[Continuing my examination of different interpretations of Superman from the past ten years in an effort to maybe say something about the character...]
The Superman I grew up with was a human one. He was still an alien from Krypton, of course, but there was an emphasis on the human elements of the character. After all, he did grow up here with his powers kicking in as a teenager. That basically puts him on the same level as Marvel's mutants. The longer he's Superman, the less human he would be, yes. His powers grant him a different vantage point -- and, more importantly, so does how other people treat him. The more he's treated different, like a god, the more he would begin to see himself that way even if he didn't want to. Our self-image is shaped by how others perceive us and why would Superman be any different?
It's that outside perception of what Superman is and what he should be that locks him in so much. We look at his powers and his differences and make him different. We look at him and see the potential for a mythic figure, so he's that, too. We make him a character that's impossible to relate to and then complain that we can't relate to him!
In It's a Bird..., there's a short bit about Superman as a teen where he chooses to walk all of the way into town to see a movie, knowing that he will miss part of it, rather than fly. He knows that flying would mean exposing himself and would change how others perceive him. He would no longer be the Kent boy, someone they've known for his entire life; he would be a freak, an alien, an other. It's something so obvious, so built into what he is and who we are. Of course we don't relate to Superman -- he's the other, he's the alien! He's the benevolent outsider who protects us, but he's still an outsider. He will never be 'one of us,' not entirely.
Grant Morrison embraced that idea to a degree in All-Star Superman, treating Superman as someone that is outside of humanity and that being a good thing. In that story, Superman doesn't try to belong or fit in, near the end of his career and comfortable in his role as protector. I do like Morrison's version of the character. In concept at least. There is something very exciting and lovely about a god-like figure that loves us and wants us to love one another and is here to help us see that. SuperJesus. He's positioned above us while still enough on our level to love us. It doesn't entirely work for me always, though. It's an argument that requires us to resolve the paradox of him being better than us and no better than us. He's superior and, yet, not. It's a sort of false modesty that I find grating and patronising, honestly. It almost puts Superman in a position of owner to us, his lovable pets without wanting to recognise that.
We don't see Clark much, only a few times, and he's a bumbling, slightly overweight man that people sort of humour and look down on. A bit of a goof. Lots of people have discussed the depiction of Clark and what that says about humanity, about how Superman supposedly views us. In a sense, Clark seems to me to be a test. An example of humanity at a possibly lower point and a way for Superman to see how people treat that sort of person. Clark keeps him humble in a way. Lex Luthor hates Superman because Superman is better than him; he scorns Clark because he's obviously inferior. The Clark we see in All-Star Superman, based upon the Silver Age depiction of the character rather than other modern interpretations, is the balancing act that makes Superman's position of above-and-yet-not work. Superman is above us, Clark Kent is below us (at least from our perspective), so it works out to a balance.
In 30 minutes, more of this.
And we're up to $185 for the Hero Initiative!
[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative! (Details in this post.) After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]
Monday, August 15, 2011
Blogathon 04: Who is Superman? Part Two
[Continuing my look at different interpretations of Superman from the past ten years...]
What exactly is it about Superman that keeps people like me away? The only times I bother with the character are when a writer I already likes writes something featuring the character. I've mentioned that I can't relate to the character and that I find his lack of a struggle with heroism a turn-off. But, there are others who relate to the character incredibly. Mark Waid has often spoke of his deeply personal relationship to the character.
The costume isn't honestly an issue for me. But, it is a form of protection, a distancing mechanism. His symbol on his chest is a shield. That he has two identities, one Superman, one Clark Kent, makes Superman himself distant. We could relate to Clark kent, because he's a human from Kansas that spends much of his time pining over a woman who doesn't love him. Superman is the fantasy alter-ego that has no problems and no real challenges. His fights against crime are just things that occupy his time it seems. Except, here's the problem: Superman is the reality and Clark Kent is the fantasy. It's not like the Peter Parker/Spider-Man relationship where he's Peter first and Spider-Man is an affectation. Superman is Clark Kent is Superman. How does one relate to that?
Grant Morrison and others have placed upon Superman the idea of a modern myth, a modern god in a way. I can see where they would get that, but it's never felt right to me. Superman is 'more than human,' but in such narrow ways like physical strength and compassion. Yet, his faults are so much less than ours. He doesn't line up to traditional myths in that way. Gods were 'more than human' in every aspect, good and bad. They did everything bigger and better, including being jerks and fucking things up. They were brash, prideful, quick to anger... then again, were they skewed too far in the other direction? Superman and his benevolent nature is the opposite of that. He fights for us, not against us, as was often the case. But, that still makes him distant and hard to relate to.
When Brian Azzarello wrote the character, he took Clark Kent out of the equation. In For Tomorrow, there was an event called the Vanishing where a sizable chunk of Earth's population disappeared. It was random. One of those people was Lois Lane and, since then, it doesn't appear that Superman is Clark Kent anymore. In fact, when we finally see where the people disappeared to, the first person we see is Clark. He's a robot, but the meaning is clear: he disappeared that day too. And Azzarello's Superman is much closer to the gods and figures of myth. He retains his compassion and thoughtfulness, but also adds in a questioning and almost selfish rashness. He gets involved in the affairs of a state, alienates the Justice League, and even threatens to destroy the planet. None of these things seem within his 'character' if you pay attention to what a lot of people said about the story. And, yet, it was Superman.
Besides Batman, I'm not sure there's a superhero that's so open to interpretation like that. If that's the case, what is the core of Superman? Does it come down to him following a few simple rules? He's an Alien from Krypton, he landed in Kansas, he's Clark Kent (or was at some point), he's stronger and faster than any human, can jump high/fly, wears an outfit, fights injustice as he sees it (could be in line with laws or not), and loves Lois Lane. Is there anything else that's consistent to the character, anything essential? After all, you could argue that Azzarello got it wrong with his Superman who threatened to destroy Earth when it attacked him using elemental monsters, but... that's a Superman story. Just like the rest, it was ink and paper, and, as we've established, Superman is just a comic book character ultimately. If a comic book says he did it, he did it. Does he actually have a core character?
If he doesn't, shouldn't he be the easiest character to relate to? He's so empty, strung together from the barest of pieces of information. Look at the guidelines I set out for what Superman is at his most basic and... is there anywhere you can't go with him? Then why is he so locked into one singular image?
In 30 minutes, I'll try to answer that, but probably won't.
[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]
What exactly is it about Superman that keeps people like me away? The only times I bother with the character are when a writer I already likes writes something featuring the character. I've mentioned that I can't relate to the character and that I find his lack of a struggle with heroism a turn-off. But, there are others who relate to the character incredibly. Mark Waid has often spoke of his deeply personal relationship to the character.
The costume isn't honestly an issue for me. But, it is a form of protection, a distancing mechanism. His symbol on his chest is a shield. That he has two identities, one Superman, one Clark Kent, makes Superman himself distant. We could relate to Clark kent, because he's a human from Kansas that spends much of his time pining over a woman who doesn't love him. Superman is the fantasy alter-ego that has no problems and no real challenges. His fights against crime are just things that occupy his time it seems. Except, here's the problem: Superman is the reality and Clark Kent is the fantasy. It's not like the Peter Parker/Spider-Man relationship where he's Peter first and Spider-Man is an affectation. Superman is Clark Kent is Superman. How does one relate to that?
Grant Morrison and others have placed upon Superman the idea of a modern myth, a modern god in a way. I can see where they would get that, but it's never felt right to me. Superman is 'more than human,' but in such narrow ways like physical strength and compassion. Yet, his faults are so much less than ours. He doesn't line up to traditional myths in that way. Gods were 'more than human' in every aspect, good and bad. They did everything bigger and better, including being jerks and fucking things up. They were brash, prideful, quick to anger... then again, were they skewed too far in the other direction? Superman and his benevolent nature is the opposite of that. He fights for us, not against us, as was often the case. But, that still makes him distant and hard to relate to.
When Brian Azzarello wrote the character, he took Clark Kent out of the equation. In For Tomorrow, there was an event called the Vanishing where a sizable chunk of Earth's population disappeared. It was random. One of those people was Lois Lane and, since then, it doesn't appear that Superman is Clark Kent anymore. In fact, when we finally see where the people disappeared to, the first person we see is Clark. He's a robot, but the meaning is clear: he disappeared that day too. And Azzarello's Superman is much closer to the gods and figures of myth. He retains his compassion and thoughtfulness, but also adds in a questioning and almost selfish rashness. He gets involved in the affairs of a state, alienates the Justice League, and even threatens to destroy the planet. None of these things seem within his 'character' if you pay attention to what a lot of people said about the story. And, yet, it was Superman.
Besides Batman, I'm not sure there's a superhero that's so open to interpretation like that. If that's the case, what is the core of Superman? Does it come down to him following a few simple rules? He's an Alien from Krypton, he landed in Kansas, he's Clark Kent (or was at some point), he's stronger and faster than any human, can jump high/fly, wears an outfit, fights injustice as he sees it (could be in line with laws or not), and loves Lois Lane. Is there anything else that's consistent to the character, anything essential? After all, you could argue that Azzarello got it wrong with his Superman who threatened to destroy Earth when it attacked him using elemental monsters, but... that's a Superman story. Just like the rest, it was ink and paper, and, as we've established, Superman is just a comic book character ultimately. If a comic book says he did it, he did it. Does he actually have a core character?
If he doesn't, shouldn't he be the easiest character to relate to? He's so empty, strung together from the barest of pieces of information. Look at the guidelines I set out for what Superman is at his most basic and... is there anywhere you can't go with him? Then why is he so locked into one singular image?
In 30 minutes, I'll try to answer that, but probably won't.
[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]
Blogathon 03: Who is Superman? Part One
[Beginning my series of posts discussing some different interpretations of Superman from the past ten years...]
Earlier this year, I reread It's a Bird... by Steven T. Seagle and Teddy Kristiansen for the first time since it first came out. A Vertigo graphic novel, it's a partially autobiographic exploration of Superman by Seagle after his fictional counterpart is offered one of the Superman comics by his editor at DC. There's also a lot of family/personal stuff thrown in, but what I want to focus on is the Superman stuff. Seagle offers so many differing views and approaches and takes on the character in this story that it seems like the natural starting place to begin with. That so many are divorced from traditional views of the character, breaking him down to his components and their symbolic value is of particular interest to me.
Seagle first approaches Superman as a comic book character. He's the star of a comic that he read once with his brother while waiting in the hospital for reasons that become clearer later. Then, he's a character (or a title, I suppose) that he's offered to write. That these two points are where he begins is important, because, before all else, Superman is a fictional comic book superhero. He may be everything else people try to put on him, but that's where it begins. Before his role as a Christ stand-in or a film character or an image on a pillowcase, he's the figure in a comic book. He's not real, he's dispossible, he's just ink and paper. That's where he begins and, ultimately, where he ends. I'm not trying to be dismissal or lessen the character's import, by the way.
And he's a character that fictional Seagle doesn't want to write. The rest of the story is him struggling with what Superman is and what he means as his editor, his girlfriend, anyone who knows about the offer, insists he should take. He says that he doesn't relate to Superman, a problem that I sometimes share.
In breaking Superman down, Seagle offers different views. Take the costume: he gives us a short story about a teenager who wears a Superman costume to school on Halloween and, for the first time, he genuinely feels, well, super because of how people look at him. The next day, he's just his boring self again. A week later, he returns to school in the costume and is laughed at, ridiculed, labelled 'weird' and sent home. People talk about the iconic power of Superman's costume and his chest symbol, but does it hold any value when someone else is wearing those things? If you put on the costume, you're not super, you're not Superman -- and, yet, that's the thing so closely identified with him than anything else. Is it ultimately an empty symbol?
Later, in examining the colours of the costume, Seagle breaks down the various meanings, how the primary colours come from the desire to pop and the simplicities of printing at the time of his creation. The sequence is rather stunning visually as Kristiansen uses the same pose but changes the colours. We see Superman brought down to just blue or the red, yellow, and blue switched around. That those versions of the costume don't look right is interesting. Is it because those colours work best this way or is it simply that we're used to Superman as is? Looking at the colours, we see rage, cowardice, and depression. There are other meanings, but I like those ones best in my scorning, mocking way.
What does the costume of Superman mean exactly? What does any costume mean? Other interpretations of the character won't bother with that entirely aside from Joe Casey's final year on Adventures of Superman where a visit to Heroville results in the soldiers that accompanied him wearing superhero costumes to walk among the populace and Superman telling them to wear their colours proud. The costume is so tied to the idea of a superhero and Superman's to him. It's not the key to his character, but it's a start...
In 30 minutes, I get past the surface a little. I hope.
[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]
Earlier this year, I reread It's a Bird... by Steven T. Seagle and Teddy Kristiansen for the first time since it first came out. A Vertigo graphic novel, it's a partially autobiographic exploration of Superman by Seagle after his fictional counterpart is offered one of the Superman comics by his editor at DC. There's also a lot of family/personal stuff thrown in, but what I want to focus on is the Superman stuff. Seagle offers so many differing views and approaches and takes on the character in this story that it seems like the natural starting place to begin with. That so many are divorced from traditional views of the character, breaking him down to his components and their symbolic value is of particular interest to me.
Seagle first approaches Superman as a comic book character. He's the star of a comic that he read once with his brother while waiting in the hospital for reasons that become clearer later. Then, he's a character (or a title, I suppose) that he's offered to write. That these two points are where he begins is important, because, before all else, Superman is a fictional comic book superhero. He may be everything else people try to put on him, but that's where it begins. Before his role as a Christ stand-in or a film character or an image on a pillowcase, he's the figure in a comic book. He's not real, he's dispossible, he's just ink and paper. That's where he begins and, ultimately, where he ends. I'm not trying to be dismissal or lessen the character's import, by the way.
And he's a character that fictional Seagle doesn't want to write. The rest of the story is him struggling with what Superman is and what he means as his editor, his girlfriend, anyone who knows about the offer, insists he should take. He says that he doesn't relate to Superman, a problem that I sometimes share.
In breaking Superman down, Seagle offers different views. Take the costume: he gives us a short story about a teenager who wears a Superman costume to school on Halloween and, for the first time, he genuinely feels, well, super because of how people look at him. The next day, he's just his boring self again. A week later, he returns to school in the costume and is laughed at, ridiculed, labelled 'weird' and sent home. People talk about the iconic power of Superman's costume and his chest symbol, but does it hold any value when someone else is wearing those things? If you put on the costume, you're not super, you're not Superman -- and, yet, that's the thing so closely identified with him than anything else. Is it ultimately an empty symbol?
Later, in examining the colours of the costume, Seagle breaks down the various meanings, how the primary colours come from the desire to pop and the simplicities of printing at the time of his creation. The sequence is rather stunning visually as Kristiansen uses the same pose but changes the colours. We see Superman brought down to just blue or the red, yellow, and blue switched around. That those versions of the costume don't look right is interesting. Is it because those colours work best this way or is it simply that we're used to Superman as is? Looking at the colours, we see rage, cowardice, and depression. There are other meanings, but I like those ones best in my scorning, mocking way.
What does the costume of Superman mean exactly? What does any costume mean? Other interpretations of the character won't bother with that entirely aside from Joe Casey's final year on Adventures of Superman where a visit to Heroville results in the soldiers that accompanied him wearing superhero costumes to walk among the populace and Superman telling them to wear their colours proud. The costume is so tied to the idea of a superhero and Superman's to him. It's not the key to his character, but it's a start...
In 30 minutes, I get past the surface a little. I hope.
[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]
Blogathon 02: Superheroes
Because I always have.
That's my first response to the question: why do you read superhero comics? I always have. I have read them before I even knew how to read. My dad collected them (still does) and they were just there. Just like TV, movies, books, music... there was no sense that they were less than those things or something you shouldn't read. That's one of the reasons I've always been a little out of step with everyone else in comics it seems with their need for outside validation, for comics to leave the fringes and gain mainstream acceptance. They had it in my house, so they've always had it in those places inside that matter. I was the kid who did projects in school on superheroes. I remember in grade ten(!) doing an 'independent study project' in my Canadian Studies class (think civics, combination of history, geography, politics, etc.) using Superman and Batman to explain the relationship of Canada and the United States. 'Fuck you if you don't like it, that's how it is' was my attitude. So, yeah, superhero comics are stuck in me deep. Moreso than just 'comics.' Which is kind of sad in some ways, but... I like what I like and fuck you if that's a problem.
But, just because they've always been there isn't a good reason. It's a reason, just not a good one. Far too many stupid things have been justified by the 'that's how it's always been' excuse. There has to be something more to it by now then.
I've gotten into an argument over the purpose of superheroes and their stories a few times with Tim Callahan. In his view, they're meant to be fantastic and unrealistic and have escapist adventures. His argument is a bit more nuanced, but that's the jist of it. I, on the other hand, since being a teen, have wanted realism and the exploration of philosophic/theoretical ideas, of some idea that these books are going somewhere that they haven't been before. Now, obviously, for both of us, there are exceptions and crossovers, it's not a hard and fast line. It was when I was reading Supergods by Grant Morrison that I realised what I wanted. Morrison discussed the ideas that Tim often put forth, arguing that the real world is already here, so why should superheroes be limited by that? Why not have them do anything and everything and set an example for us? Show us the limits of our potential and a better world?
I admire that argument, I do. I think where I disagree is the means. Superheroes are, for all intents and purposes, advanced humans. A step beyond us. By god, yes, let them show the way. Let them act as little bubble worlds that show us how things could be better. But, simply presenting that final world, that world that's already been changed does no good. That's skipping some steps. By putting them in situations that mirror those in our world a bit, they offer chances to think out theories and ideas on how to take what's here and make it better. Being so divorced from reality is fine for escapism, something which I enjoy and need just as much as anyone else, but give me something with a bit more meat. That doesn't mean limiting one's imagination -- it means applying it in a more focused manner.
I like heroes that have to try. For me, there's never been any valour or virtue in those that are naturally good. I think that's a reason that's always limited my appreciation of Superman. He's so good that there's no struggle and, therefore, no real virture. The example I always give is: if it never occurs to you to lie, then there's no virtue in your honesty; if it occurs to you to lie and you choose not to, there's virtue in your honesty. Virtue needs to come from the struggle to not slip into vice. I like superheroes that need to struggle to be good, to be heroes. That could mean overcoming the inclination to simply kill people at random, or it could be as simple as Peter Parker sacrificing a date to go save midtown from Dr. Octopus on a rampage.
Warren Ellis tends to write the type of heroes I like best: the bastards. The people who aren't nice and aren't clean, but they still dedicate themselves to getting up every day and making the world a little better. That's admirable. Those are people I can get behind and root for.
I guess what I need are heroes that are human, not quite gods yet.
Today, a lot of the books and ideas I look at will relate to that. Some won't. But, that's where my interest lies.
In 30 minutes, I'll begin my examination of different interpretations of Superman.
[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]
That's my first response to the question: why do you read superhero comics? I always have. I have read them before I even knew how to read. My dad collected them (still does) and they were just there. Just like TV, movies, books, music... there was no sense that they were less than those things or something you shouldn't read. That's one of the reasons I've always been a little out of step with everyone else in comics it seems with their need for outside validation, for comics to leave the fringes and gain mainstream acceptance. They had it in my house, so they've always had it in those places inside that matter. I was the kid who did projects in school on superheroes. I remember in grade ten(!) doing an 'independent study project' in my Canadian Studies class (think civics, combination of history, geography, politics, etc.) using Superman and Batman to explain the relationship of Canada and the United States. 'Fuck you if you don't like it, that's how it is' was my attitude. So, yeah, superhero comics are stuck in me deep. Moreso than just 'comics.' Which is kind of sad in some ways, but... I like what I like and fuck you if that's a problem.
But, just because they've always been there isn't a good reason. It's a reason, just not a good one. Far too many stupid things have been justified by the 'that's how it's always been' excuse. There has to be something more to it by now then.
I've gotten into an argument over the purpose of superheroes and their stories a few times with Tim Callahan. In his view, they're meant to be fantastic and unrealistic and have escapist adventures. His argument is a bit more nuanced, but that's the jist of it. I, on the other hand, since being a teen, have wanted realism and the exploration of philosophic/theoretical ideas, of some idea that these books are going somewhere that they haven't been before. Now, obviously, for both of us, there are exceptions and crossovers, it's not a hard and fast line. It was when I was reading Supergods by Grant Morrison that I realised what I wanted. Morrison discussed the ideas that Tim often put forth, arguing that the real world is already here, so why should superheroes be limited by that? Why not have them do anything and everything and set an example for us? Show us the limits of our potential and a better world?
I admire that argument, I do. I think where I disagree is the means. Superheroes are, for all intents and purposes, advanced humans. A step beyond us. By god, yes, let them show the way. Let them act as little bubble worlds that show us how things could be better. But, simply presenting that final world, that world that's already been changed does no good. That's skipping some steps. By putting them in situations that mirror those in our world a bit, they offer chances to think out theories and ideas on how to take what's here and make it better. Being so divorced from reality is fine for escapism, something which I enjoy and need just as much as anyone else, but give me something with a bit more meat. That doesn't mean limiting one's imagination -- it means applying it in a more focused manner.
I like heroes that have to try. For me, there's never been any valour or virtue in those that are naturally good. I think that's a reason that's always limited my appreciation of Superman. He's so good that there's no struggle and, therefore, no real virture. The example I always give is: if it never occurs to you to lie, then there's no virtue in your honesty; if it occurs to you to lie and you choose not to, there's virtue in your honesty. Virtue needs to come from the struggle to not slip into vice. I like superheroes that need to struggle to be good, to be heroes. That could mean overcoming the inclination to simply kill people at random, or it could be as simple as Peter Parker sacrificing a date to go save midtown from Dr. Octopus on a rampage.
Warren Ellis tends to write the type of heroes I like best: the bastards. The people who aren't nice and aren't clean, but they still dedicate themselves to getting up every day and making the world a little better. That's admirable. Those are people I can get behind and root for.
I guess what I need are heroes that are human, not quite gods yet.
Today, a lot of the books and ideas I look at will relate to that. Some won't. But, that's where my interest lies.
In 30 minutes, I'll begin my examination of different interpretations of Superman.
[Don't forget to donate what you can to the Hero Initiative (Details in this post)! After you do, let me know via comment or e-mail (found at the righthand side) so I can keep track of donations -- and who to thank.]
Blogathon 01: Good Morning
Well, this is it.
Welcome to the beginning of Blogathon 2011 where I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen as the day progresses. I've got the topics, I've reread the books, but what will I actually say? What order will I discuss them? I don't know much more than you do. It should be interesting to say the least.
In this year's Blogathon, I will be looking at various superhero comics from the past ten years in various ways from freeform essays to issue-by-issue analyses to the application of outside methodologies. And it's all to benefit the Hero Initiative, a charity that provides financial assistance to comic professionals that require it. If you wish to sponsor me, there are a variety of options:
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
Right now, we're sitting at $135 raised and, I hope, by this time tomorrow, that number will be a bit higher. If you wish to sponsor me, make sure to let me know in the comments or via e-mail (chevett13[AT]yahoo[DOT]ca) so I can keep track of the donations.
Some rules about the Blogathon, taken from last year's intro post, because I said it so well then:
1. I read all of the comics in advance, but have not written any of the posts.
2. I may try and work ahead a little bit to give me time to go get a slushy from 7-11 or make food/eat, but I will ALWAYS work on a post during its half-hour period. The last two times, in a couple of cases, I did 3/4s of a post before leaving and finished it when I got back. I take the whole 'post every 30 minutes' thing seriously. This is meant to be a pretty constant thing I'm doing here.
3. I won't be using images in my posts, because I don't feel like searching for so many damn covers. Also, the images would just be covers at the beginning of the post and... who cares? It hasn't been a problem in previous years, so I assume it won't be one now.
4. Not every post is going to be a winner. In fact, a lot of them won't be. Nor will I get to say everything I want to or would if I were writing about these works the way I normally do. But, dammit, I'm going to try.
5. Posts are being set for the hour/half-hour for simplicity. That means they ARE being scheduled technically, but by only a few minutes... better to be early than late.
6. I was crazy and stupid to do this, but it's too late to back out now. And, honestly, it's always fun.
And that's that. Join me in half an hour as I begin some thoughts on superheroes in general and try to pin down why I care and what I want from them. And, of course, please donate to the Hero Initiative.
Welcome to the beginning of Blogathon 2011 where I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen as the day progresses. I've got the topics, I've reread the books, but what will I actually say? What order will I discuss them? I don't know much more than you do. It should be interesting to say the least.
In this year's Blogathon, I will be looking at various superhero comics from the past ten years in various ways from freeform essays to issue-by-issue analyses to the application of outside methodologies. And it's all to benefit the Hero Initiative, a charity that provides financial assistance to comic professionals that require it. If you wish to sponsor me, there are a variety of options:
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
Right now, we're sitting at $135 raised and, I hope, by this time tomorrow, that number will be a bit higher. If you wish to sponsor me, make sure to let me know in the comments or via e-mail (chevett13[AT]yahoo[DOT]ca) so I can keep track of the donations.
Some rules about the Blogathon, taken from last year's intro post, because I said it so well then:
1. I read all of the comics in advance, but have not written any of the posts.
2. I may try and work ahead a little bit to give me time to go get a slushy from 7-11 or make food/eat, but I will ALWAYS work on a post during its half-hour period. The last two times, in a couple of cases, I did 3/4s of a post before leaving and finished it when I got back. I take the whole 'post every 30 minutes' thing seriously. This is meant to be a pretty constant thing I'm doing here.
3. I won't be using images in my posts, because I don't feel like searching for so many damn covers. Also, the images would just be covers at the beginning of the post and... who cares? It hasn't been a problem in previous years, so I assume it won't be one now.
4. Not every post is going to be a winner. In fact, a lot of them won't be. Nor will I get to say everything I want to or would if I were writing about these works the way I normally do. But, dammit, I'm going to try.
5. Posts are being set for the hour/half-hour for simplicity. That means they ARE being scheduled technically, but by only a few minutes... better to be early than late.
6. I was crazy and stupid to do this, but it's too late to back out now. And, honestly, it's always fun.
And that's that. Join me in half an hour as I begin some thoughts on superheroes in general and try to pin down why I care and what I want from them. And, of course, please donate to the Hero Initiative.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
CBR Review: The Red Wing #2
I recently reviewed The Red Wing #2 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "The dueling narratives of The Red Wing make the second issue a study in contrasts, especially when the final page creates an even more interesting and dynamic dualism and juxtaposition. The first issue set up father and son, Robert and Dom Dorne, on parallel narratives. Robert, a pilot stranded in the past, and Dom, a new recruit trying to live up to his father’s reputation as one of the best pilots of the time travel fighters humanity uses to fight its war. Both are struggling to get where they want to be: for Robert, it’s home; for Dom, it’s a hero pilot. Within the huge concept of The Red Wing, this focus on the father and son grounds the book and makes it more accessible and enjoyable to read."
You can read the rest HERE!
CBR Review: T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents #10
I recently reviewed T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents #10 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "At the top of the cover of T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents #5, there’s a quote from my review of issue four: 'There is no reason to not read this comic, aside from hating well-crafted comics.' Unfortunately, issue five was the conclusion to the book’s incredibly strong opening story arc, paving the way for the disappointing second story that concluded in this week’s issue. The comic isn’t the impressive, energetic, entertaining book that it started as. The finale to the second story arc and first volume is no exception to that pattern."
You can read the rest HERE!
Friday, August 12, 2011
Blogathoncast
With the Blogathon only three days away, I decided to do a short solocast to talk about the Blogathon, my past Blogathons, how I chose my focus this year, the books/topics I'll be discussing, and generally ramble about for almost half an hour, probably leaving out some crucial bit of information.
Right now, we're up to $135 raised for the Hero Initiative. If you wish to sponsor me, there are a variety of options:
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
You can download and listen to the Blogathoncast HERE!
Right now, we're up to $135 raised for the Hero Initiative. If you wish to sponsor me, there are a variety of options:
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
You can download and listen to the Blogathoncast HERE!
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Sketch Reviews (August 10 2011)
This year's Blogathon is Monday, people! Money goes to the Hero Initiative! Plenty of ways to give:
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
If you do wish to sponsor me, let me know via e-mail: chevett13[AT]yahoo[DOT]ca
'Breed III #4: Damn, that little kid sure changes his look, going from around age seven to 14 and everywhere in between depending on the panel, while having a personality that seems to be one of a 19-year old. Otherwise, I'm still digging this series for reasons I don't understand and baffle others even more, I imagine. [***]
Criminal: The Last of the Innocent #3: Wondering how it all comes together... [***3/4]
Detective Comics #881: The interplay between Dick and James, Jr. was compelling. My problem still stems from not really buying James, Jr. as the villain of the piece somehow. It seems a little too mundane for me. Because I'm that fucking arrogant. I guess it's too simple and straight forward to me. Too clean and easy... Part of the problem is that this run didn't have enough time to play out that story. There wasn't enough time for James to come to Gotham and slowly win over the trust of his family before revealing himself. It's more, he's back, people are unsure, they almost begin to think he's okay, and OH GOD HE'S PURE EVIL AND THINKS HIMSELF THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER! Positioning himself as Dick's opposite number was clever and helps a great deal. I'm just not sold on it. And, of course, Bruce being only the Batman overshadows the final pages a bit. The outside factors on this run bring it down a bit for me, I guess. Is that fair to the people who made the books? Not really. [***1/2]
Fear Itself #5: You know what? I think I would have liked to have all of the Tony Stark/Odin stuff moved to the end of issue four, because I've already read Invincible Iron Man #dwarffucker and know where the fuck this conversation goes. Uneven pacing for the event as a whole, I guess. Of course, when it's the same guy writing the comics... Plus, that would have allowed for a Simonson callback as we get Stark forging weapons ala Surtur. I did like the big Thor fight. That was pretty cool. The ending sets up Stark showing up with his fancy weapons and being all "TRON UP!" [***]
New Avengers #15: Wow, that cover is godawful. Deodato pushing that sketchy, busy style too far. This was an okay issue. The sparring scene was cool. Still don't really have any handle on Squirrel Girl, though. She seems like a collection of a few tidbits than an actual character. [***]
Punishermax #15-16: Finally got last month's issue. Wasn't even in my file either. Was on the rack. And I had to explain to my retailer how, last month, they stuck #14 in my pull file instead of #15 and I returned it the following week when Tim was running the shop solo. He believed me and let me have the comic for no charge (I already paid for it!), but still a little weird. I don't know why, but I never considered that as what happened before the gunfire started in the park that day... damn good comics right here. [****1/4]
Ultimate Fallout #5: The Quicksilver stuff was actually intriguing. The Nick Fury stuff was decent. The most focused issue since the first one. I hope these little 'prologue' bits are collected in the trades for the series they lead into like the new Ultimates and Ultimate X-Men comics. They won't be, of course, but they should be... [**3/4]
The Unwritten #28: The story in the past is genuinely interesting and engrossing. Young Wilson Taylor is a fun character to read about. And I love the cover to this issue... except for the fucking barcode that almost ruins it. [***1/2]
Vengeance #2: Man, it's like Joe Casey decided to write a comic specifically for me. He obviously didn't, but I'm going to pretend that he did. You don't need to catch the references, obviously, but they're right there out in the open. When is Jack fucking Truman and/or Larry Young showing up? Are they already here? Also, anyone else who immediately recognised Devlin Deangelo? We're weird people you and I... [****]
I also got Vertigo Resurrected: Jonny Double, but have only read the first issue contained withint. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, Fantagraphics sent me the third volume of Prison Pit. I'll save my thoughts on that for an actual review, but... it's damn funny stuff.
And, please give to the Hero Initiative! The Blogathon is almost upon us! It will be 24 hours of superhero comics glory! Hell yes, son!
Later
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
If you do wish to sponsor me, let me know via e-mail: chevett13[AT]yahoo[DOT]ca
'Breed III #4: Damn, that little kid sure changes his look, going from around age seven to 14 and everywhere in between depending on the panel, while having a personality that seems to be one of a 19-year old. Otherwise, I'm still digging this series for reasons I don't understand and baffle others even more, I imagine. [***]
Criminal: The Last of the Innocent #3: Wondering how it all comes together... [***3/4]
Detective Comics #881: The interplay between Dick and James, Jr. was compelling. My problem still stems from not really buying James, Jr. as the villain of the piece somehow. It seems a little too mundane for me. Because I'm that fucking arrogant. I guess it's too simple and straight forward to me. Too clean and easy... Part of the problem is that this run didn't have enough time to play out that story. There wasn't enough time for James to come to Gotham and slowly win over the trust of his family before revealing himself. It's more, he's back, people are unsure, they almost begin to think he's okay, and OH GOD HE'S PURE EVIL AND THINKS HIMSELF THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER! Positioning himself as Dick's opposite number was clever and helps a great deal. I'm just not sold on it. And, of course, Bruce being only the Batman overshadows the final pages a bit. The outside factors on this run bring it down a bit for me, I guess. Is that fair to the people who made the books? Not really. [***1/2]
Fear Itself #5: You know what? I think I would have liked to have all of the Tony Stark/Odin stuff moved to the end of issue four, because I've already read Invincible Iron Man #dwarffucker and know where the fuck this conversation goes. Uneven pacing for the event as a whole, I guess. Of course, when it's the same guy writing the comics... Plus, that would have allowed for a Simonson callback as we get Stark forging weapons ala Surtur. I did like the big Thor fight. That was pretty cool. The ending sets up Stark showing up with his fancy weapons and being all "TRON UP!" [***]
New Avengers #15: Wow, that cover is godawful. Deodato pushing that sketchy, busy style too far. This was an okay issue. The sparring scene was cool. Still don't really have any handle on Squirrel Girl, though. She seems like a collection of a few tidbits than an actual character. [***]
Punishermax #15-16: Finally got last month's issue. Wasn't even in my file either. Was on the rack. And I had to explain to my retailer how, last month, they stuck #14 in my pull file instead of #15 and I returned it the following week when Tim was running the shop solo. He believed me and let me have the comic for no charge (I already paid for it!), but still a little weird. I don't know why, but I never considered that as what happened before the gunfire started in the park that day... damn good comics right here. [****1/4]
Ultimate Fallout #5: The Quicksilver stuff was actually intriguing. The Nick Fury stuff was decent. The most focused issue since the first one. I hope these little 'prologue' bits are collected in the trades for the series they lead into like the new Ultimates and Ultimate X-Men comics. They won't be, of course, but they should be... [**3/4]
The Unwritten #28: The story in the past is genuinely interesting and engrossing. Young Wilson Taylor is a fun character to read about. And I love the cover to this issue... except for the fucking barcode that almost ruins it. [***1/2]
Vengeance #2: Man, it's like Joe Casey decided to write a comic specifically for me. He obviously didn't, but I'm going to pretend that he did. You don't need to catch the references, obviously, but they're right there out in the open. When is Jack fucking Truman and/or Larry Young showing up? Are they already here? Also, anyone else who immediately recognised Devlin Deangelo? We're weird people you and I... [****]
I also got Vertigo Resurrected: Jonny Double, but have only read the first issue contained withint. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, Fantagraphics sent me the third volume of Prison Pit. I'll save my thoughts on that for an actual review, but... it's damn funny stuff.
And, please give to the Hero Initiative! The Blogathon is almost upon us! It will be 24 hours of superhero comics glory! Hell yes, son!
Later
Monday, August 08, 2011
Blogathon 2011: One Week Away
It's less than a week, technically, until this year's Blogathon where I will blog every 30 minutes for 24 hours beginning at 9am on Monday August 15, all for the Hero Initiative. The Hero Initiative is a charity that provides financial assistance to current and former industry professionals who need it. It's a fantastic charity started by people who saw what the comics industry can (and has) done to the people who made the comics and wanted to give something back and right some of the wrongs that have happened. If you wish to sponsor me, there are a variety of options:
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
If you do give money, please let me know so I can keep track of the amount of money raised and, of course, to thank you for sponsoring me. My e-mail address is chevett13[AT]yahoo[DOT]ca. If you purchase any items, don't include the cost of shipping in your total. And, I do encourage anyone who's hesistant about donating money directly to see what the Hero Initiative has for sale. They have comics, t-shirts, collections of their various '100 Project' books featuring a lot of great art. I recently purchased the New Avengers one and it's really cool to see what all of the different artists decided to draw on the blank New Avengers #1 covers.
For this year's Blogathon, I won't be focusing on any one series (or connected series) like I have in the past. I'll be doing a mix of things, including adding to long-running series on my blog, and doing freeform essays. My only limit is that I'm focusing on superhero comics published during the past ten years. Last week, I revealed a few of my intended topics and, this week, I want to reveal a few more:
* The Dark Knight Strikes Again by Frank Miller, specifically its relationship to The Dark Knight Returns and Kingdom Come.
* The Authority: Revolution by Ed Brubaker and Dustin Nguyen.
* The Programme by Peter Milligan and Cam Smith.
* Some portion (I haven't decided which or how much) of the Mark Waid/Mike Wieringo Fantastic Four run.
* A meandering look at some different interpretations of Superman featuring All-Star Superman, Joe Casey's Adventures of Superman run, Superman: For Tomorrow, and It's a Bird... plus anything else I feel like drawing upon.
Plus, I have a few more ideas. I don't know what order I'll do things in or how many posts they'll take up. Stuff like last week's announced issue-by-issue look at Iron Man: The Inevitable will, obviously, take up six posts. But, the topics I mention this week? Who knows. That will part of the fun -- and the challenge.
Please join me next Monday as I try to pull this off, deliver some good writing, some thoughtful insights into the works I discuss, and raise some money for a fantastic cause. If you can, give a little bit to the Hero Initiative. It doesn't have to be much. Anything you can spare will be appreciated. And, if you can't spare anything, moral support will do quite nicely as well.
Thank you
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
If you do give money, please let me know so I can keep track of the amount of money raised and, of course, to thank you for sponsoring me. My e-mail address is chevett13[AT]yahoo[DOT]ca. If you purchase any items, don't include the cost of shipping in your total. And, I do encourage anyone who's hesistant about donating money directly to see what the Hero Initiative has for sale. They have comics, t-shirts, collections of their various '100 Project' books featuring a lot of great art. I recently purchased the New Avengers one and it's really cool to see what all of the different artists decided to draw on the blank New Avengers #1 covers.
For this year's Blogathon, I won't be focusing on any one series (or connected series) like I have in the past. I'll be doing a mix of things, including adding to long-running series on my blog, and doing freeform essays. My only limit is that I'm focusing on superhero comics published during the past ten years. Last week, I revealed a few of my intended topics and, this week, I want to reveal a few more:
* The Dark Knight Strikes Again by Frank Miller, specifically its relationship to The Dark Knight Returns and Kingdom Come.
* The Authority: Revolution by Ed Brubaker and Dustin Nguyen.
* The Programme by Peter Milligan and Cam Smith.
* Some portion (I haven't decided which or how much) of the Mark Waid/Mike Wieringo Fantastic Four run.
* A meandering look at some different interpretations of Superman featuring All-Star Superman, Joe Casey's Adventures of Superman run, Superman: For Tomorrow, and It's a Bird... plus anything else I feel like drawing upon.
Plus, I have a few more ideas. I don't know what order I'll do things in or how many posts they'll take up. Stuff like last week's announced issue-by-issue look at Iron Man: The Inevitable will, obviously, take up six posts. But, the topics I mention this week? Who knows. That will part of the fun -- and the challenge.
Please join me next Monday as I try to pull this off, deliver some good writing, some thoughtful insights into the works I discuss, and raise some money for a fantastic cause. If you can, give a little bit to the Hero Initiative. It doesn't have to be much. Anything you can spare will be appreciated. And, if you can't spare anything, moral support will do quite nicely as well.
Thank you
Sunday, August 07, 2011
CBR Review: Severed #1
I recently reviewed Severed #1 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "The cover to this issue is one of the more clever ones I’ve come across lately. With the bloody hand ripping through the rustic portrait of a home, the central idea of the book is communicated. Each successive cover of the series reveals the intrusion to be bigger as more of the man ripping through is shown. Severed is a horror comic and is rooted in the idea of something forcibly disrupting and imposing itself on the world while revealing that what everyone thought was the truth was merely the surface of things. Here, a hand is ripping through the cover, both disrupting the picture of the house and showing it to be a picture, a falsity, not the realty. And like the gradual revelation through covers of this intruder, this first issue shows that it will be a slow build as the horror creeps over the reader bit by bit each month."You can read the rest HERE!
CBR Review: S.H.I.E.L.D. #2
I recently reviwed S.H.I.E.L.D. #2 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "There are moments of brilliance and beauty in every issue of S.H.I.E.L.D. Unfortunately, they seem counterbalanced by moments of mediocrity and ugliness. Turn the page and see Leonardo da Vinci quietly apologizing to his robotic replacement, assuring it that he chose this and it is not a thief. Turn the page again and you have Sir Isaac Newton looking and acting like he stepped out of one of those unfortunate comics from the 1990s where everyone looked so ugly and absurd in their metallic clothes and harsh computer colors. That inability to find a stable quality level has plagued the book since its beginning and continues in its second volume, broaching the question: when will it live up to its potential?"You can read the rest HERE!
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Sketch Reviews (August 4 2011)
On Tuesday, Michelle and I saw Titus Andronicus in Stratford as part of their yearly festival. The only reason why we chose that play was I had a code to get tickets for $10 each and it was a day that I wasn't working. I have never read the play and Michelle has read a lot less Shakespeare than I. I knew a little bit about it (violent, over-the-top, not respected usually) and was rather impressed with the production. You could tell that there were some big weaknesses in the play -- and if you're not willing to go along with some fucked up shit, you just won't like it. The director also designed the stage and made good use of the space, the lighting, and the sound. John Vickery's performance as Titus stood out -- like a lot of men who do Shakespeare, he's developed such a commanding voice capable of a very broad range. Oddly, I was also taken with the character of Aaron, a moor who basically engineers the destruction of everyone, because... well, he's evil. Now, having the black character as the all-evil villain is not something you're supposed to like or get behind... but, Dion Johnstone was so charismatic that I was reminded of the Joe Casey style of villain. The villain who flat out loves being a bad guy and is so over-the-top in his love of villainy that he can't not be entertaining. You got the impression that, had he never been discovered and managed to destroy Titus's family completely, Aaron would have turned on his allies and destroyed them, because that's what he does. I do love a good villain. So, if you have the chance, go see it.
Batman: Gates of Gotham #4: The art was a step up here with Dustin Nguyen and Derec (Aucoin) Donovan. For plot reasons, I found this issue less compelling. I don't know what they could have changed, but moving towards the end of the series, there's less room for cool revelations -- although, that final page has me wondering. [***1/4]
The Boys #57: The Hughie/Annie relationship is oddly complex. Nice to see Ennis not have it all return to normal right away with Hughie still struggling with exactly what he wants. That shit at the end is fucked up. Then again, who wants to see Jack Kirby fucking Wonder Woman? NOT ME. [**3/4]
Flashpoint: Batman: Knight of Vengeance #3: Wow. That was some harsh shit. Any time Brian Azzarello gets near Batman and his world, there's always some giant mindfuck right around the corner. Revealing to Martha what Bruce is like in the regular DCU... jesus. [****1/4]
Flashpoint: Secret Seven #3: This title also turned out to be fairly fucked up by the end. I imagine this will partly lead into Milligan's Justice League Dark next month, but was an oddly compelling little story. Some people didn't really dig this mini... I did. Moreso as it progressed. [***1/2]
Moon Knight #4: I didn't really dig the third issue and this was a nice recovery. Character-driven with some good action, and a nice cliffhanger. Solid, entertaining superhero comics. [***1/2]
Scalped #51: Hey, new paper! BURN IT ALL. [****1/4]
Ultimate Fallout #4: I've got to say: I don't really care if Ultimate Spider-Man is black. Or a woman. Or gay. Or anything else that isn't straight white male Peter Parker. It's a neutral move for me, as a reader. It neither attracts me to the book or makes me want to avoid it. The introduction we get here is entertaining... yet, until the mask came off, it didn't really seem like someone who wasn't Peter in the costume aside from not knowing who the Kangaroo is or not fully understanding his powers. Otherwise, same personality. After my remark about Ultimate Tony Stark entering into a Future Foundation-esque group last issue, Hickman one-ups that and has Ultimate Reed start a twisted, fucked up version of the group... kind of. And, apparently, the US government created mutants. That is about two hundred times less interesting, honestly. When I picked up my books this week, I added Ultimates and Ultimate Hawkeye to my pull list. Good call. [**1/2]
Later
Batman: Gates of Gotham #4: The art was a step up here with Dustin Nguyen and Derec (Aucoin) Donovan. For plot reasons, I found this issue less compelling. I don't know what they could have changed, but moving towards the end of the series, there's less room for cool revelations -- although, that final page has me wondering. [***1/4]
The Boys #57: The Hughie/Annie relationship is oddly complex. Nice to see Ennis not have it all return to normal right away with Hughie still struggling with exactly what he wants. That shit at the end is fucked up. Then again, who wants to see Jack Kirby fucking Wonder Woman? NOT ME. [**3/4]
Flashpoint: Batman: Knight of Vengeance #3: Wow. That was some harsh shit. Any time Brian Azzarello gets near Batman and his world, there's always some giant mindfuck right around the corner. Revealing to Martha what Bruce is like in the regular DCU... jesus. [****1/4]
Flashpoint: Secret Seven #3: This title also turned out to be fairly fucked up by the end. I imagine this will partly lead into Milligan's Justice League Dark next month, but was an oddly compelling little story. Some people didn't really dig this mini... I did. Moreso as it progressed. [***1/2]
Moon Knight #4: I didn't really dig the third issue and this was a nice recovery. Character-driven with some good action, and a nice cliffhanger. Solid, entertaining superhero comics. [***1/2]
Scalped #51: Hey, new paper! BURN IT ALL. [****1/4]
Ultimate Fallout #4: I've got to say: I don't really care if Ultimate Spider-Man is black. Or a woman. Or gay. Or anything else that isn't straight white male Peter Parker. It's a neutral move for me, as a reader. It neither attracts me to the book or makes me want to avoid it. The introduction we get here is entertaining... yet, until the mask came off, it didn't really seem like someone who wasn't Peter in the costume aside from not knowing who the Kangaroo is or not fully understanding his powers. Otherwise, same personality. After my remark about Ultimate Tony Stark entering into a Future Foundation-esque group last issue, Hickman one-ups that and has Ultimate Reed start a twisted, fucked up version of the group... kind of. And, apparently, the US government created mutants. That is about two hundred times less interesting, honestly. When I picked up my books this week, I added Ultimates and Ultimate Hawkeye to my pull list. Good call. [**1/2]
Later
Monday, August 01, 2011
CBR Review: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Century: 1969
I recently reviewed The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Century: 1969 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "After a two-year wait, the third League of Extraordinary Gentlemen series Century continues with its second book, 1969. Jumping to two years after the Summer of Love, it features Mina, Allan, and Orlando in London after rumors of Oliver Haddo’s ‘Moonchild’ project was back in effect despite Haddo’s death years previous. Like every League of Extraordinary Gentlemen book before it, 1969 is filled with references and allusions, fictional stand-ins for real life people, and a plot that’s actually fairly straight forward."You can read the rest HERE!
Blogathon 2011: Two Weeks Away
In two weeks, I'll be doing this year's Blogathon to raise money for the Hero Initiative. A Blogathon, in case you're unfamiliar with the concept, is blogging for charity by posting every 30 minutes for 24 hours. I will begin at 9am on Monday August 15 and go until 9am Tuesday August 16. If you wish to sponsor me, there are a variety of options:
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
So far, after announcing the Blogathon last week, $105 has been raised. That's amazing and I hope that keeps up as we approach the Blogathon itself.
This year, I will be discussing a variety of superhero comics from the past ten years in a variety of ways. I figured, in the lead up to the Blogathon, I would reveal a few of my topics/plans:
* as part of my series of posts looking at Joe Casey's work, I'll be doing an issue-by-issue look at Iron Man: The Inevitable #1-6.
* to fit with my series of posts applying Raymond Chandler's "Twelve Notes on the Mystery Story," I'll be looking at the New X-Men story "Murder at the Mansion."
* some Random Thoughts on the past decade's plethora of event books.
* Warren Ellis's 'superhuman trilogy' for Avatar Press: Black Summer, No Hero, and Supergod.
The posts that fit into past series of posts have a set format, but other ones, like the Ellis topic, will be freeform essays that should take up several posts with the time deadline dictating the break. It should be fun and challenging.
Please consider sponsoring me as the money goes to a great cause. If you do, either let me know via comment or via e-mail (chevett13[AT]yahoo[DOT]ca) so I can keep track of the amount of money raised.
Thank you
* Direct donations to the Hero Initiative
* Purchasing products from their site, including annual memberships
* Purchasing products from their eBay store
So far, after announcing the Blogathon last week, $105 has been raised. That's amazing and I hope that keeps up as we approach the Blogathon itself.
This year, I will be discussing a variety of superhero comics from the past ten years in a variety of ways. I figured, in the lead up to the Blogathon, I would reveal a few of my topics/plans:
* as part of my series of posts looking at Joe Casey's work, I'll be doing an issue-by-issue look at Iron Man: The Inevitable #1-6.
* to fit with my series of posts applying Raymond Chandler's "Twelve Notes on the Mystery Story," I'll be looking at the New X-Men story "Murder at the Mansion."
* some Random Thoughts on the past decade's plethora of event books.
* Warren Ellis's 'superhuman trilogy' for Avatar Press: Black Summer, No Hero, and Supergod.
The posts that fit into past series of posts have a set format, but other ones, like the Ellis topic, will be freeform essays that should take up several posts with the time deadline dictating the break. It should be fun and challenging.
Please consider sponsoring me as the money goes to a great cause. If you do, either let me know via comment or via e-mail (chevett13[AT]yahoo[DOT]ca) so I can keep track of the amount of money raised.
Thank you
CBR Review: Flashpoint: Project Superman #2
I recently reviewed Flashpoint: Project Superman #2 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Most likely not intended as a comedic book, Flashpoint: Project Superman #2 is easily the funniest comic released this week. In its efforts to be a meaningful story about a child Kal-El as he’s tortured and tested by the US government, it becomes a dark farce where each successive scene is funnier than the last."You can read the rest HERE!
CBR Review: Secret Warriors #28
I recently reviewed Secret Warriors #28 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Springing out of Secret Invasion as part of the 'Dark Reign' story, Secret Warriors has been one of the best series Marvel’s published. A brief epic at only 28 issues (plus two event tie-in one-shots), Jonathan Hickman wrote a broad story revolving around Nick Fury and all of the ‘secret warriors’ at play, whether former S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, members of his caterpillar groups, Hydra, or Leviathan. For the past two-and-a-half years, a secret war has been going on in the Marvel universe and, now, at its end, Nick Fury stands triumphant."You can read the rest HERE!
CBR Review: Captain America and Bucky #620
I recently reviewed Captain America and Bucky #620 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "This first issue seems like the beginning of a 'Bucky: Year One' mini-series, providing more depth into who he was before he became the sidekick of Captain America. Beginning in 1935 after the death of his mother, we see as he struggles to keep out of trouble to please his father, how he’s pretty much adopted by the army following his father’s death, and how he’s trained and chosen to be the partner of Captain America. Ed Brubaker and Marc Andreyko fill in the gaps in Bucky’s known origin, giving it some much needed flavor and an emotional connection between Barnes and the readers."You can read the rest HERE!
CBR Review: Brightest Day Aftermath: The Search for Swamp Thing #2
I recently reviewed Brightest Day Aftermath: The Search for Swamp Thing #2 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Superman is the next hero on John Constantine’s journey to save Swamp Thing (or stop him? Wait, what does he want to do again?) and this is a Superman quite unlike any I’ve read before in modern times: a rash, judgmental, pretentious hero that all but tells Constantine that he won’t bother with this nonsense, because John’s a little selfish. That's before admitting that he envies John’s selfishness and ability to ignore the suffering of others. That’s not exactly the Superman that’s appearing anywhere else in the DCU. Has the relaunch begun already?"You can read the rest HERE!
Friday, July 29, 2011
CBR Review: Supergods
I recently reviewed Supergods: What Masked Vigilantes, Miraculous Mutants, and a Sun God from Smallville Can Teach Us about Being Human for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Divided into four sections based on the ‘ages’ of comics (Golden, Silver, Dark, and a final he simply terms ‘The Renaissance’), there is a loose structure to Supergods that provides some sense of continuity and forward momentum. Within those sections is where it falls apart, as Morrison will provide a history lesson in the voice of the blandest documentary narrator before going on fan-driven tangents or pontificating on the higher significance of something he’s mentioned. In a few instances, he will deviate on a barely-related tangent for a paragraph only to return to his original topic as if there was no interruption."You can read the rest HERE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
