John Constantine V. Batman (A Quick Snippet that Amuses Me)

Since I'm on a bit of a Hellblazer kick, I finally sat down and reread Brian Azzarello's run last night and this afternoon. It's a decent enough run from issues 146-174 (or, in four collections: Hard Time, Good Intentions, Freezes Over and Highwater) and deals with John in America, feeling guilty over the suicide of a fellow con artist, Lucky. It's a sprawling story that makes sense as a whole and is pretty typical of Azzarello: features a lot of fucked up shit including S&M internet sites, beastiality, incest, neo-Nazis... and Batman as the mastermind behind it all.

This caused a very minor stir when it happened, but the man responsible for Lucky killing himself in front of John is SW Manor, a billionaire industrialist whose parents where murdered in front of him when he was a kid. Now, SW Manor is an allusion to "Stately Wayne Manor," which is how Bruce Wayne's house is often described. Manor's manservant is named Fredo (Alfred). In his mansion, there is a trophy room full of artifacts much like the Batcave. Manor donates money to an orphanage in exchange for a priest sharing what he hears in confession: through his orphanage, we see/hear about Manor's encounters with two young boy: Jason who died with a smile on his face, referencing Jason Todd's death at the hands of the Joker; and Tim, who Manor is going to feed to his vampire bats. There's also a scene where it's revealed that Manor tells his secrets to a little bird, held in a cage by Fredo... perhaps a robin?

Probably a few more references I missed, but it's a bit of childish humour thrown into the run. It doesn't really add anything to the story and isn't important to the plot, but fun to pick up on. I am strangely intrigued by one scene where John uses his abilities so Manor can speak to his dead parents--who then tell him how disappointed and ashamed they are of the man he's become. Would Wayne's parents say the same?

Regular post later today.

Hold me closer, tiny dancer.

Is the songwriting relationship of Elton John and Bernie Taupin the musical equivalent of the "Marvel style" of making comics? Taupin sends John some lyrics, John takes those and does whatever he wants to wind up with a song, whereas in the Marvel style, the writer sends the artist a plot, the artist draws whatever to turn it into a comic (and then the writer adds dialogue--okay, so it doesn't match up perfectly).

The weird things you think of sometimes.

MAX v. MU

Yesterday, I got the third hardcover collection the Punisher MAX series and enjoyed the hell out of it. I had heard a lot of good things about the "Slavers" arc and it delivered. I can't wait for the next hardcover to come out, honestly. One of these every year is fantastic.

But, it got me thinking: has Garth Ennis' mature readers series killed the possibilities of me enjoying the Punisher when he's dealing with superheroes?

For the past few issues of Punisher War Journal, my interest has been lagging. I couldn't quite figure out why and I wonder if it has to do with the fact that after you've read a series where the Punisher slaughters dozens of Viet Cong like Born or burns a man alive at the end of the "Slavers" arc, can you honestly read a series where he designs a shitty Captain America costume and fights supervillain racists?

In the first few issues of War Journal, Frank was juxtaposed against superheroes in a way where they looked like idiots, while he was the only sane man around. But, now that he's put on a mask and a costume, does he come off as just another idiot in a costume? Especially when, at the same time, you've got Ennis' book that has just as many goofy, funny moments, but is situated in a world where Frank Castle seems to make a whole lot more sense?

Something that occurred to me yesterday. I wonder, does anyone who's read both series find the same thing happening?

Fuck Green Lantern

I've been thinking a lot about Kyle Rayner. Ever since I learned of what happens to him in the Sinestro Corps one-shot, I can't seem to get that guy out of my head. I think, in my life, I've boughten three issues of Green Lantern, all the recent Geoff Johns series starring Hal. My only experience with Kyle is basically Grant Morrison's JLA, but somehow, he always felt like MY Green Lantern.

I was ten when Hal went all crazy and Kyle took over, so it's not like I didn't know who Hal was, I just didn't care. I also didn't care when Kyle appeared, because fuck Green Lantern. I always thought Green Lantern was a shitty superhero. One, he wore green, which is a dumb colour. Two, he wore a ring, which is very girly. And, three, I don't know why, but fuck Green Lantern. I just hated the guy, based on pure instinct. I still kind of do. I mean, come on, most powerful weapon in the universe and I should feel worried for the guy? (I've also had some BIG problems with the whole "space cop" angle of the character, mostly because if he is a member of some intergalactic police force, shouldn't the types of enemies differ GREATLY from his fellow superheroes? Just saying.)

But, nonetheless, I grew to actually like Kyle during Morrison's JLA run, because Morrison made the character seem cool and showed why he worked well as a superhero. A young, energetic guy playing well above his head in the shadow of another guy everyone liked a whole lot better. That's some good shit.

And then Hal came back and Kyle became Ion.

And now, in the ultimate Hal-fan irony, Kyle is Parallax, the villain Hal originally became--although now it's not an identity, it's a space parasite or something, because Hal couldn't have REALLY gone crazy, oh no.

For some reason, it bothers me. I don't know why, but it does.

Weird.

The Most Important Comic of the Past Five Years?

So, on Friday, I'm in my local comic shop and Tim, the owner of my LCS, asks me "What is the most important comic of the past five years?"

I had nothing.

Tim didn't either, nor did anyone else in the store. Nothing released in the past five years seemed to jump out as the most important book released.

I've been thinking since then and I've still got nothing. Nothing seems that important, that world-changing, like I'll still remember the first time I read it years from now.

Can anyone think of that comic?

Countdown to Who Cares?

And today, we conclude our look at DC's latest Countdown teaser, because, well, I don't have any more ideas. Actually, I don't have an idea for this post, but I didn't have any ideas for the previous ones ahead of time either, so . . .

I dunno . . . Mary Marvel is . . . evil? And does . . . evil . . . stuff? Lex Luthor looks pretty upset, huh? And that Pied Piper guy is all gesturing towards him--what's up with that? And don't get me started on Catwoman! I am convinced the key to this picture is Catwoman, because . . . seriously, what the fuck is the point of this picture? Yeah, it's a nice looking piece of art and Ethan Van Sciver does a great job, but, really, what the fuck? Are there actually people trying to figure this shit out? Do people care? Is this getting people all excited, especially after reading Didio's explanation of the first one? I mean, say what you will about Marvel: Elektra getting run through and turning out to be a Skrull is a LOT more exciting than weirdo cryptic image with an infinite number of possibilities. You know what would make this image a worthwhile tool? CONTEXT. Without any context, the whole thing is meaningless. Readers of Countdown can probably figure out a few of these things, but some are totally meaningless. What is up with Catwoman? Or the Martian Manhunter? Or Mullet Superman? Have any of them been mentioned in the same sentence as the whole Countdown thing before this? If not, then so what? The sad thing is, my four crazy theories seem just as likely as any others, because there's nothing here to provide any real guidance. I'm all for trying to get the fans involved and excited, but to do so in a game of "Guess how I took a plot-point, altered it symbolically to get here, except do it in reverse!"? Why not just tell compelling, interesting stories that get people excited? Honestly, I'm not a DC guy or a Marvel guy--look through my collection, you'll find I'm split pretty evenly and that's usually because of the creator, not the character, but Marvel has me interested right now and DC doesn't and that says something, because my only loyalty is to the writing. And this image did nothing for me except inspire contempt and the urge to make fun of it for a week.

But, hey, at least someone's talking about it, I guess. That's something.

Countdown to DCU PMS Crisis!

Continuing my mockery of the latest Countdown teaser from DC . . .

The sky is red and it swirls in the middle, just like every other crisis the DCU has. The swirl is obviously a vagina and the red obviously means menstruation. If the DCU is alive as Grant Morrison has argued it is, I'm thinking the DCU is a woman and that she's on the rag and she is pissed off because her boyfriend (the Marvel universe, I'm guessing) did something stupid like, I dunno, forgot to ask her if she wanted the last slice of pizza three weeks ago on movie night. Now, everyone in the DCU suffers, because the bitch is back hence evil inheriting the earth and the blood on Luthor's hands. It's from the DCU's vagina as he's realised the truth of the entire universe. Note also how Darkseid, with his phallic-shaped head has been destroyed, while the three women in the bottom left are all excited. Soon, the Marvel universe is going to pay and so will every man on earth in Countdown to DCU PMS Crisis!

(And why, yes, I am single. How did you guess? It was the "on the rag" line, wasn't it? Fuck.)

Cowntdown to Pissed Off Old People Crisis

Continuing my mocking of DC's latest teaser image for Countdown . . .

They're all standing on Darkseid's head, which can only mean one thing: one of the younger heroes killed him. Maybe a bunch of them. The Teen Titans killed Darkseid. Why? So when old Flash and old Green Lantern and Wildcat are all "Do it our way, because we beat Hitler!" the kids can respond "Fuck off, grandpa, we beat Darkseid. Who the fuck is Hitler?" The old JSA guys are pissed off now, because, well, shit, Darkseid IS worse and tougher than Hitler. Lacking the ability to gloat about beating a guy with funny mustache, they decide to beat up on the Teen Titans to prove they're superior and the Teen Titans kick the crap out of them. Jay Garrick breaks a hip and Wildcat can't seem to stop coughing, while what's his name Scott keeps looking for his domino mask, even though IT'S ON HIS FUCKING FACE! And the JLA get involved, trying to make peace, but that doesn't work and soon, all of the superheroes kill each other. And evil inherits the earth. Only in . . . Countdown to Pissed Off Old People Crisis!

(Seriously, that whole "we beat Hitler" line is getting lame at this point. It works in the real world, because Hitler was about as bad as it gets, but in the DCU where, well, the average costumed bank robber has the capabilities to cause more damage than Hitler ever imagined? Lame.)

My eyes are blue by the way

I had a good laugh at the hoopla over at Newsarama's preview of New Avengers #32 as some posters are all "Spider-Woman's eyes are green here! They're supposed to be brown! She must be a Skrull!"

Of course, in all of the comics with the character that I own, her eyes are green.

And, you know, Elektra's eyes were blue up until the moment she was killed (the last panel before she gets run through shows her wide-open blue eye).

Why the hell would shapeshifters change everything except for the eye colour? That's all kinds of retarded. Say what you will about Bendis, I don't think he's dumb enough to do that.

(And I am looking forward to this comic. I've been enjoying the hell out of the post-Civil War New Avengers.)

Countdown to Supermen Bully Crisis

Today, I continue my quest to decipher the hidden meaning of DC's newest Countdown teaser pic. Ignore what I said yesterday as I was obviously wrong and I'll prove it.

Look at the three Supermen and what do you notice. There's Kingdom Come Superman, Cyborg Superman and Mullet-Head-Back-From-The-Dead Superman and they are the key to understand the coming crisis. Note the look of shame on Cyborg Superman's face, while Mullet Superman gives him a stern talking to. The last time these two met, Mullet Superman totally kicked the crap out of Cyborg Superman, so he obviously has the power in the relationship. Now, Cyborg Superman recently joined the Sinestro Corps and there's no ring on his hand. Maybe he wears it on his left, I don't know, but I do know that Kingdom Come Superman's hand is glowing yellow. Why? Because he stole Cyborg Superman's ring. Him and Mullet Superman. They've turned into bullies, those two. They've decided that the best way to deal with villains from now on isn't to beat them up when they do something wrong, but to randomly terrorise them by pushing them around and stealing their stuff. Look how Mullet Superman is yelling and about to smack Cyborg Superman. Ah, it only looks that way. He's not positioned to smack, but to wrap his arm around Cyborg Superman's neck to put him in a hold and then give him the noogie of a lifetime. All while Kingdom Come Superman watches, admiring his new ring, which he thinks will help him get all sorts of action from the ladies. See, Kingdom Come Superman is all about the bling. That's why he really hated Magog, because Magog was always decked out, head-to-toe in gold and Kingdom Come Superman was totally jealous. That's why Kingdom Come Superman has the gold belt buckle. It is the first piece of bling he owns, now he was the cool yellow ring that almost looks like gold. But, it's better than gold, because it can do all sorts of stuff, like make him look like he's wearing gold head-to-toe. Now, Mullet Superman doesn't care about that stuff, he's just pissed off that he didn't get to stay dead longer. He's like a cranky child who didn't get a good night's sleep. He was dead, what, a few weeks? PFT! Not nearly long enough. So, now he's all cranky and pissed off and he's going to purple every villain's nurple until he feels better about himself. Why is Lex Luthor so sad? Mullet Superman twisted his titties right off, and the blood on his hands is nipple blood. Look at his shirt: NO NIPPLES! He's wearing a skin-tight suit and he has no nipples. And we all know from comic book logic, nipples in spandex are always standing at attention. It was also be retconned that Lex's hair didn't fall out, it was noogied off. The Joker is laughing about the whole thing, because he finds it funny, while the Penguin and the other two losers are all "Okay, maybe if we just give them our lunch money, we won't lose our nipples like Lex." The girls are all "Boys are so dumb!" because they know Mullet Superman would never dare attempt the purple nurple on them. He may be cranky, but he is still a gentleman, especially since Kingdom Come Superman is planning to use his new bling to get him some of Teen Anguish Mary Marvel, because he loves the bad girls. Crazy in the head, crazy in bed. The Monitors are obviously HALL Monitors and they need Ray Palmer, the ultimate DCU science geek to talk the two Supermen out of their reign of terror by delivering a moving speech about how bullying is wrong and geeks are alright. It's simply a Countdown to Supermen Bully Crisis!

Tomorrow, more of me making fun of this stupid bullshit.

Countdown to Martian Orgy Crisis!

So, DC has given the internet a new teaser image for Countdown and it's full of all sorts of clues as to what's coming up. And I'm going to break the code for part of the picture and, in the process, blow your mind.

What I find interesting is that the Martian Manhunter has a knife. Why does a shapeshifter need a knife? I find the possibilities truly engaging and terrifying. What threat exists where a shapeshifter can only use a knife to combat it? Or, is the knife really part of J'onn? Did he just make a knife come out of his hand? If he did that, why is it stained? Can't he just get rid of any stains himself? Or does he like having what I assume is blood on the knives he makes out of himself? And why is he behind the Joker and Catwoman? Is that the blood of Batman's enemies and these two are next? Has J'onn become a serial killer of bad guys? Is he all insane in the membrane, which is why he uses a knife? Is too cazy to remember he's a shapeshifter? Is that why he doesn't, you know, just fry their brains with shapeshifter-powered telepathy and is using a knife? What about the Penguin, then? He's all the way on the other side of the picture--is he next after Joker and Catwoman? Did these guys hurt Batman? Is J'onn secretly in love with Batman and being all protective of his one true love? Do Martians have the same male/female distinctions we do? Does J'onn care about appearances and just loves Bruce for his mind? Does he pretend to be various billionaire-groupies so he can get some quality time with "Little Bruce"? (By the way, I used to watch this show called Eros, which was a show about sex. Like talking about it and segments and various acitivities/topics. One of the show's regular commentators revealed in one episode that he named his penis Bruce. Ever since then, I've never been able to look at Batman the same way.) Is that why he's called the Martian Manhunter? Has J'onn always been about the cock? Are his stories about a wife and kid a lie because he knew humans were prejudiced against homosexuals? Does the knife symbolise J'onn erect, sexually frustrated penis? Is killing Batman's enemies a form of sexual excitement for him? Does he associate their blood with semen? Will the crisis wind up being angry shapeshifting Martian on a rampage after he's rejected by Gotham playboy? While Marvel argues over politics, DC argues over love? Is there anything more scary than a rejected shapeshifter? Will J'onn alter Batman's brain so his love his returned? Will J'onn alter everyone's brains so they all love him? Will he travel across themultiverse, spreading his Martian love waves and making everyone love him? Will the Monitors need Ray Palmer to shrink down and shoot J'onn's brain up to shit like future-Atom did in Morrison's "Rock of Ages" storyline to Darkseid? And when it's all over, will Lex Luthor be pissed off because, once again, the superheroes have killed someone he's loved, not knowing that J'onn MADE Lex love him along with everyone else, while the other villains are all "Shit, Lex is gay for the green Martian! Loser!"? Is this all just a countdown to a Martian Orgy Crisis?

And that's how I cracked the code of the picture. Your move, DC.

Losers

I reviewed the first part of the recent Teen Titans storyarc where the group faced the Teen Titans East, a collection of villains that match up against the heroes, almost member for member. I thought the issue was kind of shit and I realised a few days later, it was because I consider the whole evil version of the superhero team to be really fucking stupid and I blame Grant Morrison for bringing it back.

Now, of course, Morrison didn't invent the idea, but he made it popular with the first incarnation of the Injustice Gang in his JLA run where Lex Luthor gathered the Joker, Dr. Light, the Mirror Master, Circe, the Ocean Master and Jemm--all enemies of the Big Seven. Of course, if you read the story, you'll realise quickly that the Injustice Gang gets its ass handed to it. Seriously, they barely do anything--and most of the stuff they actually accomplish was faked by the JLA when Batman realised Luthor's methodology.

The fact of the matter is, you can't take a group like the first Injustice Gang seriously as a threat because it's a group of losers. None of these guys can take their respective hero one-on-one, so we're to assume by teaming up to take on all of them (plus, in this case, Green Arrow and Aztek--later, Plastic Man) that they'll somehow succeed?

No. Which Morrison seemed to recognise, which is why the second version of the Injustice Gang seemed much more threatening. Instead of villains that fight individual heroes, he used villains that almost beat the entire League by themselves. Now, we didn't get to see the true outcome of that fight because it was also taking place as the whole Mageddon/World War III (the first World War III) thing was happening. But, still. The lesson was there.

Too bad no one seemed to notice.

It's Too Late To Be Late Again

Wow, it's been nearly a week since I last posted. Know why? Nothing to say really. Nothing in comics has gotten my attention this past week. But, here's some random stuff that I'm making up as I go.

* Reread All-Star Superman #1-6 last night, which is the equivalent of the first hardcover, which is out already or coming out sometime in the next couple of months. Yeah, it still does very little for me. In an effort to possibly correct this, I am going to finally read the first Showcase Presents Superman volume that I bought last year. And then I will make fun of it.

Although, I realised last night that in issue three (I think) of ASS (that acronym makes FAR too much sense) Lois asks Superman why her--and I have to admit I was wondering the same thing. At least, this version of Lois. Maybe that's my biggest flaw with the series: none of the characters have depth. Real depth. It's too steep within the idea of myth and legend to give any of the characters anything beyond a hint of depth that really isn't there. What you see is what you get.

* I'm not the only one who's beginning to mind George Perez's art. Was talking about comics with a friend today and he was saying how he's not a fan.

* I like the idea of Matt Fraction writing the Punisher as a new Captain America, I just think the costume is butt ugly. Is that really the best they could come up with?

* Why are comics always compared to movies when the more obvious comparison is television? At least, with regards to serialised, episodic comics. Graphic novels warrant comparisions to movies, but a monthly? Look to the idiot box then, friends.

* Seriously, my little rant on an issue of Green Lantern combined with my bitching about Superman OYL is still bothering me. Why would powerless Clark Kent warrant a Green Lantern ring, but Superman not?

* Dick Hyacinth makes a very good point of at the end of this post, but I must say that I grew up reading Spider-Man books mostly during the Clone Saga and I figured it out. AND I'm still here.

* I think I just made the argument for how big a geek I really am.

Tony Stark, Futurist

Throughout the whole "Civil War" thing, the word "futurist" has been thrown around a lot to describe Tony Stark and Reed Richards. But what is a futurist? Is it, as Stark describes here, someone who works towards the future, or is it really a member of the Italian art and drama movement of the early 20th century that fetishised technology, violence, youth, urban living and was eventually tied closely to fascism?

I just find it amusing that the word is thrown around quite a bit, but there's that other meaning to it that seems to fit so well. Tony Stark is all about technology; for the Futurists, it was fast cars, while for Stark it's a suit of armour where he becomes a machine basically. The Futurists were heavily interested in the idea of humans being like machines or body parts replaced by machines. Stark has a machine heart basically. He is all about living in the city and, goddammit, he is one violent guy, isn't it?

To tie it to Civil War a bit more, here's the first paragraph from "The Futurist Synthetic Theater, 1915" by Filippo Marinetti, Emilio Settimelli, and Bruno Corra:

As we await our much prayed-for great war, we Futurists carry our violent antineutralist action from city square to university and back again, using our art to prepare the Italian sensibility for the great hour of maximum danger. Italy must be fearless, eager, as swift and elastic as a fencer, as indifferent to blows as a oxer, as impassive at the news of a victory that may have cost fifty thousand dead as at the news of a defeat.

For a guy who claimed to be doing it for the greater good, Stark always was a little too gung-ho on the fight, wasn't he?

Now, I'm not suggesting a direct connection here. It's just something I find interesting. It could be sheer coincidence or, maybe, it's one of those subtextual things that was thrown in for a laugh.

Just something I thought of and figured I'd put out there. Something to keep in the back of your head.

For more on Futurism: this site has a lot of good info.

Schools--A Snippet

Figured I'll begin updating a bit more with non-reviews.

One of the classes I'm currently taking is a seminar on modern drama, specifically the avant-garde. This week's we're doing a little bit on the Futurists. Last week it was Symbolism or something like that. Each week, it's something different. And it made me think: why don't we see more schools/theories/whaever in comics?

Maybe they're there and I'm just not paying attention. And I don't mean the traditional superheroes vs. everything else division. I mean, strict divisions over the purpose of comics, the style of creating them, the motivation of creators, etc. As I said, that may be there. You sometimes see it pop up in what we love to call feuds between creators, but those always seem childish.

One reason I've been thinking you don't see it often is that a lot of comics are done on a work-for-hire basis, which would mean a lack of theory behind the work, the creator supressing its own desires in favour of those of the publisher. The same way you don't necessarily see strong theory divisions betwee TV shows, rather just different genres and styles.

But, I'm certain there has to be various schools, at least outside of the traditional North American mainstream. And if, somehow, there aren't--why the fuck not?

***

Written, like, five minutes after posting the above: Actually, a thought just occurred to me that there are different schools within the mainstream, they're just unstated. The one that springs to mind immediately contans people like Geoff Johns, Mark Waid, Kurt Busiek, Alex Ross and Grant Morrison. The Silver Ageists, I guess you could call them. Now, each of those writers has a distinct style and all are very modern in their styles, but the sensibilities harken back to the Silver Age--or, basically, the comics they grew up reading. Of course, this ties very specifically into the characters they write--and, in this case, very specifically DC characters, although you can see certain elements in their work at Marvel (Marvels, the Earth X trilogy).

The example of this sensibility showing up in a specific comic that sprngs to mind is Infinite Crisis #2, which contains a long screed by Johns on everything wrong with the DCU, going back over a decade. It's the one issue of the series that I own, because when I read my dad's copy, it just jumped out at me. It was just a huge fucking rant right in the middle of a huge company crossover--and, pretty much, laid out the philosophy behind the series. And, as my review of Superman: Up, Up and Away! discussed, the first thing I saw done with Superman post-Infinite Crisis was a setting up of pre-1986 situations. I've heard similar things were done with Batman.

I just find it interesting that a lot of this stuff goes unstated--except for brief allusions in interviews or online columns or message board posts. I, personally, would love to see essays written by creators on stuff like this.

Warrants more thought, I think. Well, now I know what I'll be doing with my break.

How Civil War is Politically Relevant - A Snippet

Before I begin, I should mention that I haven’t been reading Civil War, because, well, it simply doesn’t appeal to me. However, one cannot help but follow the major plot points simply by being online and viewing a comic-related site, so I have been aware of what has been going on. As well, before writing this, I asked a few people who have been reading it some questions just so my facts are straight. What this all means is, if you disagree with me, you can simply write me off as some jackass who doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he hasn’t read it.

Civil War is supposed to be a politically relevant story. This has been said by pretty much everyone involved. It’s all about America’s problems balancing personal liberties with national security. The superpowered people living in the Marvel Universe’s America are given a choice: register with the government, give up being a hero, or go to jail. Not exactly a new idea and not even that relevant, I would argue. In the most abstract of interpretations, yes, it does reflect the current political situation in America, but not in any broad sense. Now, if superpeople were being rounded up, declared non-persons and held for an indeterminate amount of time, tortured and never released, you might have some relevancy.

Or, there’s the simple relevancy that most have missed (and maybe someone else has caught it, but I haven’t see that, so apologies if you said this first). It has been alluded to in a few places, but never explicitly stated.

When I first heard of Civil War, my main problem with it was the fact that because of this piece of legislation, fellow heroes and friends would not just be on opposite sides of a political issue, but would also being beating the shit out of one another over it. Surely, there would be at least one character on the pro-registration side who would say that while they agree with the legislation, there was no way they would hunt down their fellow heroes. You know, a voice of moderation and reason.

Nope.

No such voice appeared, except until possibly after the recent death of Goliath. Before that, it was simply a jump from disagreeing over a political issue to beating the shit out of one another. And that is where Civil War reflects the current political climate of America. No one discusses politics in a reasonable and moderate fashion. It is simply “You disagree with me? FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING RETARD!”

In Civil War, the anti-registration side is led by Captain America. Come on, you mean to tell me that no one on the pro-registration side would say, “I disagree with him, but I’m not going to fight Captain America. It’s . . . it’s Captain America, people! Captain. America. No way. Count me out.” Rather it’s “Fuck Captain America! Fucking brain him!”

The closest you get is the Thing, who decides to leave the country rather than participate in the whole nonsense, but he is more akin to frustrated Americans who choose not to vote rather than a voice of reason.

As well, the tagline for the series, “Whose side are you on?” cannot help but echo George Bush’s statements of either being with the terrorists or with America, allowing for no middle ground.

One side is the left, the other the right and the only way to resolve anything is to destroy the other side. No rational attempts at conversation, no attempts at compromise, nothing but extremes. In that way, Civil War accomplishes its task to be an analogy for the US. The question if whether or not it is because of the tradition of superheroes being quick to fight rather than talk, and the need for an exciting, conflict-filled story, or a deliberate move on the part of the creators. Personally, I opt for the latter.

Superheroes, Realism And Darkness - A Snippet

I'm finally back with something to say. Hopefully, I'll update this more frequently. Apologies to all.

At a message board I frequent, the subject of superheroes and realism has come up. I won't point you in any specific direction or to anything specifically as it isn't exactly a new discussion.

The basic premise of these discussions is "Why is it every time superheroes are done in a more 'realistic' manner, that automatically means extreme violence, darkness and generally depressing stories?"

Firstly, let's dismiss that stupid argument that superheroes cannot be portrayed realistically because superheroes don't exist. That argument is inane and assumes that realistic means representing the world as it is rather that attempting to manufacture a world that follows the basic rules of human behaviour in as realistic manner as possible. At the core of realism in fiction is the portrayal of characters, not the surrounding world itself. Dismissing a genre from being possible of realism based on things like superpowers is missing the point.

That said, the rest of my argument is pretty brief. The reason why "realism" in superhero comics often means "violent, bleak and messed up" is because of the nature of superhero fiction.

Superhero fiction is based upon the concept of people solving every problem via physical force almost all of the time. When you take that mentality and place it within a so-called "real world," the outcome is obvious: brutal, disgusting and quite depressing.

But, that would also only be the first stage in realism, as having every character continue to solve problems exclusively with physical violence would make no sense. Soon after the consequences were seen, some characters would try different things and try to avoid physical violence--something that "realistic" superhero comics has not really tried (that I've seen--if I'm wrong, please point it out). (Although, in his final year on Adventures of Superman, Joe Casey explored the concept of Superman being a pacifist. But, Superman has never really been realistic.)

The basic problem is that realistic superhero fiction begins in a logical, realistic manner, but then fails to carry through to the next logical steps. It quickly becomes unrealistic.

Parataxis, Grant Morrison & Why People Hate His Endings - A Snippet

Trying not to cover the same ground too much here, but this stuff has been bothering me as of late. Another piece on Grant Morrison isn't exactly what I wanted to do, but hey, gotta go with the ideas. I didn't--and don't--want to do this as a full-out essay though. I just want to touch on a couple of things and then get off the stage.

Gotta go back to a class this year--as I come into contact with a lot of cool ideas in my classes and then end up applying them to comics, if you hadn't noticed (and who says you don't learn anything useful in school?)--and something the prof mentioned. It was that Arthurian legends class I mentioned in my piece on the repetition of the same narrative over and over again, and we were looking at Malory's Morte Darthur. Malory was a little different from the previous things we'd read because he used a technique in his writing called parataxis. Basically, parataxis is writing without--or at the very least, very little--cause and effect in the narrative. This means essentially the flow of the story is "and then . . . and then . . . and then . . . and then . . ." and so on. Events just happen without a big effort to make them fit into one larger narrative.

Instantly, I thought of Grant Morrison's writing. See, as far as I can tell, he's rather fond of using parataxis in his writing. This is why he is so great at creating stories where it seems like everything is falling apart at the seams: because he just keeps piling on events in an "and then . . ." fashion. To do this, he uses rapid cuts and just little segments of scenes.

That isn't to say that cause and effect don't exist in his stories, as they obviously do, but to a far lesser degree. He relies in inferred cause and effect rather than explained. He doesn't hold your hand. Often, characters will have already figured out plot points and be in the midst of reacting before the reader is clued in.

It's a technique often used in soap operas, which is of course why it worked so well in New X-Men. But it also leads to less than satisfactory endings a lot of the time, because there's no way to get out of that "and then . . ." mentality. Most of the endings to Morrison stories aren't really endings, but just another event in the sequence of events that have happened up until that point. While that works great in the middle of a run on a book where the little sub-story is completed, but the larger story keeps on going, it kind of sucks at the end of a run.

Of course, parataxis is a technique that's used in an effort to imitate life, which is often what Morrison endings end up looking like. Sure, today is all done, but tomorrow is coming right up--only we don't see the tomorrow often. This method of storytelling is strangely considerate when he works on a corporate-owned ongoing title like JLA or New X-Men, because it recognises that the stories involving the characters aren't over, because a new writer will be telling a new story next month. It does become slightly frustrating on creator-owned works like The Filth where there is no story next month. It makes for good imitation of life, but sometimes less than satisfactory storytelling.

To be fair, I like those kind of endings, but I do recognise that some people don't and I hope this explains it a little.

Mainstream Superhero Comics & Medieval Texts - A Snippet

Apologies for such a long time between posts. School has been busy along with other things. Just have a little snippet of an idea this time, but I'm working on some larger things that I should post soon.

I've been thinking about mainstream superhero comics and medieval texts for a few months, and how similar they are. You see, in medieval times, readers didn't want original works really. They preferred to be told the same story over and over and over again, but in slightly different ways. The pleasure came out of the differences, the minor alterations.

I've read five or six versions of the death of King Arthur this year for a class, and while they all tell the same story, each has its own little spin on it. Some more drastic than others, but each is updated for its own time and own sensibilities. One will look at it from the perspective of British history, while one will focus on courtly love, while another will focus on combat, while another will focus on the randomness of it and so on.

This seems to be what mainstream superhero comics are all about: telling the same stories over and over again, but with little changes and personal touches to make them slightly different. Hell, the "Ultimate" line is a prime example of it. Think of the "Ultimate" books as translations of the originals. Millar, Bendis and the others have taken the outdated originals and made them new with modern language and all. The stories are all familiar, but changed--and many readers' interest lies not in the comics themselves, but what the changes are. How is this villain updated and stuff like that.

Just something I noticed and found rather interesting.

Later

The Three Types Of Superheroes - A Snippet

This is one of those things that is so obvious that I'm not sure I should post it, but it's also one of those things that's so obvious that I'm not sure anyone else has said it. If someone else has, I'm sorry, I didn't rip them off or anything, I came to these conclusions on my own. And if you find this painfully obvious, well, good for you.

I realised a while back that there are really only three types of superheroes (and villains, I suppose): the god, the human, and the human that becomes a god. Every superhero fits into one of those categories and they are just as basic as they sound. And, each of the three biggest superheroes represent one of the categories.

The god is the superhero who has always been superpowered. The representative here is Superman. Superman is the archetypal god in superhero comics. He was born Superman and always will be Superman. The challenges faced to the god are unique in that a question of their abilities is almost never the focus--unless it is a story where those abilities are lost. They are usually confident in those abilities and seem to gravitate towards leadership roles--almost a natural feeling of superiority.

The human is exactly what it sounds like: a human with no extra abilities. Batman is the archetypal superhero in this regards. Like the god, the human is also confident, but more to the point of brash arrogance. They seem to think that because they are playing with the big boys, they are better. They have worked hard to get where they are, so their confidence in their abilities is usually more warranted than that of the god--and are usually more reliable too. They almost always end up playing the saviour role because the villain underestimates them or they are able to improvise more.

The human who becomes a god is the more interesting and complex type of superhero. Spider-Man is the best known example of this. Here we have a human who suddenly gets powers. They tend to be less confident and sure of themselves simply because they're put in a new situation, but the confidence grows over time. This type of hero is used the most because it lends itself best to an origin story and growth that the readers can identify with. How many stories have we all read that started with typical guy leading typical life that could be your life and then suddenly something happens and he's a superhero now? It's the most effective way at drawing the reader in, because you can relate to the character from the beginning and there isn't a sense of resentment at someone who is basically you, but actually made something of themselves like the human. They are usually less driven than the human and more likely to have "human" problems than the god. Basically, it's the best of both worlds.

The only problem I've run into with this theory is the question of mutants. My instinct to to place them in the human that becomes god category because they don't receive their powers until puberty, but then again, they are born with them . . .

Anyways, that's the basics of it. I would most definitely welcome any thoughts on this. And if you can think of someone who doesn't fit, I'd like to hear it.