The Starfire Dilemma: Problematic Sexuality in Comics

[Void.M]

What are you saying?

I don't even know.

 

[Langsta]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

I don't think it's the design that's the problem (maybe it is), but for me, it was the focus of the art on her chest and ass, rather than just wearing a revealing costume. It's one thing to have her in a costume that shows her chest, it's another thing to compose an image where the chest is the central focus. It's not just the focus, it's also the mood that's generated. For example, my favourite Power Girl piece by Adam Hughes;

Wow...

 

[Jaggyd]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

First of all, let me disagree that the TEEN TITANS cartoon Starfire is a 'moron' or 'vegetable' because I absolutely love her to death and will hear no bad things about her, on pain of lightning from the sky.

But to your actual point about Starfire as a children's character: I must confess I was not aware that the promiscuity was something she was originally designed to have, and certainly muddies the issue (i.e. I missed the point). I would suppose there isn't really a binary "children's character/adult's character" switch to determine if it is or isn't suitable, and so does her attitude towards sex make her an 'adult' character? I would agree with you, yes it does. But, by the same token, doesn't her appearance in a book along with Robin make her a 'childrens' character? I would have to say, it does. So... I suppose she's both, and while, if I spent more time considering this situation (and researching Starfire, which I shamefully didn't before having an opinion), I wouldn't have put across an opinion of 'promiscuity = adults only', I suppose I jumped the gun in that regard.

However, the panel you present shows a particularly stark difference between Perez' promiscuous Starfire and this new one. Firstly, she is somewhat modestly dressed, and the focus is clearly on her face and attitude as opposed to her **** and ass. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, Perez's Starfire says that they love freely, and this is sometimes a physical act. The new one clearly is dispassionate and just interested in the lustful sex. What's more, instead of being tender and inviting, as Perez's Starfire is, this new one is aggressive and insulting. The difference creates a situation in which we empathise and enjoy Perez's, but find the newer one distasteful. There is a qualitative difference in their portrayal, and I would argue, what we see as Starfire now, is a venal, and unknowingly puerile and sexist version of a more romantic and endearing trait originally built into the character.



I think the substance of what's going on here is that she is not an empathetic character, we do not like her, and it's not exactly expressed clearly enough for us to understand why she is the way she is. It is absolutely possible to have a woman so damaged that she just shags people and we, as the audience, go, "Poor woman" or "I agree with her sentiment, the world is a ****ty place and our romantic rituals are hypocritical, good for you for being honest". I mean, that is sort of how we feel for Lisbeth in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO is it not? She's rather promiscuous, and we on the one hand we feel sorry for her, but on the other she's not the hypocritical sleazey lecherous monsters she encounters (I've not seen the second two films yet, so maybe this changes). David Duchovny in CALIFORNICATION is the male version of this, but his unrelenting and rather depraved sexual adventures are a manifestation of his self-loathing, a form of sexual, romantic punishment for not being with his the woman he loves.

So, again, the problem isn't so much the sexism or even the concept of a woman who just wants to shag men for some reason but the bad writing - we don't understand what she gets out of it (love, meaning, an allevience of morbid dread, security, control and power, it's how she punishes herself) and not only is it poor writing, it's a particularly obvious, egregious, tasteless, and dehumanizing poor writing in regards to Starfire.



I don't think it's the design that's the problem (maybe it is), but for me, it was the focus of the art on her chest and ass, rather than just wearing a revealing costume. It's one thing to have her in a costume that shows her chest, it's another thing to compose an image where the chest is the central focus. It's not just the focus, it's also the mood that's generated. For example, my favourite Power Girl piece by Adam Hughes;



This image has a clear, central focus on her costume that shows off her disarmingly apparent cleavage. However, it's done in a comedic styling that Power Girl is kinda being inappropriate and oblivious, and that it's appealing on a base level. It's rather harmless, self-deprecating fun, as opposed to being pornographic or highly sexualized.



It's not that Marvel and DC must be "All Ages" it's that certain franchises they possess are "All Ages" due to a decades long branding. Starfire, as you pointed out rather well was a grey area, I think before the cartoon, you could separate her from Robin and the other Bat-characters and turn her into a more kid-unfriendly character, but after the TEEN TITANS cartoon, I think she's in the all-ages camp for a while now.

But I think we can agree that "All Ages" doesn't mean you can't involve love and sex (romance is fine, but sex is a kind of blind spot to kids so it can't be dealt with in the same way), and certainly, doesn't mean you couldn't have her be of quality.

But, yeah, good points Jaggyd. I had to read it, leave your comments alone for a while and think on what you said. Good points. I'm always happy when someone schools me on a subject.

I didn't mean to come off as *****y, but I've been have been defending my position from friends and fans, being called everything for "blind" to an "enabler". I know people loved TTG! Khory, and she was adorable, but she was a little too "simple" to me. I am a shameless TTG! Rae fan (also loved Terra).

Power Girl is a great example of the inverse of Current Starfire, she was a gimmick for Wally Wood to mock the Code with. It took years of loving crafting from people like Jimmy and Amanda to make her the wonderfully warm and beautiful example of "Girl Power" she is. I will fight tooth and nail to defend her when people complain about things like that gorgeous AH! cover. Current Starfire is still this beautiful and liberated woman, but either DiDio edict, or even Lobdell having a plan, has sucked that joy and light out of her. I'll keep reading Outsiders at minimum for Rocafort's art, and at best, Lobdell having a plan to bring back my old Star. As a nerd, I have hope.

Again, I apologize a lot for being a *****; you, E and everyone else (yes, even you Mole) don't deserve it.

Like Bass, I didn't realize the character was like that before.

But that's kind of the point. Characters evolve, and a lot of times it's because of things that happen in other media. The original article pointed out that the TV show had something like 2 million viewers, and even the best comics only sell 100,000. There are more kids that know that version of Starfire (from the cartoon) than the sexually open/promiscuous/whatever version. And the other point is this - forget morals for a second, ignoring them is just bad marketing.

I'm a little surprised by your stance. I was not expecting the vegetable/mentally handicapped/socially retarded comparison, or claiming that the sexualized version is less stereotypical than the more generically heroic version. I look at it as using her gender as a defining characteristic - generally that's a bad idea. The cartoon version is a great hero who, oh yeah, happens to be a girl. It puts her on more equal footing than male characters and I think it helps girls identify with that. Whether you personally like it or hate it, I think more girls out there who do that appreciate it than people who want the sexualized version.

Either way, kudos for knowing your DC history.

Honestly, there were some great feature episodes for Khory in TTG!, I adored the episode where she's going through Tameranian puberty, it sooo captured the awkwardness of puberty. But, honestly, she just seemed too much of the other extreme of the Outsiders' Starfire.
I do 100% agree that she's being stereotyped as a sex doll, but believe it or not, there are women like that out there, trust me, I've known my share. At the end of the day, I am upset with how Lobdell's handling her, but it's not about the sex, it's that he's turned her into a joyless and heartless shell of what used to be such a joyful and happy character. I hope there's a reason that she's broken now, because if there's a reason, there can be a solution/healing.

 

[Void.M]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

I didn't mean to come off as *****y, but I've been have been defending my position from friends and fans, being called everything for "blind" to an "enabler". I know people loved TTG! Khory, and she was adorable, but she was a little too "simple" to me. I am a shameless TTG! Rae fan (also loved Terra).

Power Girl is a great example of the inverse of Current Starfire, she was a gimmick for Wally Wood to mock the Code with. It took years of loving crafting from people like Jimmy and Amanda to make her the wonderfully warm and beautiful example of "Girl Power" she is. I will fight tooth and nail to defend her when people complain about things like that gorgeous AH! cover. Current Starfire is still this beautiful and liberated woman, but either DiDio edict, or even Lobdell having a plan, has sucked that joy and light out of her. I'll keep reading Outsiders at minimum for Rocafort's art, and at best, Lobdell having a plan to bring back my old Star. As a nerd, I have hope.

Again, I apologize a lot for being a *****; you, E and everyone else (yes, even you Mole) don't deserve it.




Honestly, there were some great feature episodes for Khory in TTG!, I adored the episode where she's going through Tameranian puberty, it sooo captured the awkwardness of puberty. But, honestly, she just seemed too much of the other extreme of the Outsiders' Starfire.
I do 100% agree that she's being stereotyped as a sex doll, but believe it or not, there are women like that out there, trust me, I've known my share. At the end of the day, I am upset with how Lobdell's handling her, but it's not about the sex, it's that he's turned her into a joyless and heartless shell of what used to be such a joyful and happy character. I hope there's a reason that she's broken now, because if there's a reason, there can be a solution/healing.

Yeah, the problem isn't that she likes sex, she has always liked sex. It's that now she has no emotions, she's a shell of her old self.

 

[Bass]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

Wow...

Adam Hughes' website. He's terrific.

I didn't mean to come off as *****y, but I've been have been defending my position from friends and fans, being called everything for "blind" to an "enabler". I know people loved TTG! Khory, and she was adorable, but she was a little too "simple" to me. I am a shameless TTG! Rae fan (also loved Terra).

Power Girl is a great example of the inverse of Current Starfire, she was a gimmick for Wally Wood to mock the Code with. It took years of loving crafting from people like Jimmy and Amanda to make her the wonderfully warm and beautiful example of "Girl Power" she is. I will fight tooth and nail to defend her when people complain about things like that gorgeous AH! cover. Current Starfire is still this beautiful and liberated woman, but either DiDio edict, or even Lobdell having a plan, has sucked that joy and light out of her. I'll keep reading Outsiders at minimum for Rocafort's art, and at best, Lobdell having a plan to bring back my old Star. As a nerd, I have hope.

Again, I apologize a lot for being a *****; you, E and everyone else (yes, even you Mole) don't deserve it.

You didn't come of that *****y at all, you came off as someone who was annoyed at having to explain her position over and over again. And you had good points. It's clear from both E and myself that we went, "Huh, that's a good point" and certainly not "blind" or "enabling".

However, for liking Raven and Terra over Starfire you are kork farfengax.

I do 100% agree that she's being stereotyped as a sex doll, but believe it or not, there are women like that out there, trust me, I've known my share.

While that is absolutely true, that doesn't excuse the poor portrayal. If you were doing a sex doll character, you really have two options: if she's not an empathetic character, then you don't have her just be a sex doll, you dislike her, but you know you're supposed to dislike her. We don't get that, we don't like how she's written, not the character. If she's empathetic, then we have to understand and identify with why she indulges in such behaviour by getting the psychology of why she's such a sex doll. We don't get that either. The portrayal is totally shallow and superficial.

 

[Zombipanda]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

=At the end of the day, I am upset with how Lobdell's handling her, but it's not about the sex, it's that he's turned her into a joyless and heartless shell of what used to be such a joyful and happy character. I hope there's a reason that she's broken now, because if there's a reason, there can be a solution/healing.

I think that BC article suggests that this isn't the direction they're taking. It sounds like some of the women in editorial suggested that he mention prior abuse as a factor in her current disposition and his response was basically "If her personality is tempered by a painful upbringing then she's no longer liberated".

 

[Jaggyd]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

I think that BC article suggests that this isn't the direction they're taking. It sounds like some of the women in editorial suggested that he mention prior abuse as a factor in her current disposition and his response was basically "If her personality is tempered by a painful upbringing then she's no longer liberated".

Two words "**** Lobdell". I was willing to defend him if he had a reason why she changed so fundamentally, but **** him. I hate that I'm not going to get to enjoy Rocafort's art, but yeah, no.

Adam Hughes' website. He's terrific.



You didn't come of that *****y at all, you came off as someone who was annoyed at having to explain her position over and over again. And you had good points. It's clear from both E and myself that we went, "Huh, that's a good point" and certainly not "blind" or "enabling".

However, for liking Raven and Terra over Starfire you are kork farfengax.



While that is absolutely true, that doesn't excuse the poor portrayal. If you were doing a sex doll character, you really have two options: if she's not an empathetic character, then you don't have her just be a sex doll, you dislike her, but you know you're supposed to dislike her. We don't get that, we don't like how she's written, not the character. If she's empathetic, then we have to understand and identify with why she indulges in such behaviour by getting the psychology of why she's such a sex doll. We don't get that either. The portrayal is totally shallow and superficial.

I dig Hughes well enough, even follow him on DeviantArt and have watched his instructional stuff on YouTube, but there are times where his girls tend to look the same.

And HEY! Language young lady!

I dunno why, because in the old Titans comic, Starfire was my favorite, but in the cartoon, I didn't get into her as much. I'd like to see her show up in Young Justice.

And you're right, there really is no excuse for ****ty writing, especially in this day and age where there isn't the stigma of writing for comics and comic writers are plentiful. I'd almost forgive Lobdell if he admitted that he put boot to her personality as a bucking against editorial demand. Almost.

But, yeah, Perez's Starfire was fun, she was a sexpot, but at the same time, she was this wonderful, bubbly girl. She was such a great contrast to Raven's dark need for self-control, Argent's quiet elegance, Donna's subdued regality. I'm kinda noticing all superheroes, both male and female are losing their individual "voices". [/rant]

 

[Langsta]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

Adam Hughes' website. He's terrific.

I love his art, but that cover is so...flagrant? I think that's the right word.

 

[Jaggyd]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

I love his art, but that cover is so...flagrant? I think that's the right word.

I don't know him personally, but my standpoint as an art nerd, I'd guess it's a mix of an homage of old Superman covers, and a good reflection of how Jimmy handled Karen's acceptance of who and what she is (including being a sex symbol).

Personally, Jimmy and Amanda's run on Power Girl is one of the best bits of work to come out of the Big Two in a long time.

 

[bluebeast]

Honestly for me the last people to "get it" with regards to Starfire were Morrison, Waid, Rucka and Johns on 52 (big surprise given their collective talents ).

Like Perez they presented the same Kori that everyone has mentioned of being a free expresionist who isn't shackled by "human" notions of modesty. Kori would always contrast the admitably conservative Buddy while nude and playfully disregard his human conservatism. Starfire's free expression in 52 wasn't of promiscuity (though she did admitably enjoy it) but it was because her people didn't put a limit on their personal expression and that Tamaran was based on complet full disclosure amongst the people. And while she spent her time questioning Buddy's own problems she also proved herself to be a cpable warrior able to fight better than any of the men around her (except for that one story with Devilance but I'm pretty sure she was on mind altering drugs that one time).

This is the interpretation I think Kori should be given. She's a warrior in the same vein as Diana but also wholly uninhibited by human forms of modesty (in how she dresses at least). Tamaraneans highlight joyful expression over regression which leads to their percieved sexual persona. They delight in physical indulgence while also realizing that the experiences they build on a personal level are more important than the faceless sex.

And this brings us to the problem with the current version of Starfire. The writers clearly saw someone who enjoys sex and chose to pick that as her only defining characteristic. They don't realize that yes, Starfire is a sexual woman who has beded many a hero in the DC Universe, but she is also someone who has loved and cared for every person she's ever met. She is a character based on love first and foremost which is why every Titan jumps into a fray to defend her. This is why she has stolen Dick Grayson's heart more than Donna Troy or even Barbara Gordon ever could. This is why Starfire would never, as true to her character, forget who Dick Grayson is. This is why the Red Hood and the Outlaws team is absolutely wrong about her characterization.

And I have to say everyone has brought up valid points about the story I was just wanting to give my two cents about the book which is that its complete ****.

 

[Bass]

I dig Hughes well enough, even follow him on DeviantArt and have watched his instructional stuff on YouTube, but there are times where his girls tend to look the same.

This is true, but only due to him being unfamiliar with the character. When he gets a cover assignment, for example, you'll notice he gets very deep into the character and gives them a unique face, body language, and body type. Other artists often draw all women with the same body, the same face, and just change up the hair. The more he loves and works on the character, the more distinct they become. The best way to notice this is on the two line-up pictures he did, one for Wizard and one for "The Women of DC", and you'll notice how much thought he gives into his characters. They appear same-y when he's unfamiliar and doesn't have much time, such as his convention sketches and the odd cover.

Also, you can order his dvd DRAWING GOOD GIRLS from his website. It's really good.

I dunno why, because in the old Titans comic, Starfire was my favorite, but in the cartoon, I didn't get into her as much.

It's because you're broken inside.

But, yeah, Perez's Starfire was fun, she was a sexpot, but at the same time, she was this wonderful, bubbly girl. She was such a great contrast to Raven's dark need for self-control, Argent's quiet elegance, Donna's subdued regality. I'm kinda noticing all superheroes, both male and female are losing their individual "voices". [/rant]

It's no different than before. Every five years or so, someone comes along and writes the character as someone unique, then it goes back to the cookie-cutter cliches. C'est la vie. But you bring up a good point in that characters in a team book need to contrast with one another. It doesn't work if everyone in the ensemble reacts the same to everything, as that only causes them to lose even more of their 'voice'.

I love his art, but that cover is so...flagrant? I think that's the right word.

It is flagrant, yep.

I don't know him personally, but my standpoint as an art nerd, I'd guess it's a mix of an homage of old Superman covers, and a good reflection of how Jimmy handled Karen's acceptance of who and what she is (including being a sex symbol).

Adam has said (somewhere, I forget where) that he finds Power Girl lends herself to comedy very easily, and he had that attitude towards her before Jimmy and Amanda's run, as far as I know. (I might be wrong, I can ask him next time I talk to him.)

This is the interpretation I think Kori should be given.

I really think that you can give any character any interpretation you want. If you want Kori to be sexually dispassionate, that's fine. But the rule is simply this: Whatever your interpretation, it should feel truer to the character's concept than what came before. It should add insight to the character so you fall more for them. It should make them stand out from the crowd.

For example, when Grant Morrison makes Animal Man a vegetarian and a pacifist and activist, it feels more like Animal Man than the versions before or since. When Frank Miller turned Daredevil from a carefree, wise-cracking hero into a tortured victim of circumstance, it resonated with his inherent vulnerability of being blind and an orphan, and he felt more like Daredevil than ever before. We go, "Yes, that character, with those traits and backstory, would be more like that". This is why THE ULTIMATES, I think, worked so well, because Captain America was now truly a soldier, willing to kill and unapologetically patriotic. Thor was a messianic figure, Iron Man a self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing adrenaline junkie, and we go, "That's more like those characters than we've ever seen". And it can happen multiple times and be even contradict other versions: Joker in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES and THE DARK KNIGHT, for example. DOCTOR WHO; who's more 'definitive', Tom Baker, Peter Davidson, David Tennant, Matt Smith? What's truer to James Bond, the suave yet rugged Sean Connery or the darker, tougher Daniel Craig?

And so, Starfire can really be given any interpretation a writer wants, it just has to feel somehow more like Starfire than before. And it's possible having an emotionless, dispassionate Starfire could indeed work and make you go, "That really IS Starfire" because you might go, "Starfire has always been the outcast from a world of lovers, and he she is in a world which, by her standards, is loveless, of course she'd be lost and alienated"... if it was done right. If it was true to the character. Lobdell did not make it work, and he should've. But characters change with the times and with whoever is portraying them, and we seem to already have two Starfires, Perez's and TEEN TITANS'. A third one wouldn't have been a bad thing had it worked.

 

[E]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

I do 100% agree that she's being stereotyped as a sex doll, but believe it or not, there are women like that out there, trust me, I've known my share.

No doubt of that, and I generally agree that there's nothing wrong with characters who portray a given cross section of humanity (whether human or not) - good or bad. The issue as I saw it, though, was whether or not it was "okay" to do this with a character known and loved by kids with a characteristic that is generally considered unhealthy and grossly stereotypical when there is a strong desire to not only improve how woman and girls are portrayed in comics but to do it the "right" way in an effort to bring in female readers who - while they are out there - are vastly outnumbered by guys.

You don't seem to care about how kids identify with characters and that is totally fine - I would never criticize you for that. It doesn't matter to everybody. But like I said earlier, take the moral issue out of the equation and look at it purely from a sales/marketing standpoint, taking into consideration the very, very strong drive to bring more female readers into comics and you can see why it makes sense to handle a more heroic character with greater care when it comes to defining characteristics like this.

 

[Jaggyd]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

No doubt of that, and I generally agree that there's nothing wrong with characters who portray a given cross section of humanity (whether human or not) - good or bad. The issue as I saw it, though, was whether or not it was "okay" to do this with a character known and loved by kids with a characteristic that is generally considered unhealthy and grossly stereotypical when there is a strong desire to not only improve how woman and girls are portrayed in comics but to do it the "right" way in an effort to bring in female readers who - while they are out there - are vastly outnumbered by guys.

You don't seem to care about how kids identify with characters and that is totally fine - I would never criticize you for that. It doesn't matter to everybody. But like I said earlier, take the moral issue out of the equation and look at it purely from a sales/marketing standpoint, taking into consideration the very, very strong drive to bring more female readers into comics and you can see why it makes sense to handle a more heroic character with greater care when it comes to defining characteristics like this.

DC's talking heads, and fans may claim they want to bring in new female readers, but at the end of the day, it's BS. DC had the perfect chance, when Ben Caldwell solicited them to do a Wonder Woman book, specifically for girls. For all their posturing they still want to cater to the 18-35 male crowd, which is fine, it's a large enough number to safely exist on. Amusingly, statistics shows that gays and women spend more money on entertainment, but I think it's just the guys in charge of the industry are as afraid of change as most of their fans.

As to the continuing argument about kids loving TTG! Khory, that's fine, and to an extent, she still exists. People seem to forget that New Earth Khory was a slut right up to the reboot. She was trying to get into Buddy's pants in space, she was all "what happens in Deep Space, stays in Deep Space".

Then there's Tiny Titans (which is a great book BTW, I recommend it to adults too), Star's going to show up in the YJ comic as well as the show. I'm just annoyed that every incarnation of Khory has to be the mentally-challenged version from TTG!, I mean, look at Wolverine, he's noticeably different in Super Hero Squad than he is in the comics, or even his anime. With all that said, DC has pulled some serious BS and dumped a LOT of characters little ones could identify with and look up to. (case in point, Steph, FU DC)

 

[Bass]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

I think it's just the guys in charge of the industry are as afraid of change as most of their fans.

Quite true. I remember talking to Ian Sattler (Ice was there) at HeroesCon and any time I brought up a suggestion of "Why not do this" he responded with "We're not certain the audience would come back". Rather than worrying about how to get new readers, they're afraid of losing what they have.

And that is a perfectly understandable viewpoint and in TV, it is a cycle that the guys at the top play the safety game and slowly lose customers and the bottom networks risk and get bigger audiences, then they get on top and become safe, on and on it goes.

For the new 52, the big, big thing was that they took the internet market. That was the push for new readers. It's good, but content is more important than form.

I'm always impressed with the people behind Magic: The Gathering. Every year they do something they've never done before, even though they are the industry leader in collectible card games, and have been for almost two decades. The same is true for Pixar, who actively do things they couldn't do before.

It's understandable, that fear of change and risk and pushing oneself, especially when you're on top. There are no shortages of examples of people who had it all and lost everything. It's not an easy dilemma.

Then there's Tiny Titans (which is a great book BTW, I recommend it to adults too), Star's going to show up in the YJ comic as well as the show. I'm just annoyed that every incarnation of Khory has to be the mentally-challenged version from TTG!, I mean, look at Wolverine, he's noticeably different in Super Hero Squad than he is in the comics, or even his anime. With all that said, DC has pulled some serious BS and dumped a LOT of characters little ones could identify with and look up to. (case in point, Steph, FU DC)

Mentally-challenged?! SHE IS THE AWESOME!

 

[Void.M]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

Two words "**** Lobdell". I was willing to defend him if he had a reason why she changed so fundamentally, but **** him. I hate that I'm not going to get to enjoy Rocafort's art, but yeah, no.






[/rant]

Btw, Gail Simone mentioned on her board that she had conversation about this with Lobdell that went somewhat like this.

Lobdell: "Why didn't you warn me?"

Gail: "I did warn you, i told you your Starfire sucked".

 

[Jaggyd]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

Btw, Gail Simone mentioned on her board that she had conversation about this with Lobdell that went somewhat like this.

Lobdell: "Why didn't you warn me?"

Gail: "I did warn you, i told you your Starfire sucked".

I'll be the first to say that Gail has little wiggle room on saying other people's characterizations "Sucked". I like Gail, but she's a mediocre writer at best.

Still think the "dehumanizing" of Khory is the worst part of the nu!Starfire.

 

[Void.M]

Re: The New 52 general discussion

I'll be the first to say that Gail has little wiggle room on saying other people's characterizations "Sucked". I like Gail, but she's a mediocre writer at best.

Still think the "dehumanizing" of Khory is the worst part of the nu!Starfire.

They are friends, so it probably wasn't all that serious.

But yes, the dehumanizing of Kory is certainly the worst part.

 

[Zombipanda]

On the plus side, maybe we've been misreading this all along and there will be some twist that adds depth to Kori's character.

Or maybe the negative backlash will cause him to change his portrayal.

I haven't really read Lobdell's stuff before the new 52 but the stuff he's put out doesn't suggest he's a bad writer (though he's not necessarily a great one).

 

[Jaggyd]

On the plus side, maybe we've been misreading this all along and there will be some twist that adds depth to Kori's character.

Or maybe the negative backlash will cause him to change his portrayal.

I haven't really read Lobdell's stuff before the new 52 but the stuff he's put out doesn't suggest he's a bad writer (though he's not necessarily a great one).

We can only hope.

Lobdell is a pretty "by the books" writer, he tends to take few real risks, and his dialogue can be a bit "soap opera" at times. Had to deal with him on the X-Books for nearly a decade, there was some good stuff, little truly bad, a lot of mediocre.

 

[Zombipanda]

We can only hope.

Lobdell is a pretty "by the books" writer, he tends to take few real risks, and his dialogue can be a bit "soap opera" at times. Had to deal with him on the X-Books for nearly a decade, there was some good stuff, little truly bad, a lot of mediocre.

That was kind of my read of him. A very workmanlike, "writing as craft" rather than "writing as art" kind of guy.