Very small week this week. Only one book I subscribe to came in, and that was Booster Gold.
So, this month in Booster Gold... I don't give a shit. No, really, I just don't, and I suspect you don't either. They used time travel to rehash storylines from 20 or 30 years ago, as they've been doing since this damn series started, and it's not particularly interesting or fun. Remind me again why I handed over $3.99 for this?
Oh, right. Because the back-up feature is Blue Beetle.
So, this month in Blue Beetle, the story was too short and a little predictable in places (let's face it, you knew the daughter was involved as soon as she was mentioned), but quite entertaining and somewhat original. All the things that the main feature that I was forced to also buy to get it was not.
I was hoping that the return of Batgirl was this month, but it turns out it's next month. Damn. Although with covers like this, I suppose I shouldn't be getting my hopes up at all. (Oh, for pete's sake, tell me they're not bringing back the yellow boots. Fuck you and your nostalgia, Dan Didio. They were retarded in the '70s and they're retarded now.) Remember the early part of the decade, when Batgirl first came out as an ongoing series and she was not sexualized at all and her costume actually fit the "terrifying creature of the night" motif of the Bat-Family and her sexuality was a non-issue? Kiss that goodbye, apparently.
I need to cleanse my palette with some Usagi Yojimbo or something... DC is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
the_narration- the_narration
Comments
I could have sworn that my friend who had the misforune to read "Oracle: The Search for the Cure" (very badly written, she informs me) implied that Bab's paraplegia was not, in fact, cured. (I hope you'll understand why I hope it's not Babs. She's almost thirty now, and the idea of her calling herself anything-girl is a bit absurd. I'm certainly hoping she'll still be around in a mentoring and information-support capacity.)
Of course, covers lie and are not to be trusted. The first issue's has Cass' costume with the lower part of the mask removed and the second one has Babs' classic costume. They probably want to keep us guessing, since they're refusing to say who it is.
(I'm starting to rather strong suspect that it's Steph. I would be okay with that. If Cass decided that the Batgirl identity didn't suit her any more, that's totally who she'd offer it to, and probably hang around afterwards to provide support.)
Could be Steph but... I doubt it.
(The color of the eyebrows isn't really red or blonde, so... who knows. It does seem a bit Babs-like, but ti also seems awfully young... oh god, you don't think it's Misfit, do you?)
Really, in any medium other than comics, exposing as much of the face as that pic does would make it easy to tell who it was, but female faces in comics are usually too similar and generic to tell them apart without hairstyles attached.
What I want to know is... why the hell are her eyeholes so big I can see her eyebrows? And why the hell are her eyes uncovered, period? Every other member of the BatFam has opaque lenses over their eyes. Even Steph's homemade Spoiler costume covered the eyes. Helena added eye covers to her Batgirl costume after a can of spraypaint in the face made her realize leaving them exposed was a bad idea. So why would Batgirl's eyes be uncovered, if not to look "cute" for the male audience?