[WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

hillsy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:35:14 -0400

Yep, by Michael Pollan (har har).

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

fujikuro — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:26:50 -0400

Botany of Desire, as I remember it, was a book my wife told me about. She had heard the author on NPR one day I believe. Interesting that they made a show about it. From what I heard there was a lot there to BE interested in, especially if popular science is kind of your bag.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

MechaBlazeEagle — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:24:01 -0400

I watched that growing up. Ashame it's gone. RIP Reading Rainbow.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

hillsy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:43:24 -0400

Actually, that WAS a pretty interesting show, Rog.

I will admit, I watch ALOT of PBS...Frontline, POV, Wide Angle, Independent Lens, American Experience, Ken Burns' stuff (I couldn't sit through all of Nat'l Parks, though), Dr. Who, Britcoms, etc. I THINK we're even members (the wife handles that). Now that I think about it....where's my damn tote???

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Roger — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:43:45 -0400

The show was called "The Botany Of Desire," and it also featured apples.

And the reason there was an HIV-positive puppet on the South African is because at the time, one in nine children under the age of ten had HIV. One of the harsh realities of life on a continent that seemingly never had a good day.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Roger — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:40:29 -0400

Hear, hear. There was an awesome special on PBS last night about potatoes, marijuana, and tulips that was fascinating.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

fujikuro — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:14:36 -0400

> However, I wholeheartedly disagree with your view
> of feeling the prescence of PSA tacking issues of
> race, disabilty, orientation as obsolete. Believe
> it or not these issues are indeed alive and well.
> As I've mentioned before of the controversial
> episode of 'Postcards from Buster', if PBS weren't
> intimidated by PC, it would've probably inspire
> children to be tolerant with children living with
> gay families over bullying them.
>
> I also remember an incident with 'Sesame Street'
> at one time. Conservative media groups made a big
> fuss over the idea of having a muppet with HIV to
> appear on the show because South Africa's Sesame
> Street has one, and they don't want a HIV muppet
> to appear on Sesame Street in this country, and
> you're telling me we don't need anymore PSA
> projects? I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your
> statement.

Not at all. But you're clearly younger than I am. The PSA's that were on when I was a kid were entirely different than those from the 80's. Perhaps you don't remember all the ones constantly on tv about littering or about forest fires and so on. They became such a part of our public consciousness that for my age range of people, being reminded to not litter and so on isn't much of an issue. PSA's are incredibly important and always will be. The point is that the subject of what's needed changes constantly, as will the needs of children in terms of educational programming. Really, my bit about PSA's was an adjunct to this point.

>
> If it weren't for PC, we would've probaby see a
> muppet with HIV on our airwaves in which children
> should learn to be tolerable with kids living with
> this disease.

So, wait, your complaint is that Republican groups are being too PC??? I'm fairly liberal myself, and I have to say that this is probably the first complaint I've ever heard of PC being attributed to right-wingers. Usually they're the ones bitching about how there's too much protection for the public image of people of color/gay rights and so on.

>
> If it weren't for PC, The Dept of Education, & PBS
> would've continue to support funding to for
> Reading Rainbow, and last time that I've checked
> LeVar wasn't ready to retire from the show & I'm
> sure that he never wanted to give in their way to
> only teach children to read without expressing the
> passion of reading, because without charm shows
> like that are hollow. They're as bored and
> unflavorable as watching SAT training videos.
>
> I admire your input and your feelings on the whole
> subject Fujikiro, but sadly I don't share your
> perspective as you do. Kids needs educational
> shows with signifcant messages and Reading Rainbow
> was the one of them and now it's gone.

Can't complain about that. It's just your statement about PBS being dead that rubbed me wrong. Like I said, I think they're doing - overall - their best work in probably about two decades right now.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

RodimusZ77 — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:50:21 -0400

fujikuro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny thing... I've got two small children and
> I'm liking PBS far more now than I have since I
> was a kid. I have no need to ever let them watch
> any commercial TV. They get more entertainment
> and information out of what's currently on PBS
> than they would out of any of that faux
> "educational" TV like what you see on Disney
> Channel. Curious George, Dinosaur Train, Word
> World, Clifford, Sid the Science Kid, and a number
> of other shows are really well done,
> super-creative shows that my kids (at least) are
> getting tons out off. They love the shows and
> they learn an awful lot about language, science
> and so on. I see very little of the PC stuff
> you're complaining about.

Granted sir, you gotta point there. I've seen 2 shows that focused on mathematics and science which are 'Cyberchase' and 'DragonflyTV'. Those are 2 good shows I admit they're good shows, but I don't think they're as charming as their predeccessors like 'Square One', 'Newton's Apple', & 3-2-1 Contact. They're not as artistically charming as those 3 shows IMO. I guess I'm too old to appreciate them more, but I'm not too old to know the difference between right and wrong.

You said that you've seen little of PC stuff? Well what's this that I've seen of this controversy that some stupid secretary from the Department of Education had made a big fuss about on the show 'Postcards from Buster'--a spinoff of Arthur for showing this episode of Buster visiting a friendly lesbian couple w/ their children? That episode was censored in almost the whole states because of that which is stupid. This crap happended during the Bush Administration which explains a lot.

Oh I haven't seen Sid The Science Kid and I have no opinion about that one.
>
> BTW, Barney's hardly a 2000's phenomenon. It's
> from 1987 - so, from the 80's. Sesame Street and
> Mr. Roger's aren't 80's shows. They're from far
> earlier than that, and I'm pretty sure Sesame
> Street is still on and going strong with new
> episodes. Mr. Rogers died in 2003, so it's not
> like he's going to be doing anything new...

Even though Barney appeared in the mid 1980s, he doesn't really count in this format because technically, Barney didn't have a TV show on PBS in the 1980s, it was the following decade. Barney was known in the 80s in a series of children's D-T-Vs called 'Barney & The Backyard Gang' starring Sandy Duncan of 'The Hogan Family' sitcom. As far as PBS is concerned, 'Barney & Friends' survived the 90s.

Reading Rainbow still holds as the last 80s PBS kids show standing, now fallen from the sky. But then again, perhaps Degrassi is the 80s last show standing..but that's a teen show!
>
> I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the fact is that
> PBS still is doing good work - lots of good work -
> it's just not what the large portion of us grew up
> on. You can't expect people not to die or retire
> or move on to new projects, and you can't keep
> going with the same old shows. They are
> purpose-driven to meet a demand or educational
> need that in some cases no longer exists.
> Educational messages change over time as the needs
> of the society change.
>
> We no longer so much need messages to children
> about being tolerant of people with physical
> ailments, just as we see very few PSA's about not
> littering any more (these were nearly constant
> when I was a small child in the early 70's). Much
> of those elements have filtered into the public
> consciousness/conscience enough that the focus can
> be brought elsewhere. There are other societal
> demons to tackle now. So, what you perceive as
> PC, I perceive as a different focus on problems in
> the world. Anyway, the point is that we shouldn't
> view this stuff from the "get off my lawn"
> viewpoint, and from that of the people these shows
> are targeted to: the kids.

Fujikiro: I first want to say that there's no insult intended from your tone. I know you're not a jerk saying this. I know that you meant well about this subject, so I wholeheartedly respect your in-depth input of the current status of educational tv. I took your speech by heart and you've made some good, thorough points. You're right, we can expect personalities to last as long as the trees we grow or the wine we've perserve in times. They do come and they do go, but they've made such an impact on our culture so much when we were young, but they should never be taken for granted.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps PBS has done a good job with their programming now that the Dept. of Education is run by a fair administration...but must they be so baby-bopping? Please don't get me wrong sir. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed on my doorstep, I just felt that they're kind of boring. All I'm saying is that they need to be seasoned with some charm.

However, I wholeheartedly disagree with your view of feeling the prescence of PSA tacking issues of race, disabilty, orientation as obsolete. Believe it or not these issues are indeed alive and well. As I've mentioned before of the controversial episode of 'Postcards from Buster', if PBS weren't intimidated by PC, it would've probably inspire children to be tolerant with children living with gay families over bullying them.

I also remember an incident with 'Sesame Street' at one time. Conservative media groups made a big fuss over the idea of having a muppet with HIV to appear on the show because South Africa's Sesame Street has one, and they don't want a HIV muppet to appear on Sesame Street in this country, and you're telling me we don't need anymore PSA projects? I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your statement.

If it weren't for PC, we would've probaby see a muppet with HIV on our airwaves in which children should learn to be tolerable with kids living with this disease.

If it weren't for PC, The Dept of Education, & PBS would've continue to support funding to for Reading Rainbow, and last time that I've checked LeVar wasn't ready to retire from the show & I'm sure that he never wanted to give in their way to only teach children to read without expressing the passion of reading, because without charm shows like that are hollow. They're as bored and unflavorable as watching SAT training videos.

I admire your input and your feelings on the whole subject Fujikiro, but sadly I don't share your perspective as you do. Kids needs educational shows with signifcant messages and Reading Rainbow was the one of them and now it's gone.

RZ-77

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

asterphage — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:13:53 -0400

fujikuro Wrote:
>
> just as we see very few PSA's about not littering any more

But motherfuckers still litter like crazy! Someone's TV didn't raise them right.

On another note, I find the title 'Dinosaur Train' quite intriguing.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

hillsy — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:46:02 -0400

I know these shows reflect the time they are in, but the new Electric Co. can't touch the old one. Can't fake the funk.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

fujikuro — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:28:25 -0400

Funny thing... I've got two small children and I'm liking PBS far more now than I have since I was a kid. I have no need to ever let them watch any commercial TV. They get more entertainment and information out of what's currently on PBS than they would out of any of that faux "educational" TV like what you see on Disney Channel. Curious George, Dinosaur Train, Word World, Clifford, Sid the Science Kid, and a number of other shows are really well done, super-creative shows that my kids (at least) are getting tons out off. They love the shows and they learn an awful lot about language, science and so on. I see very little of the PC stuff you're complaining about.

BTW, Barney's hardly a 2000's phenomenon. It's from 1987 - so, from the 80's. Sesame Street and Mr. Roger's aren't 80's shows. They're from far earlier than that, and I'm pretty sure Sesame Street is still on and going strong with new episodes. Mr. Rogers died in 2003, so it's not like he's going to be doing anything new...

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the fact is that PBS still is doing good work - lots of good work - it's just not what the large portion of us grew up on. You can't expect people not to die or retire or move on to new projects, and you can't keep going with the same old shows. They are purpose-driven to meet a demand or educational need that in some cases no longer exists. Educational messages change over time as the needs of the society change.

We no longer so much need messages to children about being tolerant of people with physical ailments, just as we see very few PSA's about not littering any more (these were nearly constant when I was a small child in the early 70's). Much of those elements have filtered into the public consciousness/conscience enough that the focus can be brought elsewhere. There are other societal demons to tackle now. So, what you perceive as PC, I perceive as a different focus on problems in the world. Anyway, the point is that we shouldn't view this stuff from the "get off my lawn" viewpoint, and from that of the people these shows are targeted to: the kids.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

RodimusZ77 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:00:55 -0400

I'm a few lost for words here...
I can still remember the 1st episode of Reading Rainbow that focused on Volcanoes. The book LeVar presented was called 'Hill of Fire'. I saw that in 1984.

After all those years...I never forgotten that experience. It was etched in my heart all this time. Public TV was a weird universe of its own. In its own way it was a counterculture to mainstream networks as we knew it like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, TNT, HBO, etc.

PBS was bombarded with childrens shows, weird British shows like Dr. Who, & weird Canadian shows like Read All About It! & Today's Special & Calling All Safety Scouts were the stuff that what made the 80s so magical.

I grew up in the 80s as much as you all, and as it pains me to see that PBS is dying out the charm due to the radical new age era of political correctness as in baby-bopper program junk & boring, trite crap like Elmo & Barney & PBS Sprout & other crap.

We've witnessed the fall of great PBS shows like Wonderworks, Powerhouse, The Electric Company, 3-2-1 Contact, The Adventures of Sherlock Jones (Not Holmes--Jones), OWL/TV, The Landscape of Geometry, Featherby's Fables, Yes, Inc., The Music Box, Tales from The Brothers Grimm, Newton's Apple, Wall Street Week, Mystery! hosted by Vincent Price, Square One TV...GOOD GOD SQUARE ONE TV!...

All those 80s shows from PBS...are dead now just like Sesame Street, just like Mr. Rogers' Neigborhood, now this one...Reading Rainbow..another casualty.

This is one of the most saddest things I've ever experienced personally and emotionally because Reading Rainbow is the last...THE LAST SURVIVOR of the 80s kids TV shows on PBS now becomes a faded memory. It's very tragic.

PBS is finally dead.

I'm sorry LeVar...I'm so sorry.

RZ-77

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

thomas — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:43:48 -0400

Roger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> (I love to say to people, "Kid, I've driven from
> one end of New Jersey to the other I’ve seen a lot
> of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to
> make me believe there's one all-powerful force
> controlling everything...")

Entropy.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

asterphage — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:29:05 -0400

Roger Wrote:
> It's awesome that Harry Potter is motivating more
> young kids to read. However, it's not awesome that
> the books just perpetuate the same old elitist
> claptrap that helped keep royalty in control of
> societies for ages. Dare I say it, it's downright
> ANTI-AMERICAN.

> Even as a kid, I always thought the idea of the
> "born special hero" was pretty lame. I was never
> able to get into Harry Potter because of this,
> much as I tried.

It's true that Harry Potter has essentially stumbled into being the saviour of his society for no good reason, but it's not because of his birth or his lineage; it's set up pretty early on that everyone thinks the reason he's the chosen one is because of something that happened to him as a child, not because of some innate quality believed to be given him since birth. On top of that, the books make a really agonizingly overdone point of portraying anyone who thinks one's family background justifies one's status in magical society as PURE EVIL. I'm not sure where you're getting this from - I'm a lot more bothered by the fact that Ron Weasley's family is a blatant poor Irish Catholic stereotype.

> I feel the same way about Ender's Game. (Wait
> until Matt reads this. ;p)

You kind of lost me here too. Ender is not a "born special hero" because he is not a hero. As far as I can tell, the only thing problematic about Ender's origin is that it suggests that the government could force select smart people to breed in order to make super-smart children to send into the military, but whether it constitutes an endorsement of eugenics is up in the air. In any case, the next few Ender books (the ones before Card started that "Shadow" series, which I haven't been able to bring myself to read) makes it pretty clear that what's really special about Ender is his life and actions after massacring the bugs.

> There's nothing to indicate that anyone else in
> the movie can't accomplish what Luke does, they
> just haven't put their minds to it. Even Wedge.
> Hell, even Porkins, or Hammerhead, or R4-M9.

R4-M9 couldn't. Droids are not people and have no soul.

> Maybe Episodes 5 and 6 don't hold to that
> standard, but when Episode 1 finally came around
> and they established the "virgin birth,"

That was a bunch of crap. But, there's this scene in Episode 3 where Palpatine has a word with Anakin at the opera, and basically gives away the game on that supposed "virgin birth" thing... which almost redeems it. If we'd seen Palpatine, say, intimate this information to Count Dooku in episode 1 as part of some instruction that Anakin needs to be kept alive for a while, but then there was a lot going on in the plot of episodes 2-3 that could've been developed earlier and more frequently. I was a little hurt realizing at the end of the prequel trilogy that there was at least one whole good movie in there, spread among the three of them.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Roger — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:28:10 -0400

The first Star Wars (Episode 4) on its own isn't that bad with the born hero thing. Luke becomes a warrior by focusing his thoughts and feelings. There's nothing to indicate that anyone else in the movie can't accomplish what Luke does, they just haven't put their minds to it. Even Wedge. Hell, even Porkins, or Hammerhead, or R4-M9.

Maybe Episodes 5 and 6 don't hold to that standard, but when Episode 1 finally came around and they established the "virgin birth," it's pretty clear that Lucas is singing that old familiar song for us. BO-ring, but I guess there's only so much he could have done with the character, considering that we know that he's going to end up as a cyborg french fry.

I haven't read that David Brin article in 10 years. Love the part about Hitler's trial.

(I love to say to people, "Kid, I've driven from one end of New Jersey to the other I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything...")

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Sanjeev — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:43:11 -0400

Roger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even as a kid, I always thought the idea of the
> "born special hero" was pretty lame. I was never
> able to get into Harry Potter because of this...

I couldn't agree more with this. It's mostly why I never was that into Star Wars even growing up with the superior movies. Then, when Episode I came out (and I was dragged to it), I found the concept of mitochondria or whatever the motherfuck in your blood determining your Jedi-ness little more than Nazi-esque eugenics.

Anyway, I had the exact same reservations when I saw the first Harry Potter movie (which I didn't like much, either)...but I would suggest listening to Jake.

No, I haven't read any of the books (and certainly don't plan to), but you know Jennileen. If you think *I* am outspoken about racism, she's got class issues LOCKED the fuck down. She's read the whole Harry Potter series multiple times (well, she's a children's book writer, herself...so she kinda has to)...and she's said the EXACT same thing to me as Jake has about the series. At first, it looks like the whole classist/destiny crap...but I guess it evolves into more...

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Erik Sjoen — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:19:30 -0400

The Joint Optical Reflective Display allows one to read a rainbow.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Roger — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:17:27 -0400

I guess I was ignorant of how the whole series bucks the trend, then. My personal experience with the series is limited to the first book and the first movie, which I didn't like too much, and everything I'd heard about the rest of the series seemed to back up what I believed. It's unlikely I'll give it a chance but I defer to your wizardly wisdom.

And Happy Birthday to Jake, who was born special!

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Jake — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:23:44 -0400

Roger Wrote:

> Even as a kid, I always thought the idea of the
> "born special hero" was pretty lame. I was never
> able to get into Harry Potter because of this,
> much as I tried.

I'm not going to try to convince you to like something you don't, but as a Potter nerd, I will point out that over the 4K pages of the story, Rowling puts plenty of emphasis on how Harry's choices were more important than his born-special status.

Also, without getting too into the plot, it's made clear that the only thing that singled him out as "the one" was a possible misinterpretation of a prophesy on the part of the bad guy. It could just as easily have been another character and that plays a part in the development of the characters/story. Harry wasn't born special. The actions of his mother and the bad guy put him in the position he was in.

Thank you

P.S. Fuck all y'all, I love Harry Potter and today is my birthday.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Roger — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:56:04 -0400

David Brin wrote an excellent editorial about the phenomenon when Star Wars: Episode 1 came out. Even if you don't read the whole article, the bullet points on the first page touch on some of what I believe:

[www.salon.com]

Even as a kid, I always thought the idea of the "born special hero" was pretty lame. I was never able to get into Harry Potter because of this, much as I tried. Someone encouraged me to read The Lightning Thief lately, which I felt was more of the same. Most fantasy heroes hinge on this concept, which is probably why I don't like any fantasy stories aside from Lord of the Rings.

I feel the same way about Ender's Game. (Wait until Matt reads this. ;p)

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

hillsy — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:17:42 -0400

>However, it's not awesome that the books just perpetuate the same old elitist >claptrap that helped keep royalty in control of societies for ages. Dare I say >it, it's downright ANTI-AMERICAN.

Rojyaa-san...please 'splain. I have neither read the books or seen any of the movies.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

VF5SS — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:27:25 -0400

Maybe they should all read Starship Troopers so they learn what it means to be a citizen.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Roger — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:50:25 -0400

It's awesome that Harry Potter is motivating more young kids to read. However, it's not awesome that the books just perpetuate the same old elitist claptrap that helped keep royalty in control of societies for ages. Dare I say it, it's downright ANTI-AMERICAN.

(George Lucas is guilty of this too, but this thread about reading, not movies.)

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

repairtechjon — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:20:30 -0400

Scopedog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> repairtechjon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it's not in "OMG< ROFL< KEWL" txt
>
> "Oh my god less than rolling on floor laughing
> less than cool"
>
> Did I get it right?

Ding! It IS less than Kewl. Your No Prize is on the way. *boink* oops , just walked into a wall again whilst texting that...

So, .. who's gonna be better at Charades/Pictionary/Taboo/ etc. games now? The whippersnappers, or the old farts?

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

hillsy — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:52:48 -0400

Yeah, they got all pricey when they were doing 4 separate chromium cover variants. Then they went to digital coloring on better paper and made them look extry purty to justify KEEPING that price when the market tanked. I still buy some stuff...there's something about having a comic book in my hands. For most stuff, I either wait for the TPB or pick them up when they hit the discount bin.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Sanjeev — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:29:27 -0400

Sure. But comics were selling in the $3+ range for a LONG time before bittorrent and other electronic pirating.

Anyway, I'm not trying to "rationalize" anything. I understand fully that it's illegal and arguably immoral. I was simply explaining the parameters under which I read comics.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

mcfitch — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:07:55 -0400

Hillsy, Doh! I meant $.35

Sanjeev, rationalize it how you want, but that's a big part of why comics cost more now.
-Mason

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Sanjeev — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:41:09 -0400

I'm not gonna lie: I read most of my comics via bittorrented .cbz/.cbr files. I only pay for the books I really like. I look at it like listening to the radio: that's free...and if I happen to like something I come across, I'll buy the album.

Anyway, a buddy of mine who's a children's book writer tells me that that genre is HUGE...precisely because of what fujikuro mentioned: Harry fucking Potter.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

Prometheum5 — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:17:51 -0400

Still ONLY 35c!

The price of comics today is killing me... I've totally but back. I won't buy miniseries (besides Iron Man stuff, because I am still a whore) until their in trade paperbacks, and am down to like three ongoings at the comic shop.

Re: [WE'RE FUCKED] Reading Rainbow cancelled

hillsy — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:07:18 -0400

I think you paid a premium then, Mason! I'm fairly certain those were in the $.40 range when they came out. ;)