Did It Get Cold In Here?

Something I recently realized I liked about comics is the icicle speech balloons. That's probably not a good term for them, but you know what I mean. Speech balloons where the bottom of it is jagged, like icicles hanging off a gutter. There's an example over to the side, from Amazing Spider-Man #622 (written by Greg Weisman, art by Luke Ross, lettering by Joe Caramagna). It should get bigger if you click on it.

Maybe that isn't even what they're supposed to represent, but that's how I've always read them. They show up when a character's seen or heard something they aren't happy with, and they're being a little passive-aggressive about. Not outright screaming about how angry they are, but keeping a cold edge to their tone that's easy to pick up on. You've probably used it, or been on the receiving end of it, at some point in your life. I love to use it, partially because I don't like screaming, but it's also highly effective at getting a person's attention. They notice the abrupt shift*, the way emotion is being restrained, it makes it more dangerous. A rabid dog straining to break it's tether.

Well, in comics, it takes on a physical property. Emotions, happy ones, angry ones, put a warmth, so the effort of restraining them, only letting them out a little, if that, lowers the ambient temperature to the point the balloon partially freezes. OK, I'm talking silly, but I do find it a great visual. It's not just for repressed anger, it can work for disdain, disgust, disenchantment, I'm sure some other words that start with "dis-".

There's one example I usually laugh at from JMS' run on Amazing Spider-Man. The issue with the tailor to the costumed set? He criticizes Spider-Man's uniform, then asks who makes it. There's a panel of Spider-Man staring at him, then the next panel he says 'I did,' with the frosty voice balloon. Granted, what makes that particular example really work is the tailor doesn't act embarrassed for insulting the guy's sartorial skills, he just goes on with what he was saying, how you shouldn't leave a job like that to amateurs. Still, Spidey's irritated, resentful, maybe a little angry about the criticism, and the voice balloon has to convey that because his mask is covering almost his entire face**, so the only other cue would have been if Romita Jr. drew him gritting his teeth, which he may have, I don't have the issue to check. Still, the bubble tells the reader the emotion of the panel, very effectively.

I don't know who started that trend. For some reason, it feels to me like something developed during the Lee/Ditko Amazing Spider-Man run, after Peter does something that riles Liz Allan or Betty Brant. That seems like an appropriate place, but it probably predates that title. Maybe it started with earlier romance comics?

* I really like talking in a jovial tone to start, then switching mid-sentence to jar them. It's fun!

** He had the mask pulled up to expose his face because they were having coffee at a diner at the time.

Secret Identities, Easy Or Hard To Maintain?

When it comes to superheroic secret identities, what's your pleasure?

The old school, Silver Age I guess, style, where the hero is able, though not without difficulty, to keep people from learning who they are in their civilian lives? This doesn't mean no one would know, necessarily. The hero could decide to tell someone, or there could be a member of their cast that's just really on the ball. Captain Stacy in Amazing Spider-Man, Lois Lane for Superman, though she had the deck stacked against her considering all the powers, robots, and Batman assistance the writers pulled out of their butts to help Superman keep her guessing in the Silver Age*.

Or, I guess I'd call it the Ultimate-style, where it is really hard to keep a secret identity. Especially if you are, for example, some teenager from Queens who gained spider-powers then fairly quickly jumped into the deep end of fighting insane businessmen, and mad scientists, while being harassed by well-funded and well-equipped spy agencies.

Some blending of it, where some heroes keep it secret from everyone, while others don't hide it at all, plus some heroes who just aren't good at keeping it secret, or they trust someone who isn't (Karen Page might fall in that category for Daredevil), would probably be the best, if just because it offers the most avenues, but assuming we live in a horribly strict universe, where there are only two options, and you can't mix-and-match, what would you prefer?

I'm in favor of the old one myself. Yeah, it was funny to see how bad Peter was at keeping his mask on, especially when MJ handed him a list of everyone who knew who he was, and it hits home just how bad he's been about keeping the mask on, or not blurting out his name to the X-Men just because they've seen his face. I grew used to it there, because that was a generally consistent law of the universe. The X-Men were in the open, Kingpin knew Murdock was Daredevil, Dr. Strange was on late-night TV, and everybody knew who Spider-Man was. I could roll with it. But I feel it's an attempt to put too much realism into a situation that doesn't necessarily call for it.

It might be unrealistic for these heroes to manage to keep their secret identities hidden, but considering all the other things I suspend my disbelief for, it's not hard to swallow. I accept Peter Parker not only didn't die from a radioactive spider-bite, he gained awesome powers. I accept his Aunt can survive 700 heart attacks (may be an exaggeration), but needs magic help to survive a bullet. I accept the idea of stupid little blue men handing out rings that do anything if you will it hard enough. I'll buy that heroes (and villains if they're good enough at getting away) can keep people around them from figuring things out. Some of them will be better at it than others, or have more resources to help them out, be it powers or money.

Another part of it, is the problem-solving abilities most heroes tend to demonstrate. I've seen a lot of heroes apply their resources quite creatively to deal with a particular threat. Between that and their witty banter, they seem to possess excellent abilities to think on their feet, and devise solutions quickly. So while I believe I'd have some trouble explaining why I was always covered in bruises or missing whenever Hood Guy** appeared, the heroes seem more on the ball, so sure, they can come up with some quick excuse that saves their bacon. For a little while, at least.

So old-school for me, because I like the idea the heroes are smarter than I probably would be about it.

* I know Morrison and Quietly used it in All-Star Superman, though I don't think they started it, but I really like the idea that Clark Kent carries himself completely differently when he's Clark, compared to when he's Superman, so it isn't just the glasses. He really seems like a completely different person. Along those lines, how easy do you think it was to figure out Hal was Green Lantern? Setting aside how little of his face the mask covers, I can't see him behaving any differently from identity to the other.

** Though I like Spider-Man's costume, I think my love of hoods would cause me to design a costume with a hood. Or, more likely, get someone else to design it for me, because I know squat about fashion design.

Coming Up With An Apt Hero Name Is hard

I've been thinking about Cassandra Cain lately. I'm not sure whether that's because Diamondrock is worried she might be the apparently villainous White Canary in Birds of Prey #1, which in turn makes me worried he might be right* or if it's just because I haven't seen her anywhere since she handed her costume off to Stephanie Brown.

I've been thinking about how to get her back in the costumed do-gooder game, specifically, what codename she could go under. Technically, there's no reason she can't be Batgirl, too. If there can be 7000 Green Lanterns, and 3 Flashes, and so on, I think the world can handle 2 Batgirls. They could work together, or separately** with occasional team-ups (where their cases coincide). Leave one solo, add the other to a team***, whatever floats the boat.

Perhaps that would be considered too confusing, though. Then I thought if Stephanie can be Batgirl, maybe Cass could be Spoiler, but I couldn't come up with a good reason for that swap. Then I thought about reviving her Kasumi identity from Justice League Elite, but when she was doing that, she was pretending to be a stabby killer ninja, and this being comics, that might have some weird feedback effect to some leftover brainwashing and drugs from Deathstroke, and she's back to being evil again. You scoff, but I've seen characters advance such hypotheses before****.

New codename then. Since I was thinking about her working with the Birds, I started thinking of bird-themed names. First I thought of Kestrel, because it's a small, swift, raptor, but it's also the name of an enemy of Hawk and Dove's. Much as I might enjoy Hawk flipping out when Oracle introduces "Kestrel", then promptly getting his butt whooped by someone who isn't what he expected, it's probably needlessly confusing things. Then I though about how Cassandra tends to operate at night, and is mostly silent, so maybe "Owl". I figured it might work, since owls have a tendency to watch carefully with those giant eyes, and Cass is all about reading people with her eyes. Except owls are also considered bookish. I considered Night-Owl (too Watchmen), Hunter of the Night (it'd probably be turned to Night Hunter, which sounds very 90s to me), and I'm at a wall. Maybe she should just be Cassandra Cain, uncodenamed vigilante.

Anyway, it's a little brainstorming exercise I had fun with, and you can throw some ideas in if you'd like. As for me, this is it until Monday. I'll be off at a party at a lake over the weekend. Maybe by the time I return, there'll be comics waiting.

* If it is, I know I ought to trust Gail Simone. If nothing else, her track record with Secret Six would guarantee Cass would be a more interesting villain than she was during her prior jaunt through the dark side.

** Cassandra could be the globe-trotting Batgirl, since she has less holding her in Gotham. Besides, she's already traveled the world on her own before.

*** Teen Titans, the BoP, the Outsiders. OK, maybe not the Outsiders.

**** Specifically after Jean-Paul Valley became Batman, and first went after Bane, but before he actually beat him. He and Tim Drake had a falling out, then Tim and Nightwing chat, and Tim worries aloud that the Azrael costume he designed for Jean-Paul was too similar to one worn by some Bat-foe called, um, Metal head? He had spikes allover the costume, and a sort of whip/flail thing on the top of his head he would swing at people to cut them? Tim thought the design being so close to a villain's may have triggered some of the "system" and that was why Jean-Paul was getting more violent. Cripes, having explained that, why did I even bring it up?

Move Along, Nothing To See Here

The other thing that post got me thinking about was Power Girl's costume. Now me, I like the costume. I like the boots, especially with the heavy tread Amanda Conner gives them. Those will leave an impression in the villainous backside she kicks*. I like the cape, probably because it's kind of unusual. Most super-hero capes reach the knees or father, hers stops at the waist. It's only attached at one shoulder, and the way it does reminds me of either a matador, or a 19th Century cavalry officer, which is definitely cool**.

Of course, there is the window to consider. Easiest alteration would be to just remove it. Don't have to add a logo, just more white fabric, but I imagine there'd be caterwauling from certain sectors of the fandom. So, see if you get artists to draw it smaller. Use Jerry Ordway as your example. He draws the window at least half the size of most of the other artists. That way, it strains credulity a little less.

The real key would be to not have characters comment on it. There's no need to. If Power Girl works with the JSA in an issue drawn by Amanda Conner one month, and Jerry Ordway the next, the writers don't have, Hawkgirl, mention that the window is smaller this month. That just draws attention to the fact it's a different artist, which draws people out of the story. Commenting on it seems to make writers feel they have to explain or justify it, and that never ends well. Probably the best explanation is (as others suggested) that for whatever reason she used to wear it, she wears it now because she's used to it, or comfortable with it. Trying to turn it into some big deal about why people shouldn't be bothered by it doesn't work. The explanations ring hollow.

All of that lead to this.

Got to let sleeping dogs lie, you know? For a long time there, the Spider-writers didn't reference the Clone Saga, because they knew fans tended to have a bad reacton to it. So no Ben Reilly, no Kaine, no talking about how Doc Ock died and was later revived by the Hand, no mention of MJ's pregnancy***. The writers figured there wasn't much of anything they could do with it that wouldn't get a negative reaction, so they left it alone. It was still there, if one wanted to think about it, but creative teams didn't rub one's nose in it.

I think that might have been the way for Adam Beechen to go with that Batgirl mini-series. Don't try and explain precisely the sequence of druggings, killings, relapses, etc., just establish that she's back fighting crime, has a few more things to atone for, and go from there. If the goal is to give fans what they want, it's better to get to it, and move beyond the past swiftly****.

* Which got me thinking about Deadpool. Reilly Brown drew Deadpool as having his logo on all his grenades and guns, and his name on his gloves. Maybe Power Girl could put "Power Girl" on the soles of her boots, so the villain would an even starker reminder of who stopped them.

** I imagine the shoulder pad Amanda Conner draws as being the attachment for the cape is more practical (and sturdy), but I'm partial to that circular buckle that Jerry Ordway and Adam Hughes draw myself. With the way they draw her belt as hanging loose, you can have it's buckle resting on the right hip, balancing the cape buckle on the left shoulder. A symmetry thing.

*** Outside Spider-Girl, but that universe wasn't imposing itself upon those who wished to forget.

**** Of course, we could have a discussion about how wise an idea it is to worry about appeasing the fans with the stories, but I'm not up for it.

Why Don't I Have An Eye For Rhyme?

I ordered some Hitman trades* online a couple of weeks ago, they arrived this week, and I've been reading through them. I definitely need to talk more about them later, but for now, the thing I'm taking away from them is that perhaps I need to look into Ennis' Demon series.

And isn't that how it always goes? I pick up one thing I've heard rave reviews of, and think to myself that I'm one step closer to being happy with my comic collection as it is. Then the stuff I just bought introduces me to something else, and I wonder if I ought to be chasing that down as well. It's a vicious cycle.

That's not really what I wanted to discuss, either. The thing I like is how Ennis writes Etrigan, joyfully destructive, almost playful, but always dangerous. I also really enjoy the rhymes he writes. I don't know how he manages them. I have no gift for rhyme myself, certainly not to Ennis' ability. 'Is that an eclipse, I hear you cry? No, but Glonth has just passed by!' A rhyme that's also a fat joke? That's just awesome. I've been sitting here for 10 minutes trying to come up with a clever title that rhymes, nothing. How long does it take him to come up with that stuff?

That's all I have tonight. Traveling tomorrow, no post. Monday, post. In theory.

* Rage in Arkham, Ace of Killers, and Who Dares Wins, for the record. And I ordered the 2nd printing of 10,000 Bullets DC solicited.

The Characters Keep Growing Whether You're There Or Not

This is another thought I had in relation to the Huston/Baker Deadpool story*. If I'm right, and the White Caption Box is meant to represent Charlie Huston (or some random writer), then his helplessness in the story is kind of interesting. He's supposed to be writing the story, but he can't control it.

He tries to ask Deadpool about how he feels, and whether he can get through a story without killing people**, and Deadpool wants to know why he'd do that. He starts doing flashbacks to moments of emotional distress and pain for Deadpool, and 'Pool shuts that down cold. He's not going down that path, no way. Wade steals a couple's limo, over the writer's objections. He embarks on his "kill all Deadpool fans" plan over similar concerns. In short, Deadpool does as he pleases, and the author is simply along for the ride.

But that's common in some ways for characters that are part of a shared universe. A writer creates a character, maybe just to fill a gap in a story, maybe with a greater purpose in mind. Maybe they finish what they had planned with it, maybe they get taken off the book before they get the chance. Either way, some other writer eventually comes along, picks up the character, dusts them off, and uses them. Maybe they add something to the character, or maybe they retool them so completely if it weren't for the name you'd never realize it was the same character. It might be something the creator didn't intend, or doesn't approve of, but they can't do much about it. In some ways, the character has grown beyond them, gotten larger than them, or at the very least, moved beyond their ability to control.

Take the Question. Steve Ditko created him, correct? I haven't read any of Ditko's Question work, but as I understand it, the Dennis O'Neil/Denys Cowan Question doesn't bear much resemblance in methods, philosophy, characterization, and so on. Likewise, the Justice League Unlimited version of the Question is, to me, a bit more unhinged, and less sociable than the O'Neil/Cowan version***. I haven't read much of Renee Montoya Question, so I can't speak to how she compares to the others, but I'd guess she's different from the other three in her own ways as well. They all use the same costumed identity, and the same sort of look (well, the faceless mask, anyway, and the guys seem fond of trenchcoats), but they aren't really terribly similar. And I imagine there'll be another Question someday, if not a new person in the identity, at least they'll be different somehow, probably owing to the writer's personal interests or philosophy.

You could probably make a similar thing with Deadpool, make a chart comparing Joe Kelly Deadpool to the Nicieza, Way, Simone, Priest, etc., versions, and each would probably be at least a little different. Different sense of humor, different way of dealing with friends, enemies, different foibles, and so on. Nicieza and Rob Liefeld created Deadpool, but the character hasn't remained the same as he was. Nicieza did some work with him, but other writers did their own things, and those don't always jibe with each other. That seems to be something writers working in the corporate owned universes have to accept, that once they introduce the character, it's entirely likely that other writers will take said character in directions they never intended, and there won't be much they can do about it. If they get another chance to write their character, they can always take the time to undo things they didn't like, or just ignore them, but then there's the fans to worry about.

There may be fans of the creator's version of the character, but that other writer may have attracted fans with their version as well, and so the creator may simply have to go with the fans (or editorial demands) against their wishes or better judgment. The character moves on, with or without them.

* Actually, I might have originally been thinking about it as part of a really massive story I've been thinking about writing on the blog. The timeline is kind of confused in my mind.

** I'm reasonably sure I've read several Deadpool comics where he didn't kill anyone.

*** Though he shows a dry sarcasm that seems similar to the O'Neil/Cowan version. JLU version is less angry, better at maintaining detachment.

When Opposite Personalities Clash!

I think it's a fairly common trope in fiction to have two characters who are very different interact frequently, probably for a comedic effect. You have the straight-laced, neat freak, and the more slovenly, free spirit type, and hijinks ensue as they respond each other and various situations. The Odd Couple, for example.

Sometimes in movies*, because the writers felt there had to be a definite arc to the story, the interactions between the two personalities prompts a shift in one of the two characters. For example, in Knocked Up, the sort of aimlessly drifting character has conceived a child with the very career and goal-oriented lady, and eventually decides he needs to get his act together, get a real job, a real place to live.

So, here's what I'm asking you. In stories that revolve around those sorts of personality conflicts, if one of the characters undergoes a change, which is more common, the Type A loosening up, or the Type B growing up/getting serious? Or is the most common result both of those things happening, each character changing a little based on the influence of the other?

* Especially in romantic comedies

Thinking About Comic Cities

A couple of months ago, there was a bit of discussion about cities in comics, in terms of fictional ones versus real ones. What I mean is, there are people who prefer DC to Marvel, and part of what they enjoy is that DC comics are frequently set in cities that were created from the minds of the writer and artist. Sure, those cities, be it Metropolis, Gotham, Opal City, Central City, whatever, probably owe some of their style to a city that exists in our world, but they're also their own unique entities, which is part of the appeal, as I understood it. THe city can reflect the characters that live in it, and what they represent.

Conversely, for some of the people that prefer Marvel, they like that the cities used are ones that exist in our world. Usually it's New York, but the X-Men have spent a couple different stints in San Fran, the West Coast Avengers were in L.A., Thor set up shop in Chicago for a time, and so on. By using cities the readers know and can visit, it provides a sense of connection between the reader and the characters, in theory.

It occurred to me that Marvel's cities are to me, largely as fictional as DC's. I've never been to New York City, or L.A., or San Francisco. I've spent maybe 3 days in Chicago. I know those cities exist, but I don't "know" them, in the sense that I've lived in them, thus I'd recognize their unique quirks, and then be able to recognize those in a Marvel comic set there, prompting the aforementioned sense of connection. I don't have any idea how similar the New York City of Marvel is to the New York City here in our world. Even if Marvel N.Y.C. is presented as a perfect copy, I wouldn't realize that, so it still wouldn't feel real to me. Maybe it's because I'm focusing on the characters, and when I'm reading about a guy climbing walls and swinging on webs he created himself, I don't feel like it could be my world.

How Long Can The Mystery Be Maintained?

I wondered yesterday whether the new Batgirl series would quickly reveal who was using that identity, or if they'd keep it a secret for awhile, perhaps revealing the answer at the end of the first arc.

Along that train of thought, when it comes to comics published in the monthly format, do you think there's a limit to how long you can keep a character's identity a secret*?

There's a lot of current options to compare, just with Marvel and DC. As far as I know, Jeph Loeb still hasn't revealed the identity of the Red Hulk** after 12 issues, the Spider-writers kept Menace's identity (and the identity of the Spider-Tracer Killer) a mystery for over a year (which translated to around 30 issues), Supergirl had the "Who is Superwoman?" arc, and I think they just answered that this month, so that ran three or four months. The classic example, for me, is the Hobgoblin, where it took them around 4 years to get around to telling us he was Ned Leeds.

So, optimal length of the mystery. Probably how long one could string it out is mostly reliant on the skill of the creative team. They have to decide how prominent that question is for the story. Is it a source of constant focus, at the forefront, or does its importance wax and wane, as the character in question comes and goes from the stage? If its a major plot point, they probably have less leeway, since they keep it in the reader's mind prominently,a nd eventually the reader is going to expect resolution. If they rotate it with other plots, they can probably wait a while longer, since there are other things to occupy the reader (and the characters), but then they run the risk of reader's not caring. Maybe they're more interested in another plot thread running concurrently, and how important can the identity of X be, if it hasn't been mentioned much the previous {insert number} of issues?

I think it probably helps if its treated as a real mystery, where the reader learns clues with the characters, so maybe we can put it together ourselves. Of course, the writer has to have a talent for that, so they don't blow it before they're ready to do a big reveal. And the writer would have to play fair*** if they were going to do that.

How long it can be played out probably also relates to whether the mystery surrounds the protagonist, or an antagonist. If it's an enemy, the mystery can be a boost, because the hero can never be sure (until they think they know who it is) if the foe is around somewhere. I think there'd be more trouble if the creative team tried to have a story where the reader has no idea who the protagonist is. You could still do it, but I think that readers would have less patience for not knowing, especially if a big deal is made of the fact that they don't know.

Maybe it would work if the fact the hero's identity is a secret to us isn't treated as a big mystery. Where no in the story is making any progress in figuring out who the hero is****, and so we don't have any way of knowing either. That could be drifting into meta-territory, where the hero's identity is a secret because each of us envision the hero differently, and so the who the hero is changes constantly, based on the whims of the reader. With that in effect, it would be understandable that the other characters haven't had any success discerning who the mysterious do-gooder is. The trick there would be, for maximum effect, the writer and artist would have to portray the protagonist in the most neutral way possible, from posture, gender, tactics, dialogue, attitude, any personal touches, so that the reader could interpret these as they see fit, and thus see the protagonist on their terms. Which honestly, sounds like an absolute pain in the rear.

Anyway, stories revolving around hidden identities, and attempts to make them hidden no more. How long do you think they could (should?) go?

* I mean secret from the readers, not the other characters in the story.

** Somewhat jokingly, do you think Loeb knows who Red Hulk will wind up being? Do you think the answer changes from one minute to the next, perhaps reacting to his mood, or how his breakfast is digesting?

*** So no, "Oh crap, they realized Captain Atom will be Monarch! Quick, change it to. . . Hawk! They'll never see that coming! We sure outsmarted them!" That's just weak.

**** Or they aren't trying to find out. Or they don't even know there's a hero whose identity they should be trying to learn.

Why Not Consult With The Creative Team?

This relates to the new Power Girl series. I am planning to buy it (I figure to have comics for reviewing tomorrow. For reals this time, promise*!), so I've been trying to avoid reviews, but I have seen a lot of people talking about the preview DC was including in several issues of their other comics recently (such as Secret Six #8).

The preview didn't really spark my imagination, but it didn't do anything to damage my interest, either. I've seen a lot of people complaining the preview sucked, which surprised me, because I didn't think it was long enough (or really substantive enough) to deem great or terrible like that. Then again, this is the Internet, and people are prone to hyperbole here. Anyway, the preview was being discussed in the comments of Greg Burgas' weekly review when he talked about Power Girl #1, and Jimmy Palmiotti** appeared, commenting on Greg's review, and responding to some of the comments about the preview. The one that interested me the most was that he didn't pick the preview pages, and further, didn't feel they represented the issue well.

First off, I'm pleased he doesn't feel they give the issue a good showing, since it improves the chances I'll enjoy the rest of the issue more than I did the preview. But more importantly, I find it a bit odd he didn't choose the preview pages. I'm assuming that Justin Gray and Amanda Conner didn't choose them either, because I figure if they had, they would have discussed it with Mr. Palmiotti, since they're a team and all.

So who did choose the pages? Did that person (or persons) receive (or request) any input from the people creating the comic? If they did, then why apparently ignore Palmiotti's feelings? If they didn't, why not? Was it felt the creative team was too close to the work to objectively judge what would make a good preview? I imagine the preview is to grab the interest of people who weren't planning to purchase the series (or weren't even aware of it), and change their mind.

Maybe this is common. Authors entrust other people with the task of deciding how best to promote their new books, so I could see it being the same for in comics. Still, I'd think if part of the promotion is to involve an excerpt from the book, they might consult the author about what they think would be an attention-getting (but not too revealing) chapter to use.

* Promise not valid if Thor causes currently unforeseen foul weather to bar my way, or Dong Dong Daddy swipes my car for use if his nefarious corruption of the youth.

** I think it was Jimmy Palmiotti. The person signed their comments as him, and he seems pretty active in the blogowhatchamafloogle, so I'll assume he was who he says he was.

How Do You Define Literature?

For starters, please check out this thread. I really would advise you read at least the first couple of pages, since George Berryman does get around to explaining his position, as well as what prompted this.

I guess I should start with my thoughts. To me, it feels like a variation on the question of whether something is art or not. I've never had a particularly solid handle on how I define that term, except to think that something which is art ought to have a deeper meaning beyond what's on the surface, and be able to evoke different reactions in different people, rather than one stock reaction. It can speak to us in more than one way*, basically.

OK, that's all well and good, I've got my half-assed idea of what art is, whoope-de-doo. What does it have to do with literature? Well, I think the issue here is how one goes about defining literature. George Berryman is taking what I feel is a basically quantitative approach, in that "literature must consist of x, y, z, but must not have q". He(? I'm guessing) Feels that literature allows the audience to visualize everything in their head, allowing each person, in their own way, a unique experience. Comics, by having pictures that definitively show you what's happening, rob the reader of that, and that makes them "not literature".

That's a bit curious to me, because wasn't part of the issue some people had with Final Crisis, that Morrison and the 1,000 Artists weren't showing us everything, they were letting us fill-in some of the gaps. Morrison says Aquaman showed up to defend Atlantis when they needed him, we get to decide where he came from all of a sudden, and what he did, and so on? I think Mr. Berryman's argument would be that the work itself still shows us the world these events took place in, and defines how the characters appear to us, so merely leaving plot points undocumented is below the apparent critical threshold of audience freedom he feels is required.

Maybe the issue I'm having is that we aren't really defining the same thing. I think Berryman is thinking of literature strictly in the sense of "any works which are strictly words", which means my account of the Flying Castle Incident last July is literature (I'm so proud of myself). Meanwhile I'm thinking of it as LITERATURE, as in, I guess, important works, which, like my "art" definition, carry deeper meaning beyond the surface events, and can maintain that relevance beyond the era in which they were written**. So for Berryman, Crime and Punishment, and Clive Cussler's Sahara are both literature, where I'd apply the term to the former, but not the latter, because, enjoyable action-adventure romp I may find Sahara to be, I don't recall finding deeper meaning in it. It pretty much tells you how you're supposed to feel about things (frequently outraged, or amazed), and that's it***. So Berryman says "All novels are literature", I say "All novels are novels, but not all novels are literature".

I suppose what's implicit in that is me thinking of literature as a written work, where pictures aren't essential, which is Berryman's position. I don't think it's any great slight against comics as a medium if it isn't considered literature****. Still, there are a couple of things I wonder about that I'm thinking could shift things, so I'm be eager for your input. Is a complete reliance on the written word - and by default, the reader's imagination - essential to literature? Pictures have been used as a form of writing for thousands of years, so they have at least some ability to function as a method of conveying information. 'A picture is worth a thousand words', so could the pencils, inks, and coloring be considered written information the story is giving us? If so, can't comics qualify? It's all a presentation of information in a visual representation, just different forms of visuals. A focus on visual information could still (were one so inclined) exclude movies, and TV shows and the like from literature, since they also use auditory information*****. I may be going too all-inclusive here, which is strange since my definition of literature in the preceding paragraph was more restrictive than his, at least with regard to strictly written works. I'm restrictive, but desiring of greater inclusion. A contradiction? Well, that's what you're going to help me with, right?

* I developed that, for the record, in an Art of Film class I took as an undergrad, based on something in the text about how films can often be interpreted in opposite ways, and both interpretations can have merit. "The variability of theme" was how I tried to differentiate art from propaganda, which was the topic of an essay question discussing Casablanca on the first exam. Of course, I think I only got a C+ on that essay, so it's perhaps a poor thing to hang my hat on.

** That timelessness aspect is something I just considered might be part of it. I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but most things considered literature were written a while back, but our professors insist can still teach us things.

*** Though perhaps there's something we're meant to learn from a story that ends with our heroes finding the Confederate ironclad, which crossed the Atlantic and wound up beached in North Africa, containing not just a vast repository of Confederate gold, but the corpse of Abraham Lincoln, who had apparently been captured by the Confederates, and not assassinated as were believed, because Henry Seward hated Lincoln so much he wouldn't negotiate for his release. So the moral is, Henry Seward was a dick?

**** Which raises the question of why I did this post? Answer: Because I was bored, and the topic's potential for discussion interested me, even if the final conclusion - assuming there can be one - doesn't.

***** Even the old silent movies had someone in the theater plinking along on a piano, providing mood appropriate music, didn't they?

Redemptive Attempt Failed?

I'm kind of a fan of the redemptive character arc. I kind of alluded to that in one of my character archetype from so long ago. I don't imagine that's unique to me, just based on the popularity of redemptive arcs. I think a lot of people tend to empathize with characters that have made mistakes, and are trying to correct them, or atone for them.

Of course, there would seem to be limitations to the arc. How long can you keep a character motivated to act based on that need for redemption. I suppose for quite some time, since Spider-Man is a kind of redemptive character, depending on how you view his actions following Uncle Ben's death*. It probably varies by the creator, and what the character's done that requires redemption. For example, in season 4 of Angel, when Faith tries to sacrifice herself to get Angel back, with the idea that would be enough to make up for her past misdeeds, Angel tells her they never stop paying, that essentially, one has to keep working for redemption** (that's how I recall it going, anyway).

The other common end for a redemptive arc seems to be when it falls apart. I'd say Sandman (Marvel version) and Juggernaut would be two examples. For the Juggernaut, his redemption ceased when he decided there were things more important to him than fighting the good fight, namely, being as powerful as he used to be. For Sandman, his best efforts just didn't seem to bear fruit, and I think he just gave up hope after awhile. I know something happened that caused his Avengers stint to end disastrously, and things deteriorated from there.

There are two endings I don't think I see as much though, which is why I thought I'd ask you about them. First, the character actually feels redeemed. As readers, we might reach this point long before the writers decide it has happened. I'd think you could say a character reached this point when people actually start to think of them as a "good guy", because I think that would imply they've been at it long enough that we, as the audience, have accepted them as doing good for genuine reasons. We don't see them as a killer that happened to help out the heroes a few times, they are one of the heroes. It seems rare that the character, in their own mind, feels they've moved beyond that stage. Most of the time, I think it occurs in such a way that the character decides they'll continue to help others because they enjoy it, or they think it's the right thing to do, rather than to attempt to balance a spiritual ledger. The other option, I suppose, would be for the character to reach the stage where they feel they've been redeemed, and call it a day. They've done enough to make up for mistakes of the past, and now they'll be leaving, thank you very much. I'd imagine that might get more use in a creator-owned, finite story, rather than a serial one, simply because in an ongoing story, you can't necessarily have characters (especially the protagonist) deciding they're done and they're leaving the business, because it kind of hurts the story. I can't think of any examples offhand.

The other one is the redemptive arc that gets cut short due to death. This is the one that started this with me, while I was watching Trigun. Late in the series, the episode after this disagreement in fact, Nicholas D. Wolfwood ends up fighting the man who taught him, a fellow named Chapel. Wolfwood was supposed to kill Vash, after having been told to ensure his safety for quite awhile, and having grown to consider Vash a friend, refused to do so. Wolfwood manages to triumph over Chapel, wounding him, and is left with a question: Kill Chapel or not? Up to this point, Wolfwood had shown no qualms about killing, and has only refrained from doing so when Vash actively tells him not to beforehand. Here, he decides to follow Vash's example, and lowers his gun, albeit with some difficulty***. He tells Chapel that he'll still use what he was taught, just in a different way, takes Chapel's apple, and walks away. Then Legato takes control of Chapel, and Chapel shoots Wolfwood, wounding him mortally. Wolfwood has time to tell Vash where to find Knives, and then walk into a church, where he thinks about reincarnation, but also about all the things he could do to help people like Vash does. Then he dies. Cue much crying by various other characters.

It strikes me as somewhat strange, that at the moment the character has this change of heart, renounces his killing ways, and decides, as he put it, that 'there are plenty of ways to save everyone', his story ends. This is not some cold-blooded, heartless killer. This is priest, who also happens to be a gun-for-hire, because it pays the bills that keep the orphanage he established running. He is, in my estimation, solidly in the grey area between good and evil. Yet his new view on things never really gets a chance to produce any results****.

It happens because he's just a supporting character, and his death serves a purpose in the main character's own arc, forcing him to question whether never killing your enemies is actually wise. After all, Wolfwood had done just fine doing things his way, and the first time he tries Vash's method on his own, he dies, so is Vash's way as correct as he's maintained? I can't think of too many similar situations, where the character barely begins their new path before they get taken off the board. I was considering Spoiler in War Games, since it came about ostensibly because she wanted to prove Batman wrong about her, but I don't think that story involves Spoiler changing something, or trying to atone for something. She was trying to prove herself, and she'd been doing that ever since she first appeared. I'd think examples of this would have to be supporting characters, since it's easier to kill them, but I could see someone doing a movie or limited series of some kind where the main character falls short in their attempt to change their ways.

So, you have any ideas?

* I think some writers portray the death as a lesson Peter learned, and it serves as a reminder of the man Ben was, which leads to Peter trying to honor him. Other writers argue that all the superheroics are a guilt complex, a need to make up for not saving Ben by stopping the criminal.

** Which, I must say, is not a particularly great pep talk if you're trying to keep someone from going into the light. "Hey guess what, no matter what you do, you'll always need to do more, it'll never end. Now get up and continue the endless struggle!"

*** He's holding the gun with his right hand, and actually raises his left hand and uses it to lower the barrel, as though he's fighting with himself.

**** And it works out badly for everyone. it gives Vash something else to feel guilty about, and makes Chapel feel he owes Wolfwood a debt of honor. So he tries to kill Legato, and not only does he fail, Knives traps him in a place described as somewhere between existence and death. Sounds like he would have been better off if Nicholas D. had just killed him.

The Brighter Light Casts Darker Shadows?

Cove West brought this up in his comment to yesterday's post, and it was something that also occurred to me while making said post. Has Superman redeemed any of his foes? Offhand I couldn't think of any, but I'm not well-versed when it comes to Superman's history. I have a hard time considering Hiro - the teenage Toyman - as evil, more just irresponsible, plus I don't know whether he counts as a "foe" or not, since I've never actually seen him battle Superman. Bizarro's been helping some heroes in that Rann-Thanagar thing recently, but I'm not sure his current personality (meaning, childlike) really counts as evil, either. Maybe one of his earlier depictions, but then there's the question of whether that version tried to redeem itself, and whether or not I could tell if it did*. I'm sure there's someone, but I don't know of them. So I wanted to point out that everything here flows from me currently not knowing of any

To me, it seems Superman mostly serves to inspire other heroes to be better heroes. Steel (John Henry Irons version, at least) was inspired by Supeman. I think Matrix Supergirl was trying to honor him during his death, and busted Superboy's chops about decisions she felt didn't meet what the S-shield stands for. Jaime Reyes is impressed by him, I think Power Girl looks up to him, and so on. Which is fine. Anything that inspires the heroes to try and be better at what they do is good, right?

Still, it's odd his villains don't turn over new leaves, isn't it? I've seen Superman described as representing the best of humanity, so shouldn't that include redemption? The idea that even if you've made horrible decisions or mistakes in the past, there's always a chance to make amends, change your ways, and that other people will give you that chance? Is it that, if you have the best qualities of humanity, you wouldn't require redemption, and so it doesn't really fit into the story? I can't claim to be a big Superman fan, but I'm pretty sure that if one of his regular foes, say Metallo came to Superman and said he wanted to try and help people, Superman would encourage that and support him, because that's who he is, always trying to encourage the better qualities in those around him, right?

Perhaps since Superman symbolizes the best of humanity, his enemies have to symbolize the worst, and that several traits that block their redemption. Jealousy or envy of Superman, so that the idea of following his example would be abhorrent to them. Or an ego so great as to preclude them from seeing the error of their ways. Luthor doesn't seeing anything wrong about expending all this energy on trying to destroy Superman, or discredit him, or whatever his plan of the month is. He sees it as a useful occupation, because Superman's presence blocks him from something*. If you can call him an enemy, Manchester Black chose to try and drag Superman to his level, rather than the reverse, then killed himself when he failed.

Of course, if Superman has hordes of enemies that have redeemed themselves, this probably all goes up in smoke, but it was the answer I came up with, so I thought I might run it past all of you.

* I just find Bizarro kind of confusing. He's Superman's opposite, so he's evil. Or he's stupid. But he has Superman's powers. Plus some extras. Sometimes. I don't think I've read enough with him to keep track.

** In the past I think Luthor's felt accolades her deserved were given to Superman, or he's been wary of Earthling dependence on this alien for protection, or he wants to commit crimes and naturally Superman is a roadblock to that. I don't know which it is these days. The second one, I think, given the New Krypton arc.

Redemption Of The Villains

This started with me thinking about Spider-Girl. Or Spider-Man. I can't recall which lead into which. I think I was trying to remember how many of Spider-Girl's foes have actually turned over a new leaf. The reason being, in my early comic reading years, Spider-Man had a host of former enemies who had reformed, or were trying to reform, that would pop-up semi-regularly when Spidey needed an assist. Black Cat is the obvious one, but there was the Prowler, Rocket Racer, Will O' Wisp, the Sandman, and the Puma. I think Gerry Conway was the one writing most of those stories, either in Web of Spider-Man or Spectacular Spider-Man.

So I thought to myself, that's pretty impressive, a half-dozen of Spidey's enemies that started helping him fight crime. It must be something about Spider-Man. Then I remembered that the Flash villain Pied Piper went legit for awhile, Two-Face has tried to play hero at least once, Catwoman, Harley Quinn apparently reformed enough that Bruce Wayne endorsed her release from Arkham. About every other week, some old foe of the X-Men shows up, claiming they've changed their ways, from Rogue, to Magneto, Mystique, Emma Frost, Juggernaut, so on and so forth.

OK, so the redemptive arc is a time-tested writer's friend, used throughout the decades. Question this raises with me is, does it mean something different, depending on whose villain it is? With Spider-Man, it's probably related to the whole "power and responsibility" ideal that permeates his story. They have power, use it irresponsibly, but Spider-Man, through word or deed, convinces them to try something different, to use their power to help others. And in what is perhaps also a reflection of his story, they struggle. Sandman, for example, had a less than superb stint with the Avengers. The Puma, who was really only helping out of a sense of owing a debt of honor to Spider-Man, eventually lost control to his animalistic side, and returned to a life of murder. Prowler's personal life, Rocket Racer has to find some new leit way to pay his loans now. Nothing is ever easy.

Is it any different with Batman, or the X-Men, or the Flash? Actually, Flash is the one I'm most curious about, how Piper's dropping the evil shtick would fit in with Wally's story.

Well, Marvel Is Big On Noir Stuff These Days

So why not a gangster-themed villain? I guess one could file this as another exercise in trying to find a use for a villain we haven't seen recently. Again, I'm drawing from JMS' Amazing Spider-Man, since he seemed to enjoy introducing villains, using them once, then moving on. I already talked about Shade, so I thought I'd take a whirl at Digger.

Digger was thirteen mobsters killed decades ago at a supposed peaceful meeting by an associate mobster, who had their bodies dumped in out in the Nevada desert. Flash to the present, a scientist wants to study gamma radiation as a potential starting point for life, uses a gamma bomb, and surprise, it some causes the various remains to merge together into a big green, angry conglomeration of thirteen mobsters, bent on revenge. Spider-Man ended up protecting the man responsible (while taping him admitting to the crime), and defeated Digger by keeping after him until he expended the gamma radiation powering him, causing him to basically fall apart, and drift away down the sewer.

OK, so he's dead right now. Big deal. This is the Marvel Universe we're talking about, there's gamma radiation allover the place there. Wouldn't be too hard for him to be exposed to sufficient amounts to allow Digger to reconstitute himself. Let's set aside Digger trying to get revenge on Forelli (the mobster that killed them), or Spider-Man. Those are obvious stories, right?

While he was around, Digger spent a little time reading whatever newspapers drifted by in the sewers, so he knows a bit about what's happened in the world during his absence, so he/it isn't completely "man out of time", but Digger certainly didn't adjust well to the times, very much a "things were better in our day!". I think there's some potential there, show Digger deciding to put together an "organization" and run it in what they would consider the "right" way, and how they conflict with modern rivals. Would there be difficulty recruiting people that met their standard? Would the way they ran things present a different sort of challenges for the heroes that would try and oppose them? Daredevil deals with organized crime a lot, so Digger might be a potential problem. Sure, Digger is probably way over Daredevil's weight class, but that's never stopped the Man Without Fear before*. Does the Falcon still focus on street crime, 'cause he could be another possibility.

The issue is that Digger basically fell apart once already because the gamma radiation powering ran out, so that would probably have to be an ongoing concern for them. There might be something in having what's left of Digger wash up somewhere else. Say in Africa, here's about this advanced country calls Wakanda, figures maybe they'd having something he could use, tries to barge in there, runs afoul of this new Black Panther. T'Challa fought the Hulk once upon a time, so this wouldn't be a bad warm-up for whoever is taking over the role. I suppose you could gear the stories towards Digger working to acquire/expose himself to sources of gamma radiation to keep himself going**. If he weren't busy running from Norman Osborn, it sounds like the sort of thing Iron Man might deal with. So maybe Hank Pym could look into it in his place. I'd suggest the Mighty Avengers, but they might be a bit much for just Digger. Other possibility: Digger joins the Thunderbolts, or some similar program in exchange for assistance with his problem. Probably results in him becoming Metallo-like, with a gamma power source stored on him somewhere.

Of course, the question arises how one convinces a body made of a baker's dozen of mobsters to work for the government. Here's one thought I've got: the minds/personalities/spirits the inhabit the body aren't static, frozen in time. They can learn, they can change, if they wish to. Maybe some of them have caught a glimpse of what's waiting for them, and would prefer to delay that day for as long as possibly, maybe even try and make amends for past misdeeds. Ideally, this would apply to some, but certainly not all of the personalities. In this way, you get an internal conflict in the character, and what desires are predominant depends on which one can gain control at a particular moment. I recall that Ellis' Thunderbolts had considerable infighting and politicking, mostly Moonstone trying to get more power, undermine Osborn, but struggling with Songbird, who doesn't trust her at all. Now you could get all that, in one character, with the different mobsters fighting amongst themselves, forming temporary alliances, things like. Remember, these guys were from roughly seven different criminal organizations***, and were sitting down to try and make peace when they were murdered. Their hatchets may not have been buried yet. That would make for a volatile, unpredictable character, whether operating as they head of a group, as a loner, or as part of a team.

Another thought: The death/decomposition while fighting Spider-Man, caused Digger to lose some personalities. Some of them had a lesser desire to survive/get revenge/whatever, and they've moved on. But when Digger reforms/resurrects, he/it gains personalities of any bodies that happen to be nearby. It would be a bit like Terror Inc., where he would add body parts as necessary from what was available around him, only personalities. This could potentially happen anytime they recharged, depending on their amount of damage they sustained previously, and whether there were any bodies nearby. Probably not feasible if one were to go with the "government provided constant gamma source" idea****. It would add a level of malleability to the character, similar to how Solomon Grundy isn't the same every time he emerges from that swamp. I don't think you'd want to change Digger too much, but it might be fun to add certain personality traits or interests, see whether they add something to the story, then keep or discard. If a personality wound up being disliked by the rest, there might even be the possibility of a story about Digger trying to reject that part, and problems that might cause depending on what it brought them.

So that's what I have at the moment. Also, I'm trying to come up with a good label for these posts, but I'm not sure what really describes it well, besides something like "fanwankery", thanks but no. I thought about "Villain Rehab", but that implies they're broken, or that I'm capable of rehabbing them, which which is more than a bit presumptuous. Any ideas would be appreciated.

* See battles with Ultron, Namor, Hogun the Grim, etc.

** I figure Digger can read up somewhere on what's put him in his current situation and work from there. Or he could go back to the site he was born at, and question some of the scientists that are probably still poking around their test site.

*** The six heads of the organizations, plus their lieutenants, plus Forelli's lieutenant, who arrived in his place, and was back-stabbing Forelli.

**** Though if you played Thunderbolts more like Suicide Squad, where anyone could die at any moment, you could have Digger deciding whether or not so and so would be worth adding to their little collective.

Looking Into Deserving Happiness

This is related to that tangent I went on in Thursday's post about whether Martin "deserved" to get the happy ending or not, given his past actions. It's not a serious investigation of that, because I don't know what I could say about it. Is happiness something that's deserved, or that could be denied on the basis of what you do or don't do? I guess it is, in fiction at least, since stories often end with the antagonist not getting what they wanted, and the audience is OK with it because that character was bad, so to heck with them. Or we're sad when the protagonist meets a poor end because they deserved better, and so on. It goes on in real life as well, when people talk about how so and so doesn't deserve that, whether it's something positive or negative. I'm not sure what that's related to though. Empathy and jealousy? Belief that there might be someone out there that pulls the strings, and really they ought to know better than to {insert whatever series of events one might find fair or unfair}.

There's one fictional discussion of this that I think of frequently, and it floated up to the front of my mind on Thursday, so I figured now's a good time to get it out here. Some of you may be familiar with a manga/anime called Neon Genesis Evangelion. I watched it with Papafred (who was probably on his 20th viewing of the series or so by then) about five years ago, and that's where my mind's at today. On the surface, it's a show about some kids piloting giant monster-things (called Evas) to fight and kill other monster-things (called Angels). There's a lot more to it, but any other relevant points will come out as I go along. At one point in the series one of the supporting cast (Suzuhara) is tapped to become a pilot. In his first test run, his Eva goes berserk, with him trapped inside. The main character, Shinji, refuses to fight, because he might hurt his friend. Shinji's dad, who's the man in charge and an utter bastard, locks Shinji out of the controls, enagages a sort of autopilot for the Eva, which succeeds in killing the berserk one. In the anime, Suzuhara loses an arm and leg. In the manga, he winds up dead.

Shinji loses it and threatens to destroy the base, his dad short-circuits that plan, and Shinji is discharged from the service. There's another attack, and a recurring character by the name of Kaji grabs Shinji and gets him to a shelter. They start conversing and Shinji talks about how sick he is of the fighting and how he just wants to be happy, and Kaji's response is Shinji doesn't deserve to be happy. He is alive at the cost of Suzuhara's life. He could have fought, maybe defeated the Angel and saved Suzuhara, but wouldn't accept the responsibility, and now his friend is dead. Thus, he forfeited the right to happiness. It's harsh*, but Kaji's speaking from experience. There was a cataclysm 15 years previously, and in the aftermath Kaji ran with a group of orphans, living in the remains of an abandoned building, stealing food from a nearby military post. Except Kaji was caught one day, and presented with the "they die or you die" question, and he chose Option A. He did escape and try to warn his friends, but by the time he arrived, the soldiers were leaving, and his friends were dead. Their lives for his, and so to his mind, he's in the same boat as Shinji. Their lives are no longer there own, and they need to be spent doing things to atone, thus Shinji needs to go back to fighting and protect the world. It's very Spider-Man in that way, presented more bluntly, since I don't recall say, Matt Murdock, flat out deciding Peter can no longer be happy because Uncle Ben was killed by The Burglar Spidey didn't stop.

Well, OK, if Kaji feels that way, I guess that's his call, but he does like Misato, Shinji's commanding officer and the closest thing the kid has to an actual parent**, and she likes Kaji, so what about that? If someone could have happiness by being happy with Kaji, shouldn't he help them acheive that, and just be grateful he attains happiness by proximity?

This is where I think Kaji gets too broad with his view on things for me. See, Misato was at the origin of the cataclysm, because her father was part of the crew studying it and she was visiting. As things go awry, she's injured and knocked unconscious. Her dad puts her in the remaining escape pod (single-seater, naturally), and sends her on her way. He dies for her, and to Kaji's way of thinking, she doesn't deserve any happiness either. Which is kind of asinine really. Unlike Shinji, who chose not to fight, or Kaji, who chose to tell the soldiers where his friends were, Misato made no decision. She didn't get the chance. Now, she didn't like her father much, he was one of those "my work is too important for silly crap like my family!" scientist types, so maybe Misato would have chosen to save herself. Smacked him with a pipe, jumped in the pod, and given Daddy the finger as floated away. We don't know. I always find that to be the hole in Kaji's train of thought, that if a friend throws him/herself on a grenade for you, it counts the same as if you threw them on the grenade to save yourself.

Although, that ties back into how I perceive the characters, and the attachment (or lack thereof) I form with them. Misato's one of the few characters in the series I acutally liked. She plays at being the party girl, as a defense mechanism, but she's also one of the only adults in the series that actually seems to care about the well-being of the pilots, while I get the feeling everyone else views them as expendable weapons to save their own hides. So I root for her, and the idea that this guy, who vaguely reminds me of Gambit - with his stubble and rougish style - doesn't think they should try and be happy together because neither of them deserve it, well that annoys me. Shinji's whining and constant indecision over whether he will be a pilot or not, whether he wants his father's approval or not, well indecision over damn near everything really***, prevents me from really feeling too bad for him. I don't wish ill upon him, but he wasn't even trying to find a way to save his friend during the fight, he simply refused to do anything.

I'm not sure why that particular scene resonates with me. It's a depressing way of viewing life****, and maybe I was surprised to see a character damning themselves along with the person they were trying to give a kick in the pants to. Or it could be I just found his logic dumbfounding and I didn't like him lumping a character I root for with himself. I'm curious what the creator's intent was with that scene, because the more I think on it, the more I think Kaji hasn't thought this through enough, is probably using it as an excuse to keep his distance from others*****, and it starts to hurt his argument from my perspective. Perhaps Shinji shouldn't be listening to this guy, and should just continue on as he was. That wouldn't have worked well for the story as it wound up proceeding, though.

* Though to be fair, Shinji needs a periodic kick in the pants. He has self-esteem issues, and positive reinforcement is good, but sometimes they don't have time to build him up, and just have to push him forward.

** Shinji hadn't seen his dad in a decade when the story begins, and his mother's dead. When Shinji initially refused to pilot an Eva, Gendo sent him away, disgusted. Shinji is only useful to Gendo as an obedient weapon, and beyond that means zilch.

*** Which is something I haven't sussed out. Shinji quits and rejoins, and quits again, and I'm annoyed with him. Spider-Man periodically swears Spider-Man no more, only to start web-slinging again, and I like him. I haven't figured out what the difference is to me between the two.

**** Is it Objectivist? You lived because they died, that's wrong, regardless of circumstance, end of story.

***** That's true of practically everyone in the series. They're all emotionally-damaged goods, and none of them seem capable of sustaining close, serious friendships for any extended period of time. Supposedly (going by stuff I've read on the Internet) the creator of the series was dealing with serious depression issues while making it, which might explain a lot, if true. Not saying it is or isn't, just saying it's a possible explanation I've heard.

Could There Have Been Too Many Ideas?

It hasn't been reflected in my posting of late, but I am still going through my collection, rereading some comics, removing others, debating removing others, and so on. One of the things I've been rereading was the issues of Immortal Iron Fist that came out prior to this year, because things do flow more smoothly when I read several issues in a row*. The thing is, as I've been reading the Tournament of the Heavens arc in its entireity, I can't help noticing things went a little off the rails as it went along.

Not that it was a bad arc, more that Fraction and Brubaker kept adding so many additional ideas to the mix that the original primary arc was lost in the shuffle. Originally, Danny arrives in K'un-Lun for the Tournament of the Heavens, and he's going to have to fight these other Immortal Weapons, because his city's standing is on the line, as the losing city** will somehow be barred from connecting with Earth for 50 years, rather than the usual 10. Of course, Davos is there representing another city, and Danny has to worry about his connection to the abduction of Jeryn, and why Davos and HYDRA were taking over his company.

Except then we learn about the bargain that was struck between Orson Randall's father and Yu-Ti, and the Randall Gate that was the result. We also learn that the Thunderer is training a secret army to overthrow the Yu-Ti. We further learn that Xao, who has thus far appeared to be a unwilling toady of Davos', someone who responds to the Steel Phoenix' bullying by threatening Jeryn's mother, has a personal grudge against K'un-Lun all his own, independent of, certainly Davos, but also possibly the Crane Mother***.

Suddenly, the Tournament goes flying out the window. The battle royale mentioned in one of the solicits that was to take place between the losers, never materializes. No winner is ever declared, because as of the last fight we saw (Prince of Orphans laying the Jawsnapper in Twilight on Davos), there were still three contests (Prince of Orphans, Fat Cobra, Bride of Spiders) that hadn't lost yet. Instead, all the Immortal Weapons band together to fight Xao and HYDRA. Even Davos helps out.

Which is all very well and good, except it's not quite where the story seemed to be headed originally. So here's the thing: a couple months back I yammered on about how I noticed that Danny never had a rematch with the Mecha-Gorgon that so badly trounced him in Immortal Iron Fist #1. I mentioned that instead, Davos easily destroys it himself, which establishes him as Danny's opponent. Except they don't get to have their big showdown, because Prince of Orphans humbles Davos first, but then we find out Prince of Orphans is an ally of Danny's. It's a Russian nesting dolls of opponents, with the conclusion being that Danny's ultimate opponent was a train loaded with explosives. Likewise, Davos and the Crane Mother are pushed aside as threats for Xao and Yu-Ti.

So I'm left uncertain about the whole thing. Is it a case where Brubaker and Fraction just really enjoy playing bait-and-switch with us? Or is it a case of them having so many ideas they wanted to put out there before they departed, that they overloaded the story arc? The second one holds a certain appeal, but I think it has to be the first, since their work on the title was largely about Danny learning things about himself that he didn't realize, like his not being the first Iron Fist. He learns his Heavenly City isn't heavenly for everyone. He learns his Heavenly City isn't the only one, that Lei Kung isn't completely loyal to the Yu-Ti, on and on. It's a series of revelations to him, new problems, new questions. And ultimately, Danny's able to triumph where K'un-Lun meets Earth, not just by having the best kung-fu, but by who he is, that he can make friends, that he can inspire trust in people used to staying in the shadows, or in people that should be his rivals or enemies.

* In particular, I had an easier time keeping track of how different characters were related, as well as the chronology of certain events.

** There are 7 cities, how do you determine who the loser is anyway? There can only be one winner, so aren't the other six all losers? Seems like too risky of a proposition for the leaders to agree too. I guess the loser was who got eliminated first from the battle royale of losers.

*** I include the Crane Mother because the Prince of Orphans mentioned that if K'un-Lun gets blown up while all the cities are joined, then it endangers all those other cities as well, which I imagine must include K'un-Zi, the Crane Mother's home.

Use The Mother Box, Shilo

Similar to yesterday's post, I was considering stories with similarities to Final Crisis, since I know many people complained they couldn't understand what was going on there, or what it was all about. It may be a moot point, since I'm not seeing as many of those complaints right now. Maybe Final Crisis is starting to look pretty good compared to Secret Invasion. Or perhaps the people that were complaining have just given up (people on the Internet ceasing to complain about something? Preposterous!), or they're doing so somewhere I haven't seen them (more likely). Useless or not, I already spent a good five minutes thinking about it, so now you can read it. You know, if you feel like it.

So the tag for Final Crisis has been "the day evil won". Well, this is a mainstream superhero comic, so we can be reasonably assured that evil won't still be winning at the end of the story*. So what it made me think of was watching all the Star Wars movies, from Episode 1 to Return of the Jedi, when you've already watched them once. or at least have heard what happens. So you know ahead of time the Jedi Council's efforts to halt the Dark Side will fail, but that eventually the Emperor will fall.

Right now, I think Final Crisis is somewhere around A New Hope. The first 3 issues seem to have been largely about Darkseid's forces getting everything set up, while the heroes are only dimly aware that anything is even wrong. And when they are aware, they don't seem to realize just how bad things are. Case in point: Even as he's lead away by the Alpha Lanterns, Hal Jordan reassures his friends that from now on, only Green Lanterns will be able to get on or off Earth. Whoever killed Orion and attacked John Stewart won't be able to escape. Which is all well and good, except Hal doesn't realize that one of the Alpha Lanterns is one of Darkseid's minions, which makes the blockade somewhat less effective. It's like watching the Jedis try and use Anankin to spy on Palpatine, not realizing the Chancellor will turn that around and convince Skywalker that the Jedis are a threat to peace, and that's he's Annie's friend and confidant, not any of them, so where should the boy's loyalties really lie? The Flashes try to save Orion from getting shot, but apparently couldn't pull it off. The Antil-Life equation is sent out across the world, and the heroes can only protect a few people.

A couple of other thoughts, based on that: If Final Crisis were following a similar story arc, then we can expect this assault by the heroes (assuming that happens in #5) to be a success, but to be followed up by a series of setback (Empire Strikes Back), before the final victory (which based on what I've heard about the novels that come after Return of the Jedi, will be temporary at best).

Other thought: The Trinity haven't accomplished much for the do-gooders thus far. Wonder Woman is one of those human/animal hybrids, Superman is off doing something that needs doing in a Yellow Submarine, and the Evil Alpha Lantern took Bats off the board early on. Is their absence comparable to Star Wars 4-6 with no Leia, Luke, or Han, or does their absence actually mirror the circumstances of those movies? A princess leading some rag-tag rebels, a farm boy fresh off the turnip truck, and a swashbuckling smuggler wouldn't necessarily be the people I'd entrust the overthrow of a Galactic Empire to. But they were what was available. The Jedis were basically wiped out, except for Obi-Wan, who spent his time keeping an eye on Luke, and Yoda who went and hid on a swamp world. The military was essentially under Palpatine's control, and the droids had been deactivated, so no getting them into the fray. So is the lack of Trinity, thus forcing other heroes (like Black Lightning, The Ray, Tattooed Man) to step up, a similar circumstance? I guess we won't really know until the story ends, though a part of me hopes what Superman's involved in keeps him occupied. I'm kind of tired of watching Darkseid play the Kryptonian's punching bag.

Still considering the comparisons: Darkseid is Palpatine, the massive dark power, looking to establish his will over everything. Palpatine uses the Force, Darkseid has the Anti-Life. I think Turpin would wind up being the "Vader" in all this. He's currently sharing a body with Darkseid, so if he could exert control at just the right moment, he could really turn the tide. Plus, you'd have to figure Darkseid wouldn't see it coming, figuring this small human can't override the will of Darkseid, within the shared body. I've read some speculation that Sonny Sumo is Orion, which I think makes him Luke. Since Mr. Miracle sought him out, that would paint him as Obi-Wan, but I'm more inclined to view him as Han. I think it's because he's an escape artist, and that seems to fit with Mr. Fly-By-The-Seat-Of-His Trousers. Then again, Shilo appears to have been shot in #4, so maybe he is Obi-Wan. Who gets to play Han then? The entire Super Young Team, or whatever those kids are called?

This is the second time in 2 months I've done something like this. I just find it highly entertaining for some reason.

* Though I could be very wrong about that. Morrison might just say "Screw it", and go for a major overhaul. It'd be like every hero in the DCU was the post-Civil War New Avengers, hunted and outnumbered.

Mayhaps Comparisons Will Aid Thee

Two words I wish I had used in yesterday's post: "Jocularity" and "scuttlebutt".

Moving forward, when I reviewed Patsy Walker: Hellcat #3 last month, I complained that the book was selling poorly, and Fortress Keeper mentioned there were apparently concerns among readers about its incoherence. I've said previously I only understand half of what's going on, so I understand the feeling. For example, Patsy was told she needed the Bear with Antlers as part of her group, but she would have to apologize to it, and to do that she has to find it. She's told it will come if you 'lie by a grave'. Patsy sees a grave*. Undaunted, she marches up to the grave, pulls off one of her (dead) arms, stands on top of the rusted out SUV and beings spouting off various statements about herself. When she says 'Everybody loves me', someone replies 'That is a lie', and hey, it's the Bear with Antlers! It took someone else's discussion of the book for me to realize the spirit that talked to Patsy meant "lie" as in, "tell a falsehood", not "lie" as in, "lay down". On my initial readthrough, I figured Patsy had decided that if she said what she did the Bear with Antlers would be contrary and arrive to dispute the point. She had said she was going to 'do this her way', so I figured that meant she didn't feel like lying down next to a dead body, and so she'd try this instead. I was apparently wrong, but it worked well enough in my mind I could keep going.

I think some readers are more used to writers who lay everything out as they go along, and when confronted with a writer not playing it that way, we start poring over the book again and again, thinking we must have missed the voice balloon or expository caption that will make everything clear. In the process, I think people miss the forest for the trees.

Me? I just keep the basic plot in mind, and trust I'll figure out the rest later. The story is essentially "Unlikely hero gathers band of oddballs to rescue the princess". Like I said once, it's Legend of Zelda + Baron Munchausen. For the gamers among the audience, think of those RPGs where you play some character you wouldn't expect to save the world, and they go through the game meeting other characters, and convincing them to join the group. Which frequently requires you undertake some sort of task to convince them to join up, right? Well, Patsy had to fight the wolf, catch the snow lemming, apologize to the Bear with Antlers, and she seems to have reached a peace accord with the map, leading it be helpful. In video games, you usually have to fight them, or help them complete some task they promised to complete. Same difference.

If you want a more literary comparison (for the non-gamers in the audience), how about Robin Hood? In the version I remember reading, Robin starts out a solo act, but keeps coming across other characters he fights with at first, but eventually convinces to join him in his quest to deal with the Sheriff and Prince John. If you're a Stephen King fan, you may have read the Dark Tower series, then think of it like that. Roland had a quest he (or some greater force) had set him upon, and he gathered others to help him along the way, each having a role to play, and dealing with obstacles to their joining up along the way.

I'm reasonably confident Kathryn Immonen has a point with the particular wordings of things, and how inhabitants of that realm (and the realm itself) react to things Patsy says or does to believe I'll understand it when it's over. For the time being, I just remind myself she's trying to rescue the shamans' heir and stick with that. I think that while the story's in progress, that will be enough, and once it's completed, then I can sit back and put all the pieces together. Because it's almost a certainty we don't have all the pieces yet, so probably best not to get too bent out of shape about it.

* Hers, to be exact. Yes, that's part of the half I don't totally understand, though I have some theories. I'm waiting until the end of the story to try and make more sense of it.

You Can Never Have Too Many Good Villains

By which mean, interesting enemies for our protagonists to contend with, not villains that become protagonists themselves, though that's fine too, if not overused. Some villains are just better off staying as villains.

I thought what I'd like to try (and it may become a recurring thing, or it may not) is to discuss a villain that only appeared once, and see if they could become a viable recurring foe. Not necessarily for the person they originally fought, just some hero or group of heroes. I figured a place to start looking for possible reclamation projects would be JMS's Amazing Spider-Man run. He did try and introduce a few new enemies, but most of them were one and done, and the one that wasn't (Morlun) perhaps ought to have been.

I decided to start with Shade. If you don't remember him, he was a convict whose cellmate was working to develop a mystical portal to escape prison. When he was ready to try it, Shade, bopped him, and took his place. But the fellow managed to damage the mystical circle, so the portal didn't work quite properly. Shade is can only operate in "our" world for limited periods of time, and has to abduct other people and dump them in an odd cocoon in the Astral Plane to buy himself some free time*. He abducted one of Peter's students, and so Spidey was forced to enlist the aid of Dr. Strange to get to the Astral Plane and save the day, rescuing all the missing people, and leaving Shade stuck there.

So we know Shade has at least moderately enhanced strength, as he can trade punches with Spider-Man. When he's in the physical world, he can turn intangible, and create portals back to the Astral plane, either for himself or with at least one passenger. He thinks he's clever, but up to the time of his defeat, he was stuck working with small-time gangs, because he could remove problems for them, while buying himself sometime in our world. And he's kind of a cocky smart aleck, as he made fun of Spider-Man's intelligence in their initial encounter. I wonder, since he's stuck on another plane of existence, did the secret identity-obscuring deal affect him? He didn't know Peter was Spider-Man, but he knew Spider-Man was looking after some particular students.

So he's strong, has underworld connections, access to a difficult to reach hideout, and thinks he's clever. Also, he's been stuck in the Astral Plane for awhile now, he may have started to learn some things about it. Could he have found doorways to other realms, struck bargains with dark powers in exchange for a way back to Earth? There has to be someone that would be interested in his modus operandi. He's cocky enough to think he could reach an accord with a Dormammu or Hela, or even think he was pulling one over on them. So Shade could be the unwitting harbringer of some assault from a dangerous realm. His opening doorways between worlds could weaken the boundaries, which would certainly suit some people. That would probably draw the eye of Dr. Strange, but he might be a bit too high up the ladder for Shade.

Perhaps his movements could disrupt the Nexus of All Realities? Can someone who feels fear still burn if they're intangible? Though there has to be someone a bit more, um, intelligent to contend with. Hey, we could blame Shade for Zombie Deadpool showing up in Marvel Zombies 3! Oh! Shade tended to grab people he thought no one would miss, the homeless, strung out druggies, kids from poor neighborhoods. Could that get him mixed up with the Runaways? They have a magic user on the team, maybe Nico** can pick up on it. Do any members of the team have friends from before they were a group, that could be imperiled to draw the team in.

Maybe we could portray the Shade as a man desperate to escape this curse. He's seen things in that other realm he'll nevre forget, and he wants out. Naturally, he'd want to retain the powers, because that's money in the bank. So he starts ransacking mystic libraries, trying to find a clue before he has to grab someone else to buy more time. Because he is done going back there for any extended period of time, yessiree. Who else is there in the Marvel Universe, magicwise? Dr. Druid is dead, I'm pretty sure. I guess there's the Enchantress and Loki, but again, that might be outkicking his coverage there. There's Doom, but I'm not sure we should write Shade as being that stupid.

Daimon Hellstrom's out there somewhere, he might be a possibility. Busiek wrote Nighthawk as being interested in the occult after his return from the dead, so he might have some useful texts. Hmm, I'm sensing a Defenders reunion here, get Strange, or Hellstrom if the Doc is still in his pissy "I need to divorce myself from mortal affairs" mode, throw Valkyrie and Hellcat into the mix***, both with mystical elements to them as well. Maybe his activities can endanger the Heavenly Cities, get him a little run in with the Green Mist of Death?

I suppose there's always membership in the Hood's little cabal of super-villainy. The hood itself has a demonic presence he appears able to contact, maybe it could sense Shade and convince the Hood he could be useful. Depending on the level of control Shade has over his powers, that'd be a pretty easy way to get in wherever you wanted. And since he's working with a bunch of scumbags, he shouldn't have much trouble getting ahold of people to trade for more time. Heck, the Hood could use him to remove dead weight from their organization if he wanted. Just drop them in the astral plane, anybody asks, they went for pizza and got caught by SHIELD, the dummies.

I think the key is to not throw the Shade out there as the most super-cool awesome character ever, who is so impotant the event must completely revolve around him. Hopefully, one of these as a story would establish him as a interesting villain that other writers might think was worth using, because you can frame his desires to lead to conflicts in at least a few different ways. I'm envisioning Daredevil or Moon Knight trying to tangle with him right now. DD because I'd like to see how his senses would react, Moonie because I'd like to see if he could maintain his sanity pursuing a crook into the astral plane. Would Moon Knight be able to hold his sense of self together. It's a realm of the mind, so would he split apart? Could he get all his parts back on the same page, would all of them make it back out, and if not, how does that change him?

* Now I'm trying to figure out how he got back from the Astral Plane the first time. He would have needed to escape from it and send someone in to buy himself the time to get out to abduct someone to buy himself, uh, you get the point. Hmm.

** Nico is the one with the staff who can only use a particular phrasing for a spell once, correct?

*** Yeah, putting Patsy and Daimon together is just asking for trouble, but isn't that sort of conflict between the group a foundation of the Defenders?