Boom! The big double-cross revealed!
While a lot more gets explained in the upcoming issue, I was psyched to finally get the story to this point. There has been an uneasy feeling the whole time that this run was more than Dhama Hes let on. I wanted the hints to keep compounding over the last two issues, but this was the scene that was really going to drive home to Roka and company that they’ve been lied to and are into something much deeper than they suspected.
As a general note, this is also where the series starts to go in a direction and tone that I planned since the beginning. I always meant for the entire first arc, “Bad Goods,” to be a very fun and light introduction to the Runners universe, kinda like how the first several issues of Bone lightly eased the readers into a much deeper and more complex world. The problem was that people started viewing Runners as an all-ages book, and that label concerned me.
While I don’t currently plan to do any scenes of really graphic violence, language, or sex, I always knew that the series would be dealing with more questionable themes. These are smugglers after all. They don’t make their money transporting yo-yo’s and candy. So with this arc, I wanted to make that direction in tone very apparent and have it deal with drug running.
So is it “all ages?” I don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t consider it “all ages” in an Owly way. The standard I use is The Lord of the Rings, which is my biggest inspiration and the personal goal I set for myself in what I’d ideally love to achieve. Plenty of kids read that at a younger age, but it does have a lot of complex themes going on. Along those lines, Bone and Star Wars also have some darker themes, but they’re still considered “all ages.”
So I don’t know. I personally have some issues with telling people that Runners is “all ages” but maybe that’s just me. If any of you have an opinion, feel free to post your comments as I’d love to hear them!
I look at it that if the real world is fit for all ages, Runners is too. It’s approached from a natural, societal angle in my opinion. Plus there have not been a lot of instances where graphic language could have come in. If I was a Bocce, I probably would have screamed, “F***!” as I was falling off the Brimia though. XD
Though this is the time when Roka could just come clean and say they had no idea and were just hired to pick up some yak. When the chief does not believe him, Roka can point at Cember and say, “I hired that, I am obviously having a hard time knowing what I am doing.”
Eh, not exactly boom.
But you are still setting us up – Roka got crushed! Hee hee!
On the “all ages” issue, which I will pull back [Oy, math terminology in comics! What has the world come to?] to “all readers”, I don’t agree. It’s a question of morality: everything happens in the real world to all including kids, but not everything that happens is moral and should include all (say, kids).
I would not subject a kid to a comic that says drug running is a good or bad choice, nor would I continue to read it myself – it isn’t fit for all readers. Drug business is a choice if you are starving and there is no other resources around, but that is seldom the case. There is no moral interest to get out of that, IMO.
It is like trying to interest someone for the social effects of fascism. Sure, it happens, today as religious fascism. But who cares about what the perpetrators do and why they do it? It is the rest of society that is interesting, and that goes besides the morality into practicality.
So. Is a story about being fooled into drug running interesting? Sure, it happens to innocents (even “gray area” innocents). It isn’t about the drug as such, but about being fooled. Is a story about purposed drug running interesting? Not to me.
I would point out that to smuggle simply means to distribute products that are prohibited by whatever group happens to control a certain area and is not an indication of negative morality alone. In Cuba, for example, it might be illegal to possess anything American-made. In the middle-east, perhaps a bible might be considered illegal. I don’t think either of those is true, but the point is that smuggling is not necessarily unsavory. Dangerous, certainly. Blacks in the civil war escorted to the north via the underground railway would be considered smuggling to the Confederacy. So it is the moral temperature of the regional authorities (which could range anywhere from Switzerland-like neutrality to Nazi-like totalitarianism) that must be weighed in addition to “Will the smuggled goods harm others against their will?”. I’m assuming “Crush” is not the infamous orange soda but rather some insidious mind-numbing drug in the Runnersverse but that’s not immoral on its face unless its being sold to children or others who are incapable of making choices for themselves (and taking responsibility for those choices, good or ill) i.e. the addicted, the infirm, etc. Or if the drug is made from baby seals, kittens and children or something.
Since it was I who brought up morality, I will assume that it was directed partly to me.
First, I’ll note that I define “morality” as what we do, individually or in groups.
The first is now known to be much an involuntary reaction only slightly modified by outlook (which I define as “ethical system”, especially if it is codified to prop up legal purposes).
The later is probably subject to the same intensive gene-cultural evolution that the rest of our culture seem to be, according to the biologist’s finds.
Second, on that background I find that slippery-slope arguments, always problematic, do not really work at all here. There is no way that I can map what few participates in (say, drug running) to some ethical choice. (Even if it is made by a legal system or what was mentioned as “moral temperature”.
I’ll just have to be satisfied with noting “this is not what most would do”, and as a result “there is no moral interest in this”.
[In general it is not surprising that such a map can’t be made. Morals, biological and/or social products, aren’t consistent. Ethics, social constructs, should be to be practical. There will be situations where they clash.]
But that is what my analysis results in. Others have different notions of morality and ethics. And that is moral. 😀
As far as ‘all ages’ goes – I suggest you add a section or link on the ‘about’ page which clearly spells out the tone you are aiming for. That way anyone wondering whether it’s suitable for their kids can quickly find the relevant info and make an informed decision – and at the end of the day, that’s what’s important.
Good point.
And besides, “parent friendly” comics can’t go wrong?! Pander to the parent, I say! d(>w<)b
Errrm.. um… Crazy Yak and their eating habits!
They got into the boarder’s confiscated stash, that was it. Hoo boy were those boys pissed, we were going to send them back once they… passed. >.>
They have our names and IDs and put a warrant out if they dont get it back, From Us.
Nice pacing with these three large panels. You can feel the tension.
In the first arc we saw someone get killed(?) or at least seriously wounded in a flashback and there were the hints at smuggling aliens so I don’t consider it to be ‘light’. I think the first arc was nice mixture of humor, action and serious story telling and the second arc seems to be the same mix.
As far as the “all ages” label is concerned, perhaps they meant that Runners is suitable for all ages?
While I wouldn’t put it in front of the youngest of children, I think it is a comic that younger readers can enjoy as well as adults. That would put it in the same category as Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings.