Okay, so as I mentioned over the weekend, I received my ARC of Cecil Castellucci's The PLAIN Janes from DC. I was pretty excited about this book as I have reviewed each of Cecil's novels (The Queen of Cool and Boy Proof) and already read and enjoyed her upcoming book, Beige.

Janes reads, first and foremost like pure Cecil. The girls are quirky but strong (all committed to being individuals but not overbearing or arrogant) and interested in changing themselves and the world in at least some small way. This go-round Cecil introduces the themes of security vs freedom (could it be any more timely?) and interestingly, the importance of art in daily life. The Newsarama review is pretty much dead-on; my criticisms of the story would be same, that the mother and the cop who makes life tough are both fairly one dimensional. I'm not sure if there just wasn't enough space to flesh them out, or if they just felt more "comic book" this way, but I would have liked the opportunity to like the mother character rather than thinking she was a bit of a loon. (And must the bad guys always be so bad?)

These two characters might have stood out so much to me because one of the things Cecil is so good as is writing very human adult characters. They are never two dimensional in her books, so I was really caught off guard when I found them this way in Janes. Hopefully there will be a change or two for these guys in the future.

But beyond that the book is really really well done. I like realism in my comics when it comes to drawing and so I was quite pleased with what Jim Rugg did here (agreeing again with Mike Lorah's complaint on the girls' rooms at Newsarama - must they all look so boring and atypical?). Mostly though I could see all the fans of Cecil's YA novels falling head over heels for Janes. The story will easily appeal to them, they will love all the Janes and as always, they will appreciate that Cecil makes all the kids interesting - in other words, even the popular girls have souls (see The Queen of Cool for more on a great popular girl who pauses to think). This is a perfect book to kick off the Minx line and DC should be thrilled with it (as should Cecil who tells me she has hopes for a sequel). I'm looking forward to interviewing Cecil for the June issue of Bookslut when I can ask her all about working on Janes and Beige and what her thoughts are for the future. (You can read a 10 page preview of Janes at the Minx site.)

Then, I received book 2 in the Minx line, Re-Gifters. Oh. My.

Okay, first a few weird things on the story. It's about Dixie, a Korean American teenager living in LA whose "only outlet is the ancient martial art of hapkido". Problem #1: Two seconds on the internet gives you the whole history of hapkido which dates to the 1940s. Yes, not even 100 years ago and I don't think we call the WWII era ancient yet, do we? (The first official hapkido "dojang" was opened in 1951.) So right there, I have red flags. If the writer couldn't take the time to verify the age of what he's writing about and make sure any marketing errors were corrected, then that is a bit annoying. Then we learn that Dixie's father had a business that was burned down in the Rodney King riots in 1992. There is no indication anywhere in the text that I can find that it's not 2007 but clearly her father hasn't been trying to get a loan for a new store for 15 years. So when is this book set?

I have no idea.

I didn't set out to pick Re-Gifters apart, but once I found one weird thing, then I started looking. It is entirely possible that Dixie's grandparents would have immigrated to the US in 1985 through New York, but the postcard with "Ellis Island" is a bit odd - as it closed to immigration in 1954. Is this just supposed to be an idea of the immigration experience? Again, I have no idea. (And how the family ended up in LA from NY is anyone's guess.)

All of this comes from the ARC of course, and might change before the final copy. (Although the bits on hapkido being ancient are all over the internet in DC's pr copy.) The biggest problem for me and Re-Gifters is not going to change however. It's the art - all of the art - and particularly how Dixie is drawn as a 12 year old girl that really bugs me.

Honest to god, for the longest time while reading this book I had no idea this girl was supposed to be a teenager.

When Re-Gifters starts Dixie is wild about her classmate (and fellow martial artist) Adam to the point that she is distracted from accomplishing anything else. Adam is pretty much a nonentity in the story - I had no clue why he bothered to invite Dixie or her friends to his birthday party since they all seemed to adore him from afar - but whatever. The sticking point is that I couldn't figure out why Dixie had the crush and as it motivates most of the story, I was in serious trouble. I thought for awhile that it was a crazy senseless crush because she was only 12 or 13 and that's when movie star love is possible, so the thing with Adam was okay. And then we meet Dixie's classmate Megan who is drawn completely like a 16 or 17 year old girl (and we know she is that age because later she drives the girls to a party) and the physical difference between Megan and Dixie became so huge it was a distraction. All I kept thinking was why does she have to look like such a child? Megan doesn't and Adam doesn't so why Dixie? She's flat chested, her face is round like Charlie Brown and she dresses like a little girl, not a teenager. (You can dress like an artist or athlete and still look like a high schooler - see PLAIN Janes for many examples.) And why such a good job portraying Megan? She looks like a high schooler and not a kid, no doubt. The difference between the two girls just takes away so much from the story- way way too much. I can't overstate what a distraction little Dixie was for me. Ultimately, I didn't find her believable, not as a teenager, not as a black belt and not at all as girl with a meaningful crush.

In the end, when she gets a boyfriend, all I could think was "ew". It just seemed icky. Thank heavens they didn't draw her kissing - that might have put me over the edge.

The story in Re-Grifters is fine - not spectacular and suffering from more than a few cliches, but fine. (Don't get me started on the Adam/Dixie moment at the big match - that was straight out of a teen movie of the week and quite frankly, Michelle Rodriguez handled it way better in Girlfight.) For any 11 or 12 year old girl it will be lots of fun and I'm sure those readers will call it a resounding success. But here's the thing: The PLAIN Janes is clearly for teenagers - girls of the 15 - 17 year old age. Younger girls might enjoy it, but older ones will really get into the many layers to that story and its well thought out team of cool chicks. Re-Grifters is not a book that those readers will enjoy - it's a little girl book and they are going to spot that two minutes into the story. If DC was hoping to keep their readers for more than one book then they should have been a little more careful about the title they chose. Either that or they don't know the difference between 12 year old girls and their big sisters.

Please don't let the hearts and souls behind a major YA graphic novel line aimed at teenage girls be that obtuse about their market.

The strangeness in Minx deepens even further when you see the preview for book 3: Clubbing.(Sorry - can't find a preview online yet.) It's heroine is a "spoiled rebellious London teenager" who dresses in a bustier, fishnets and high heeled boots. The story (a mystery in the English countryside) could be fabulous but from sweet little girl Dixie to wild Charlotte Brook just seems too far to imagine. It's like a bad case of teenage girl schizophrenia going on.

Honestly, I don't see any consistency for the audience in these books. It's like Batman one week, then cartoon Batman, then Vampirella. (And I know I'm judging Clubbing from only a few pages, but a bustier makes a statement that can't be ignored.) For a line that has been planned for so long, I didn't expect such identity confusion so early on. Right now, I don't know what Minx wants to be and I'm wondering if anyone over at DC does either.