Big Ethel Energy: A Failure in Character Design (Part 1)
WEBtoon, an online webcomic platform, has partnered with Archie Comics to make a webcomic called Big Ethel Energy (hereafter referred to as BEE). I was very excited to read this, because while I adore the character of Ethel she rarely gets a serious comic treatment. Imagine my disappointment when I was forced to come to the conclusion that this is actually a rather bad comic.
The most glaring issue is their depiction of Ethel. In a comic pitched to be about her coming to terms with her unconventional appearance (more detail on this in Part 2) it seems very strange to completely redesign her appearance. For comparison purposes, here we have Ethel Muggs as drawn in the traditional Archie comics media.
She’s tall, skinny, with knobbly knees and buckteeth and a decidedly non button nose. She was quite a change from the hourglass figure most of the other girls in Archie are drawn, and in her original stories was used as comedic relief. Her most common plot was pursuing a romantic relationship with Jughead, usually while also physically pursuing him. When the original slapstick stories of the comic evolved into storytelling not primarily involved in pratfalls she was given more nuance and shown to be a fully formed individual with thoughts and hobbies outside of liking Jughead, with the rest of the cast going through a similar evolution. Yet Ethel remained a side character, meaning that she received very little attention and solid characterization. So how does our comic portray her?
Okay, this is an Ethel during high school. She’s very short, and also has a cute button nose and nice teeth. An interesting choice, but perhaps it’s just this flashback? Maybe BEE aged her down a little, and when she’s older she’ll be the tall stick girl we all know and love. Let’s take a look at her adult design!
Hmm. She is noticeably stockier, and her nose and teeth are still regular. And to add insult to injury...
Who is this short woman? Why is she drawn like this? There’s nothing wrong with portraying characters who are larger than average, but that is NOT Ethel Muggs. Especially when you then go out of your way to give her more conventionally attractive features.
In researching this I discovered that one source of their inspiration might have been the CW’s Ethel Muggs portrayed by Shannon Purser.
I have never seen this show and have no plans to, and this is not meant to be a critique of the acting and characterization of this Ethel. I’m simply pointing out that the resemblance between Riverdale’s Ethel and BEE’s Ethel is stronger than to the comic book counterpart. A hair color does not a character design make, especially when your character is notable for their differing body type.
Perhaps they wanted to make their comic about fatphobia. It seems odd to me that you’d pick Ethel for this task, when there are already plus sized characters in the original comics. One of my favourites is Brigitte Reilly, a singer and wonderfully kind person often overlooked due to her physical appearance.
But fine. You don’t want Brigette, you want Ethel, likely because that’s a bigger name. You know what? Because I love Ethel and I do think a story about appearance is worth telling, I’m going to give this comic the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they do still have a story worth telling. Let’s take a look at the story, focusing on how it treats her appearance.
Part of the plot is Ethel being bullied for her appearance in the past. Let’s look at an example in Episode 10, where Veronica is dressing girls for a charity fashion show.
Alright. I want you to look at this dialogue dead in the eye. And then tell me that these are supposed to be meant as anything but digs about Ethel being “fat”. But she’s clearly being drawn as stick thin! This comic is not showing a character being “fat-shamed,” it’s showing a character outright _lying _in an attempt to be mean to another character. And it keeps happening, with characters being mean to Ethel about an appearance she literally doesn’t even have!
These inconsistencies aren’t ever pointed out by other characters in the story. And I must once again reiterate that Ethel looks _exactly the same _as other characters, with only a slightly altered body type.
If your character looks conventionally attractive then you are _not _telling a story about dealing with societal standards of beauty. I find it a little insulting that her redesign seems to make her “hotter” for her first solo title, and more than a little strange that the art and the writing seem to clash so terribly.
On the bio for BEE the artist shares an anecdote, about an art director telling her to “stop making the characters so hot.” She apparently didn’t listen. This is not meant to incite any harassment of the people involved but rather start a critical dialogue. Sometimes the art style can enhance a story and sometimes it’s unimportant, but in this case the artist clearly does not have the skills to tell the story that’s being written.
This is more than my personal preference for unique character designs. It fundamentally changes the story being told. This is no longer a comic about an awkward girl learning to love herself despite looking different, it’s a story about a totally hot girl who was unfairly bullied and now is fabulous and everybody is into her. While such a story might still be enjoyable it’s disappointing to see something with this much potential squander it for a run of the mill makeover tale. Because sometimes people aren’t conventionally attractive, and they still deserve stories where they’re the heroes without a “glow-up.”
