canon along a little so that it all makes more sense. At any rate, take these 4 Rules to heart before you jump into a major fanwank and always bring your crash helmet.

Why You Should Give "Supernatural" a Chance

Well, for starters, it has made me respect Jared Padalecki as an actor.

I know.

In all seriousness, though, I strongly urge you all (read: am poking you with my brain) to sit down a watch a few episodes. Give the show a chance, you'll see it's worth it.

But April, you ask, I don't like whiny teenagers or characters that live in idyllic small towns in CutesyName, U.S.A. - why the hell would I watch something on the CW Network? Good question.

A recent convert to the show myself, I have since found describing the show to be a bit tricky. "Well, it's like The X-Files meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer but with less teen angst."
"You see, it's like Bonnie and Clyde vs. demons and stuff."
"Actually, it's more like a competent version of Hank and Dean from The Venture Bros. on a road trip fighting evil supernatural stuff instead of costumed villains and...and...well, it's effing good."

Rather than trying to reduce it down to some gimmicky little tagline I'll say this: It's about two 20-something brothers, Dean and Sam Winchester, road-tripping across the country and fighting the forces of evil and not-so-evil-but-bad-nonetheless. A demon killed their mother in a particularly horrific manner by a demon when Dean was 4 and Sam was an infant, so their father raised them on the road as a family of "hunters", tracking down supernatural beings that are attacking innocents and putting them to rest/destroying them.

The series actually starts off with Sam having been away at college for 3 years seeking normalcy. He is thrust back into the hunter's life when his girlfriend, Jess, is killed off in the same manner as his mother. Much of the show revolves around the boys' relationship and them coming to terms with their bizarre upbringing. That's not to say that there isn't plenty of crazy supernatural stuff going down in the meantime as the boys travel from town to town doing their best to save people while living in crappy hotels and scraping to get by. Dean and Sam are more heroes than other characters of their ilk because they aren't paid for their work and they have made the conscious decision to do what they do. They seek out the cases and piece things together on their own, resorting to things like credit card fraud and pool hustling to make ends meet.

If you've read all this and are still thinking "but it's the CW Network" then bear with me, please.

Everything I listed above is what initially piqued my interest in the show. However, what makes me stick with Supernatural is the quality.

- The two main actors, Jensen Ackles (Dean) and Jared Padalecki (Sam), have not only improved over time but when they're called up to the plate they have both proven that they can hit it out of the park. Not only do they come off as convincing brothers but, when thrust into a dangerous situation, you actually believe that they are capable. Both actors understand the subtle nuances that are required to get the characters right and have exhibited the ability to remain in character even when their character is posing as someone else (as the Winchesters so fairly regularly). They manage to convey gobs of character history in the smallest scenes with the least amount of dialogue. You don't need the characters to come right out and tell you how ingrained the boys' training and experience is because you can see signs of it in everything they do. You can see how they're more or less comfortable with the more grotesque parts of their job (like digging up a corpse). Rather than the characters explaining it, both actors are able to convey in a few words or movements whole ideas to one another, to the point where the audience believes that they can have whole conversations without hardly saying a word.

- None of the characters are allowed to rest on a cliche. Dean is set up in the beginning as the more "macho" brother and Sam as the "sensitive" one. However, Dean and Sam often come off more as a Mulder and Scully style duo. Dean acts macho but his emotions are always bubbling on the surface and rather than being completely hard he has a light-hearted sense of humor. Dean is more likely to wear a weapon 24/7 but he's also the first to befriend "wackos" and outcasts. Sam seems like the more sensitive type because he'll insist on discussing his feelings but in reality he is more hardened emotionally than his brother and sees most outsiders, including the "wacko" types, as roadblocks in his way. When they have run-ins with the police, Sam will act more annoyed than anything.

- Though the show is mainly from the perspective of the two boys, the writers are not afraid to show us an outsider's perspective of what they do. We actually get to see that the police mostly see them as scary, dangerous "para-military survivalist" types. The show isn't afraid to take a step back and say "hey, you see these boys as heroes, as two guys trying to do the right thing but to others they look like traveling psycho-killers."

- The characterization on the show is blessedly, blessedly consistent. And yet, the characters are allowed to evolve and change over the course of the series as the result of various events. They don't just drop things after the next season picks up. They run with it and see how the characters are effected by various happenings and how that effects their relationships and how they do what they do.

- Parallels. SPN is excellent about paralleling events in one episode with a prior episode to show you how things have changed or stayed the same or even how the characters have learned from past events. Parallel scenes are also used to highlight certain aspects of the overall plot or certain truths about characters without having to come right out and explain everything.

- This show never talks down to its audience. It expects you to remember past events. It expects you to understand what is going on without having to do tons and tons of explanation. Yet, at the same time, it is willing to explain the little things that often get overlooked in most genre shows. It doesn't rest on cheap plot devices, there's always a reason for whatever is going on. None of the characters make a move without it making sense to the audience why they did that.

- The boys actually go to where the action is. This isn't a show where the monsters and bad things just always happen to conveniently be in the vicinity of the heroes, where there always seems to be a murder right where the main characters are. The Winchesters actually seek out these cases and go to the them instead.

- Unlike many shows that involve humans vs. demonic entities and various seedier Christian mythology, this show has proven that it isn't afraid of taking the topic of religion head-on. They are not afraid to declare a character's faith or lack of faith and have them discuss it rather than just allow the audience to project their own beliefs onto them.

- The balance of humor, creepiness, and drama is just right. None of the monsters seem hokey or over-designed. One of the best things about the demons and critters on the show is that they are very subtle, often just humans that look slightly wrong somehow. They don't need tons of make-up and doo-dads to make a creepy scene happen. At the same time, none of the drama feels heavy-handed. As someone who doesn't care for teen drama (or most OMG!drama TV) or whiny-ness, I have to say that the drama in this show is quite compelling because it feels real. The characters feel more like real people and less like the whiny plastic people you generally tend to get on CW-type shows. You actually care for them because their angst and their man-pain is compelling rather than irritating. Best of all, through all of the horrors that these boys are dragged through on a regular basis, the show retains a sense of humor - both a sense of humor about itself and the normal silly rapport you would expect from two brothers who spend as much time in the car together as the Winchesters.

The show is solid, a real great ride. The characters and storylines are compelling, the new take on mixed mythology is interesting and often very original, and the pace hardly ever slows down. And the acting is better than The Dresden Files. Give it a try and you'll see it's worth it.

Brief Thoughts: Tim Drake in "Two-Face Strikes Twice!"

Two-Face Strikes Twice! is a comic that I normally never would have picked up if it weren't for the internet. Published in '93, the comic is double-sided and two-volumed, meaning you read half and then flip it over and read the other half. Book 1 has the first parts of two different stories, Book 2 has the second half of each story. Since I have only been able to get my hands on Book 1 I'll only discuss that one. The story concerns Harvey Dent tormenting his ex-wife, Gilda Dent, but mostly serves as an excuse to trot out that giant Two-Face coin prop a couple more times. The story itself leaves much to be desired but it doesn't matter so much for this because the artwork is what originally caught my eye.

Each of the stories in the comic are drawn in a different style. Part one is in a more classic, Golden Age style while part two is done in the painted style seen above by Daerick Gross. Though the art style is not my favorite aesthetically the blocking is quite interesting. The left-hand scan at the beginning of this article is the one that originally made me track down the comic. While at first glance it might seem like a standard scene inside the Batcave it is Tim Drake's body language that has caught my eye. As you can see, Bruce has decided to go out and follow a lead on Two-Face and is discussing this with Tim, who was already in the cave when Bruce arrived downstairs. In the first panel, you can see that Tim is in a casual pose. His back is more or less straight, his head is slightly tilted, his feet are kicked under the bench and his hands are just flopped in his lap. In this same panel, Bruce is starting to get changed out of his civilian clothes and into his uniform. In the next panel, Tim is pointedly looking away from Bruce, and though he is still sitting up straight the tone of his body language has altered significantly. Now Tim's ankles are crossed, though his knees are still spread, and his hands are purposefully placed in front of his crotch, the left one holding the right in a somewhat nervous, uncertain gesture. Bruce, in this same panel, has stripped down to his underwear and is adjusting his jock strap, still not looking at Tim. In the final panel, Tim is looking back at Bruce, his chin is a little higher set but his body is now leaning against the wall behind him. Most significantly, his arms are crossed with his hands gripping his own upper-arms in a hug, another nervous, and this time self-protective, gesture. Yet, in contrast, his feet are now planted on the ground in front of him and his legs are spread wide, his reclining position now subconsciously presenting his crotch to Batman. Batman, meanwhile, is completely dressed and adjusting his cowl. In three panels we have managed to establish certain things about their characters that have nothing to do with the dialogue. First, we have established that Batman is far too engrossed in his own thoughts to pay any attention to Tim beyond basic conversation. Second, we have established that Tim is both a healthy adolescent male and also subconsciously sending Bruce signals that he is attracted to him.

Later, on page 14 (as seen in the image on the right - my apologies for the poor photo quality), Tim has been sent by Batman to a clinic where Two-Face and his hench-twins are up to no good. While Tim is checking the place out from the outside, Batman sneaks up on him, per his usual form. Except, Tim completely jumps out of his skin when he realizes Batman is there. Generally, slightly startled is the most you would expect out of someone Batman knows really well but Tim looks completely rattled. The dark knight is depicted as a mere shadow in the background of this panel while Tim takes up most of the foreground in a feminine-coded pose that is seen quite often in depictions of women in comic books but hardly ever for men. He has what is called "S-spine" going on which means that his back is curved so that his butt is sticking out and his chest is puffed up with his ribcage sticking out oddly to emphasize a tiny waistline. His arms are bent and raised level with his chest in a softer pose and his legs are elongated and have more of a feminine curve. His face has a soft jawline and his mouth is open in a gasp with a more definite pink tone added to his lips that there was before. All of this contributes a pose that looks as though the artist copied it from an image of a female character somewhere.

Now it is interesting to see a Tim Drake displaying sexualized body language towards Bruce and then, when he appears next in the comic as Robin, striking a typical pose for a woman in mainstream comics. (In fact, the sort of pose that many women grow tired of seeing in mainstream comics because, really, who pushes their butt and chest out simultaneously like that on a regular basis? It's not good for your spine.) There are two main readings that you can take away from these panels.

The first possible reading, the one that immediately jumps to mind for me, is a sexually anxious Tim Drake. When he first appears he is sitting in the Batcave watching Bruce change and it makes him nervous and uncertain of himself. He struggles internally, possibly without really realizing what he is struggling with, over his sexual interest in Bruce and his need to go hide somewhere and be embarrassed. Tim is still a teenager coming to grips with his newfound sexuality and his mind is easily distracted by it. When Batman sneaks up on him later he is more startled than he would normally be because the earlier scenario is the last time he saw him and it is still fresh in his mind; that level of discomfort, uncertainty, and embarrassment has not yet left.

The second possible reading (and the more likely one, if I'm being honest) is that the artist did not really realize what he was doing. He probably meant to show through Tim's body language either his mental puzzling through what Bruce was saying or else his embarrassment at sitting there while Bruce changes because while I would imagine they change into their uniforms in close proximity on a regular basis (time is of the essence) and have seen each other in various states of undress during medical exams Tim is still an adolescent and hasn't known Bruce too terribly long. Although this does not explain the startled "S-spine" pose later on I guess I can't complain too much about a guy being drawn in one of those awful poses for once instead of a woman. I suppose it would help my interpretation of Tim's blocking if I knew a little more about the artist and could guess at his intentions. However, I couldn't find much information on the web, or at least nothing very helpful for this analysis.

So what am I getting at with all of this? No, I'm not really declaring that Tim Drake is gay or in love with Bruce. They've established him as straight in the comics and I can accept that reading and move on. What I think I'm really saying is that blocking is everything and subtext is just as important as text. Different people tend to glean different meanings from a piece of media. When you combine images with the words several more layers of text and subtext are introduced. Delicious, flaky layers. Like a puff pastry. Mmmmm.

Comic Books: How Do You Rescue an Industry From Itself?

You know, these days the comic book and graphic novel industry is reminding me more and more of Broadway musicals. Bear in mind that this is not a compliment (neither is it a dig at musicals in general). Hear me out on this one.

For starters, both comics and Broadway musicals are a limited-access commodity. No matter what New Yorkers would have you think, not everyone gets to go to a Broadway musical. A musical starts out life languishing in development (part of which takes place during the show's first run - Weber says, a musical is never really complete). If it is lucky, a few years later it will be playing in some big-run theatres in New York. In all likelihood it could die right there before it even has a chance to be nominated for a Tony but the lucky few (and I do mean FEW get to go on). After playing for quite some time in New York the show either ends or does one of two things: goes to London or tours the U.S. Touring shows make it a little easier for the general public to see a show without having to go to New York. Yet, it will still cost you insane amounts of money, you will likely have to drive several towns or even a state over to see it, and if your venue is far enough down on the tour schedule you could be getting the 2nd- or 3rd-string cast. Of course, your other option is to just buy the cast album but that diminishes the experience by eliminating not only the visual aspect but huge chunks of plot.

If this isn't starting to sound familiar to you comic geeks yet, give it time. Comic books and graphic novels are just as much a limited-access commodity as musicals. Granted, there's a graphic novel/trade paperback section in the big chain Borders and Barnes & Noble bookstores these days but even that pales in comparison to the shelves and shelves they keep of Japanese manga for the teenage set. Comic books, trades, and graphic novels are still mostly relegated to those garish, often musty neighborhood comic shops. Shops which are few and far between in most locales. Shops which are often (though not always) run by those guys from High Fidelity. Even if you do find a comic shop "near" you (less than a day's drive, let's say) there's no guarantee that they'll even have the titles you're looking for or be willing to put it on order for you like a bookstore would. If the comic(s) you seek is/are in fact there, it will not be the most affordable purchase of your life. Remember when comics cost 12 cents? Neither do I. They sure as hell don't now. Trades and graphic novels can range anywhere from $17 to $100 (if you count DC's Absolute series which is the comic book equivalent of purchasing the Lord of the Rings extended trilogy). I think the cheapest comic book I have right now was listed as $2.25 but the store charged me $3-something. It doesn't sound as expensive as some things in this world but take that and multiply it by every monthly/weekly title you want to keep up with and see how much it costs. It reminds me of those exercises in health class where we calculated how much a cigarette habit could cost you in a lifetime. Is that nicotine high really worth it? Is that comics habit really worth it? Well, that's the problem. More and more it doesn't feel like it is. Many people take the cast album route and skip the regular runs of comics to wait for the trades for that ever so slight discount. Problem is, not everything gets a trade and not every trade collects the entirety of a storyline. Sometimes chunks of plot or subplot get left on the cutting room floor.

The two biggest problems plaguing the mainstream comics industry right now are readership and quality. The bottom line is that there simply isn't much of a readership. While every other avenue of pop culture out there has millions of people attracted to the most popular artifacts they produce, comics companies are letting themselves be satisfied with mere 6 digits at the highest tier and 5 for everything else. There are billions of people in the world, this is not really acceptable. The industry hasn't been showing enough interest in pumping up those numbers. They need to be bringing in outside experts to show them how to not only make comics more available in all markets but also how to market themselves properly. The problem is that the vast majority of people still have the same image of comic books that they had in the 1950s. The greater problem is that many people working in the industry do, too. Or else they are only creating the comics for themselves and not for the audience which is a fool's errand. Graphic storytelling is a remarkable corner of the ART world. In theory, it takes engaging writing and combines it with compelling art to achieve one of the most important things in the world - it tells a story. Stories define who we are and link humanity together. This graphic form of storytelling should be nurtured and encouraged. Great things can be accomplished with just a little bit of ink and paper.

Sadly, the quality of mainstream comics - the classic and all-important superhero comics in particular - has declined much over the years. Some people would argue that it was never much to begin with but that simply is not the case. True, much of the original superhero tales over the years were insanely wacky and bizarre but at least they were original. At least they showed some interest in consistent characterization. At least the writers honestly cared about what they were doing. Comics were never a lucrative business. Writers and artists got into the business because they cared about telling these stories. Superheroes are merely a modern version of characters and themes that have been with us since ancient times. At the moment in comics it seems as though the big companies have less interest in good storytelling and more interest in being more "badass" than the other guy or trying to use "shock" stories the draw readership back from "the other guys" the whole time working within the same small group of readers and constantly alienating them while they cling on, hoping things will get better again one day. "Quick, we need to rape and/or murder a character (bonus points if they are female and/or a token minority) and retcon a bunch of stuff or else have everyone fight each other so we can draw lots of people per page and get every issue out late!" Wee. That certainly instills confidence in the industry. Never mind their constant delusions of grandeur, like their perpetual notion that kids are still reading comics (I'm sure there are a smattering of them here and there but the most of the kids out there actually reading comics right now are reading Japanese manga comics) and therefore on occasion they can blame foolhardy editorial decisions on the old "think of the children" saw. I remain unconvinced.

So then how do so many people manage to be familiar with Spider-Man and Roxy Hart? How is it that there are still Batman pjs in the Penny's catalog and Hulk underoos at Target? Movies, that's how. People have been flocking to movies based on comics (in some cases, whether they realize it or not) in droves. That would be why studios have been jumping at the chance to transfer just about every comic they can to the big screen. That is also why Joss Whedon is working feverishly away on a Wonder Woman script right at this moment. However, an audience familiar with comic book-based characters via film and television is NOT the same as the overall comic book audience. You see, if you make a movie or even a TV show based on comic book characters or if you film a theatrical version of a Broadway musical then people who otherwise would have no access to those mediums before now have access in an affordable and wide-spread manner. Let's put it this way: a kid can easily go see Spider-Man 2 in the theater with Ma & Pa or see it on DVD at a price Ma & Pa can agree to. Almost everyone in America has access to a movie theater as well as millions of people all over the world (heck, most big movies count their success in terms of domestic and foreign box office gross). Now that the kid has seen the movie he wants everything relating to Spider-Man because he's just the coolest guy around. So Ma & Pa proceed to buy him the video games, the pajamas, the Underoos, the lunchbox, and everything else they can get their grubby little consumer hands on. That's the way our culture works. Yet the kid can't get the actual comic books that Spidey originates from because there is nowhere nearby that s/he can get them. S/he would get the trades but those cost more than his/her allowance and s/he can just as easily sit in the bookstore and read them there. What's more, society is still out there telling him/her that comics aren't for him/her, either they're for "babies" or their content is just too "mature" (which is somewhat ironic since the level of writing in those "mature" titles is quite often the farthest thing from mature).

So where am I going with this whole tangential rant? Right here: Yo, mainstream American comics! Yeah, you with the capes. Seek out new talent. Improve the quality of writing and art. Stop trying to bail yourselves out with stunt stories. Try to improve characters rather than killing them off. And, most importantly, change up your business practices. Don't be satisfied with those 6-digit readerships because you don't have to stand for it. Quit sitting around and moaning about the old days or how unappreciated you are and get your butts in gear!

Top 5 Movies for the Christmas Season

1. The Nightmare Before Christmas - Tim Burton and Danny Elfman's masterpiece of one skeleton's journey to find some meaning in his life and bring some Christmas spirit to his town. The stop motion animation is wonderfully organic in a way that CG can never hope to be. Every song hits its mark with Danny Elfman's wide range of vocals making Jack's inner torment come to life in a most heart-wrenching manner. The ghouls and critters may be off-putting to some people at first but stick with it because the story will surely suck you in and having you humming for the rest of the season.

2. Scrooged - Quite possibly the best reinterpretation of the classic Dickens' tale. Bill Murray and his brothers star in this tale of a television executive who's in desperate need of the Scrooge treatment. It's filled with great touches like the signs in Frank's bathroom that define a cross as "something people are nailed to" and former glam rocker David Johansen as the cab-driving Ghost of Christmas Past. Every performance is top notch, even the cameos.

3. The Grinch Who Stole Christmas - Combine the masterful animation skills of Chuck Jones with the deep, resonating voice of Boris Karloff and you get a Christmas classic like no other. The level of energy and emotion in Jones' animation brings the Grinch story to life in a way Ron Howard never could. Though others may try, no one comes close to Karloff's rendition of "Mr. Grinch" which, since the short's premiere, has become an even more beloved holiday classic than many carols.

4. The Ref - Nothing says Christmas like Denis Leary robbing your house. In this movie Leary, the mastermind behind the award-winning Rescue Me on FX, plays a cat burglar who ends up having to change his Christmas Eve plans. Now he's stuck holding champion snarkers Kevin Spacey and Judy Davis' family hostage including the grandma from Hell. Hilarious throughout and yet manages to have some of that required holiday schmoop in the end. It may even warm the cockles of your heart.

5. The Muppet Christmas Carol - What could make a movie better than The Great Gonzo playing Charles Dickens? If Rizzo the Rat does running commentary! Brian Henson's little Muppet gem is a sure holiday pleaser. The songs are catchy, the mood swings from delightfully creepy to bouncy and fun, Michael Caine's Scrooge works off the muppets well, and the art direction is superb. Plus those old codgers Statler & Waldorf get their own musical number. Always and forever recommended for all ages.


Honorable mentions:

Bad Santa - Insane and dirty in a way only Christmas in the desert could possibly be. A loser of a burglar and a loser of a kid form a friendship of sorts and Billy Bob gets drunk a lot. Look out for Lauren Graham's Santaphile bartender.

A Christmas Story - Is there a person in America that hasn't seen at least part of this? Repeated for 24 hours straight on TNT every year this autobiographical tale of a child's Christmas has something in it for everyone to relate to. I double dog dare you to watch it.

A Garfield Christmas Special - The newspaper strip's been pretty hit-or-miss over the years but the orange cat was made for animation as can be seen in his 80s cartoon show. In this special Garfield, Odie, and Jon Arbuckle head back to the farm where Jon was raised to spend a little time with Ma, Pa, Doc Boy, and a chopper-ridin' Grandma.

Brief Thoughts: "Batman: Wargames"

SPOILERS BELOW

I admit that until recently I had never read DC Comics' "Batman: Wargames" story arc. In fact, it has only been in recent years that I have sought to reacquaint myself with comic books and the going is slow. However, for the last half year I have been hearing repeated mention of this particular story arc's controversial content. Not controversial because of sex and violence but rather controversial in terms of characterization. The most vocal group on this topic has been the internet neo-feminists. Citing it as an example of the continued mistreatment of female characters in comic books they protest the death of the superheroine Spoiler - not just that she died but also how. The problem with this is that in being the most vocal detractors of this storyline the other inherent flaws are more overlooked.

The two greatest flaws the are apparent right off on a first reading are this: Spoiler should never have been Robin and she should not have been able to get to that file. There is no reason that I can see that Spoiler should ever have wanted to be Robin in particular. Even if she wanted to fulfill a Robin-esque role for Batman she should've wanted to fulfill that role as Spoiler. Her own identity. The point of Dick Grayson is that he was the first Robin and he needed to evolve into Nightwing. It was an important step in his life. The point of Tim Drake is that he is so completely and utterly Robin through and through. That is his identity. One day he will either take on his own mantle apart or else become the Bat himself (which I see as more likely) but he is completely Robin. So there is no reason on Earth why Stephanie should've wanted to take on Tim's identity when she had one of her own that she needed to refine. Trying to be Robin was actually a step back for her. It also confuses me as to why Batman would allow her to become Robin when she was so clearly not ready. Why would he wish to not only make the same mistake again but encourage someone who was not meant to try and be this other person? He should've worked toward making her a field operative if anything. Actually, she might've been better off under the tutelage of Batgirl or Catwoman.

Most important of all, the files. It is completely and utterly in character for Batman to have a contingency plan in place for just about anything under the sun. That is the sort of obsessive freak he is and that's why we love him. However, I just cannot believe at ALL that Batman would let not so much Stephanie but anyone, really, other than maybe Alfred access those files. They should've been encrypted within an inch of their lives. Stephanie should not have been able to ever view those files for any reason.

It is difficult when you see a storyline that had good potential and still manages to frustrate in a good way in some of the right places executed badly. The worst is when the whole premise for jump-starting the story has pretty much nothing to do with how the characters have behaved in the past. While I recommend reading this arc for the sake of continuity, I cannot condone the writing that went into it.

SPOILERS ABOVE