And welcome to Entry Three. It's occurred to me that it'd be more accurate to call these entries "The Fan's Perspective on the Casual Fan and Non-Fan's Perspective," but that fatigues the tongue a tad. Oh well. For the week currently under discussion, the class read GREEN LANTERN: EMERALD DAWN.
As I walked into the classroom, some of my fellow students who also arrived early were chatting about the Green Lantern mythos with the facilitators. And what one guy said confused me. He was explaining some background but all the information was completely off. I was wondering just what on Earth was going on until I realized it: He was conflating Katma Tui and Jade into one character and thought they were the same person. Then it all made sense.
Thinking about, I suppose they do *kind of* look similar if you take each from the period she were wearing the standard Green Lantern Corps uniform. I mean, they both have dark hair and inhumanly-hued skin, so if one were to forget what the colors were and only remember that they're unusual ones... Okay, no matter what angle I look at it from, it's still a pretty strange mix-up.
Well, moving onto classtime proper... Wow, they *really* didn't like this one. So, to recaputilate: The Non-Fan's Opinion -- THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN - Eh, BATMAN: YEAR ONE - Yay, EMERALD DAWN - Nay. According to the facilitators, the student response to EMERALD DAWN was predominantly negative, something reflected in the class discussion. What's funny was the nature of the criticism. A number of people expressed their distaste towards the "politics" of the Green Lantern concept; they detected an unhealthy ideology inside. They found the character of Hal Jordan and the GLC concept as a whole as very "American," in the bad sense of the word. There were comments about about moral relativism and how the Guardians of the Universe have no right to enforce their values onto other cultures. Certainly an amusing discussion to watch, have to say.
Heck, one guy even talked about how he saw the color green as a metaphor. As he put it, the Guardians are trying to spread morality, but it's only their culture's morality, a filtered light (one color) instead of white (all colors). Personally, I find that a pretentious interpretation, but at the same time a small part of me finds it neat.
A secondary target of criticism was the absurdity of, well, *all* the story's science. A bunch of students just found it too much, really. I suppose the Green Lantern concept does require a sizeable scooping of suspension of disbelief, doesn't it, even by superhero standards? And oh yes, you can bet the phrase "weakness to the color yellow" was uttered. Personally, I always liked that bit; it works really well in terms of visuals.
The following week's trade paperback was DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
Inside the DetrActor's Studio
The above image was posted on John Byrne's official forum a short time ago. It's been making the usual Internet rounds that amusing messages on the J.B.B.S. make.
Here's what raises my eyebrow:
Wha--? That looks an awfully lot like the star of that Image title APHRODITE IX, I thought. A little Googling later, and whadayaknow:
This is weird. At first glance, APHRODITE IX would seem to be the type of book that goest totally against all Byrne's tastes and biases in comics. And after looking over its Wikiprofile so that I'd actually, you know, know something about it, I'll say there was nothing there to change my mind. (I also learned that I've been getting APHRODITE IX and CODENAME: KNOCKOUT mixed up all this time. Odd.) John Byrne can't possibly be a fan of this series. He really can't.
(And it's neither here nor there, but how does that statue exist in the first place? The series lasted -- What does Wikipedia say? -- four issues. Is its fan base extremely devoted or something?)
I considered the possibility that he had some connection to the short-lived book on a professional level, unlikely as that is given his 24-hour tantrum towards Image Comics. Nothing's turning up on web searches, though.
So why does he own the darn thing? What reason could he; John Byrne, writer-artist of Big Barda being brainwashed into filming pornography and She-Hulk jumping rope naked; have for putting in his home this:
What gives?
Statue images pulled from forceonetoys.com and www.diamondcomics.com.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Alan Davism, Part One
Not a typo but rather another one of my oh-so-clever plays on words.
I found myself poking around Alan Davis's official website and, man alive, I've just become an even bigger fan of his work!
Why? The answer to that question lies in the answer to the next: What's wrong with the following picture, available at his site?
Absolutely nothing, that's what. Yet Davis still went to the trouble of redrawing and retracing it onto a new board because he wasn't satisfied with the results. And it's not the only example of him doing so on his website. This man takes the time to redo perfectly acceptable images to make them even better.
And that's Reason One why Alan Davis rocks: "Good enough" apparently *isn't* good enough for him.
***
And while I'm on the subject of his webpage, I'll take the opportunity to encourage going for a visit. Not only does it contain other examples of pages with which he wasn't satisfied, it has all sorts of other neat little bits of graphite beauty as well. Make sure you stop by only when you have lots of free time; you just might find it difficult to tear away.
I found myself poking around Alan Davis's official website and, man alive, I've just become an even bigger fan of his work!
Why? The answer to that question lies in the answer to the next: What's wrong with the following picture, available at his site?
Absolutely nothing, that's what. Yet Davis still went to the trouble of redrawing and retracing it onto a new board because he wasn't satisfied with the results. And it's not the only example of him doing so on his website. This man takes the time to redo perfectly acceptable images to make them even better.
And that's Reason One why Alan Davis rocks: "Good enough" apparently *isn't* good enough for him.
***
And while I'm on the subject of his webpage, I'll take the opportunity to encourage going for a visit. Not only does it contain other examples of pages with which he wasn't satisfied, it has all sorts of other neat little bits of graphite beauty as well. Make sure you stop by only when you have lots of free time; you just might find it difficult to tear away.
Superheroes, the Sub-Genre of Disemboweled Earths
In my experience, most people these days -- or at least those in my age bracket -- don't look down on people who read comics, superhero or otherwise.
Whether or not they look down on the comics themselves is another matter.
Ever try to picture in your mind just how non-fans perceive superhero comics to be, what goes through their head when they see an issue of THE FLASH on a tabletop? I imagine it's something similar to what goes through my head when I take a look at this:
And they wouldn't be entirely wrong either, I suppose.
Image's a Wikipicture.
Whether or not they look down on the comics themselves is another matter.
Ever try to picture in your mind just how non-fans perceive superhero comics to be, what goes through their head when they see an issue of THE FLASH on a tabletop? I imagine it's something similar to what goes through my head when I take a look at this:
And they wouldn't be entirely wrong either, I suppose.
Image's a Wikipicture.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Extra: Silver Age Lives On in Birdcage Lining
*This* is what I should have named my blog.
This entry's technically not superhero-related, true, but come on!
...And now I'm thinking it'd be an interesting experiment for a writer to do a superhero series that uses tabloid headlines as the bases for every story. It'd be something to see, don't you think?
Saturday, December 23, 2006
The Non-Fan's Perspective: BATMAN
May I present Entry Two of "The Non-Fan's Perspective." I've begun making use of Blogger's label system, so now we can click on the "non-fan's perspective" tag/label to access the previous entries.
Last entry was about Week 2: Superman. This one covers Week 3: Batman. I'll be doing the entries in chronological order, or at least I will until I start forgetting what order we read the assigned TPBs in.
The Batman trade the facilitators chose was YEAR ONE. I'd already read it a couple of years back, so I didn't bother re-reading for the course. From what I remember of it, it was quite good, with some impressive, impactful wording inside the narration boxes, but it also dragged somewhat towards the end. Maybe that had more to do with the mood I was in, though.
Anyway, opinions about the David Mazzucchelli artwork were very mixed among the class. Some thought it was terrific. That came as no surprise. Others absolutely hated it. That did come as a surprise. Yeah, I don't get it, either.
Paralleling the previous week, the class discussion wandered to whether Bruce Wayne or Batman is the real identity. I can't say it's a topic that holds much interest for me; it seems to be little more than an issue of semantics. Various students brought up the same few points that come up whenever this question hits Internet fandom.
One student, seemingly familiar with the Batman movies, asked whether it was the Joker or Ra's Al Ghul who was Batman's arch-nemesis. The facilitators responded that it really depends on who you ask, but I'm not sure I agree with that. Surely, it's the Joker?
Heh, if Ra's Al Ghul really was as prominent as the Joker, I'd probably be able to enjoy Batman stories a lot more. A centuries-old eco-terrorist who runs a group called the League of Assassins? That guy's just plain cool.
Another student asked the much more *interesting* question, "So I hear Batman knows how to use magic?" Still not sure what that was about.
Also discussed was whether or not Batman's a superhero. I have to say, this surprised me. I would have thought this was a question only fans would ever discuss, a topic restricted to people who can no longer see the forest for the trees. I mean... it's Batman. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, y'know? In my opinion a person claiming Batman's not a superhero is focused too much on the small details and not enough on the big picture, which is behavior in the domain of fans. I was really surprised that non-fans could see the cape, the skin-tight costume, the secret identity, the costume, the crimefighting, etc. without the word "superhero" immediately stamping itself into the brain.
That's that. The next TPB we read was GREEN LANTERN: EMERALD DAWN. And I'll be keeping to the intended roughly weekly schedule now.
Last entry was about Week 2: Superman. This one covers Week 3: Batman. I'll be doing the entries in chronological order, or at least I will until I start forgetting what order we read the assigned TPBs in.
The Batman trade the facilitators chose was YEAR ONE. I'd already read it a couple of years back, so I didn't bother re-reading for the course. From what I remember of it, it was quite good, with some impressive, impactful wording inside the narration boxes, but it also dragged somewhat towards the end. Maybe that had more to do with the mood I was in, though.
Anyway, opinions about the David Mazzucchelli artwork were very mixed among the class. Some thought it was terrific. That came as no surprise. Others absolutely hated it. That did come as a surprise. Yeah, I don't get it, either.
Paralleling the previous week, the class discussion wandered to whether Bruce Wayne or Batman is the real identity. I can't say it's a topic that holds much interest for me; it seems to be little more than an issue of semantics. Various students brought up the same few points that come up whenever this question hits Internet fandom.
One student, seemingly familiar with the Batman movies, asked whether it was the Joker or Ra's Al Ghul who was Batman's arch-nemesis. The facilitators responded that it really depends on who you ask, but I'm not sure I agree with that. Surely, it's the Joker?
Heh, if Ra's Al Ghul really was as prominent as the Joker, I'd probably be able to enjoy Batman stories a lot more. A centuries-old eco-terrorist who runs a group called the League of Assassins? That guy's just plain cool.
Another student asked the much more *interesting* question, "So I hear Batman knows how to use magic?" Still not sure what that was about.
Also discussed was whether or not Batman's a superhero. I have to say, this surprised me. I would have thought this was a question only fans would ever discuss, a topic restricted to people who can no longer see the forest for the trees. I mean... it's Batman. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, y'know? In my opinion a person claiming Batman's not a superhero is focused too much on the small details and not enough on the big picture, which is behavior in the domain of fans. I was really surprised that non-fans could see the cape, the skin-tight costume, the secret identity, the costume, the crimefighting, etc. without the word "superhero" immediately stamping itself into the brain.
That's that. The next TPB we read was GREEN LANTERN: EMERALD DAWN. And I'll be keeping to the intended roughly weekly schedule now.
Friday, December 22, 2006
From Mongoose Blood to Mutancy, A Retcon
Wanting to know more about the character this blog gets its name from, I hopped over to Wikipedia to take a look-see at the Whizzer's entry. (Despite my knock at the site some days back, I find it quite useful, and in the final analysis I'm glad it exists. )
Apparently, Marvel retconned the Whizzer's origin at some point? Wow, what? Behold:
The Whizzer's origin is considered particularly improbable even by comic book standards (i.e. receiving a transfusion of animal blood is far more likely to be fatal than beneficial), and later writers revealed via retcon that the mongoose blood had simply acted as a catalyst to his already mutant physiology, which also presumably allowed him to survive the transfusion in the first place.
That's... a lot less fun, really. It's relatively more realistic but it also has a bit too much of a generic quality. It doesn't fire up the imagination the way the original origin does. Assuming the entry's accurate, of course.
Oh, well. Despite APLOMB's etymological origin, I'm not much of a fan of Bob Frank, so it doesn't really bother me.
Apparently, Marvel retconned the Whizzer's origin at some point? Wow, what? Behold:
The Whizzer's origin is considered particularly improbable even by comic book standards (i.e. receiving a transfusion of animal blood is far more likely to be fatal than beneficial), and later writers revealed via retcon that the mongoose blood had simply acted as a catalyst to his already mutant physiology, which also presumably allowed him to survive the transfusion in the first place.
That's... a lot less fun, really. It's relatively more realistic but it also has a bit too much of a generic quality. It doesn't fire up the imagination the way the original origin does. Assuming the entry's accurate, of course.
Oh, well. Despite APLOMB's etymological origin, I'm not much of a fan of Bob Frank, so it doesn't really bother me.
The Cosmos-Shaking Conundrum of Stan Lee's Un-Secret IDENTITY!!!
No, the title of this entry is not referring to the fact that Stan Lee wears a toupee and is in actuality bald. I believe that's true, anyway. I read it on a website so it has to be, right?
What this entry is about is the re-broadcast on Bravo of that new game show Identity this evening, a re-broadcast I happened to catch. Who did I see on the screen? Why, it was none other than the effusive Stan Lee.
It's funny. Shortly after I first saw a commercial about the show and found out about it, I found myself wondering if they'd get Stan Lee to appear as one of the identity-obscured guests. After all, he'd appeared on To Tell the Truth before (the most recent version), and given everything I'd seen of him, it sounded like something he'd be up for.
Huh. I just realized, this is the third entry in the short time since APLOMB was erected that has to do with predicting the future. Just the tiniest bit weird, that. Okay, aside over.
I happened to tune into the show some minutes into it, when a few of the guests had already been Identified. As I saw an avuncular, elderly man in one of the back rows, my thoughts went something along the lines of "Wait a minute, is that... no, it couldn't be... hey, it is. Cool."
The Identity that the constestant had to attach to Lee was "the creator of Spider-Man," which she was able to do based on his age. She pointed out that Spider-Man was pretty darn old, to which Penn Surname-Unknown-To-Me (the host) jokingly replied, "I believe Peter Parker is 26-years-old." I remember wondering if the people who only know Spider-Man from the movies, one of the various cartoons, or even the Ultimate titles thought, "Hey, that ain't right..."
When "The Man" revealed himself, he told her, "My spider-sense tells me you're right."
I wondered if there'd actually been a lot of buzz about Lee's appearance on comic fan Internet circles and I'd simply managed to miss it all, so I did a Blogger search. What I found was nice. Nice in that it's always nice to be reassured that it's not just the diehard, obsessed comic fans who can be awfully crazy.
Ahem:
WTF is with NBC's limited-time gameshow, Identity? Tonight's moronic Rachel Ray lookalike had to be spoonfed clues as to who Stan Lee was ( I haven't read a comic book in my life and I could still pick him out on sight)...
That's from one blogger, someone who apparently thinks not being able to recognize Stan Lee is reason enough to label a person idiotic.
Of course, those who are obsessed fans, never ones to disappoint, also provided their reliable brand of craziness:
As someone young enough to not respect Lee for anything more than a creative mind (yeah, his writing was crap. Creative crap, but crap), I don’t know why I felt such an overwhelming sense of shame and revulsion at seeing this legend propped up before a small studio audience as some pretty bimbo named Nikki tried to figure out whether he was the creator of Spider-Man.
***
While I do feel somewhat sorry for Lee, even more I feel aggravated with him. Yes, the spotlight is a hard thing to let go of, but those who revere Stan Lee and have revered him for many, many years are comic book fans. He needs to realize that those loyal readers are who trained a spotlight on him, and if he wants to keep in their minds, he can do so through comic-book related projects.
By keeping on with these other appearances, he’s only making a fool of himself, and making comics appear foolish to non-readers.
No, what makes comics appear foolish to non-readers are the fans so uptight that Stan Lee having some fun and appearing on a harmless game show drives them into a fit. You know, the same fans who think Lee is betraying them -- betraying, I say!-- if he does something in the public eye that's not comic book-related?
And this blogger insults the contestant's intelligence, too. What's with that?
So in conclusion, now that I sort of predicted Stan Lee's appearance on the show, no doubt you're all sorry that you doubted my deduction of the Mystery Project's identity. Not really, of course. I'll repeat that I don't even believe my deduction.
What this entry is about is the re-broadcast on Bravo of that new game show Identity this evening, a re-broadcast I happened to catch. Who did I see on the screen? Why, it was none other than the effusive Stan Lee.
It's funny. Shortly after I first saw a commercial about the show and found out about it, I found myself wondering if they'd get Stan Lee to appear as one of the identity-obscured guests. After all, he'd appeared on To Tell the Truth before (the most recent version), and given everything I'd seen of him, it sounded like something he'd be up for.
Huh. I just realized, this is the third entry in the short time since APLOMB was erected that has to do with predicting the future. Just the tiniest bit weird, that. Okay, aside over.
I happened to tune into the show some minutes into it, when a few of the guests had already been Identified. As I saw an avuncular, elderly man in one of the back rows, my thoughts went something along the lines of "Wait a minute, is that... no, it couldn't be... hey, it is. Cool."
The Identity that the constestant had to attach to Lee was "the creator of Spider-Man," which she was able to do based on his age. She pointed out that Spider-Man was pretty darn old, to which Penn Surname-Unknown-To-Me (the host) jokingly replied, "I believe Peter Parker is 26-years-old." I remember wondering if the people who only know Spider-Man from the movies, one of the various cartoons, or even the Ultimate titles thought, "Hey, that ain't right..."
When "The Man" revealed himself, he told her, "My spider-sense tells me you're right."
I wondered if there'd actually been a lot of buzz about Lee's appearance on comic fan Internet circles and I'd simply managed to miss it all, so I did a Blogger search. What I found was nice. Nice in that it's always nice to be reassured that it's not just the diehard, obsessed comic fans who can be awfully crazy.
Ahem:
WTF is with NBC's limited-time gameshow, Identity? Tonight's moronic Rachel Ray lookalike had to be spoonfed clues as to who Stan Lee was ( I haven't read a comic book in my life and I could still pick him out on sight)...
That's from one blogger, someone who apparently thinks not being able to recognize Stan Lee is reason enough to label a person idiotic.
Of course, those who are obsessed fans, never ones to disappoint, also provided their reliable brand of craziness:
As someone young enough to not respect Lee for anything more than a creative mind (yeah, his writing was crap. Creative crap, but crap), I don’t know why I felt such an overwhelming sense of shame and revulsion at seeing this legend propped up before a small studio audience as some pretty bimbo named Nikki tried to figure out whether he was the creator of Spider-Man.
***
While I do feel somewhat sorry for Lee, even more I feel aggravated with him. Yes, the spotlight is a hard thing to let go of, but those who revere Stan Lee and have revered him for many, many years are comic book fans. He needs to realize that those loyal readers are who trained a spotlight on him, and if he wants to keep in their minds, he can do so through comic-book related projects.
By keeping on with these other appearances, he’s only making a fool of himself, and making comics appear foolish to non-readers.
No, what makes comics appear foolish to non-readers are the fans so uptight that Stan Lee having some fun and appearing on a harmless game show drives them into a fit. You know, the same fans who think Lee is betraying them -- betraying, I say!-- if he does something in the public eye that's not comic book-related?
And this blogger insults the contestant's intelligence, too. What's with that?
So in conclusion, now that I sort of predicted Stan Lee's appearance on the show, no doubt you're all sorry that you doubted my deduction of the Mystery Project's identity. Not really, of course. I'll repeat that I don't even believe my deduction.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Cray-Sized Pull List, 12-20
I've decided to add a "Will I re-read it anytime soon" part to all of my so-called reviews. It's pretty self-explanatory, neh? (Reference to one of this week's comics for the self-win.) Just another tweak as I figure out what format best appeals to me. As usual, here there be SPOILERS:
Batman 660
Grotesk, Part 2
-- I somehow didn't see this on the stands last week, so I bought it during this one.
Wow, Johnny Karaoke's really cool, not to mention a lot of fun. And, of course, it's always nice to see more Asian characters around.
This was a decent issue, but I found the way it ended pretty strange, very abrupt. The final page/panel (it was a splash, so they're one and the same) isn't really a proper ending. I know it's part two of a four-part story, but individual chapters of a multi-parter usually still have a structure to them; even when the ending's a cliffhanger, it's still some kind of chapter conclusion. What we had here was... just a scene that happens; it *felt* like something that'd have more pages following it.
My guess as to the killer's identity: It's the sister, Amina Franklin. She, and not her brother, is the person behind Grotesk.
-- Will I re-read it anytime soon: No.
Fables 56
Jiminy Christmas
-- It took me a while to get into Fables, but I'm glad I stuck with it because I'm now really liking it month in and month out. This issue was simply delightful, from the surprising gag at the start to the warm character interaction at the end.
Those readers who are bereft of souls will no doubt complain about how Santa delivering presents to mundies makes no sense because the Fables are legally required to keep their existence strictly secret. But, well... they have no souls.
It's interesting how, with 1001 Nights of Snowfall (one *great* book) having been released, references to its stories snowballed in this ish. I wonder if Willingham will continue referencing it to such an extent in future issues.
-- Will I re-read it anytime soon: No.
Aquaman: Sword of Atlantis 47
Crown of Thorns, Part II: Coral Song
-- Reading this title gives me a strange feeling. I can't fully immerse myself in the story because I know a new writer's taking over in just a few more issues, before Busiek'll be able to bring everything to its conclusion. Every time we see a new development in the larger story or the beginning of a new subplot, I can't get too excited over the question, "Where's this headed?" because I know the answer might end up being, "Not where it was originally intended," or even, "Nowhere." I have no idea how many of the seeds Busiek sowed Williams will pick up, but even for those he does, there'll be the knowledge that we're not seeing the original vision those seeds were planted for. Heck, I'm not even sure I'll be sticking with Williams's run; I haven't read enough of his work to guess how much I'll like his writing.
This issue works as much as an example of the above as any. Here we have some nice seed-sowing, with the appearance of the coral-haired girl, the introduction of Reef's End, and the "thornéd crown" prophecy. It's a nice setup job for future issues, but since that setup *might* end up being for naught...
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with completely stand-alone stories that have no impact on the future. That's why I dislike it when people use the pejorative term "filler," as if there's something bad about a story that doesn't contribute to some grand arc. However, in this particular story's case, a large part of its appeal *comes* from what it sets up for later. What it sets up might come to fruition, true; even if Williams chooses to not follow up, Busiek still has two issues left. Still, knowing of the *possibility* that it won't affects me.
Because of all this, I couldn't really get into this issue, couldn't commit myself to the reading experience. Not with these nagging thoughts in the back of my head.
-- Will I re-read it anytime soon: No.
Batman 660
Grotesk, Part 2
-- I somehow didn't see this on the stands last week, so I bought it during this one.
Wow, Johnny Karaoke's really cool, not to mention a lot of fun. And, of course, it's always nice to see more Asian characters around.
This was a decent issue, but I found the way it ended pretty strange, very abrupt. The final page/panel (it was a splash, so they're one and the same) isn't really a proper ending. I know it's part two of a four-part story, but individual chapters of a multi-parter usually still have a structure to them; even when the ending's a cliffhanger, it's still some kind of chapter conclusion. What we had here was... just a scene that happens; it *felt* like something that'd have more pages following it.
My guess as to the killer's identity: It's the sister, Amina Franklin. She, and not her brother, is the person behind Grotesk.
-- Will I re-read it anytime soon: No.
Fables 56
Jiminy Christmas
-- It took me a while to get into Fables, but I'm glad I stuck with it because I'm now really liking it month in and month out. This issue was simply delightful, from the surprising gag at the start to the warm character interaction at the end.
Those readers who are bereft of souls will no doubt complain about how Santa delivering presents to mundies makes no sense because the Fables are legally required to keep their existence strictly secret. But, well... they have no souls.
It's interesting how, with 1001 Nights of Snowfall (one *great* book) having been released, references to its stories snowballed in this ish. I wonder if Willingham will continue referencing it to such an extent in future issues.
-- Will I re-read it anytime soon: No.
Aquaman: Sword of Atlantis 47
Crown of Thorns, Part II: Coral Song
-- Reading this title gives me a strange feeling. I can't fully immerse myself in the story because I know a new writer's taking over in just a few more issues, before Busiek'll be able to bring everything to its conclusion. Every time we see a new development in the larger story or the beginning of a new subplot, I can't get too excited over the question, "Where's this headed?" because I know the answer might end up being, "Not where it was originally intended," or even, "Nowhere." I have no idea how many of the seeds Busiek sowed Williams will pick up, but even for those he does, there'll be the knowledge that we're not seeing the original vision those seeds were planted for. Heck, I'm not even sure I'll be sticking with Williams's run; I haven't read enough of his work to guess how much I'll like his writing.
This issue works as much as an example of the above as any. Here we have some nice seed-sowing, with the appearance of the coral-haired girl, the introduction of Reef's End, and the "thornéd crown" prophecy. It's a nice setup job for future issues, but since that setup *might* end up being for naught...
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with completely stand-alone stories that have no impact on the future. That's why I dislike it when people use the pejorative term "filler," as if there's something bad about a story that doesn't contribute to some grand arc. However, in this particular story's case, a large part of its appeal *comes* from what it sets up for later. What it sets up might come to fruition, true; even if Williams chooses to not follow up, Busiek still has two issues left. Still, knowing of the *possibility* that it won't affects me.
Because of all this, I couldn't really get into this issue, couldn't commit myself to the reading experience. Not with these nagging thoughts in the back of my head.
-- Will I re-read it anytime soon: No.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Wonder Woman Is Not a Femizonian
She merely plays one on the Kirby-dot-specked TVs of uninformed fans.
I'm breezing around at Wikipedia and what do I spy? This is from their entry for Marvel's Thundra. Scroll to the bottom and you see...
Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman?
There are a few interesting similarities between Thundra and DC's Wonder Woman:
I'm breezing around at Wikipedia and what do I spy? This is from their entry for Marvel's Thundra. Scroll to the bottom and you see...
Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman?
There are a few interesting similarities between Thundra and DC's Wonder Woman:
- Both women are highly skilled in the art of physical combat
- Both come from advanced societies where women rule (Femizonia and Paradise Island respectively)
- Both wear metal bracelets
- Both wear tiaras
- Both carry lariat-like accessories (Wonder Woman's golden lasso, Thundra's chain)
- Both place high value on the virtues of 'sisterhood'
- Both women generally consider men to be inferior, but have had relationships with men they felt were 'worthy' of them (Superman, Trevor Barnes, Ben Grimm)
Bold emphasis mine. All linked text theirs.
And once again Wikipedia demonstrates the unfaltering reliability of an information source any joe or jane with Internet access can modify!
Why Write DC: The Super-Writers
Over at Superman fansite theages.superman.ws, they've put up an interview with Elliot S! Maggin and Cary Bates from The Amazing World of DC Comics 2, from 1974.
There are some interesting (I use that word too much, don't I?) comments about That Other Comic Book Company:
MAGGIN: I really don't think Marvel is competing with National. They're not working for the same market. I work for National because I'm not interested in writing for college students what should be read by kids. I think the only reason anyone over fifteen should enjoy reading a comic is a kind of whimsical one - because it would have made him happy when he was a kid, not because it boggles his mind now. It should take more than twenty well-illustrated pages to stretch the perceptions of someone that age or older.
***
MAGGIN: Letter columns, ad campaigns, promotional gimmicks, even fan magazines National puts out, they're not as SILLY as at Marvel. They take themselves much more seriously at National for some ridiculous reason that's beyond me. Where Marvel will call their magazine FOOM, spend six months trying to get people interested in what FOOM means, and it turns out to be "Friends of Ol' Marvel", with "old" spelled "o-l-apostrophe"... National will put out a magazine called THE AMAZING WORLD OF DC COMICS. It's an uninteresting name. FOOM is, too, but at least FOOM is dumb and silly, and everyone will say, "FOOM - what a stupid name." Nobody will think twice about a name like THE AMAZING WORLD OF DC COMICS, it seems to me.
BATES: This is the difference between National and Marvel. Marvel's readers are older, so they look at the books as more "camp," to be made fun of. National has younger readers who take the books much more seriously. If National wrote dialogue that tried to be campy, I'd be offended.
INTERVIEWER: DC TRIED THAT DURING THE BATMAN TV ERA. IT SEEMED VERY FALSE FOR OUR CHARACTERS.
***
BATES: If they're good stories, they should hold up as stories and still be fun, whereas Marvel's are just fun, fun, twenty pages of fun. There's no story - just action. There's nothing there.
MAGGIN: I take it that in your midwestern neo-puritan parlance, "fun" is roughly synonymous with "peurile." If that's the case, I agree.
Wow, of all the different arguments in the tiresome Marvel versus DC debate I've heard over the years, I've never encountered these ones before.
I don't think I agree with them, for that matter, but all the same, it's an interesting (there's that word again) insight into how two of the major Superman writers of the period approached writing.
There are some interesting (I use that word too much, don't I?) comments about That Other Comic Book Company:
MAGGIN: I really don't think Marvel is competing with National. They're not working for the same market. I work for National because I'm not interested in writing for college students what should be read by kids. I think the only reason anyone over fifteen should enjoy reading a comic is a kind of whimsical one - because it would have made him happy when he was a kid, not because it boggles his mind now. It should take more than twenty well-illustrated pages to stretch the perceptions of someone that age or older.
***
MAGGIN: Letter columns, ad campaigns, promotional gimmicks, even fan magazines National puts out, they're not as SILLY as at Marvel. They take themselves much more seriously at National for some ridiculous reason that's beyond me. Where Marvel will call their magazine FOOM, spend six months trying to get people interested in what FOOM means, and it turns out to be "Friends of Ol' Marvel", with "old" spelled "o-l-apostrophe"... National will put out a magazine called THE AMAZING WORLD OF DC COMICS. It's an uninteresting name. FOOM is, too, but at least FOOM is dumb and silly, and everyone will say, "FOOM - what a stupid name." Nobody will think twice about a name like THE AMAZING WORLD OF DC COMICS, it seems to me.
BATES: This is the difference between National and Marvel. Marvel's readers are older, so they look at the books as more "camp," to be made fun of. National has younger readers who take the books much more seriously. If National wrote dialogue that tried to be campy, I'd be offended.
INTERVIEWER: DC TRIED THAT DURING THE BATMAN TV ERA. IT SEEMED VERY FALSE FOR OUR CHARACTERS.
***
BATES: If they're good stories, they should hold up as stories and still be fun, whereas Marvel's are just fun, fun, twenty pages of fun. There's no story - just action. There's nothing there.
MAGGIN: I take it that in your midwestern neo-puritan parlance, "fun" is roughly synonymous with "peurile." If that's the case, I agree.
Wow, of all the different arguments in the tiresome Marvel versus DC debate I've heard over the years, I've never encountered these ones before.
I don't think I agree with them, for that matter, but all the same, it's an interesting (there's that word again) insight into how two of the major Superman writers of the period approached writing.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Pym-Sized Pull List, 12-13
I think I'm going to drop making the spoiler text semi-invisible. Aside from the fact that something like that is pointless when my reviews have an audience of one (namely myself), it feels like an unnecessary hassle. I figure, if someone wants to read my comments -- God only knows why -- merely providing a spoiler warning should suffice, so... SPOILERS ahead. Bought three comics this week.
Fantastic Four: The End 3
--I'm not sure why I'm not liking this mini-series more. I loved Alan Davis's JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA: THE NAIL Elseworld, and this has all the ingredients of that. They're both out-of-continuity stories with a overarcing mystery, one whose direction I can't begin to guess but at the same time keeps moving forward. Yet at the same time, this mini-series is different enough not to feel unoriginal.
Maybe it's because the DC Universe was a lot fresher and newer to me when I read THE NAIL than the Marvel-verse is to me now, so the sense of discovery is dampened. Maybe it's because I built my expectations too high due to just how much I liked THE NAIL, to the point where *anything* was bound to disappoint. Maybe this type of mystery tale reads better in trade format, where you can see how everything's cohering into the big picture in one go. Heck, maybe it even has to do with the absence of Pat Prentice's lettering. Davis's work just doesn't look the same without it, darnitall, though I realize that has more to do with how used to it I am than any flaws in FANTASTIC FOUR: THE END's letterer, Dave Lanphear.
All that said, I did enjoy this issue, just as I did the previous two. Something doesn't have to be up to THE NAIL's quality to be good. Plus, the art, as ever, is *gorgeous*.
Ex Machina 25
Standalone
--A single-issue story devoted to flashbacks of a supporting character's life is something Vaughan's done a couple of times over in Y: The Last Man. I could never really get into that series, though, and eventually dropped it. When I saw that he was doing the same kind of one-shot here, I became excited to see what my reaction would be to the approach being used on characters I was actually interested in.
In the end, I have to say that yes, it was enjoyable, but it's not up to par with a regular issue of EX MACHINA. This kind of thing is a fine example of showing rather than telling, letting us see what's shaped Bradbury into who he is without spelling it out for us. It's a little drawn out, though; regardless of whether the information was shown or told, it didn't feel like there was enough information there to take up a whole issue. As a result, some parts of the flashbacks came off as filler, contributing to the portrait of Bradbury in too tiny a way to be worth the pages used. Maybe this kind of story isn't suited for the standard 22-pages but instead suits a shorter format? I don't know.
Gargoyles 2
Clan Building, Chapter 2: The Journey
--From what I can remember of the episode this issue (and the previous) was adapted from, Greg Weisman was very, very faithful. Understandable, since he wrote the original episode. Unfortunately, it's a plot that works better on the screen than in the comics medium. Goliath jumping around from rooftop to rooftop, evading the helicopter and its guns that are hot on his heels, that's something that works better when the audience can see movement. Here, it winds up being a tad monotonous. Then again, maybe that feeling had more to do with the fact that, having seen the original episode, I already knew where everything was headed.
I supposed this issue was as enjoyable as could be expected given that I'd already seen the (near) exact story. Next issue, when we move on to *new* stories, should be when thing really start firing up; I'm quite looking forward to it.
Fantastic Four: The End 3
--I'm not sure why I'm not liking this mini-series more. I loved Alan Davis's JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA: THE NAIL Elseworld, and this has all the ingredients of that. They're both out-of-continuity stories with a overarcing mystery, one whose direction I can't begin to guess but at the same time keeps moving forward. Yet at the same time, this mini-series is different enough not to feel unoriginal.
Maybe it's because the DC Universe was a lot fresher and newer to me when I read THE NAIL than the Marvel-verse is to me now, so the sense of discovery is dampened. Maybe it's because I built my expectations too high due to just how much I liked THE NAIL, to the point where *anything* was bound to disappoint. Maybe this type of mystery tale reads better in trade format, where you can see how everything's cohering into the big picture in one go. Heck, maybe it even has to do with the absence of Pat Prentice's lettering. Davis's work just doesn't look the same without it, darnitall, though I realize that has more to do with how used to it I am than any flaws in FANTASTIC FOUR: THE END's letterer, Dave Lanphear.
All that said, I did enjoy this issue, just as I did the previous two. Something doesn't have to be up to THE NAIL's quality to be good. Plus, the art, as ever, is *gorgeous*.
Ex Machina 25
Standalone
--A single-issue story devoted to flashbacks of a supporting character's life is something Vaughan's done a couple of times over in Y: The Last Man. I could never really get into that series, though, and eventually dropped it. When I saw that he was doing the same kind of one-shot here, I became excited to see what my reaction would be to the approach being used on characters I was actually interested in.
In the end, I have to say that yes, it was enjoyable, but it's not up to par with a regular issue of EX MACHINA. This kind of thing is a fine example of showing rather than telling, letting us see what's shaped Bradbury into who he is without spelling it out for us. It's a little drawn out, though; regardless of whether the information was shown or told, it didn't feel like there was enough information there to take up a whole issue. As a result, some parts of the flashbacks came off as filler, contributing to the portrait of Bradbury in too tiny a way to be worth the pages used. Maybe this kind of story isn't suited for the standard 22-pages but instead suits a shorter format? I don't know.
Gargoyles 2
Clan Building, Chapter 2: The Journey
--From what I can remember of the episode this issue (and the previous) was adapted from, Greg Weisman was very, very faithful. Understandable, since he wrote the original episode. Unfortunately, it's a plot that works better on the screen than in the comics medium. Goliath jumping around from rooftop to rooftop, evading the helicopter and its guns that are hot on his heels, that's something that works better when the audience can see movement. Here, it winds up being a tad monotonous. Then again, maybe that feeling had more to do with the fact that, having seen the original episode, I already knew where everything was headed.
I supposed this issue was as enjoyable as could be expected given that I'd already seen the (near) exact story. Next issue, when we move on to *new* stories, should be when thing really start firing up; I'm quite looking forward to it.
Friday, December 15, 2006
"I Love to Behold You, but I Couldn't Hold You," He Lamented to the Lady in Lime
Here's an interesting gem from the letters page ("She-Mail") of The Sensational She-Hulk 39. I've copied the text letter-for-letter right down to the spelling errors (which could just as easily have been the creative team's fault as this... fan's).
Ms. Hulk,
When I say “Hubba Hubba,” please don’t take it wrong! Oh sure…there’s Mary Jane, and Moira, but sweetheart, Jen, ain’t no one holds a candle to you. You’re a pleasure to admire, a wit and a charmer. I love to behold you, but I couldn’t hold you, you’re just too much woman for me.
Your issuse are always exhilirating, the action and the humor, occasionally even the depth. (Some sneaks in, once in a while. Don’t tell John.) It’s nice to have such a competent female protagonist is the world. Keep up the really great work.
When I say “Hubba Hubba,” please don’t take it wrong! Oh sure…there’s Mary Jane, and Moira, but sweetheart, Jen, ain’t no one holds a candle to you. You’re a pleasure to admire, a wit and a charmer. I love to behold you, but I couldn’t hold you, you’re just too much woman for me.
Your issuse are always exhilirating, the action and the humor, occasionally even the depth. (Some sneaks in, once in a while. Don’t tell John.) It’s nice to have such a competent female protagonist is the world. Keep up the really great work.
James W. Simmons
Westland, MI
Westland, MI
Aside from the immediate wrongness of the letter's, well, everything... Moira MacTaggert?! That's something of an odd choice, isn't it? *Moira MacTaggert*?
There was no response to this letter.
I really like looking through the letter columns of older comics. They're like buried treasure chests and time capsules. From what I've seen of them so far, the She-Hulk letter columns are especially good for finding bizarre gems like this.
Moira MacTaggert. Man.
There was no response to this letter.
I really like looking through the letter columns of older comics. They're like buried treasure chests and time capsules. From what I've seen of them so far, the She-Hulk letter columns are especially good for finding bizarre gems like this.
Moira MacTaggert. Man.
Quel Est le Projet Mystérieux?
So I've been giving some thought to what Kurt Busiek's upcoming "Mystery Project" might be, the one he left Aquaman for. What really intrigues me is his statement that he thought it "had the potential to benefit DC, the fans and the comics marketplace in general." I suppose every new title DC puts out is going to benefit DC, but those other two groups as well? What could that be about?
Here's what else we know:
1. It's an ongoing. 2. It's longer than the standard 22-page monthly. 3. It'll have "opportunities for the oceanscape and the Aqua-cast to get in on the action...”
Now, if you'll indulge me, let me put on my amateur sleuth hat...
I think it's safe to say that whatever he's doing isn't going be the next mega-crossover epic because, well, how could those possibly benefit the market in general? Besides, that conflicts with Fact 1.
It also sounds like it can't *just* be a new title for an old character, not unless there's some special twist involved. Again, a new Booster Gold or Zatanna series (to pick two examples off the top of my head) doesn't exactly warrant being called potentially beneficial to the marketplace in general. Also, why would it warrant more than the standard page count?
Fact 3 pretty much guarantees it'll be set in the DC Universe, and extending the same reasoning, we can rule out something like, say, a space opera-type deal. I mean, I suppose it's *possible* to get the Aqua-world involved in an Adam Strange title, but to go so far as to say there are "opportunities"? Similarly, we can rule out a gritty, street-level Batman-type or stories set in the distant past or future.
Still, the idea that it has the potential to help the marketplace in general is the most puzzling part. What sort of book could possibly meet that criterion? The first thing that comes to mind is properties from other media, stuff that allows for crossover audiences, but then it wouldn't be set in the DC Universe, right?
My guess? It's an anthology title, a "Tales of the DC Universe" sort of thing, perhaps with a twist or unifying theme. Think about it. It certainly satisfies Fact 3. It wouldn't be a far-fetched idea to give an anthology a rotating art team, which would explain how they expect a longer-than-usual title to come out on time in this day and age of artists who can't handle regular 22-pagers on a monthly schedule. The lack of success with anthologies in the past would explain why Busiek thought the Powers That Be would turn it down. Busiek's knowledge of continuity would suit a title like this. Its nature would make it resemble the Justice League Unlimited TV show, giving it the potential to bring in a crossover audience. It all fits... maybe?
Honestly, I'd be surprised if I turned out right, but at the same time I think there's at least a small possibility I am, if that makes any sense. And if I am, remember, you heard it here first, folks!
And yeah, I know what I actually wrote in the title is "Mysterious Project." I don't know how to write "mystery project." The result of four years' worth of public high school French classes, ladies and gentlemen!
Here's what else we know:
1. It's an ongoing. 2. It's longer than the standard 22-page monthly. 3. It'll have "opportunities for the oceanscape and the Aqua-cast to get in on the action...”
Now, if you'll indulge me, let me put on my amateur sleuth hat...
I think it's safe to say that whatever he's doing isn't going be the next mega-crossover epic because, well, how could those possibly benefit the market in general? Besides, that conflicts with Fact 1.
It also sounds like it can't *just* be a new title for an old character, not unless there's some special twist involved. Again, a new Booster Gold or Zatanna series (to pick two examples off the top of my head) doesn't exactly warrant being called potentially beneficial to the marketplace in general. Also, why would it warrant more than the standard page count?
Fact 3 pretty much guarantees it'll be set in the DC Universe, and extending the same reasoning, we can rule out something like, say, a space opera-type deal. I mean, I suppose it's *possible* to get the Aqua-world involved in an Adam Strange title, but to go so far as to say there are "opportunities"? Similarly, we can rule out a gritty, street-level Batman-type or stories set in the distant past or future.
Still, the idea that it has the potential to help the marketplace in general is the most puzzling part. What sort of book could possibly meet that criterion? The first thing that comes to mind is properties from other media, stuff that allows for crossover audiences, but then it wouldn't be set in the DC Universe, right?
My guess? It's an anthology title, a "Tales of the DC Universe" sort of thing, perhaps with a twist or unifying theme. Think about it. It certainly satisfies Fact 3. It wouldn't be a far-fetched idea to give an anthology a rotating art team, which would explain how they expect a longer-than-usual title to come out on time in this day and age of artists who can't handle regular 22-pagers on a monthly schedule. The lack of success with anthologies in the past would explain why Busiek thought the Powers That Be would turn it down. Busiek's knowledge of continuity would suit a title like this. Its nature would make it resemble the Justice League Unlimited TV show, giving it the potential to bring in a crossover audience. It all fits... maybe?
Honestly, I'd be surprised if I turned out right, but at the same time I think there's at least a small possibility I am, if that makes any sense. And if I am, remember, you heard it here first, folks!
And yeah, I know what I actually wrote in the title is "Mysterious Project." I don't know how to write "mystery project." The result of four years' worth of public high school French classes, ladies and gentlemen!
Monday, December 11, 2006
An Age of Silver Carved in Iron
Remember the abomination that was Superman in the late '80's and '90s? It was the period that gave us ridiculous stunts like:
1) The death of Superman.
2) Superman's new energy powers.
3) Superman-Red and Superman-Blue.
and 4) Superman, killer.
Honestly, I've never read the Superman comics of the so-called "Iron Age" beyond a handful of scattered issues, so I have no opinion of their quality. For all I know, they really do contain writing of the poorest order. But the people who're constantly criticizing it need to come up with better arguments. Take the blue energy Superman for example. The traditionalists sneer about how DC had the gall to alter the power set of one of the most iconic, well-known characters in fiction, an argument that only holds water *if the change was meant to be permanent*! But, well, it wasn't -- so it doesn't.
If Mort Weisinger's stable of creators had done a story about Superman becoming a crackling energy being and having to adjust to new powers, all those same fans would be remembering it fondly, holding it up as an example of the days when comics didn't take themselves so seriously and knew how to be wild and fun. If you want to criticize the arc's execution, fine, that's a separate issue, but don't go pretending the Man of Tomorrow exchanging powers isn't a plot straight out of the Silver Age.
The bottom line is, if you're explanation for why you dislike the Superman comics of the "Iron Age" consists of oh-so-clever witticisms along the lines of, "The Super-mullet, 'nuff said!" then no one's going to take you seriously. Because here we all thought it was characterization and creative, well-constructed plots that determined a story's quality, when it turns out that no, it's actually all about the cut of the star's hair. I don't like the long haircut either, but I'm not going be using it as evidence that a run stank, much less as evidence of "all that's wrong with the modern Superman."
Maybe the Post-Crisis Superman-Red, Superman Blue storyline really was terrible; I have no way of knowing. But if your criticism is directed at the premise itself, the very idea of a story where the Man of Steel is split in two -- and I've seen fan complainst along that exact line numerous times -- you leave me wondering just what you think a Superman story is supposed to be.
1) The death of Superman.
2) Superman's new energy powers.
3) Superman-Red and Superman-Blue.
and 4) Superman, killer.
Honestly, I've never read the Superman comics of the so-called "Iron Age" beyond a handful of scattered issues, so I have no opinion of their quality. For all I know, they really do contain writing of the poorest order. But the people who're constantly criticizing it need to come up with better arguments. Take the blue energy Superman for example. The traditionalists sneer about how DC had the gall to alter the power set of one of the most iconic, well-known characters in fiction, an argument that only holds water *if the change was meant to be permanent*! But, well, it wasn't -- so it doesn't.
If Mort Weisinger's stable of creators had done a story about Superman becoming a crackling energy being and having to adjust to new powers, all those same fans would be remembering it fondly, holding it up as an example of the days when comics didn't take themselves so seriously and knew how to be wild and fun. If you want to criticize the arc's execution, fine, that's a separate issue, but don't go pretending the Man of Tomorrow exchanging powers isn't a plot straight out of the Silver Age.
The bottom line is, if you're explanation for why you dislike the Superman comics of the "Iron Age" consists of oh-so-clever witticisms along the lines of, "The Super-mullet, 'nuff said!" then no one's going to take you seriously. Because here we all thought it was characterization and creative, well-constructed plots that determined a story's quality, when it turns out that no, it's actually all about the cut of the star's hair. I don't like the long haircut either, but I'm not going be using it as evidence that a run stank, much less as evidence of "all that's wrong with the modern Superman."
Maybe the Post-Crisis Superman-Red, Superman Blue storyline really was terrible; I have no way of knowing. But if your criticism is directed at the premise itself, the very idea of a story where the Man of Steel is split in two -- and I've seen fan complainst along that exact line numerous times -- you leave me wondering just what you think a Superman story is supposed to be.
***
Images were found at www.comics.org, superman.ws, and www.aardsy.com. What is the proper netiquette for yanking pictures anyway?
Sunday, December 10, 2006
The Non-Fan's Perspective: SUPERMAN
And off we go... Entry One in my recollections of the reactions of the students in the "Superheroes in Comics" class I took last semester. I'll do one entry for each week of the class, I think. We read one TPB each week, so that also means one TPB each entry. And remember, most of the class was made up of either casual fans or folks who weren't fans at all. I explained the thing here.
The facilitators made our first assignment the "The Death of Superman." Why, I have no idea.
It was actually the first (and only time) I read it. I'd never picked it up earlier because the plot didn't sound all that interesting. Superman and some monstrous heavy punching each other back and forth? Okay, but where's the hook? And now that I've read it? Well, on the one hand, I found it as tedious and boring as I thought I would, but on the other, I had to read it all in one sitting (so I could turn in my response paper on time), and that couldn't have helped matters. This is the type of arc definitely *not* suited for the trade paperback treatment. Maybe if I read it as it was intended to be... who knows? Also, it wasn't *quite* as single-stranded as I'd been lead to believe, what with that little kid, the other teenage kid, and all that other stuff surrounding the slugfest.
As for everyone else's responses, I was surprised by how warm the reactions were. They weren't particularly taken by it, but they by no means hated it, either. The reaction was a neutral "thumbs-sideways" one. If anything, I'd have thought non-fans would dislike it even more.
In the course of the class discussion, the whole "Is Clark Kent or Superman the real person?" question came up, as well as the Kill Bill scene that seems to be inevitably referenced each time this thing rears its head these days. What's interesting is that everyone thought of Clark Kent as the mild-mannered milquetoast of Pre-Crisis days, not as the bolder John Byrne version. This despite everyone in the room being born in the mid-80s. This is something I noticed in my own history with the character. I was born in '85, the Superman I was exposed to -- in the comics, in the Lois & Clark TV show -- was the Post-Crisis one, but I never noticed this guy I was seeing wasn't cowardly, wasn't a clutz! The idea of the timid Clark was just so ingrained in my mind that I filled in those traits myself. It wasn't until I read an article somewhere about the changes Crisis made to Superman that I realized, "Oh yeah, he *hasn't* been acting like that." (I'm ashamed to admit it might have been in Wizard, but in my defense I was a little kid.)
Seeing that others shared my misperception, I wonder if Byrne's leading-man-Clark was simply doomed to failure. Clark Kent, milquetoast, is simply so much embedded in Americana that people will see him that way no matter what, especially when he's still wearing glasses and a tie. He looks the part, so it is any wonder if people think he plays it, as well?
Also interesting: Even though everyone had the Pre-Crisis Clark in mind, some in the class still thought Clark was the real personality, not the Metropolis Marvel.
When the facilitators discussed the Justice League's (made up of Blue Beetle, Booster Gold, Fire, Ice, Bloodwynd, and Guy Gardner) role in this story, they actually called them "the fake Justice Leauge" and said we'd be reading about the "real Justice League" later in the semester, by which they meant Waid's Tower of Babel arc. Whoa, what? I reiterate that these guys were born in the mid-80s. I didn't realize fans of my generation bought into that sort of rigid hierarchy. I mean, less-popular characters were already filling up the roster by the time we were *born*.
Let's see, what else? Oh yeah, one non-fan asked about the lack of villains with alter egos. It's something I hadn't really thought about, but it's true, isn't it? Obviously, most super-villains *can't* have secret IDs because the authorities know who they really are, but that's only writer's fiat, right? Why aren't there more archaeologist-by-day, thief-by-night types? There are non-costumed crime bosses along these lines like the Kingpin, but where are the cape-sporting, masked types who keep day jobs?
And now for something that has nothing to do with the Action Ace: I'm watching a re-broadcast of the PBS Celtic Woman concert as I type this, and I have to say... they should never show audience reaction shots for something like this. Each time they do, it's just so... I can't describe it... it's just too much. I'm putting this here because, well, I'm all alone in my home right now so where else am I going to communicate it?
The facilitators made our first assignment the "The Death of Superman." Why, I have no idea.
It was actually the first (and only time) I read it. I'd never picked it up earlier because the plot didn't sound all that interesting. Superman and some monstrous heavy punching each other back and forth? Okay, but where's the hook? And now that I've read it? Well, on the one hand, I found it as tedious and boring as I thought I would, but on the other, I had to read it all in one sitting (so I could turn in my response paper on time), and that couldn't have helped matters. This is the type of arc definitely *not* suited for the trade paperback treatment. Maybe if I read it as it was intended to be... who knows? Also, it wasn't *quite* as single-stranded as I'd been lead to believe, what with that little kid, the other teenage kid, and all that other stuff surrounding the slugfest.
As for everyone else's responses, I was surprised by how warm the reactions were. They weren't particularly taken by it, but they by no means hated it, either. The reaction was a neutral "thumbs-sideways" one. If anything, I'd have thought non-fans would dislike it even more.
In the course of the class discussion, the whole "Is Clark Kent or Superman the real person?" question came up, as well as the Kill Bill scene that seems to be inevitably referenced each time this thing rears its head these days. What's interesting is that everyone thought of Clark Kent as the mild-mannered milquetoast of Pre-Crisis days, not as the bolder John Byrne version. This despite everyone in the room being born in the mid-80s. This is something I noticed in my own history with the character. I was born in '85, the Superman I was exposed to -- in the comics, in the Lois & Clark TV show -- was the Post-Crisis one, but I never noticed this guy I was seeing wasn't cowardly, wasn't a clutz! The idea of the timid Clark was just so ingrained in my mind that I filled in those traits myself. It wasn't until I read an article somewhere about the changes Crisis made to Superman that I realized, "Oh yeah, he *hasn't* been acting like that." (I'm ashamed to admit it might have been in Wizard, but in my defense I was a little kid.)
Seeing that others shared my misperception, I wonder if Byrne's leading-man-Clark was simply doomed to failure. Clark Kent, milquetoast, is simply so much embedded in Americana that people will see him that way no matter what, especially when he's still wearing glasses and a tie. He looks the part, so it is any wonder if people think he plays it, as well?
Also interesting: Even though everyone had the Pre-Crisis Clark in mind, some in the class still thought Clark was the real personality, not the Metropolis Marvel.
When the facilitators discussed the Justice League's (made up of Blue Beetle, Booster Gold, Fire, Ice, Bloodwynd, and Guy Gardner) role in this story, they actually called them "the fake Justice Leauge" and said we'd be reading about the "real Justice League" later in the semester, by which they meant Waid's Tower of Babel arc. Whoa, what? I reiterate that these guys were born in the mid-80s. I didn't realize fans of my generation bought into that sort of rigid hierarchy. I mean, less-popular characters were already filling up the roster by the time we were *born*.
Let's see, what else? Oh yeah, one non-fan asked about the lack of villains with alter egos. It's something I hadn't really thought about, but it's true, isn't it? Obviously, most super-villains *can't* have secret IDs because the authorities know who they really are, but that's only writer's fiat, right? Why aren't there more archaeologist-by-day, thief-by-night types? There are non-costumed crime bosses along these lines like the Kingpin, but where are the cape-sporting, masked types who keep day jobs?
And now for something that has nothing to do with the Action Ace: I'm watching a re-broadcast of the PBS Celtic Woman concert as I type this, and I have to say... they should never show audience reaction shots for something like this. Each time they do, it's just so... I can't describe it... it's just too much. I'm putting this here because, well, I'm all alone in my home right now so where else am I going to communicate it?
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Nostraplombus, Am I
Here are my predictions for Marvel's Civil War, and possibly some of their other stuff:
1. The world's first mutant will have an important role when all is said and done.
2. J. Buchanan Barnes will be switching to a Capt. America costume.
3. The Hulk's coming back to Midgard, and he'll have brought something *very* special with him.
How do I know all this? Because the Painted Doll said so!
While a bunch of places on the Web have commented on the predictions this modern Delphi-dweller made on a blog, predictions that are turning out to be true, I'm surprised no one's pointed out the *other* predictions this four-color forecaster made on the Comic Book Resources forums. If (s)he's done it once, (s)he can probably do it twice, right?
Hmmm, the Painted Doll. Wasn't that also the psychopath from Alan Moore's Promethea?
1. The world's first mutant will have an important role when all is said and done.
2. J. Buchanan Barnes will be switching to a Capt. America costume.
3. The Hulk's coming back to Midgard, and he'll have brought something *very* special with him.
How do I know all this? Because the Painted Doll said so!
While a bunch of places on the Web have commented on the predictions this modern Delphi-dweller made on a blog, predictions that are turning out to be true, I'm surprised no one's pointed out the *other* predictions this four-color forecaster made on the Comic Book Resources forums. If (s)he's done it once, (s)he can probably do it twice, right?
Hmmm, the Painted Doll. Wasn't that also the psychopath from Alan Moore's Promethea?
Covert Agent Ravage 2099
Stan Lee really liked (sort of) Marvel's Transformers comics, apparently. Here's a quote from its writer, Bob Budiansky:
Quote's from an interview at something called Altered State Magazine.
I'll end it with a story about my favorite fan letter. I had written "Decepticon Graffitti." I think that was issue #23. I was pretty happy with the way that story turned out. Soon after it was printed, Don Daley, my editor, calls me into his office to show me a fan letter raving about that story -- from Stan Lee! You can't get much higher praise than that!Whuda thunk it?
Quote's from an interview at something called Altered State Magazine.
Palmer-Sized Pull List, 12-7
Yeah, the previous entry? Witness the workings of an overworked college student's mind in the middle of self-destructing, as it makes a desperate bid to relieve tension.
Anyway, here's my review for the comics I bought Wednesday. In this case, "comic" singular, as that's all I purchased. Spoilers ahead, natch.
Batman 826: Slayride
Writer: Paul Dini, Penciller: Don Kramer
--Another engaging stand-alone by Dini. So far, the only one I haven't cared for is the Poison Ivy tale. This one's a bit different in that it's *absolutely* stand-alone. In the previous issues, there's always been at least a small mention of something from earlier in the run, like the Riddler's ad running on TV.
Overall, the stand-alone structure is proving to be enjoyable, but at the same time, I don't feel a pressing desire to purchase the next issue each month. The stories are fun but don't feel weighty. I prefer stuff with more characterization, characterization that digs further in. And I'll never get the popularity of the Joker, I think.
Kramer's artwork is pretty good, but his Dick Grayson looked too much like Bruce here. Heck, I thought that's who he was at first.
Keep in mind that I don't love the animated series the way most do. I thought it was decent, but I don't see myself going out of the way to watch episodes again.
Also, another historical moment in APLOMB's history. I received my first "visitor who found his/her way here through bizarre searchwords." Someone was looking for: flash superhero superman dc comics -rom -memory -game -psp -actionscript -video -flex. That's getting pretty specific. Huh.
Anyway, here's my review for the comics I bought Wednesday. In this case, "comic" singular, as that's all I purchased. Spoilers ahead, natch.
Batman 826: Slayride
Writer: Paul Dini, Penciller: Don Kramer
--Another engaging stand-alone by Dini. So far, the only one I haven't cared for is the Poison Ivy tale. This one's a bit different in that it's *absolutely* stand-alone. In the previous issues, there's always been at least a small mention of something from earlier in the run, like the Riddler's ad running on TV.
Overall, the stand-alone structure is proving to be enjoyable, but at the same time, I don't feel a pressing desire to purchase the next issue each month. The stories are fun but don't feel weighty. I prefer stuff with more characterization, characterization that digs further in. And I'll never get the popularity of the Joker, I think.
Kramer's artwork is pretty good, but his Dick Grayson looked too much like Bruce here. Heck, I thought that's who he was at first.
Keep in mind that I don't love the animated series the way most do. I thought it was decent, but I don't see myself going out of the way to watch episodes again.
Also, another historical moment in APLOMB's history. I received my first "visitor who found his/her way here through bizarre searchwords." Someone was looking for: flash superhero superman dc comics -rom -memory -game -psp -actionscript -video -flex. That's getting pretty specific. Huh.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Attention, Australians and Irishmen!
Australians and people in the Republic of Ireland, please visit this blog! As of today, of the handful of people who've found their way to APLOMB since its inception, there's been one from the U.K., one from Canada, one from New Zealand, and a small few from the U.S. If you guys click your way here, I'll have the complete set, one of each. So stop on by!
...Hey, my first entry that has absolutely nothing to do with comics. It's an epochal moment.
...Hey, my first entry that has absolutely nothing to do with comics. It's an epochal moment.
It's the little things...
DC's official website has available for download podcasts of a number of the company's panels at San Diego Comic-Con '06. Among them is a "Spotlight on Kurt Busiek," in which, about a quarter of the way in, some guy decides to give the writer guff about the Batman/Captain America fight from JLA/Avengers.
While discussing that scene and his thoughts behind it, Mr. Busiek asks the audience, "World's greatest detective, world's greatest fighting machine: Who wins the fight?" If you listen *real* carefully, amidst the shouts on Capt. America's side, you can here one woman's voice in the background saying, "The detective." Writing this out, I'm realizing it by all rights shouldn't be all that amusing, but to me, it somehow simply is.
I was in the audience for this panel (at what was my first -- and possibly last -- con), and after hearing this recording, two things disappoint me about it:
1. It doesn't properly convey the outright, seething hate on the part of the guy who asked the Batman/Captain America question. That guy was *really* mad, in more ways than one.
2. It didn't capture all audience members beginning to shout "Next question!" and "Get a life!" when said guy wouldn't let go of the topic. 'Twas a thing of beauty.
One madman aside, it was a fun panel/podcast, even if I was unable to get the audience mike passed my way to ask my question.
While discussing that scene and his thoughts behind it, Mr. Busiek asks the audience, "World's greatest detective, world's greatest fighting machine: Who wins the fight?" If you listen *real* carefully, amidst the shouts on Capt. America's side, you can here one woman's voice in the background saying, "The detective." Writing this out, I'm realizing it by all rights shouldn't be all that amusing, but to me, it somehow simply is.
I was in the audience for this panel (at what was my first -- and possibly last -- con), and after hearing this recording, two things disappoint me about it:
1. It doesn't properly convey the outright, seething hate on the part of the guy who asked the Batman/Captain America question. That guy was *really* mad, in more ways than one.
2. It didn't capture all audience members beginning to shout "Next question!" and "Get a life!" when said guy wouldn't let go of the topic. 'Twas a thing of beauty.
One madman aside, it was a fun panel/podcast, even if I was unable to get the audience mike passed my way to ask my question.
Tim Kring's HEROES Reminds Me of Jeff Smith's BONE
A number of people are saying that they weren't sold on HEROES at first, but that they saw enough potential in it to stick around. Then, as more episodes were shown, they came around and now like it quite a bit.
Well, it's the other way around for me. I liked the pilot, really liked it, but since then, my interest's tapered. In the earlier weeks, watching the disparate cast come to grips with their abilities, each reacting in his/her own way, responding to their mundane lives turning extraordinary -- that was captivating. People have said that it's a clichéd premise, and I agree that it certainly *feels* like one. I can't actually think of too many stories featuring that particular plot, though. Also, unlike pretty much *everyone* else, I liked *all* the strands, all the characters. But now that they've had time to adjust and the plot's shifted to their efforts to save the world -- I don't know, there's the feel of a stock sci-fi thriller.
I do still enjoy the show enough to watch. I'm just not on the edge of my seat about it like I was in the first several weeks.
That's my reaction to a lot of fiction actually. I love at first but only at first. I think it's because in the beginning, you don't know exactly what the plot is, what kind of tale it'll turn out to be. You see all the possible paths and the sight of all the interesting ones buzz in your brain. That's where a lot of the enjoyment comes from: "Ooh, this is what it's shaping up to be! Or that!" Amidst that excitement, you don't notice the un-interesting paths that the plot could just as easily go down. And why should you, when you're having so much fun?
That's how I was with BONE. I love the early chapters where the comedy and wacky hi-jinks are a lot more prevalent. The more the story shifted into a high fantasy epic, the less interested I became. That sort of fantasy story, set in a made-up land resembling our past -- I simply have no interest in it. I can only recall a handful of works along those lines I've enjoyed, George R. R. Martin's being chief among them. (Everyone talks about his A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE, but his short fantasy stories are as good if not better, dammit!) Other flavors of fantasy like urban fantasy or magical realism, I do like, though.
Anyway, as I came to realize BONE was actually *that* kind of story, my interest lessened. I was sufficiently uninterested in the world-building that I couldn't keep it straight. Ghost circles, the dreaming, all that stuff. And because I couldn't keep it straight, I just ended up confused when it was elaborated on, and the confusion just made me even more uninterested. It was something of a vicious cycle, really.
Still, enough people have raved about BONE that I'll probably give it a second try some day. Maybe I was just in a bad mood.
And I *am* looking forward to Smith's SHAZAM. He did have a great way with humor when he chose to express it, and this will be a genre I'm more predisposed towards. Plus, hey, magnificient art.
Well, it's the other way around for me. I liked the pilot, really liked it, but since then, my interest's tapered. In the earlier weeks, watching the disparate cast come to grips with their abilities, each reacting in his/her own way, responding to their mundane lives turning extraordinary -- that was captivating. People have said that it's a clichéd premise, and I agree that it certainly *feels* like one. I can't actually think of too many stories featuring that particular plot, though. Also, unlike pretty much *everyone* else, I liked *all* the strands, all the characters. But now that they've had time to adjust and the plot's shifted to their efforts to save the world -- I don't know, there's the feel of a stock sci-fi thriller.
I do still enjoy the show enough to watch. I'm just not on the edge of my seat about it like I was in the first several weeks.
That's my reaction to a lot of fiction actually. I love at first but only at first. I think it's because in the beginning, you don't know exactly what the plot is, what kind of tale it'll turn out to be. You see all the possible paths and the sight of all the interesting ones buzz in your brain. That's where a lot of the enjoyment comes from: "Ooh, this is what it's shaping up to be! Or that!" Amidst that excitement, you don't notice the un-interesting paths that the plot could just as easily go down. And why should you, when you're having so much fun?
That's how I was with BONE. I love the early chapters where the comedy and wacky hi-jinks are a lot more prevalent. The more the story shifted into a high fantasy epic, the less interested I became. That sort of fantasy story, set in a made-up land resembling our past -- I simply have no interest in it. I can only recall a handful of works along those lines I've enjoyed, George R. R. Martin's being chief among them. (Everyone talks about his A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE, but his short fantasy stories are as good if not better, dammit!) Other flavors of fantasy like urban fantasy or magical realism, I do like, though.
Anyway, as I came to realize BONE was actually *that* kind of story, my interest lessened. I was sufficiently uninterested in the world-building that I couldn't keep it straight. Ghost circles, the dreaming, all that stuff. And because I couldn't keep it straight, I just ended up confused when it was elaborated on, and the confusion just made me even more uninterested. It was something of a vicious cycle, really.
Still, enough people have raved about BONE that I'll probably give it a second try some day. Maybe I was just in a bad mood.
And I *am* looking forward to Smith's SHAZAM. He did have a great way with humor when he chose to express it, and this will be a genre I'm more predisposed towards. Plus, hey, magnificient art.
Monday, December 4, 2006
No Character to Be Out- Of
One of the most common complaints we fans utter is, "Character X is acting out character," but honestly... most characters in superhero comics don't have enough depth for *any* behavior, barring the most extreme examples (The Silver Surfer loves to torture cute, little squirrels!), to be considered out-of-character. You can't be out-of-character if there's no character there to be out of. Considering how often people I know in the *real world* behave in ways I wouldn't have expected, I have no idea why some fans have such rigorous, inflexible standards for how their favorites would act. Actually, I do have an idea why, but that's for another entry.
I think this lack of depth stems from how a lot of us start liking these characters when we're kids/young teens and our standards for characterization are, well, a lot lower. Think back to your favorite superhero when you were a kid and chances are, you liked him/her because of the powers or snazzy costume. By the time we're older and our standards have hardened, we're already hooked. There are so many flat characters because it's a market where flat characters can flourish.
Now that I think about it, it'd be interesting if someone conducted a poll to see what the correlation is between when a person got into the hobby and who his/her favorite characters are.
Hmmm, looking back at what I wrote, maybe a better name for this blog would be Belaboring the Obvious. Heh.
I think this lack of depth stems from how a lot of us start liking these characters when we're kids/young teens and our standards for characterization are, well, a lot lower. Think back to your favorite superhero when you were a kid and chances are, you liked him/her because of the powers or snazzy costume. By the time we're older and our standards have hardened, we're already hooked. There are so many flat characters because it's a market where flat characters can flourish.
Now that I think about it, it'd be interesting if someone conducted a poll to see what the correlation is between when a person got into the hobby and who his/her favorite characters are.
Hmmm, looking back at what I wrote, maybe a better name for this blog would be Belaboring the Obvious. Heh.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
The Non-Fan's Perspective
Last year, I enrolled in a "Superheroes in Comics" class at the college I'm attending. It was part of the college's "democratic education" program, the same program that's delivered to the world such illustrious courses as "Introduction to the Rubik's Cube," "The Simpsons and Philosophy," and "Elvish." These courses are taught by "facilitators," (i.e. fellow students) though each has its own faculty sponsor, and yes, they are worth actual units that count towards graduation. The class was populated by a nice mixture of both fans and non-fans.
Anyway, I was really surprised by what my fellow fans in the class knew and didn't know. My main exposure to other fans had been online, where we tend to know about characters all across the board. Well, there's segregation along company lines, with DC fans who know little about Marvel and vise versa. Still, if you bump into a Flash fan on the web, chances are he'll at least have general knowledge of the other DC Universe characters, if not of the more minute details.
Not the case with my classmates, though. They'd mention the most obscure bit of trivia one moment and then demonstrate unawareness of a much more common fact the next. For example, there was one guy who could recite chapter and verse of the minutiae of X-Men continuity, able to fully explain the Summers family tree... and he asked one day, "Did the Hulk used to have intelligence?" There was one woman who knew who Dr. Fate was and even mentioned his propensity for ankh-shaped energy effects, and she asked if the Golden Age Green Lantern wears a helmet. Some people who held Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Waid in high regard had no idea Gail Simone worked in comics (though they knew her name from the Women in Refrigerators site, interestingly enough). So on and so forth.
Make no mistake, I'm not criticizing these people for having obsession unequal to mine, not shouting "false fan" or anything like that. (That should go without saying, but I've seen folks in online fandom cop just that attitude.) But I am genuinely slightly boggled as to how these people come about. How does someone get to the point where he knows about the Wally Wood/Power Girl breast size urban legend, yet not know that the JLA's archer is named Green Arrow? (That's a real example!) You'd think anyone as immersed in fandom circles to know the former would have at some point learned the latter, right? This species of fans isn't all that common in the circles of Internet fandom, yet it was the only kind I met in the class. Is this the true face of the fans of superhero comics? Is it a more accurate representation of the majority readership than what we see on message boards and the comics blogalaxy?
In the coming weeks, I'll probably be intermittently writing about the class's reactions to the TPBs we were assigned. It was fun to see things from their fresh eyes, or at least it was for this long-time reader who long ago lost the ability to see the forest for the trees.
First up, when I get around to it: "The Death of Superman." One of the facilitators, upon assigning it to us, actually said, "It's a classic." Yeah. I couldn't tell if he was being ironic or not.
Anyway, I was really surprised by what my fellow fans in the class knew and didn't know. My main exposure to other fans had been online, where we tend to know about characters all across the board. Well, there's segregation along company lines, with DC fans who know little about Marvel and vise versa. Still, if you bump into a Flash fan on the web, chances are he'll at least have general knowledge of the other DC Universe characters, if not of the more minute details.
Not the case with my classmates, though. They'd mention the most obscure bit of trivia one moment and then demonstrate unawareness of a much more common fact the next. For example, there was one guy who could recite chapter and verse of the minutiae of X-Men continuity, able to fully explain the Summers family tree... and he asked one day, "Did the Hulk used to have intelligence?" There was one woman who knew who Dr. Fate was and even mentioned his propensity for ankh-shaped energy effects, and she asked if the Golden Age Green Lantern wears a helmet. Some people who held Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Waid in high regard had no idea Gail Simone worked in comics (though they knew her name from the Women in Refrigerators site, interestingly enough). So on and so forth.
Make no mistake, I'm not criticizing these people for having obsession unequal to mine, not shouting "false fan" or anything like that. (That should go without saying, but I've seen folks in online fandom cop just that attitude.) But I am genuinely slightly boggled as to how these people come about. How does someone get to the point where he knows about the Wally Wood/Power Girl breast size urban legend, yet not know that the JLA's archer is named Green Arrow? (That's a real example!) You'd think anyone as immersed in fandom circles to know the former would have at some point learned the latter, right? This species of fans isn't all that common in the circles of Internet fandom, yet it was the only kind I met in the class. Is this the true face of the fans of superhero comics? Is it a more accurate representation of the majority readership than what we see on message boards and the comics blogalaxy?
In the coming weeks, I'll probably be intermittently writing about the class's reactions to the TPBs we were assigned. It was fun to see things from their fresh eyes, or at least it was for this long-time reader who long ago lost the ability to see the forest for the trees.
First up, when I get around to it: "The Death of Superman." One of the facilitators, upon assigning it to us, actually said, "It's a classic." Yeah. I couldn't tell if he was being ironic or not.
Inaugural Post
Hello, Internet. This is the inaugural entry of APLOMB. Off the top of my head, I can only recall ever reading one first entry of a blog before, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to put here, or if there's some customary introductory procedure or what.
I've been a fan of superheroes since at least as far back as when I saw the pilot episode of the 90's X-Men cartoon, and possibly even before that. This blog will contain whatever random ruminations on superhero comics I feel like putting to words, as well as whatever else I feel like writing about. It's name comes from the origin of Marvel's Whizzer, who obtained super-speed from an emergency transfusion of mongoose blood. If you didn't already figure that out, then this blog might just not be for you. Lots of fans cite the Whizzer's backstory as the nadir of ridiculous superpower origins, but when I first read about it as a kid, I didn't see anything wrong with it. This says one of two things:
1. It's actually no more silly than most superhero origins, and fans only think it's ridiculous because they learn about an obscure guy like the Whizzer at an older age than when they meet folks like the Hulk or Spider-Man.
2. I was a very, very stupid kid.
I'm not sure which of the two is the case.
Well, that's it for introductions. I'm not very computer-savvy, so I'm still learning my way around this whole blog template thing. More to come later today, I think.
I've been a fan of superheroes since at least as far back as when I saw the pilot episode of the 90's X-Men cartoon, and possibly even before that. This blog will contain whatever random ruminations on superhero comics I feel like putting to words, as well as whatever else I feel like writing about. It's name comes from the origin of Marvel's Whizzer, who obtained super-speed from an emergency transfusion of mongoose blood. If you didn't already figure that out, then this blog might just not be for you. Lots of fans cite the Whizzer's backstory as the nadir of ridiculous superpower origins, but when I first read about it as a kid, I didn't see anything wrong with it. This says one of two things:
1. It's actually no more silly than most superhero origins, and fans only think it's ridiculous because they learn about an obscure guy like the Whizzer at an older age than when they meet folks like the Hulk or Spider-Man.
2. I was a very, very stupid kid.
I'm not sure which of the two is the case.
Well, that's it for introductions. I'm not very computer-savvy, so I'm still learning my way around this whole blog template thing. More to come later today, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)