Funny Dork Tower cartoon

Here's a good strip from Dork Tower from last week that lampoons the sales through controversy approach being overemployed as of late by Marvel and DC.
Thanks to Bobb.

Open trackback parties: Conservative Cat, Robinik.Net.

Superheroes to help in charity fundraising for children in northern Israel

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs points to a very impressive article in the Jerusalem Post about how a Florida-based publishing company is working on a compilation to help raise funding in support of children in northern Israel following the recent attacks by the Hezbollah:

Children in northern Israel are to receive support from some of America's most famous superheroes - or at least the artists who created them. Mahrwood Press, a publishing company with offices in Florida and Jerusalem, has initiated the compilation of an anthology, Balm in Gilead, featuring short stories and illustrations that will be sold in support of children in northern Israel affected during the recent war.

"I had been contacted by an American Jewish publisher to do an insert to solicit funds for children in the North, but I wanted to do something bigger, something in the US," said Eric Mahr, Mahrwood's president, who enlisted for the project the help of artists including Stan Lee, the creator of Spiderman and The Fantastic Four, and Neal Adams, a leading contemporary comic artist most famous for his work on the Batman and X-Men series. Other participants include Marv Wolfman, the creator of Blade, Robert Silverberg, a popular science fiction writer, and Dave Cockrum, a co-creator of the X-Men series.

Clifford Meth, a well-known writer and editor in the comic book and science fiction world, will serve as the project's editor.

Meth said he had enjoyed similar past work on charity projects "because you don't have to worry about a budget when dealing with top artists."

He's focused his energy this time on finding writers and illustrators for the anthology, and said "we are pleased and proud that some of the most respected people in comics and literature have stepped forward to join this project."

Adams, the Batman artist, spoke about his motivation for participating in the charity project. "As a comic book artist, there is a certain guilt factor because we are paid money to draw pictures ... When an opportunity to contribute to society arises, we take it up," he said.

Adams, who is not Jewish, said he has a special affinity for Israel because "our association to Israel as Americans is very strong. It's a first-string relationship."

Neal Adams, man, do I owe you many thanks for this. Also to Lee, Wolfman, Cockrum and Silverberg. And I also gotta say, God Bless America!

Update: Silver Bullet offers a press release on Eli Eshed and Uri Fink's Golem strip, and how it's going to be published in English.

You can also go to this article on YnetNews' English site to learn more about the comic strip they're doing.

Matthew Broderick almost suffered an accident similar to Christopher Reeve's

Not directly comics related, but, as I found out a short while ago, actor Matthew Broderick came close to sustaining an injury similar to that of Christopher Reeve's in 1995:

NEW YORK - Matthew Broderick's vacation in Ireland was marred when he suffered a broken collarbone after falling off a horse Sunday, his publicist, Simon Halls, told The Associated Press.

The 44-year-old actor, accompanied by actress-wife Sarah Jessica Parker, was treated and released from a hospital the same day, Halls said.

"He's fine. He's just been in a little bit of pain," Halls told the AP on Monday.

Broderick is very fortunate not to have ended up paralyzed like Christopher Reeve was when he went horseback riding 11 years ago. No doubt that must've been a very terrible experience for Reeve back at the time, one that otherwise ended his own acting career, though he did star in a cable TV remake of Rear Window and in an episode of Smallville. That's the sad thing about reality, that, while Superman is immune to injuries like what Reeve sustained, the actor playing him in the 1978 movie classic is not.

Reeve visited Israel back in 2003, and that was quite flattering and an honor for him to come here (he even said it was a "super" place!). That's one more thing for which I maintain the highest repect for Reeve.

And back to Broderick now, I must say that he's very lucky not to have ended up in the same situation as Reeve. To be paralyzed like that is doubtlessly one of the most unpleasant experiences one can have.

Here's also the link to the Paralysis Resource Center that Reeve and his wife Dana founded.

Zadzooks goes down to zero

Oh well, I guess it was inevitable that Joseph Szadkowski, the comics, games and animation columnist for the Wash. Times, would lose it and sell out to PC lunacy. That he does with the following lines near the beginning and towards the end of his item on the Justice League relaunch:

Best-selling thriller author and architect of DC Comics' popular miniseries Identity Crisis, Brad Meltzer, begins the construction of a new era for the Justice League of America.

[...]

Overall, I am not sure how many times readers can deal with the shenanigans of comic-book publishers who feel they need to reinvent a series to boost sales. However, fans should give this new Justice League a chance, if only based on how Mr. Meltzer handled his Identity Crisis.

Translation: he enjoyed it. What a shame.

There may be some discussion here about the past events that took place in DC history, but no mention anywhere here about the more in depth details of IC, which are what really need to be discussed.

When I began reading Szadkowski's columns a few years ago, what made me credit his work then was that he usually did make a better point than some other MSM comics columnists in various other newspapers. But now, with this, I'd say he pretty much took his credibility and threw it away in one fell swoop. Then again, he actually was starting to get very surprisingly boring in the latter part of 2005, and this too is a collosal letdown.

Sorry, "Mr. Zad", but while I may have enjoyed your work previously, with this, you've really zonked out big time.

Today, I'm going to the Tel Aviv Comics Convention

For about five years now, the Tel Aviv Cinematheque's been holding a comic book convention at their theater, usually in August, and I've tripped to it annually each year. It's scheduled for three days now, and I'll be trying to visit there on all three of them. I remember that back in 2003, Orson Scott Card may have been a guest of honor there too.

In October, they also have a sci-fi convention, which features some similar exhibitions, and I'll be attending that too in the next two months. (As noted by the Icon website, which sponsors some of these events, Orson Scott Card certainly attended the sci-fi convention, and there was quite a lineup of people asking for autographed copies of Ender's Game and other books he wrote.)

But what's the troops opinion on the story?

I'd first seen this article from Army Times on the Gannett news wire, which talks about the least important part of Civil War: namely, whose side are any army personnel reading the miniseries taking? Unfortunately, if there's anything it seems to avoid, it's their actual opinion on the whole story itself! From the article:

...the plot — which already is developing beyond the core seven-book series into existing Marvel comics and new spinoff comics — has generated buzz among comic book enthusiasts, including many in uniform.

In Fayetteville, N.C., home to the Army’s Fort Bragg and also to Dragon’s Lair, a 25-year-old comic book shop, owner Bernie Mangiboyat said he quickly sold his 200 copies of the first issue, and people are still asking for it.

He said about 75 percent to 80 percent of his customers are service members, and so far, most are lining up with Captain America.

“The big thing is Captain America,” he said. “He stands up for the ones who don’t want to give up their names [to the government]. ... Ninety percent of the customers coming in say they look at it in the Captain America way.

“They’re kind of against Iron Man because they feel that he’s like the corporation going in with the government. He’s kind of falling in line.”

But what's their OPINION on the STORY?!? Is it well written? Is it badly written? Do they think that it's out-of-character for anyone? Sadly, these questions are almost entirely avoided here, which, IMO, is being unfair to our troops.

Lesson to be learned: you can't expect even a military publication to give some good insight into things like these, or even to let anyone know what the common serviceman's opinion on entertainment is. And Army Times is decidedly just as knee-jerk as the New York Times, Wash. Post, LA Times, Village Voice, or any other publication that would rather sensationalize the news than let anyone know the meaty facts about the subject at hand.

No room for escapism

An article first published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that says one thing well enough:

It's impossible to go to comic books for pure escapism. Characters and story lines increasingly reflect the social and political complexities of our lives. Characters struggle with debt, bad marriages, their sexuality, social status and fear of sudden and inexplicable loss just like ordinary mortals.

Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Nowadays, the above problems have gotten to the point of being presented in a most alarmingly biased light, and multiplied so badly, and the writers have almost completely refused to let up, if at all, that it's little wonder nobody can go to comics for escapism. That's exactly what today's writers, in all their obsessive personal biases, have either forgotten, or just refuse to take into consideration. Come to think of it, this article doesn't make much of an effort to better them either. Especially when it says the following bummer at the end:

Longtime character Spider-Man is caught in the middle and has to decide whether to obey or flee. The series is thick with compelling arguments for both sides.

Oh yeah, I'll bet. Please, do tell me about it, Post-Gazette.

"We're not trying to take a side," said Dan Buckley, Marvel president. "We're not trying to tell a political story. We're trying to tell a superhero story."

Sigh. Again, please do tell me about it. Buckley proves himself little better than William Jemas ever was when he was the company head.

More art than writing projects?

Blogger Betsy Newmark is a teacher by profession, just like both my parents have been over the years,* and one of her first postings when she began blogging in 2002 was about how comic books were making a comeback as teaching tools in schools. The Wash. Post article she linked to back then that spoke about the subject is no longer available, but she herself still had something quite eyebrow raising about just how comics are being put to use as teaching tools:

As a middle school teacher, it seems to me that too many assignments are actually art projects. The children put all their effort into the "creativity" of the assignment. Teachers and parents can ooh and ahh about the results. However, the students still need to write focused and well-written essays. That skill is less fun to teach and grade. It's less fun for the students. That's why I have to read so much writing by gifted students who still confuse 'there,' 'they're,' and 'their.' Maybe they can learn plot development from Spiderman, but they still need to be able to present a well-reasoned and logical argument in their writing.

Not just that, but, they also need to learn how to write good storytelling, which is just as important as good grammar and spelling. I can see what she's getting at, and how, unless schools who use comics as a teaching tool were to encourage their students to try a little harder, we'll probably end up in the near future with far more artists than writers! Certainly good artwork is a plus for every comic book, but then so is good writing. And without learning how to be a scriptwriter, what good is it really to use comics as teaching tools in schools? Even if it's just 5th or 6th grade, there's still room for a class in which to teach some kind of scriptwriting assignment, which could get children ready for the really heavy duty assignments they'd end up facing in their adult years. And then, with any luck, you'd have a new generation of Gerry Conways, Cary Bateses, Roy Thomases, Marv Wolfmans, Len Weins and Paul Levitzes waiting in the wings for a chance to write comic books, and maybe even bring back the great times when comics could offer up a fun adventure or even a suspenseful thriller like they did years ago!

Now there's something for anyone who's into teaching and tutoring who wants to employ comics as a teaching tool to think about.

* My father worked as a Spanish teacher in western New Jersey years ago, and my mother's worked in both schools and tutoring for almost all her life, ever since she was in her early 20s.

Fans need to focus their criticism on the apologists too

Some comics fans have led passionate debates about Marvel's abuse of its own properties like Captain America, but while they can or do have justification it, they should also be criticizing the industry's apologists, if you ask me. I came upon this ugly, sickening whitewash by Newsarama of Marvel's obscene little act of bigotry, the Captain America: The Truth, Red, White and Black miniseries, from Novermber 19, 2003, written by people who clearly have no respect for Steve Rogers whatsoever, and IMO, have no business working in comic-related business either. This to me is a perfect opportunity to defend the Sentinel of Liberty by delivering a counter-sock to any of those knee-jerk apologists I can find, and I'm gonna take it. First of all, the opening paragraph, which tries to downplay the meaning of controversy, make the comics fans seem like idiots, and also tries to present writer Robert Morales as some kind of a victim:

Of Marvel comics not written by Bill Jemas in 2003, you probably couldn’t get more controversial than Truth: Red, White and Black by Robert Morales and Kyle Baker. A trade collection of the seven issue miniseries is due in February, and Morales was up for talking about his experiences.

Look out, for what you see above here is trying to make it seem as if controversy isn't such a bad thing, and Morales look like...you get the idea.

For those who may not have been around when Truth was announced, imagine that Marvel chose a small group of passionate (and vocal) fans and systematically kicked all of their puppies.

Hard.

The concept of Truth dates back to an original concept by editor Axel Alonso who latched onto the Tuskegee analogy for how the military would test a Super Soldier Serum. Alonso mentioned it to Morales, who jumped all over it, and started conversations between the two.

The idea was picked up on and mentioned publically by Bill Jemas early on in the Jemas/Joe Quesada era. According to Jemas, he later brought up the idea of a black Captain America at a dinner with writers and editors as a possibility for the Ulimtate line. According to Jemas’ rationale, World War II era America wasn’t the most PC place in the world, and, given the reality of the Tuskegee, if the government had a “super soldier” serum to test on someone; blacks were going to play a role somewhere.

First of all, while the Tuskagee experiment, in which black college students from Alabama were tricked into taking part in a shitty experiment in the 1930s, was a most atrocious period in history, it should be noted that none of the victims were ever held hostage or arrested and dragged into a dungeon, as Truth accuses the US army of doing. Second of all, while it's true that were experiments conducted during the 40s involving chemicals, as far as I know, it was convicts in prisons who were the subjects. And not just black ones, but white ones too. In 1940, there was one such case in Chicago in which 400 prisoners were infected with malaria to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to battle the disease. And there's every chance that plenty of the prisoners used in that experiment were white. And let me also note that, if there had been any experiments on soldiers during the 40s by the US army, there's every chance that white soldiers could or would've been subjects of them as well.

In fact, in comic books, if there's any example of army-based experiments involving white subjects, it was in 1981, in Fantastic Four #233, when John Byrne wrote a story involving a middle-aged business agent who'd served in the army during the 1950s and took part in what turned out to be a nuclear-based experiment, pre-Incredible Hulk, gaining some kind of psychokinetic powers that could alter reality. That's right, the guy featured there wasn't black at all, he was a perfectly white Anglican-American, as were almost all the other soldiers sitting out there in the desert too as "the gates of Hades yawned wide." He didn't tell the officials afterwards about the slight buzzing that developed at the back of his head, something he hardly even noticed later on, ditto that he was affecting reality. Following his horror at the apocalyptic destruction wrought by Ego, the living planet, in which he made a super-alteration that saved the earth, his power wore off entirely. He may not have noticed that either, but I must say that he was one lucky guy.

And with that told, let us now turn to Jemas' "rationale". Not only was it incredibly exaggerated, if anything, and downright insulting, but what really does in this whole article is that it downplays the insult unto them, coming dangerously close to implying that assaulting their intellect was justified. And, as mentioned, it tries to make Marvel's staff out to look like the victims.

Boom, baby.

The news hit a segment of fans like a ton of bricks, with many claming that this could never have happened, as it didn’t appear or wasn’t mentioned in any previous issue of Captain America, and some accusing Marvel of trying to “PC-up” Captain America. Message boards were choked with posts about what an outrage this was, and that, as claimed in extreme cases; it was an affront to everything that Captain America stood for.

But my dear Matt Brady, comics company apologist extraordinaire, it was an affront to everything the great Steve Rogers stands for. Unfortunately, Brady, the main man in charge of running Newsarama, would rather have us think otherwise and accept all changes to the character and origin, regardless of whether it's insulting and offensive or not. And that's the biggest problem with this propaganda - it makes the readers out to look like jerks, which was sadly what Jemas and Co. were hoping to do, to say nothing short of making ludicrous implications about the US Army of today as conducting similar experiments in Iraq by using the story as a metaphor for today's world scene.

Not to put too much of a spin on it, but the hate from within the comics community leveled against Morales and Baker, while the first issue was still in production was something probably experienced only maybe George Lucas thanks to the general insipidness of The Phantom Menace or making Greedo shoot first – the lesson being, you don’t dick with pop cultural institutions.

Ah, see that? In other words, the comics community was inciting against Morales and Baker. Translation: the community are not purists and patriots devoted to the ideals of the American way, but rather, blind jingoistic hatemongers. Talk about inflating things more than need be; that's Newsarama for you folks. And while they may have shapened up a bit since last year, they still have a long way to go if they want to be taken seriously and not as just another sleazebag news source.

Morales, subject of the interview here, must've really enjoyed playing victim and wallowing in victimology:

“There was a version I was working on that had Jesus become Captain America…that was too much for Bill, from the first scene of “Private Jesus Christ reporting for duty, sir!” and his sidekick Peter,” Morales joked about how he could’ve garnered a rougher response.

And it all caught Morales by surprise. “It was a very weird thing that I assumed that nobody would pay attention,” the writer said. “I really didn’t think it was going to be as big a deal as it was, and in fact, it wasn’t for me, because it started so long ago. I started working on the story in either March or April of 2000, and if I remember correctly, I had lunch with those guys in June of 2000, but nothing really started to happen until after 9/11, and that kind of changed the character of everything. I did a lot of research, a lot of reading, and then when it started coming out, I couldn’t believe that people were so hot under the collar because I was only doing seven books. There are hundreds, if not over a thousand Captain America books out there – you’re free to ignore me. I mean, in the whole Cap canon, this is a blip, especially since it doesn’t say anything about Cap other than Steve Rogers is a decent human being who becomes proactive.”

Yeah, I heard that defense before. And ain't that something - Morales didn't care if he was disliked as a writer or not; all he cared about was his paycheck. But the fact is that, if it were to have been accepted as canon, it would have been disgracing everything Steve Rogers ever stood for, which is very similar to what Superman does: truth, justice and the American way. And, it would've made it hard to take him seriously as a hero, since his background was being so horrifically soiled. And I might also note that it would've also been damaging to the fact that Cap also stands for the rights of minority groups, both then and now. Not that Jemas and co. would've cared.

(Speaking of the American Way, if there's one more point to make on Superman Returns omitting that part, it's that being an American citizen does not make it impossible to be a foreigner's hero and idol. France's interior minister Nicholas Sarkozy may be the son of immigrants of Greek and Hungarian descent, but does that mean that he can't be the hero of the more native French people, or of people in the US as well? Of course not. And likewise, there are many famous people in America who've met with admiration and respect in Europe as well, as both Capt. America and Superman do for the help they do their best to provide to the world.)

The rest of this interview article gets too treacly and sensationalistic to bear, but if there's something I think I noticed about the whole thread, it's that almost none of the respondents, if at all, seemed to have anything critical to say about Matt Brady, for his apologia and victimology. Nobody seemed to take him to task for the way he paid lip service to Marvel's staff of loons plus Morales by making them look like victims or that The Truth miniseries' premise wasn't offensive and insulting, nor that he made the fans of Cap and any of the readers who decried their sick little act of bigotry out to look like blind villains who were "seeing things that weren't there." I realize that it could very easily be because Brady erased any personal criticisms and condemnations, but still, if nobody stood up to him, you have to wonder why.

And the point of this is make it clear to anybody who found the miniseries as offensive as it was that: while you have every right to be angry at Marvel's staff of the time for pulling that publicity stunt, don't let newscasters as bad as Brady slip beneath your notice. If he's done you wrong as dedicated fans, have no qualms about confronting him. As a "mainstream" news reporter of sorts, he's done more than enough to be asking for a serious rebuttal, otherwise, he could just go on and on with his propaganda shtick, and few others would be up to the challenge of taking him on critically either.

In the past year, Newsarama actually did start to tone down the more sensationalistic approach they were taking in past years of their existence, but apologia and lip service are still there in some way or other. If they are, that's why I'd suggest issuing some criticism against them, one of the best things the blogosphere is for - to focus on issues like these and to speak out against sensationalists like what Brady was being in past years. If you can figure out how to best protest such would-be news coverage, then that could be a step towards improving things.

Biased news coverage is one of the leading problems that's led to bad comic books in turn. To fight for better story quality, that's why the media focusing specifically on comics needs to be dealt with first.

Open trackback parties: The Mudville Gazette, NIF, Point Five, The Right Nation, Stop the ACLU.

2008 Update: I've discovered a strongly recommended article from Nationl Review's Jonah Goldberg (Hat tip: Molten Thought) that sets the record straight about what really happened at the time of the Tuskagee experiment, but also tells something very important to consider: it was an outgrowth of leftist policies.

One more reason why comics get ruined: costly delays

There is a lesson to be learned here. The question is if the editors themselves are willing to sit up and listen. Depending on how you view it, some of this is bad news: both of the big two are having massive delays in when a book goes to press:

We don’t really follow the day to day announcements of Marvel and DC, except when they strike us in some larger sense, but yesterday’s shocker that CIVIL WAR #4 and 5 would be delayed by a month and two months, respectively, got even our attention. As ICv2’s recently released sales estimates show, CIVIL WAR #3 by Mark Millar and Steve McNiven sold just a skotch under 300K copies, making it a sales blockbuster by any estimate. But it gets worse: the mini-series is but the tentpole for a huge interconnected web of tie-in mini-series and crossover comics — in order to keep the story fresh, some 30 other titles will also be delayed. Reaction among retailers and readers was flabbergasted. Of course, just about every other blockbuster tentpole of the last few years has had delays (HOUSE OF M) or else drastic “many hands” artistic line-ups (INFINITE CRISIS) and delays, but still.

On the one hand, given how lowly I tend to consider the premise of Civil War itself, I'm not too bothered by this. But apart from that, I'm really disturbed by how a whole smorgasboard of other books had to be dragged as far into this quagmire as they were.

And, as noted above, DC isn't far behind either:

Can’t wait for Wednesday is, at least this week, much better called “I’m still waiting for Wednesday.” Eternals #3, Justice League of America #1, and Wonder Woman #2 were all slated to be released today, along with Civil War #4 — all are delayed. The ongoing Wonder Woman series, scripted by Allen Heinberg, has had a substantial delay, supposedly due to Heinberg’s Hollywood duties. JLA #1’s delay is even more sudden — only days ago, DC was promoting it in the NY Times and Publishers Weekly because it contained an excerpt of writer Brad Meltzer’s new novel. Reportedly, as recently as last week DC did not even know the book was going to be delayed, which sounds odd, but we can’t even begin to hazard a guess on all the reasons.

Graeme rounds up message board reactions. While late books are a fact of life, the delay of a huge chunk of Marvel’s line will have a huge impact on retailers, not to mention books that skip shipping for a month or two impacting on creator’s income. It’s a huge mess, made all the more dramatic by the fact that it was announced less than 24 hours before the issue was to have shipped.

On the one hand, I couldn't care less about the new volume of JLofA being delayed, since I have no intention of buying a book written by someone who stooped as low as Meltzer did. But as far as much of the rest of DC is concerned, yes, this is very shameful.

We thought comics companies caught on to this back when Kevin Smith first started writing the funnies. You got plenty of books in the can before going on the schedule. Now the cross-over comics scripters are dragging the schedule back.

It wouldn’t be so bad if it were just special mini-series. Late books are a fact of life and comics fans have come to expect delays when high-strung, high quality creative teams are at the helm — ULTIMATES and PLANETARY anyone? But events like CIVIL WAR are crucial to the entire comics economy. Marvel has planned everything in 2006 around it, and this time they gambled and lost.

And DC isn't far behind.

If Heinberg is a Hollywood staffer, I think that should be enough to make clear that the Hollywooders who enter comics choose either one career or the other, but NOT both. This is just one more reason why we need perhaps more teen talents like in the days when Gerry Conway, Cary Bates, Roy Thomas, Marv Wolfman, Len Wein and Jim Shooter first made the scene and stardom. Talents who're dedicated to just one profession and not obsessing themselves with Hollywood glitz simultaneously. That's probably one more reason why the above comics writers, when they first began in their teens, managed to turn out such entertaining books.

While we're on the subject, I thought to take a look at that press article interviewing Meltzer, and providing yet more on which to take issue with him. He put an excerpt of his next book into the pages of the comic he's currently writing, and he says:

A lifelong comics fan, Meltzer calls the excerpt an effort to break down artificial walls between categories and maybe smash a bit of literary snobbery as well. "A reader is a reader," says Meltzer in an interview from his home in Florida. "If we can bring any new readers over, then it's a plus. People can like Beck and Motown. A good story is a good story, whether it has pictures or not."

Lifelong fan? Please, do keep going with that. The article of course obscures the bigger picture, that what Meltzer himself has been doing is to inject the very snobbery he speaks of into the comic itself, accompanied by more than a bit of violence, perversity, and even moonbattery. And as for "good story": please, do tell us about it. Because what if it turns out to be a bad story?

"I noticed that 40-year-old men who haven't read a comic book in years and suburban housewives into thrillers were both picking up Identity Crisis," Meltzer says. "Identity Crisis has no series continuity; anyone can pick it up. I just wrote the kind of book that I write. No one realizes how much comics books have influenced my novels," says Meltzer. Whether he's writing comics or prose novels, Meltzer says, his books are focused on "American heroes"--he spent a week each with former presidents Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush to research Book of Fate, a thriller involving a presidential aide. "If you read the first chapter of Book of Fate, it reads like a 32-page comic book and if you read JLA, it's like reading my novels. It's about making readers care about the characters."

Very interesting. He justifies IC's rancid existence by doing something that almost implicates 40-year-olds as perverts, and housewives as desensitized to violence. And, more tellingly, he says that the book has "no series continuity," when here, it was meant to, and was indeed used, to influence the overall DCU and its continuity! How laughable.

I'm also not comfortable reading that he's gotten cozy with two former presidents who aren't exactly looked upon in admiration today. And wow! After depicting all the heros in IC in such an unsympathetic light, and certainly not making us care about the females, he actually has the nerve to say that his next book is about making readers care? The dishonesty repeatedly displayed by Meltzer is just unbelievable.

Meltzer emphasizes that this experiment in cross-promotion is another step in the acceptance of comics as a mature literary medium. "Is Alan Moore's Watchmen a lesser work because it has pictures? Somewhere along the way, comics began to get serious literary reviews," he says.

Frankly, I don't think anyone ever considered Watchmen a lesser work because of the pictures. But I do think there are some out there who'd consider IC a lesser work because of the violence and promiscuity it wallows in. And yet, he does hint at what he's really done, in a manner of speaking, which is to turn comics into a smutfest, in contrast to what he may be trying to argue.

He continues: "Snobbery toward comics is being attacked, and the lit snobs realize that comics readers have a voice. The San Diego Comic-con is successful because everyone realizes now that they have to court comics geeks like me. It's about the revenge of the nerds, and it feels fantastic."

What about snobbery within comics, including your own, Moonbat Meltzer? And here, there may very well be a touch of irony, indicative of something I've had to question: are newcomers really rushing en masse to comics? Maybe some of Meltzer's own readers, but other than that, I cannot find any concrete evidence that they're zooming in on either that or on other stuff as well. And if not, then what converts to comics are we speaking of, or even newcomers?

And how ironic that he should admit that readers do have a voice. Yes, we do. We call it the blogosphere now, and on it, we battle to expose dishonest and cynical writers such as Meltzer himself.

Open trackback parties: The Mudville Gazette, NIF, Point Five, The Right Nation, Stop the ACLU.

Continuity is what makes comics go around

The Arkansas Democrat Gazette's got an article that talks about the concept of continuity in comic books. It talks about how times have changed in how everyone can keep track of continuity, from collections to computerized databases. And, it says the following:

Maybe even more than the writers and editors do, comic-book fans obsess about continuity.

When Spider-Man publicly revealed his secret identity in the end of Marvel’s Civil War # 2, fans hit the message boards with fury, discussing whether that move was fitting of Peter Parker’s personality, as built up over the decades.

When news spread that Grant Morrison’s run on Batman would feature “Batman’s son,” the fans came out again, trying to deduce when the great detective would’ve ever had time to procreate.

This stuff is important. Really.

If the writer here is siding with the audience, I must say, I'm glad. Because we need all the help we can get to tell both Marvel and DC, that we'd be much happier if they were to knock off the damage they're doing to continuity already. In fact, I'm sure that everything could be repaired without even having to use yet one more crossover to do it. I'm sure there'd need to be some real putting the nose to the grindstone to figure out how to repair things, but, it can be done.

I just wish they'd mention the blogosphere too, since it's not just thanks to forums that these things can be made known, but also on blogs. Nevertheless, this does serve as a good start to helping people outside comic books understand what even they might find a concern. Because it also has what to do with good storytelling, which even moviegoers, for example, can tell you is important.

Open trackback parties: The Mudville Gazette, NIF, Point Five, The Right Nation, Stop the ACLU.

History of comics from Holland

There have been comics published in the Netherlands in certain forms, and this page from Lambiek gives some insight into the history of comics in Holland. I once visited the Netherlands back in mid-1994, and I'd seen even a comics store there too at one point.

DC's superhero stamps

The Syracuse Post-Standard writes that DC is publishing stamps featuring covers spanning from the 1940s to 2002, first shown at the SanDiego Comicon.

Stan Lee'll be at the SanDiego Comicon

Of course, I'm sure he's always taken the time to attend. He'll be promoting a new company called POW! (Purveyors of Wonder) Entertainment Brand, which specialized in licensing intellectual properties, and Stylin' Online T-shirts. And once again, I find myself sitting here wishing I could go to meet him. Sigh. I always miss out on the best.

Guest review of MAX Squadron Supreme and Civil War

I am honored to present the following guest comment by blogger Hube of The Colossus of Rhodey, which looks at the political biases featured in J. Michael Straczynski's take on Squadron Supreme, and Marvel's company wide crossover, Civil War. Here is the review as follows:

Hi, all. Hube here from The Colossus of Rhodey.

J. Michael Straczynski, in his "Squadron Supreme" series, has taken "blame America first" to the next level for Marvel Comics. Straczynski's series builds upon the foundation set in the "Supreme Power" series, which detailed (more or less) the origins of the Squadron's main characters. And, of course, both series utilize the heroes (and enemies) which Mark Gruenwald immortalized in his "Squadron Supreme" mini-series from the mid-1980s.

Gruenwald's series was ahead of its time in that it dealt with the situation of a super-group assuming total control of, in this case, the United States, in order to re-establish fundamental order after a world-wide crisis. One of the team's members, Nighthawk (who also happened to be the ex-president of the US), vehemently dissents from the Squadron's decision to take total control, and after failing to convince his fellow Squadders of the folly of their decision, quits the team. Eventually, Nighthawk recruits a bunch of other super-powered folk to battle the Squadron, and after the series' climax, the Squadron realizes their goal of a "utopia" was misguided.

Straczynski's "Supreme Power" details how the US government takes the utmost advantage of a super-strong, eyebeam-shooting alien infant (sound familiar?*) code-named Hyperion. Eventually, Hyperion becomes disillusioned with what the government has done to him, but decides to pretty much "play along" so as to get what he's after -- more knowledge about his origins. The same alien craft from which Hyperion comes also yields a powerful gem, which becomes attached to an American covert operative (Dr. Spectrum), as well as the mysterious woman code-named Power Princess.

In "Squadron Supreme," Straczynski has his team assembled and working for the US government. This conveniently mirrors what is happening in the Marvel Universe proper with its "Civil War," as well as the Avengers-analogue title The Ultimates. (Squadron Supreme takes place on one of the many "alternate earths" of the Marvel Continuum.) Issue #3 is where Straczynski goes overboard with his leftist worldview. The Squadron has been on a United Nations-authorized mission to "take out" a powerful African mentalist whom the US presumes gained his powers via the same alien technologies that produced Hyperion, et. al. After successfully thwarting the bad guy, the Squadron is confronted by a team of African superheroes who proceed to inform the Squadders that the United States and white people in general are responsible for most of Africa's problems, and that this double combination never want to see "a peaceful, united Africa, with a growing economy." When the Blur (what Straczynski has renamed the Whizzer), a black man, requests to speak to the head African hero, he is told that his heart "has a great light," and that he "is a good man, Child of Africa." BUT -- he is "still an American." Thus, the African heroes "will pray for [his] health and soul." Later, aboard a returning flight home, Blur informs readers that, although he doesn't think white people are responsible for all our (black people's) problems, "they are responsible for a lot of them." He holds up his hand and states "This is the world I live in."

Blur references Straczynski's version of Nighthawk when he mentions "all [black people's] problems" as this world's Nighthawk is a wealthy [black] man whose parents were murdered by Nazi-like [white] skinheads (this sound vaguely familiar?**). Consequently, Nighthawk becomes the focal point from which to espouse the evils of racism, especially that found in the United States. Though Nighthawk hasn't really appeared yet in "Squadron Supreme," he was a prominent figure in "Supreme Power."

In issue #6, we finally see more of Nighthawk, but not before Straczynski has team members doubting their role as peacekeepers -- that is, for a single nation. Blur's mother informs him that various athletic companies have dropped him as a spokesman, but others have made offers -- all those with lucrative government conracts, including -- you guessed it (noted in a separate word balloon) -- Halliburton. Next time use a sledgehammer, eh J. Michael? It's apparent that Straczynski is setting it up for the Squadron to assume the role Gruenwald had them play, but the lopsided left commentary keeps a'comin'. When Blur dashes off to request that Nighthawk join the Squadron, he pleads with him that, in so many words, his guidance is needed. He states

Where they're using us is mainly to control people of color in Africa , in the mid-east ... you say you're against that kind of oppression. Well, why stop at the border?

There you have it, folks. American politicians, the people, even its superheroes now -- all puppets of the Halliburtons who disrupt Third World nations (that exclusively contain people of color, of course) at will so as to prevent them from solving their own problems and becoming an eventual threat to the American corporate order. Of course, just don't tell countries like Japan and Germany, to name two -- a duo of exemplary democracies with thriving economies and prodigious standards of living. This, after a mere 60 years of being utterly obliterated by ... the United States in World War II. The catch for the Straczynskis is that that "evil corporate plutocracy" known as the United States actually assisted those two countries in getting back together. Not so that they could "own" them. But because it was the right thing to do. Hell, Japan's thriving businesses have crushed US competition over the last quarter century or so. So much for "control."

But maybe these two examples don't count because their countries' populations aren't "people of color." Well, maybe Japan is. But, well ... Asians as a group aren't usually considered "minorities" in the United States because they tend to thrive as a group, economically and academically. They're not "victims" in need of a "saving" by the mindset that Straczynski brings us.

Speaking of the aforementioned "Civil War" series, New Avengers #21 had to contain the most disgusting out-of-character version of Captain America I've ever read. As you may be aware, "Civil War" has torn asunder the Marvel Universe's heroes, dividing them into two camps: One in favor of "registering" with the United States government (led by my personal favorite hero, Iron Man) and those in favor of remaining independent, non-affiliated "free agents." In a nauseating soliloquy which could have been written by perpetual Bush protestor Cindy Sheehan, Cap thinks to himself (courtesy of writer Brian Michael Bendis)

"They want superheroes to be controlled by the government. They want us to be puppets to a corporate shill structure, like their politicians and everything else on the planet. What do you expect from a society that gets all its news from late-night comedy shows? Of course they don't care! Everything is a punchline. Everything is just -- no. That's not true. They care. They just care about themselves more than they care about the world they live in. They want to be comfortable, not safe. They don't want to fight for their freedom. They want someone like me to fight for it for them."

It is, to say the least, astonishing to read Captain America uttering (thinking) these words. If Cap truly feels this way (Bendis sort of gives Cap an "out" as he occasionally interrupts his self-tirade by stating that he's tired), then why not ditch the role of the Star-Spangled Avenger -- like he's done in the past?

Back in the mid-70s, Cap did just that on his own, after discovering (in a not-too subtle analogue to the Watergate Crisis) that a "highly placed government official" was a bigwig of the Secret Empire. He became "The Nomad" for a short time while he re-evaluated his role as a superhero. (A trade paperback collecting these relevant issues has been printed.) In the 1980s, Cap faced a similar situation to "Civil War" where the US government wanted him to work directly for them -- as he had back during World War II. He refused, reliquishing his costume and shield, which was later used by replacement John Walker (who eventually became the US Agent). Cap assumed the role of "The Captain" while Walker played Capt. America.

As I noted in a post over at Colossus of Rhodey, Cap, in the later case above and when he once contemplated running for president of the United States, gave impassioned speeches explaining just what his role as Captain America stands for. Turning down the offer to become a presidential candidate, he said

[A president] must be ready to negotiate -- to compromise -- 24 hours a day, to preserve the Republic at all costs! I understand this ... I appreciate this ... and I realize the need to work within such a framework. By the same token -- I have worked and fought all my life for the growth and advancement of the American Dream. And I believe that my duty to the Dream would severely limit any abilities I might have to preserve the reality. We must all live in the real world ... and sometimes that world can be pretty grim. But it is the Dream ... the Hope ... that makes the reality worth living.

Similarly, when turning over his costume and shield to the government "Commission" (and John Walker) Cap alter-ego Steve Rogers noted

Captain America was created to be a soldier. But I have made him far more than that. To return to being a mere soldier would be a betrayal of all I've striven for, for the better part of my career. To serve the country your way, I would have to give up my personal freedom ... and place myself in a position where I might have to compromise my ideals to obey your orders.

I cannot represent the American government; the president does that. I must represent the American people. I represent the American Dream, the freedom to strive to become all that you dream of being. Being Captain America has been my American Dream. To become what you want me to be, I would have to compromise that Dream ... abandon what I have come to stand for.

There is none of this excellent writing -- and characterization of what Captain America is -- in the current "Civil War" story arc. Cap has become just another cheap method of infusing a writer's personal politics into the story. And for Marvel, this means yet another left-of-center point of view. Here it's Bendis. In the "Civil War" title proper it's Mark Millar, an admitted leftist who also writes the "updated" version of the Avengers, The Ultimates. On Squadron Supreme it's Straczynski. Volume 4 Iron Man's first six issues featured Warren Ellis, another left-leaner who featured a barely concealed analogue of radical Aussie journalist John Pilger (named John "Pillinger." Yeesh.) And so on.

And what's further interesting is that Cap's "disillusionment" backdrop always seems to come when there's a conservative Republican in the White House. "Secret Empire" came during Richard Nixon's administration (although it's highly debatable he was conservative). "The Captain" was written in the middle of the Reagan years. Now, there's "Civil War" during George W. Bush's presidency. Even the tone of Captain America (as well as other comics) reflects a nastiness and condescension that you didn't see during the 1990s (coincidentally, when Democrat Bill Clinton was in office). Reagan, Bush #1 and the current White House occupant were (are) all depicted as buffoons quite oftent. The "Secret Empire" story is certainly the most "legitimate," for lack of a better term, as Nixon's heinous crimes were widely known and you didn't have to be a partisan to realize this. And even writer Steve Englehart, despite the obvious parallels, didn't mention names.

New Avengers #22 takes "Civil War" to the next level: comparing the registration of super-powered individuals to the Jim Crow South of the American early twentieth century. Bendis does this through New Avenger Power Man (Luke Cage), and what makes the comparison even more ridiculous is that Iron Man and Ms. Marvel just stand there, offering only rebuttals along the lines of "It's not the same!" all the while Cage pontificates like an experienced debater with a PhD in Rhetoric. I long ago signed up to receive [New] Avengers in my collection box at my local comics shop; I put this issue back on the shelf for some other hapless individual to buy. I haven't been purchasing the Civil War series (I've been reading the issues that a friend is buying) and I'm this close to dropping Squadron Supreme. The promise of "Civil War" was supposed to be a balanced debate on the registration of people with extraordinary abilities. It has turned out, thus far, to be quite UNbalanced -- the pro-Capt. America forces (against registration) being scripted by the likes of Millar and Bendis to have the [much] better argument. And, it royally pisses me off that my favorite superhero -- Tony Stark/Iron Man -- is being made out to be a quasi-fascist simpleton.

So? What's the point of all this?

Do I want a return to the 1960s where Stan Lee invoked the simplicity of the east-west Cold War to rouse American patriotism? Certainly not. But even Lee only used that backdrop as a plot device to tell a fantasy-laden superhero story -- a reality break, if you will. Contemporary comics, thanks to their overtly political writers, have done a 180 degree turn: they have made the fantasy subordinate to the political theme. Readers have nowhere to go now to escape the world around them. Marvel's current crop of storytellers keep hitting their comics' purchasers over the head with it. And it more and more represents only one side of the political and cultural story.

As a quick aside, former talk show TV host Mike Douglas passed away August 11. It was on his show that I onced watched guest Stan Lee in the late 1970s. Douglas told Lee "I've read some of your comics. You use a lot of big words. How is a young kid supposed to know what they mean?" Lee didn't waste a second: "If a kid has to look up a word in the dictionary, what's wrong with that?"

Indeed. I greatly credit Lee for my winning a spelling bee in 6th grade -- because I spelled "grotesque" correctly. I remembered it from a mid-1970s issue of The Hulk where he battled the "Grotesque Glob."

(* Superman, maybe?)
(** Batman, maybe?)

************************
Thanks again to Hube for writing!

Marvel Knights no more

I'm not as much of a Daredevil reader as I could be, and Kevin Smith's debut story for the Marvel Knights-labeled series, which killed off Karen Page, certainly didn't encourage me to read it in 1998. But now, what do I find here, but clear signs that the Marvel Knights line is...gone!

Taking the following issues as an example:

That's Daredevil #81 Vol. 2, March 2006, and it does have a MK label. But now, look at the following one, for those who, like me, haven't kept up with Hornhead:

That's issue #82 Vol. 2, April 2006, and lo and behold, it doesn't have a MK label, does it? Nope, indeed not.

Then, one more that I could find on the GCD, the latest scan available there:

That's issue #87, Vol. 2, September 2006 (must've come out just shortly ago, knowing how a lot of magazines often come out prior to the scheduled date), and again, no Marvel Knights label!

There's some pretty good explanations why, of course. What began as a pretty good, auspicuous line, which included an anthology written by Chuck Dixon, for example, later degenerated into a very biased, either by the editors, writers, or both, line of series, the awful and unreadable Marvel Knights take on Captain America being one of the standouts of badness among them, and the Elektra series was pretty weak too. The Hulk under the label wasn't very good either. Even the Punisher series under Garth Ennis suffered from bad bias, such as in the fifth issue, which was spoken about in Front Page Magazine in 2003.

And when Punisher more or less moved to the MAX line, I guess that might've signaled the slow demise of the MK line. Like I said, what may have started out well lost panache when Quesada and company messed it up. It ran longer than "New Format" titles from DC, most of which were far better written than MK (thus, it's a shame that DC didn't keep their own line around for long), yet it failed to maintain the clout it could've, because TPTB just couldn't resist shoveling their politically motivated biases down the audiences' collective throats. Including Civil War, which, by the way, Hornhead's title seems to have run afoul of as well.

That's the surprising irony, that a comics line for adult readers like New Format (whose titles included Swamp Thing and Green Arrow, for example), with stories written far better than Marvel Knights, would be discontinued after barely three years of use of the label, whereas the MK line ran about eight, and the majority of it was riddled with dreadfully written scripts that were either too limp (as in the case of Elektra) or just too full of political bias (as in the case of Capt. America), and Daredevil most likely ended up becoming a victim of such mistakes as well. Not only that, but, at least in the case of New Format, its demise could be linked to the distressing problem of bearhugging the overall DCU too close together for comfort, whereas in the case of the MCU, I've got a feeling that the way it was done with them, it may have gone too far in the opposite direction to really work!

In any case, one has to wonder if, with the MK line having disappeared, gone the way of DC's New Format, will MAX, and even Vertigo, be next?

Let me guess: Wanda and Clint will be a couple?

I don't know if what's announced on the Newsarama Blog will turn out to be that way, but, considering that Hawkeye had once tried to start an affair with Scarlet Witch back in the late 1960s (unsuccessfully, since she was already falling in love with the Vision at the time), the idea is actually quite interesting to explore. They both resurface in "New" Avengers #26, titled “The Ballad of Clint Barton and Wanda Maximoff”.

Does that suggest that now, Wanda will try out a love affair with Clint Barton, something that they almost did years ago? Only when the synopsis is known will we get to know if that's what's to be.

Luke Cage is a soldier of fortune or bounty hunter, but NOT a mercenary

I don't agree with everything the old Quarter Bin website has to say, and I must disagree with the following description they gave of Luke Cage, Hero for Hire:

Power Man ... came on the scene as a mercenary, as suggested in the title of his first book: Luke Cage, Hero for Hire. This represented a considerable break with precedent and convention. Granted, high-mindedness never completely eluded Luke Cage. He kept slipping out of his mercantile mode and into crimefighting for its own sake, even in his earliest and most mercenary days. However, his circumstances and experiences inclined him to view per se benevolence as a secondary goal and a secondary means.

I don't agree with the assertion that Luke Cage is - or was - a mercenary, just because he often did crimefighting jobs for pay. A mercenary, to say the least, is someone who does criminal acts like assasinations for money, and rarely ever for good causes. Villains like Kraven the Hunter, Deathstroke, Bullseye, Cheshire, and possibly Lady Shiva Woosan, in her early depictions, are mercenaries, and have pulled crimes either out of criminal greed or for sheer sport. Luke Cage, by contrast, is what I would call a soldier of fortune or a bounty hunter, since, while he may have done some of his crimefighting for money, he did it all in good cause. And for a TV-based version of soldiers of fortune, look at The A-Team, surely the best example!

It's probably a good question and argument of if superheros, whether vigilantes or not, should do it for money, but as long as they're earning it in good cause, and not in bad like the supervillains are, that's a good thing.

Update: here's Wikipedia's own entry on all the terms used to describe mercenaries. But I think some of the best descriptions come from an old Collins English Dictionary I took out: venal; greedy.

How Adam Strange began

An old article on the Quarter Bin website tells how DC got its inspirations for archaeologist-in-space Adam Strange, the most notable being the Buck Rogers strips.

"So tell me Joss, how much did DC pay you to write that Identity Crisis trade intro?"

Almost slipped under my radar, but, seems that Joss Whedon of Buffy fame added himself to the list of showbiz persona without an ounce of morale.

I cannot bring myself to link directly to the Meltzer website; I'll just link to the Google search results, but, here's what turns up on the text results of said search:

"did we mention it has an introduction by Joss Whedon? We're serious! No lie!"

Alas, no.

It's actually become hilarious by now. The writer-producer of a TV show and a few other items where women can handle themselves in dangerous situations, goes along and more or less contradicts his past work with an introduction to Identity Crisis that could be so glossing over of the miniseries' own vile sexism, I'm glad I haven't read what he had to say. Even Chris Claremont hasn't stooped as low at that. I do wonder though, how much did they pay Whedon to write it?

I feel discouraged from reading and watching Fray, Firefly, Serenity, and other things he's written over the past decade ever again and now decidedly tossed under a question mark, and, as someone who's taken more hard-lined standings in the past year, I'll sure have a very hard time believing that Whedon is any more sincere than countless other people in entertainment. I may know where to find an old Chicago Tribune interview where he said something that sounded almost too easy an excuse for dropping comic books. If I find it, I'll have something to say about that as well.

Whedon, I'm ashamed of you. I watched Buffy many times, much as I do find its type of violence questionable even for prime-time TV, and now, here you go and made a mockery out of your work by writing an intro for a book that makes even the episode where Buffy's mentor injected her with a chemical that weakened her muscles as part of a test by the secret vampire-tracking society seem almost kind by comparison. No matter how you write (and film) your upcoming Wonder Woman movie project,* I, if not everyone, will have a hard time taking it seriously simply due to the fact that you more or less legitimized a book that makes WW look like an apathetic airhead, and even a drone doing the bidding of Green Arrow to interrogate Slipknot. You're supposedly doing WW a real tribute, yet you nullify it? Please.

Gives a whole new meaning to the dumbing down of showbiz.

* One has only to wonder if the Princess of Power's costume will be muted in color, not unlike the way the Man of Steel's was in Superman Returns. That would mean that a female patriotette is being dealt a blow to match that of her male patriot counterpart's own receiving of a blow.

Open trackback parties: 7 Deadly Sins, Customer Servant, The Mudville Gazette, Point Five, Samantha Burns, Wizbang.

Too much exclusive contracting, and not enough real talent

The following article from the Northwest Herald (from Chicago?) seems to have been written by someone writing comics, but there's nothing here to indicate who. Nevertheless, if there's something it does tell, it's that the Marvel and DC are needlessly duking it out with each other again.

With Marvel and DC trying to sign everyone to exclusive contracts, is that tough on the independents?

Oddly enough, we find ourselves in a unique situation. Marvel and DC basically fire volleys at each other. They just don't want the other guy to have the top talent. We can still offer unique deals that Marvel and DC don't really have much of an interest in doing. We've had great success with that. We're just sitting back and going, "All right, you guys have your war, and we'll pick up the special projects."

Hmph. Just as I thought. Instead of looking for people with real feeling for the products, they just go signing exclusive contracts, most likely on the basis that these people in question are popular with a specific group of readers but not with the audience as a whole. That's one of the reasons why I distanced myself from a lot of Geoff Johns' work too - because whatever he knows about superhero history (and he's done a modicum to put even that in question), he's only been hired for popularity per se, not because he's got any real love and respect for the DCU. Otherwise, would he have laced his work of recent with so much cruelty tainting the edge, to say nothing short of joylessness?

Being into comics is about a lot more than just exclusive contracts. I recall how, until about the late 1970s, there was a foolish rule that you couldn't work at two different companies simultaneously. Now, it seems that we've got the opposite problem instead, with the editors trying to block the writers and artists from working at the rivals, at least for a certain amount of time. All they're doing now is furthering a weak joke into a really bad one.

Open trackback parties: 7 Deadly Sins, bRight and Early, The Right Nation, Stop the ACLU, Third World County.

Defining terrorism in the comics world

Here's something to ponder that seems to be in a state of misuse in comics today: the definition of "terrorists." On the tenth week of DC's 52, we had an issue that involved Adrianna calling Black Adam a terrorist, and Clark Kent calling a bunch of Bahdnesian burglars who stole an ATV terrorists too.

It doesn't make sense the way they're doing it. In the case of Black Adam, when he raided Khandaq, it was to liberate it from the grip of a despot, and the way he's characterized today, he's far from being the kind of criminal that Abra Kadabra was when Mark Waid wrote a 2-part Flash story in 1992, in which it would seem as though Abra was considered the savior of the 64th century society he'd first lived in. But the truth is that, given how demented Abra is, if he were to really take over the rulership in the 64th century, he'd simply tune even the super-computer running the whole city to his favor, and become a dictator in his own way.

I guess you could more or less label Abra Kadabra as a terrorist - and a dictatorial hopeful.

And if there's any gangs you could certainly label terrorists in the DCU, it's Kobra and the H.I.V.E (Hierarchy of International Vengeance and Extermination), while over in Marvel, there's HYDRA and possibly A.I.M (Advanced Idea Mechanics).

As for the Bahdnesians, well, that's certainly exaggerated to call them terrorists, certainly if they're not resorting to lethal force. Problem is that, if my estimates are correct, this could ring of a subtle insult to the people who'd given Johnny Thunder his Hex-bolt genie, T-bolt, back in the Golden Age. So instead of taking the time to focus on evil entities like Kobra and H.I.V.E, they'd rather smear the ones for whom it doesn't make any sense to call them that.

That aside, judging from what I've viewed of 52 so far, it does not sound like my forte, seeing how they seem more interested in depicting Ralph Dibny in "serious" mode, effectively draining him what made him work in the first place. That's the whole problem with the series, that it seems more like an excuse to publish what they're less likely to succeed at if all these story segments were published seperately. Hence, no sale for me.

Installed Haloscan commenting options

Another blogger said to me, "if you're using Haloscan trackbacks, why not use the Haloscan comments as well?" Quite right, I should give it some thought, and I have. This'll make it easier for almost anyone who wants post a comment, and for me to maintain better pest control as well! What really makes it easy is that I thought to set the Haloscan boxes to open on the exact same window, because I like to make loading all the software here as easy as possible. One little challenge in installing them is that, because I'm now using a customized template, I have to put the codes in exactly the right area so that they'll display properly on both the main menu and the topics themselves. Luckily, I scored a bullseye on that one.

I just hope I didn't goof off in how I removed the anchor code for the default comments; I may have accidentally erased the backlinks option when working on it, not something I wanted to do. Oh well, if I find that I did, I know exactly how to go and look at the layout to see where I went wrong, so I can repair the mistake.

If they think there's a problem, why don't they speak out?

Three years ago, Roy Thomas was quoted in The Times and Democrat as saying that today's comics are "too vile", but that there are still some good items being put out. And regarding the former, I must say this was a bit of a surprise, knowing that Thomas, much as I do respect him, may have been the one to set the precedant of rape as a "motivation tool" in comics, recalling what the premise of Red Sonja may have been like when he wrote it in 1977.

So while I won't dispute the latter, I will say that, if he, and other veterans of the profession feel that the former is a relevant problem, then why don't they find some way to speak out and decry the immoral, blatant mess which comics have become? I'd have to think that yes, it would be possible to make an impact, starting maybe with what they could say on the blogosphere itself!

That's exactly what's been missing today - people who've had experience working in comics who can show the courage to stand up to the current kooks in charge and say what they really think, and let them know that this is but one of the things that's sending comics down the drain today, both in sales and in story quality?

If anyone who's a comics veteran like Roy Thomas is reading this, then would it help if I were to offer my encouragement to do what I suggest, if you really want to help save the industry? I certainly do hope so, because believe me, if you don't go public about this, and maybe even try and argue a case on TV and radio, then comics will just continue to suffer from being too vile, as Thomas argued back in 2003.

So, are there any old pros out there who might want to step forward and say something? I do hope so, and that you'll appreciate my encouragement.