Comments on: Betty & Veronica Double Digest #158: Irresponsible Cheerleading

By: Archie Issues Reprinting Stories — Another Business Choice to Cut Costs? » Comics Worth Reading

Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:39:31 +0000

[...] The second one, “Cheering Section”, is an unlabeled reprint. I knew this because I made fun of it four years ago. (The opening image is physically impossible.) I don’t know the original [...]

By: Hsifeng

Hsifeng — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:21:33 +0000

Thanks for fixing my broken HTML! :)

By: Hsifeng

Hsifeng — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:31:54 +0000

Johanna Says:

“I guess my point with Ethel should be that the publisher seems so interested in being nice and avoiding negativity that they’ve erased everything that made the characters distinctive — like Ethel being funny-looking and definitely not the cheerleader type.”

That reminds me of Wigu Adventures, July 25, 2002 (isn’t it great when webcomics have searchable text? :) ):

“Are you telling me that cheerleaders aren’t popular?”

“Well, like… we’re more popular than those kids who raise ostriches. Maybe like thirty years ago, cheerleaders were popular… nowadays, only total dorks would be so openly enthusiastic about school spirit…”

By: Johanna

Johanna — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:36:55 +0000

Me too, but what brought that on?

By: Danny

Danny — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:48:36 +0000

*sigh*

I miss Usenet.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Sat, 30 May 2009 23:13:09 +0000

I love that panel where Nancy is black from the waist up but has Caucasian legs.

By: justine

justine — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:48:02 +0000

what is the best archie comics?

By: Tim O'Shea

Tim O'Shea — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:37:27 +0000

When did Nancy get introduced to the series? A quick search reveals Pep Comics #309 (1978)

At least she’s included now. I still miss Franklin from Peanuts (who appeared on the scene in 1968).

And Nancy’s boyfriend, Chuck? Apparently introduced in the early 1970s…

By: Glimpses of Big Ethel » Comics Worth Reading

Glimpses of Big Ethel » Comics Worth Reading — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:37:40 +0000

[...] those wondering why I thought it was so odd that Ethel was a cheerleader in the Archie titles now, here’s what she used to look like, back when she was Big [...]

By: Nat Gertler

Nat Gertler — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:49:40 +0000

Oh. agreed. I think the move toward a girl-friendly Jughead, an acceptable Ethel, a dyslexic Moose, and so forth has all done much damage to the work.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:45:08 +0000

Nat: hee hee. True enough. I guess my point with Ethel should be that the publisher seems so interested in being nice and avoiding negativity that they’ve erased everything that made the characters distinctive — like Ethel being funny-looking and definitely not the cheerleader type.

James: I think you’re on to something with this theory! The mutant one, not the other.

By: James Schee

James Schee — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:28:45 +0000

Given Ethel’s past show of strength, this showing doesn’t surprise me as she’s obviously a mutant. (hey the Punisher guested once after all! so Archie may be part of the Marvel U.)

Midge is obviously off giving Moose his own personal “cheer,” hence the first cheer line of “HEY! HEY! HO!”

Yes, I know, I’ll go sit in the corner now.

By: Nat Gertler

Nat Gertler — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:06:56 +0000

I think that with Archie comics you have to avoid questions like “Since when is [Ethel] a cheerleader?”, since the answer is apt to come back “since 1958″, and that just opens up a whole ‘nother can o’ worms…

By: Johanna

Johanna — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:21:30 +0000

Essence allows anti-gravity powers? Cool! I love Bring It On, though. Great fun.

By: Paul Sizer

Paul Sizer — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:16:24 +0000

No no no, Johanna. You must step back from the “physics” of cheerleading and embrace the “essence” of the cheer. Yes, THAT is what “Bring It On” taught me… THAT and that there are very complex politics in the world of cheering. And snark. Good Lord, the snark…