Superman Through the Ages! Forum

I was looking at the Superman Showcase volumes in the store today and I realized something: many of the Lois Lane stories weren't very flattering to the character. She was always trying to trick Superman into marraige or Clark into revealing his secret or some other "treacherous female" behavior that didn't make her look very good. One story had Lois and Lana fighting to the "death" for Superman's affections and playing a trick on him to force him to pick one or the other. Anyone with the volumes knows how the story ends and those who don't can find it fairly easy, but it just made me think that perhaps if the pre-crisis universe is a continuity, then this might not be a very good thing to have as part of official Superman history. This very sexist behavior would be official cannon.

This got me thinking about a much larger question: is the pre-crisis universe really a continuity at all? Superman's history was constantly being "updated", even until the last year with Superman the Secret Years. This certainly doesn't fit the pattern for a conventional continuity. Take Bizzaro for instance; he was origianlly an accidental clone of Superboy created by a duplicator ray, yet just a few short years later, he had become a delibrate creation by Lex Luthor. Or how many times did Jimmy Olsen travel back in time to Krypton to help Jor-El spare Kal-El? I can think of at least two stories that took place in less then a decade of each other with that very theme. Superman himself went back and met his parents at least two years prior to the famous Lyda story. Then there is still the question of what age did Superboy start his career? Some stories say he was in elementary school, others say he was a teenager.

All of these raise serious questions about what is or isn't, or even what should be, cannon in Superman history. Is it just me, am I thinking too hard?  ??? 

Ahh, a thread on my favorite topic: continuity!

There are many ways to explain the difference between the Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen stuff and the "mainstream" Superman books.

One solution is they exist "in universe," but in a different capacity. By that I mean...the weird John Byrne SHE-HULK stuff was, according to Dan Slott, what happened in the SHE-HULK licensed comic in the Marvel Universe itself. She can't really "talk" to her artist or believe she's in a comic book. She didn't really fight the toad-men.

This explanation can likewise be applied to early Silver Age SUPERMAN'S PAL, JIMMY OLSEN. Jimmy Olsen, being a gutsy two-fisted adventurer/detective/master of disguise with his own fan club, would probably have a licensed comic. I wonder what Jimmy's reaction would be to his funnybooks. It would probably be the same as the "real" Tarzan's reaction to his movies, as reported by PJF: at first it would be anger and outrage, and later, laughter.

The LOIS LANE stuff usually involves almost exclusively Freudian "all men are great in their dreams" themes like her almost-marrying Superman, getting superpowers, or getting the better of Lana. They certainly can be explained away as Lois's daydreams.

As for the relationship between Superman's early Silver Age continuity and how it seems to be in flux, we have to remember that this is, for the most part in a very narrow period of time, at least a decade (though I hesitate to give dates because all this is fundamentally imprecise) between 1953-1963. Eventually how Superman more-or-less worked was "established," just like after a certain period of time, on STAR TREK, people stopped saying "Vulcanian" instead of "Vulcan."

One of the great (but fun) exercises in futility is trying to establish when Superman or Batman was definitively on "Earth-1" and when he was on "Earth-2." I don't think it was instant, as in one comic is on Earth-2 and the next is on Earth-1.

This is key to understanding the early Silver Age continuity right here: it wasn't an instant switch over, but gradual, like turning the dial on the radio. Think of an infinite number of earths between Earth-2 and Earth-1, and when the dial was turned from one station to the other, the two radio stations blend and result in short-lived combinations.

That's my personal explanation for short-lived, gimmicky fifties and early sixties stuff that was never mentioned again: things like Superman being in the army. They happened in the fluxing worlds in between Earth-1 and Earth-2. Or alternatively, when the world was in flux. And thus, the reason we don't hear about them again is because they didn't really happen.

That was by design.  Weisinger was keen on recycling themes that worked.  "Within the same decade" are a couple generations of 8-13 year olds. 

Did kids really want all that continuity?  Do kids really want comic books when they can have cartoons instead, especially with most comic books ditching comic book aspects like captions and thought bubbles that are great to show off continuity. 

Yes, plus they got a fresh batch of new readers every 2-3 years.

Kids actual read comics back then.

http://superman.nu/a/Creators/weisinger.php

 Marvel (who always had much more stricter rules when it came to continuity) ran into a problem a few years back when they stripped Wolverine of his adamantium. In the original Weapon X miniseries it was explained that the claws were surgical implants. Needless to say, this created problems when Magneto stripped him of his metal skeleton and the claws were still there. Many fans tried to rational this away by making claims that since Weapon X wasn't in the Wolverine books proper, it doesn't count as cannon.

To me, I always want everything to match up perfectly. Perhaps this is too much to ask from comics originally written for 8 year olds but I guess I'm kinda anal that way. Following Julian's "middle universes" example you could also argue that Action #1 and Superman #1 take place in different universes because in Action we never see him get adopted. Ditto Earth 2 and the original Golden Age Superman since he never developed the ability to fly and his Earth 2 counterpart did. Not to mention the instant switchover from Star to Planet. Or how about when his X-ray vision also doubled as his heat vision? The examples could go on forever. 

Supreme did an excellent job of dealing with some of these kinds of "middle universe" events with the Supremacy.   

Well, if Superman DID match up perfectly, how could you explain Lois going from a marriage-crazy lover of Pat Boone with a pill box hat to a hip social crusader, to what she is today in 40 years without ever getting any older?

I guess you are a continuity kind of guy.

For me, I like the comics because they remind me of the 60s when I was a kid, I expected that there would be turnover in readers and characterization.

Its comics - not "King Lear"... ;D

I always looked at a comicbook as a piece of history. How many books have been written on lincoln?? I am sure they agree on major facts but disagree on the importance of smaller facts and how to interpert what happened.
So we know for a "fact" that bizarro is a backwards copy of Superman. but when did he did he first come into existance. Was he created like a clone or was he created by a ray???

Well I have some evidence that he was made when superman was a boy!!
-what you still believe that?? that evidence has been totally discredited!!! everyone knows Bizarro was made by Lex in a lab!!!

so in conclusion...no the silver age had no continuity.

The Silver Age did have a continuity --it is up to us, the guardians of the legacy of the Silver Age Superman, to explain away its inconsistencies and joyously marvel at its excesses!

Yikes, I remember that boner. What made that one especially stupid was it was WOLVERINE, who is a famous character. It's the comics equivalent of Whitney Houston breaking wind in front of 30,000 people at the Superdome.


No, you're not anal. In fact, this kind of thing should be demanded and expected.

To quote Peter David: "A shared universe, like any fictional construct, is dependent on suspension of disbelief. To ignore continuity is to damage that construct and undermine it."

Unfortunately, this generally wasn't taken to heart. As much as I love the character of Superman...compare his SHOWCASE volumes to the sophisticated, exciting volumes of GREEN LANTERN, CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN, or THE FLASH and he suffers. In fact, only at the end of Volume 3 do the SHOWCASE books get any good, and that's because of Ed Hamilton.

The things we call "continuity" (heroes remembering their past, events having actual weight) are absent from a lot of early (fifties and early sixties) Silver Age Superman comics, though this is symptomatic of their bigger problem: a general lack of sophistication. A sort of gleeful brainlessness.


Golden Age Superman flew as early as 1941, I believe.


Well, I can only speak for myself when I was a kid, sneaking into my brother's empty room to read his comic books...but yeah, what I loved, and what made me a comics fan in the first place, is the fact there's so much THERE there.

I didn't know the word "continuity," but I liked that there was this enormous world in comics, a huge backstory, and that it made me curious and want to read more.

Anyway, who cares what kids think? SPOILER WARNING: Kids are generally stupid. They're oversized ferrets that have learned to walk on their hind legs. The worst of all are my generation. I can't believe that a show as uncommonly smart as GARGOYLES was canceled after two seasons whereas something as unworthy as POWER RANGERS continues with zombie-like life to this day.

There definitely was continuity. It was always subject to the retroactive adding of new information though (like how the Kents exactly died, or what point in college Superboy ceased to be.)

That said, it was tremendously different from the way Superman continuity worked post-Crisis. Pre-Crisis canon developed gradually as new parts of the story were revealed. Some parts became more popular than others with fans, or were referenced more than others, so continuity was formed largely through a democratic creative process: fan letters, reprint sales, and that which Jerry Siegel approved of when he came back to work in the 60s largely dictated what Silver Age continuity would be.

Post-Crisis continuity was more autocratic, and these dicatorshippy qualities led to its collapse. It was decided in the very beginning what continuity would be, and editors enforced it. Think of it as fundamentalism: Certain things couldn't have happened in the story because 'Man of Steel' said so, fans were routinely ignored, and so were creators. Strict editorial control was enforced. Comics companies had to resort to gimmicks to sell books, (beginning with the Death of Superman but spreading through the industry) and when the well ran dry the industry crashed. Sales hit rock-bottom and post-Crisis comics collected by speculators became worthless.

When DC returned to the previous model, (listening to fans and bringing Kara back, having a recognizable Justice League, Superman and Batman team-ups) their sales went back up.

As opposed to the early Silver Age, when comics were sold with dignified premises that aren't at all gimmicky in the slightest, like Superman joining the army, becoming king of giant ants, or Lois Lane becoming a centaur.  ;D

Actually, I see Superman's history as a U-shaped curve: gimmicky in the fifties and early sixties, then acquiring and telling straight science fiction stories, and then going back down to gimmickry even worse than Otto Binder and Weisenger ever dreamed, with electric Supermen, multiple Supermen, and Superman's marriage.

As bad as 1990s Superman was, he was just doing for real what 1950s Superman did for fake. If there's a difference at all (and there is surprisingly little), it would be that.

1990s = 1950s!

(http://www.starwarsautographcollecting.com/Autographs/Spaceballs/Yogurt.jpg)

May the SCHWARTZ be with you!


...as opposed to Mort Weisenger, who was well-known for his openness to writer suggestions and his "hands-off" editing style.  ;D

Really now, I don't think the problem is that 1990s continuity is autocratic. Whatever contempt I may have for Helfer and Carlin and their inability to understand the character, I *like* the fact they created a consistent world with consistent elements: the Eradicator, Black Zero, and all that. It wasn't good, it wasn't Superman...but by God, it was consistent, it had a distinct feel and an internal logic. That's better than nothing.

Continuity NEEDS to have an immutability in order to be truly successful. That doesn't mean there can't be a little wiggle-room, certainly: if someone has a plausible idea for, say, how Count Nefaria has a daughter. Continuity can't and shouldn't be a Wikipedia-history which can be edited willy-nilly. You can't suddenly have a fifth guy on the Fantastic Four's rocket-flight that wasn't mentioned before.

If something isn't immutable, it doesn't have weight because it can (and will) be changed around. If it doesn't have weight, we can't seriously accept what we see as being "real." If we can't do that, we can't care about characters long-term. This is why the current Marvel business about Skrulls infiltrating earth irritates me: if anybody can turn out to be a Skrull at any moment...anything can be invalidated by saying "A-ha! Mary Jane was a Skrull from issues #487-515!" It's a really dirty trick.

A general rule is this: if it "feels" retroactive, it probably is a bad idea. The idea the Amazon Zamorans have a connection to the Guardians, for instance, doesn't feel retroactive. It makes sense, and is a connection that we just never saw before.

And really, this ability to edit indefinitely by writers led to some of the absolute worst excesses of the early Silver Age. Nonsense like Superman having a twin his whole life that was never mentioned and a monkey stowing away on his rocket.

 One of the things I think both the pre- and post-crisis continuities had in common was the need to constantly refer to his origin. By the late ninties, DC had referred to Superman not gaining his powers till puberty so often, that you (or at least I) began to wonder if they were trying to disprove something instead of just trying to remind people of something they may have forgotten.

When the pre-crisis did it, it was because you knew a new batch of kids had started reading the titles recently and needed the information to understand the character correctly. Post-crisis universe didn't have that excuse since his past didn't play that much of a role in how the story lines functioned (I mean lets face it, they didn't exactly have villians jumping out of the phantom zone every other month) and trade paperbacks were fairly common by then for new readers that jumped in in the middle of the series.

If you start reading Spider-Man in the middle of a Venom storyline and want to learn more about the character, you don't need to go all the way back to Amazing Fantasy #15 to find out who this character is and where he came from.

Where would you start?  Secret Wars?  Peter Parker/Spectacular Spider-Man #1?  I think both Spidey and Supes have very simple origins that you can sum up in one sentence.  Ditto the Spidey family and Superman Family.

Given the 90's was when DC seemed particularly trying to urge us to forget about anything pre-Crisis (and seemed to go out of its way to bad-mouth it), wonder if it was some attempt to dissuade any older readers from remembering when Superman was Superboy (esp. to make room for the Kon-El Superboy)... :-p

Given the 90's was when DC seemed particularly trying to urge us to forget about anything pre-Crisis (and seemed to go out of its way to bad-mouth it), wonder if it was some attempt to dissuade any older readers from remembering when Superman was Superboy (esp. to make room for the Kon-El Superboy)... :-p
[/quote]


That was one of the things I suspected at the time but wasn't sure about. It just seemed odd to keep bringing it up when it didn't seem all that relevant to what was going on in the stories. Also, TV versions like Lois and Clark and the animated series may have brought in new readers that were still thinking things functioned the way they did 20 years earlier. 

Ah, but while gimmickry is always used to sell things, the nature of the gimmickry was a bit different in regard to fans. In the 50s, there was a general respect for the fans, and the gimmicks were things that they WANTED to see (although usually they capitulated in imaginary ways.) In the 50s, a sensational cover or story would sell that month's comic.

By the 90s, comics were even more of a niche market than before, and it was no longer really helped to sell a single issue of a comic. You had to get people talking about a whole storyline, and buying as much of it as possible, by titling the storyline "F*** YOU, FANS!!!!"

There was the saga circa 1990 where Superman was finally allowed to travel in time after a 3-4 year ban. There was Armageddon 2001 in 1991 (which wasn't bad, I wish there had been a follow-up in 2001.) Then, finally, Jurgens said "It's time we do the death of Superman." Everyone was so angry, shocked, and confused that they bought 4 million copies of it (many of those speculators who bought multiple copies, though.) This started a trend where Batman broke his back, Mr. Fantastic and Dr. Doom atomized each other, and the worst excess, Hal Jordan destroying the universe. These were not particularly things that fans wanted to see, but they were events that speculators would collect. X-Men #1 sold 6 million copies around this time just because there were multiple collectible covers. When the speculators' market crashed and the fans had already been alienated, there was virtually no comics industry left. Marvel even had to declare bankruptcy, a mess that they only got out of by selling movie rights.

Bottom line: taking care of the fans takes care of the bottom line. This was present in the 50s but not the 90s.


By the "autocracy" I was mostly referring to the editorial control post-Crisis, in the late 80s. In the 90s this began to relax, but a lot of damage had already been done. I liked Reign of the Supermen though, and thought it was very creative.

Alright, I see your point. There certainly is an anti-traditional fan, or antagonistic element to a lot of these stories. Especially Emerald Twilight.

If they wanted to get rid of Hal Jordan and have the emphasis be on other GLs for a while, I'd be all in favor of that...my favorite period of GL was when Steve Englehart bumped Hal out and featured Jon Stewart. These eight issues, more than anything, established JS as a capable leading-man type, worthy of inclusion in things like the JLA cartoon. After eight issues of Jon, I didn't WANT Hal back.


"Reign" is actually a guilty pleasure of mine.

It's funny: I think it may have been the first Superman comic I ever read. At least that I can remember concretely: I think my brother may have had one or two neglected, ratty issues of WORLD'S FINEST.

A friend of mine at Hebrew school had a Dad that was a bigwig at a paper company (whether it was Dunder-Mifflin I never found out :D ) and one day he brought to class a giant box filled to the brim with copies of ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN #500, which he handed out like candy.

I wasn't at that time a big Superman fan (nor did I read any other comic, with the exception of Pablo Marcos on STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION), but hey...free comic, right?

Anyway, I casually followed what was going on after that. I actually thought I had it all figured out: the four Supermen were ALL Superman, only parts of him.

Steel had Superman's soul or spirit (as evidenced by his behavior and the comments of that psychic woman), Superboy had his life-force energy, the Eradicator had his mind and memory (only without his conscience), and the robot guy had his physical body (as confirmed by Doctor Hamilton).


I don't even PRETEND to understand Marvel Entertainment's financial problems in the 1990s, but from how it was explained to me, Marvel's bankruptcy was an artificial one, declared as a power-play between two bankers that wanted control of the company, and it had nothing to do with how much money Marvel was making.

On a related note, I love how all the right-wing sites are going on about how Bill and Hillary Clinton are personally responsible for the collapse of Stan Lee Media. There's this utterly weird video on You-Tube, which I have to provide a link to, that shows Stan Lee meeting with Michael Jackson.

With the exception of a few serialized manga series and one or two alt comics that come out 2 or 3 times a year, I no longer read any continuity-style comics on a monthly basis.  But one of the great joys of following a series used to be the shock cover.  I could get very excited about the return of a favourite character or some sort of titanic showdown, especially if the story arc had been making preparations for this event for a long time.  It helped even more if the cover artist was the regular artist.  This was the case with many of the series I followed in the 1980s: Cerebus, Teen Titans, Fantastic Four, American Flagg!, Swamp Thing (and even of miniseries like Crisis, Dark Knight, and Watchmen) --powerful, narrative-driven cover image after powerful, narrative cover-image.  I don't think even the 70s Marvel comics had such an intimate connection between cover image and content/continuity.

Of course, part of the appeal was that the content and image were not plastered all over the net back then --at most, you would see a scan of the cover in Amazing Heroes or some other fanzine a few weeks early.  At worst, you only had the cliffhanger tease line at the end of last month's comic (ie, "Next: There Shall Come a Reckoning!").

Many of these "classic" 80s covers were what we would call "F--- you, fans"-style covers, meant to challenge, baffle, or enrage the readership, at the same making them intensely curious/hopeful.  The covers also established a rhythm to reading and collecting the comics.  Today, cover images (or alternate images) are part of the neverending online hype targetting the small niche market of adult superhero comics readers, but the trend of cultivating these fans who were more interested in character and plot development began long before and I think began to really crystalize in the 80s.

On a related note: can anyone point me to, or post images of, 10 classic stand-alone post-80s superhero covers?  How about 10 covers that played an important role in keeping you interested in a comic's continuity?

ermm. hummm.... hey look what's that over there!! (flys away)

"I don't even PRETEND to understand Marvel Entertainment's financial problems in the 1990s, but from how it was explained to me, Marvel's bankruptcy was an artificial one, declared as a power-play between two bankers that wanted control of the company, and it had nothing to do with how much money Marvel was making."

The Comics Journal anniversary issue recently had an article about the so-called "Iron Age", focusing particularly on the ninties and Image and Marvel and most of it was spent talking about the legal and business tactics Marvel used during the ninties. Basically, they were trying to set up individual comic shops that would only sell their comics exclusively. The Heroes World purchase that they did that blew up in their face was just the first step in that.

They would get together with retailers and ask questions that went way beyond what a publisher needed to know about the business end. If the retailers wanted to continue to carry Marvel comics, they had to provide this information. Many of the retailers concluded that the only reason Marvel didn't go through with it was because they decided it wasn't economically pheasable for them, not because it would be unfair to retailers.

Another tactic they did was to oversaturate the market to take up shelf space in stores forcing retailers to choose between their books and someone elses, namely Image, because they felt like Image was taking away readers that rightfully belonged to them.     

All in all, the article really didn't paint Marvel in a very good light during this time, but yeah, the Micheal Jackson thing was mentioned in there too. 

Both Marvel and DC are still fighting over shelf space, dumping tons of poorly-conceived, d-list titles and concepts on an already oversaturated market.  And the fans pretend like these are comics that they should take seriously because they use the same story-telling tropes and characters that have been used successfully in previous titles but really, from a continuity point of view, just clutter up the universe with crappy story arcs, villains, and supporting characters who only end up existing for 6-12 issues, if that.  Not to mention the event titles and spin-offs/special issues.

As a fan, I would have loved to read, say, a monthly title devoted to the adventures of Wonder Man and the Beast, but the talent pool necessary to support a quality franchise has never been there, because the readership has been shrinking since 1945 and not enough writers, artists, and editors of a certain level are/were attracted to the business of kids comics.

In some ways, the level of craft brought to bear on modern adventure comics is higher than it has been in decades --unfortunate that I can't get as worked up over what modern writers and artists create.

More on topic: I think a series set in the Planet newsroom (ie, all those aspects of Superman comics not featuring Superman) and focusing on Lois, Jimmy et al as part of an ensemble cast, would have been a great soap-y, post-Archie attraction in the Silver Age.

I really liked the limited scenes in the Daily Planet offices as a kid, that would have been cool.

I also always wanted a kind of "Legion Worlds" comic where I could read stories of the planets of the 30th century - not stories that had to correlate with some arcane fact from Adventure or some isolated issue of "Rip Hunter, Time Master" but stories that fleshed out a bigger universe.

I always loved the Mark Texeira covers for BLACK PANTHER, which did not have crass things like the Panther about to marry an ameoba...but all the same they really set you up for the pulpy atmosphere of the book inside: views of the Panther stalking New York at night. Then again, Texeira could draw an exciting still-life, he's that dynamic.

Then you have the covers for Tom Peyer's HOURMAN (which incidentally, is the first DC comic I ever regularly read). My favorite was the one where Hourman was breaking through a wall while a mad scientist was turning a woman into a bird creature.

Here's a big example: the Busiek or Niceza THUNDERBOLTS. All their covers were great. They get the award for the most honest cover in history, which promised "A Guest Appearance by...the Hulk! (Or a reasonable facsimile thereof!)" There was also the image of Jolt, the T-Bolts' least powerful member, facing down by herself the superpowerful villain Graviton. Another great Bagley cover was the T-Bolts in a SHIELD crosshairs after their return from the Kosmos dimension.

I for one, am a big fan of the letterhead for Astro City. Or, as they write it, more like KURT BUSIEK'S Astro City.


I have never liked "deceitful" covers, whose value was in shocking the reader by promising a really unbelievable event was inside.

A good example of that would be the issue of the Englehart AMAZING ADVENTURES, which had the Beast's arms wrapped around the neck of Tony Stark's limp body, and Hank McCoy was shouting something like "Oh my God, I've KILLED Iron Man!"

It's a dirty trick to promise something in the comic that isn't delivered.

That's a source of extreme aggrivation to me with a lot of Silver Age comics which promise something like, say, Superman's wedding.


"...but I've STILL got an opinion on it, just the same!" :D


Actually, I would argue the opposite: more than ever before, there are all these great writers flocking TO comics now that guys like Neil Gaiman have made it a campy fad.

The obvious example would be bestselling novelist Brad Meltzer. The guy has the world at his feet, and instead of snorting lines of cocaine off Cameron Diaz's hoo-ha, he wrote GREEN ARROW. Go figure.

There's that other novelist that was going to do a remake of OMEGA THE UNKNOWN. The greatest fantasy novelist of all time, Michael Moorcock, did an Elric series with Walt Simonson and fill-in issues of TOM STRONG with Jerry Ordway that were the only issues of that wheezy, un-fun book that were ever truly cool. Then you've got Paul Dini, who is currently writing the Bat-Books; Richard Donner, who did an arc with Geoff Johns on Superman.

And then you've got that Babylon 5 guy, who's name I defy you to spell. Peter David has been writing comics, but he's also created TV shows and Star Trek tie-in novels. PAD's always been amphibious that way, so maybe he doesn't count.

There also have been persistent rumors for decades now that Steven King was interested in writing a funnybook. More recently, there's been a lot of buzz around Phil Pullman writing one; the guy, after all, does say that he was a regular reader of Superman and Batman.

For a far less talented example that I am loathe to bring up, take the human disaster area, Chuck Austen, who came back to comics from a period worknig on animation. He did TRIPPING THE RIFT, which I have never seen, but as it has Chuck Austen, it isn't the biggest jump to conclusions in the world to assume it's a heaping helping of elephant crap.


"After all, not one of those modern-day hacks have the talent to create a character as beloved by the world as Kite-Man, H.E.R.B.I.E., or Bat-Mite."


It occurs to me I've been a little hard on Superman's early Silver Age in this thread. But as godawful as a story that has Lois Lane temporarily transformed into a centaur, it's really no different from the un-read, un-loved characters in the DC or Marvel Universes. If characters like the Lab Rats, or minor Young Justice villains, are never seen or used again, it's like they never existed or the stories they were in never happened.

At least with SUPERMAN'S GIRL FRIEND LOIS LANE, you're supposed to say I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALA!

If you don't see the Nuclear Family in decades, they might as WELL be out of continuity. It's like that Zen proverb Martial Arts masters use: "If a character is created and nobody else cares, do they really exist?"

And it isn't just characters or concepts. It's mindblowing ideas that are introduced and ignored. One issue of SUB-MARINER from the 1970s (this was, I believe, the very same story arc that brought Venus into the "modern" MU) dropped an unbelievable bombshell:

Ares, the Greek god of War, is responsible for the Vietnam War.


Wow, that would be bona-fide awesome.


Oh, no, comics fandom was at least as up on the content of future books in the past as today. The internet just makes it easier. That's the striking thing about fandom: it really is no different now than it was in the fifties, and I defy anyone to show me something that exists today that didn't exist in some form in previous comics ages.

Let me tell you a story: a friend of mine, who has been reading Avengers since the sixties, told me that around the time of Jim Shooter's run on Avengers, he heard a rumor that Jimmy was going to be making one of the Avengers into a villain.

A year later, Jimmy did the "Trial of an Avenger" stuff with Hank Pym, where he builds a robot to attack his buddies.

HMMMM....!

I think you miss the larger problem - these characters and their worlds are not a tiny part of multi billion corporate empires and despite all the media attention, these characters exist primarily for licensing purposes and since most people (civilians) sole knowledge of these characters are from primarily media usage (TV, movies) Superman was better as a reporter than a newscaster. 

No one cares about the intricate constructs of a universe in the comics.  More people watch Smallville or Lois and Clark ten years earlier than have picked up a comics mag in the past ten years.

Superman, Batman and other characters are just brand names like Yoo Hoo and Dr Pepper. The only continuity required to the general public is that yoo Hoo looks and tastes pretty much like the Yoo Hoo they know.  You can change the label on the outside slightly but it better be Yoo Hoo in the inside.

Hey, just because I haven't had a pull list since 1988 doesn't mean you can discount the power of current-comics-continuity-knowledge-through-osmosis.  I surf a ton of internet interviews, previews, reviews, and illegal scans in the course of my daily wanderings.  I probably "read" more comics (or partial comics) this way (ie, by serendipity) than I did 20 years ago.  Heck, your reviews and constant praise of Busiek's Superman run has given me a pretty good idea of what's up with that title, and I haven't even touched an issue.  Do I have to actually buy the fershlugginer thing?  As it is, the giant Rarebit Fiend collection just came out and, at about $130, ate up my discretionary comics budget for the summer. 

In addition, I don't walk past a comic rack or wall of trades in a bookstore without at least flipping through a few to see what's up.  I may not buy anything monthly, but I have been known to buy, or at least actually read real monthly comics. Add this to the tons of fan posts devoted to modern comics on this an other message boards I read, and I would say that I have enough knowledge to form an opinion, even though I don't have a long-box full of dog-eared modern "classics" to back it up. 


Brad Meltzer is a certainly a writer "of a certain level". Unfortunately,  it is a very low level.  I am much more looking forward to reading Lethem's Omega revamp, even though I'm generally leery of stunt-writer vanity projects and think that this kind of high-concept revisiting of the character is misguided.  The dearth of more pulpy Omega stories over the last 30 years (besides, presumably, being a product of the Marvel/Gerber war) is sad: the old fan in me wanted to see him in the Avengers, etc.


Well, have they?  This was talked about on another thread: where are all the classic characters created since 1986?

Bat-Mite is a perfect example.  Many hard-core superhero comics fans hate Bat-Mite but the truth is he has entered the pop culture consciousness and is a stronger contender than many johnny-DC-come-latelies for immortality.  The untalented hacks who created him, two know-nothing wannabes named Bill Finger and Shelly Moldoff, were really on to something back in 1959.  The character had legs and was used in the 1970s cartoon where millions of members of my generation became acquainted with the lovable little brat.  The He-Man tv writers even ripped him off in the character of Orko.  In many ways, hatred of Bat-Mite by superhero comics fans is ironically a form of self-hatred:  Bat-Mite is the uber-fan, at once a funny comment on fandom, hero-worship, and childhood.  He should be the poster boy for the modern age of comics.


To be fair, many Lois Lane characters were open-ended and/or bland enough to have tons of potential for a smart modern writer to sink his or her teeth into.  Plus they were better designed (usually by Schaffenberger) than any modern garbage.


Sure, we all have come to know (some people here like Al Schroeder from first-hand experience) how the connectedness of that first gen of comics fans --a very tiny group-- created a news & gossip network that gradually evolved onto modern fandom.  But the difference between then (or even 1988) is one of several orders of magnitude, aided and abetted by the net which speeds up all aspects of life.  Not only is Warner/DC's hype machine able to penetrate the NYT's editorial firewall, but minor online fangasms about a cover image or leaked plot-point can be transformed into blog and messboard fodder for months, even spilling over into the "real" news sites and tv, and translating into sales bumps or at least urban legend.  The death stunts and reboots of the modern era and the resulting sales are the supreme example of the role of the net in spiking sales into the millions.  Something that never really happened in the past despite the best efforts of the primitive telegraphy of the old-school fans.

Continuity is important, certainly with the major themes. For example, suppose on one page Superman is being attacked by someone with green-K, then we are left to turn over the page wondering how he can escape, only to find that he all of a sudden has developed a power for neutralising green-K or can suddenly teleport himself out of dangerous situations.

So agree, with the above qoute: It's part of the fun of being a fan to explain away the inconsistencies as much we can.

 We as the readers have more freedom with the Silver Age and the pre-crisis Superman in general because we have more creative control in our interpretation of the character then we would have with a traditional continuity. It could even be argued that in order for him to work, we readers and fans have to fill in some of the blanks ourselves. And we can ignore stories we don't like. You don't get that with the modern continuities.

Or as the MST3K theme song used to say: Tell yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax! ;D

It's true, the Silver Age seems to have more room for this, in large part because the Silver Age is over and, aside from DC releasing Showcase editions, the only people who have an investment in dissecting those old stories and keeping them alive are here on this board and in similar conclaves.

I can't believe you're seriously arguing that hearsay on the internet is just as legitimate a way of acquiring an opinion than actually reading the works themselves.

There are three reasons why I do discount and ignore such "views acquired through osmosis," and do not accept them as legitimate:

1) The utter hubris of this is staggering;

2) It's possible to be deceived by osmosis. Here's an example of what I mean: the current Dan Slott SHE-HULK is mislabeled a "comedy" series. It does have a wicked sense of humor, but apart from the first four "law with jetpacks" issues, the book is a very straightforward adventure/action book. Another incorrect view is that Chris Priest's THE CREW was a "black" book set in Da Ghetto. True, there are a great number of minority heroes featured, but the book is NOT "street," in the sense something like, say, POWER MAN is.

(This misconception actually sank THE CREW, because unlike the 70s, fans aren't in the mood for "street" stuff these days.)

3) If all you do is read opinions, you're deprived of context. Millions of fans refused to see STAR TREK II because they heard Spock would die, and millions more refused to see STAR TREK III because they were going to bring him back. Afterward, BOTH TIMES, what was the general reaction from people that actually saw it? "Oh, I didn't know you were going to do it THAT way."

I'd like to buy a parrot, name it SuperMonkey, and teach it to say, "BWAAAAWK! JOHNS IS VIOLENT! BWAAAAWK! JOHNS IS VIOLENT!" I'd never have to read another SuperMonkey post ever again.

"Hey, looks like SuperMonkey's got a comment about the latest issue of ACTION COMICS! What do you think he's going to say, Parrot SuperMonkey?"

"BWAAAWK! JOHNS IS VIOLENT! BWAAAAWK! JOHNS IS VIOLENT!"


Yes. Yes you do, if you want to discuss it with any degree of intelligence.


QUESTION: How do you know that?


Gerber did have an opportunity to wrap-up the events of OMEGA in his DEFENDERS, which was, predictably enough, a rush-job ending on the level of Hunger Dogs.

Omega's too oddball a character to be in a book as "traditional superheroic" as AVENGERS. He's 100% Defender material, though. The thing I always loved about the Gerber DEFENDERS is his realization that, at some level, all the Defenders are socially unacceptable. Gerber did it first (and arguably, better) than X-Men later did.

I am loathe to say anything that could be interpreted as "Jack Kirby is the most super-special, uniquest guy that ever lived," (because he is just like any other creator, who is "influenced by" as much as influential) but it is true that Kirby and Steve Gerber's work were so personal in nature that I hesitate to see anyone else but Gerber or Kirby doing a continuation of their work. As much as I love Englehart, his DEFENDERS was fun, but didn't have Gerber's approach or understanding.


II'll tell you now what I said then: I reject the entire premise of this conversation, which has innovation in worldbuilding be a constant, neverending process. It isn't and it shouldn't be.

Eventually, there comes a point where the Marvel or DC earth is so well-established and developed that it not only isn't POSSIBLE to do some kinds of additions (e.g. giving Thor another brother, which would be unbelievable at this point, or creating a new underground kingdom: the Marvel Underground Earth is pretty mapped out now, to the point where any addition would involve answering "why doesn't the Mole Man, Project: Pegasus, or Tyrannus know of this?"), it isn't necessarily desirable, either.


So have Jar-Jar Binks and the Electric Slide. He's still a crappy character.


Does it at all impact your assessment that Generation X and Yers despise Orko and find him annoying?


Yeah, that would be pretty ironic...if fans despised Bat-Mite for being a fanboy, instead of because he's annoying and doesn't belong in Batman comics.


No. No he isn't.


Yeah? Name me ONE.

I loved the idea of Diana Savage...but she was created in the Schwartz years, when Jimmy Olsen became an interesting "Mr. Action."

I love Kurt Schaffenberger and he is obviously very talented, but his cartoony art style is not appropriate for superheroes and adventure comics. In fact, I think Juan Bobillo and Chris Sprouse are a little too cartoony for adventure books, which is based on the tradition of guys like Foster, Kubert, Adams, and Buscema.


I think you're confusing two different things: fandom's information network, and media attention to comics.


If Superman ever did that, that would have been a terrible, terrible story. That's why we even have continuity: to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

It's like that one issue of MIGHTY CRUSADERS where one of the characters says "Wait, I have the ability to teleport! But I never mentioned it before...and I can only do it once!"


I think this is making a common STTA error: confusing the Silver Age with Superman's sum total existence. The Schwartz-era Super-books had pretty tight continuity.


Actually, I think this is a real weakness of Superman comics for a great length of time.

I'm reading through ESSENTIAL IRON MAN VOL. 2 right now, as well as SHOWCASE FLASH, and the thing that strikes me as interesting about these two books is that all of the stories have significance, that they were built on.

How many Iron Man and Avengers stories have gotten mileage out of Whitney Frost/Madame Masque? How many have built directly on her inability to escape the criminal life and her actions taken in the first dozen issues of IRON MAN? The things introduced in the early Flash are forever after parts of the DC Universe: the battle with Captain Cold, his discovery of his ability to vibrate, the first team-up with Green Lantern, and so on.

But Superman at least for two and a half volumes of SHOWCASE, had collective MOMENTO-style amnesia. Very little of this stuff impacted later comics in any way. Superman never remembered there was a short time he was in the army. He never showed greater sympathy to ugly or disfigured people because he remembered having had a lion's head.

The fact this can be done for a great many details is a weakness, not a strength. It should not be up to the fans to do writers' work for them.

In the case of the latest issue of Action your parrot would be correct.

Murderous, dark, zombie-like Bizarros ::)

I gave it a chance, but will not put forward any more money for any Johns-written books due to this crap. It's a shame too, I was looking forward to Gary Frank coming on board.

The utter hubris to me is the refusal to accept that many fans of classic Superman appreciate the fact that they were meant for kids, were fun without intellectual posturing, and were NOT great literature and are NOT great literature today.

Call me when Busiek wins the Pulitzer...or when modern fans looking for deep characterization actually make up a minute fraction of the comics sales of the 1960s.

Honestly, a strong opinion that differs from mine is OK, but the refusal to accept another point of view is pretty myopic.

For years, I refused to even consider the "Left Behind" series of books as anything worth reading. I accidentally picked one up in a laundry room, and it was horrendous - spotty and simplistic writing, terrible history, religious super hero characters, just horrendous. I guess I'm glad I stuck with my impression rather than actually buying one of those books. I actually only ever watched one episode of "Dawson's Creek"...I didn't need the collected "body of work" to know it was crapola.

There's a difference between what you're talking about, and making snap judgments that need context to be complete and valid.

For instance, I'm not a big fan of Romance novels. Most men aren't, we're not the target audience (they call it "women's fiction" for a reason). It wouldn't be the biggest jump to conclusions in the world for me to say "hey, I don't think I'd enjoy MY VAMPIRE LOVER."

There's a difference between that and say, getting all huffy and outraged over (to pick a controversial example here) the death of Captain America in Ed Brubaker's book without reading it. You have to understand things like how the writer did it, the spirit, and how it's treated. Just reading that it was done does not entitle you to say "what a terrible idea." There's more to the story that has to be considered apart from "Captain America died." You have to know HOW he died, and its significance. Otherwise that opinion is made in ignorance.

If you read the book, you might say, "Oh, but I didn't know they were going to do it THAT way!"

That's why it doesn't cut any ice with me to just whine "but Julian, there's violence there!" The fact there is violence alone is not enough - the context where it takes place must be taken into account. Who is doing it? What function does it serve in-story? Shock value violence or sex is just as offensive to me as it is to others (though I don't whine about it as much). Violence is used in say, CHINATOWN or RESERVOIR DOGS to be truthful, to bring home a level of honesty and grit. In other words, it serves a purpose (just like the death of Captain America).

By the way, I never read LEFT BEHIND, so I am not entitled to have an opinion of it. (Though my Blue-State, Jewish instincts tell me it probably isn't going to, ah, "speak my language.")

But why is it wrong to think that "Chinatown" or "Godfather" levels of violence may serve well in those vehicles but not thinking they belong in comics?

To me, it seems fine to think that some people might think so, but it seems equally fine to me that others think not so much.

What *I* think is that the context of the 50s and 60s needs to be taken into account as well, and the comics of that time seemed to meet readers' expectations in spades.

I can't see any more effective way to compare Binder to Johns than I can see comparing Goethe to Mark Twain.

Julian, it's funny that in an argument about reading that you didn't actually read what I wrote.  I did write that I occasionally read modern superhero comics, in paper form and on the internet.


I do read books without pictures, also.  Occasionally trying to read pulpy crap like Meltzer's



Cue the Monty Python argument sketch.



Dino del Monaco.


We're talking about the guy who drew hundreds of million-selling Capt. Marvel and Superman comics, right?


And Joe Shuster, Wayne Boring, Dick Sprang, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Ramona Fradon, etc etc.


Fandom's information network is now the media.

I think violence in comics is not bed, per si, and actually serves well in a book like Sin City, by Frank Miller, or Preacher, by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon. Even in some superhero comics - you can´t have The Punisher without violence. But I don´t think it would be the case in a book starring Superman or crossong with him in the DC Universe, like Infinite Crisis and 52. Superman is not only for kids, but it should be a for all ages character. And Geoff Johns, while being good on characters drama and superhero action, is doing his gore scenes more because it´s cool today than to serve the stories. It´s something very derivative of Mark Millar´s The Authority, and totally not apropriate to such books as Green Lantern and Action Comics. Johns, bad writer? No. But his violence scenes are out of context.   

Aren´t you guys reading Marvel series Runaways? Maybe it´s not a CLASSIC, yet, but it sure is the closest thing we have right now in terms of new succeeding characters. Brian K. Vaughan created a reaaly good team of new teenage characters, well stablished in the Marvel continuity, that is reader friendly, with lots of action and smart personalities. With a run by nerd icon and multimedia star Joss Whedon, and a new season by indie comics phenomenon Terry Moore, I think you get the idea. They are not flavor of the week.

I've heard good things about that series.  Time will tell, I guess, what is a classic character.  This being the modern age, Vaughan may take the characters with him beyond Marvel, no?

Alright, but correct me if I am misrepresenting what you're saying here...isn't the thrust of your point that you can acquire comics lore through osmosis?


I went into BOOK OF FATE thinking it was going to be a beach read. Which was what it was, so I wasn't disappointed. I suppose its subjective. I am willing to forgive a great many flaws in a thriller if it is paced well. And Meltzer does pace well.

On the other hand...

JACK AND BOBBY had a very irksome "self-hating Jewishness" about it that really, really turned me off. That was by far the least of its crimes, however.

It was the TV equivalent of one of those schmaltzy, totally unwatchable movies like PATCH ADAMS or PAY IT FORWARD that are self-congratulatory about their quality, emotionally pornographic, and try to be feel-good and inspirational, but are so fake they make you wish all mankind would spontaneously combust and die.


Amusingly enough, the example of Dino actually strengthens my point: the reason that story was interesting was because it was a very atypical LOIS LANE story. It didn't fall into the gimmickry that plagued the book (e.g. fake marriages, Lois v. Lana, Lois getting powers, transformations) With the Italian scenery, and the sensitive artist/female fantasy Italian lover, it was more like an issue of a romance comic aimed at women.

If they did a Lois Lane comic TODAY, stories like a guy trying to marry her for a green card would be the sort of tale that would fill it up.

Though I dunno if the character of Dino del Monaco has potential. For one thing, the guy was a pretty one-dimensional scumbag giggolo. He wasn't that complicated. If he really DID love Lois or had second thoughts...maybe I'd agree with you.


Many artists do superheroes spend most of their career doing superheroes, who have a style that is not really suited for them. Kurt S. is one, I'd say, and I'd lump Dick Dillin, Gene Colan and Don Heck into that category too (though Heck is one of my five favorite artists of all time).

And heck...Gil Kane, as great as he is...my favorite Kane stuff were things like his Westerns, and the issues he did with Roy Thomas as guest-artist on CONAN THE BARBARIAN.


Who said he was a good artist?


Neither of these guys are all that cartoony. Underneath their simple lines they had a real sense of solidity. They were very grounded. Batman had no neck, but he looked like he could throw a punch and take 'em.


At the point when Kirby was the most influential, he was the least "cartoony," and had a realistic polish and glamour. Nobody ever imitated Kirby's more abstracted, less realistic, craggy and squiggly later art except in deliberate parody (e.g. McCloud).


I'm not disagreeing with you...maybe you're right.

But think back to when YOU were a kid. Trust your own experiences instead of listening to the "Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy" types.

Did YOU like violence? I sure did! I was a filthy little savage. I loved reading Tarzan books because he was a wild, crazy phony that pulled a guy's throat out with his bare hands. My parents forbade me from seeing JURASSIC PARK, but I snuck and went to see it anyway, because I heard it had dinosaurs eating people.

I loved the giant JANE'S WEAPONS SYSTEMS books. To this day, I can remember all the major Russian tanks and Norwegian anti-submarine missiles.

And MAD Magazine. God, I loved that. It was absolutely vulgar and filthy, and while I didn't get half the jokes, it was wonderful because it didn't talk down to me.

I refuse to believe any of you were all that different. Okay, maybe you weren't borderline pyromaniacs like I was, but...as a kid, who didn't use swear words, or read those National Geographics with the naked women, or furtively sneak a drink from Dad's liquor cabinet?

The point I'm trying to make is, there's something misplaced about the urge to "protect" children from sex and violence. Maybe if I had my own children I'd feel differently about it, but what kids want to see are dinosaurs eating people and zombies. Is it so wrong for creators to give these things to them?

What's "suited" and "appropriate" to "superheroes" and "adventure" is a matter of taste.  I like the fact that there's a diversity of artists and styles going on.  If someone were to have those misplaced "cartoony" sorts like Bruce Timm, Darwyn Cooke, Chris Sprouse, or Steve Rude find their way to a Superman monthly, I'd have a big smile on my face. 

Tell that to the folks who grew up entertained by lots of animated Kirby, who try to sing the rest of the words that go after "when Captain America throws his mighty shield..."  The kids of the era were also entertained by less-realistic, abstract, craggly, and squiggly -- Ralph Bakshi Spider-Man, swinging through a psychedelic landscape, fighting someone green.  Much as there's different styles of artists that can entertain in a comic book, there are many different styles of entertaining cartoon animation. 

If you grow up repressed, you may hear those famous words "I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC".  If you're overexposed, you turn into a violent raping psycho.  The key is moderation, and reasonable people disagree on what's moderate is, especially for what young age group.  Joe Camel was the tip of the iceberg.  Today's parents deal with forces pushing lifetime brand recognition and acceptance by the age of 1-2 years old when they're most impressionable.  There's this open two-way street called the Internet that doesn't account for age, where kids being very knowledgable in its use is key for future success.  They s feel that their children are under assault from the moment they're born, if not sooner.

Will the world eventually be too cynical for Superman as we recognize him, except as some kind of farce?  Are us older comic book geeks looking for something that resonates with their youth, regardless of what matters to today's young?  What things should Superman tackle that deal with issues that the younger kids have to deal with?  During the '90s, it was gang warfare, right?  :)

Did you feel that the Maggin/Bates books were talking down to you? I didn't. Those books included a Lex Luthor who destroyed an entire planet full of people while taking his vengeance upon Superman. Did that book explicitly show individuals being incinerated by the destruction? No. Would I have a problem letting my son read that particular book? No.

Violence has always been a part of superhero comics and always will. What matters is depiction. The superhero comics I grew up with didn't show Black Adam ripping someone in half or show a crocodile man eating someone alive. What's the point in this? Shock value? Why not go off panel? The end result is still the same.

What perplexes me more is DC's VP of Editorial directly saying that the DC Universe line of comics are all-ages books and then having crap like the above in those books. So, he's telling me that stuff like Infinite Crisis, 52, etc. are in the same class as All-Star Superman? Because if he is, then he's mentally deficient and needs to be removed from his position.

Well, just so you know, you're the chosen people, and after people start disappearing, leaving folded clothes on airplanes, you will see the light and become a fundamentalist Christian...in fact, the MOST CHOSEN fundamentalist Christians. Hope I didn't ruin the ending for you  ;)

That and Superman started as a children's book. It was meant for all ages. Things started to change around 1986 for some reason ;)

It kept and keeps getting worse.


Ok, that explains a lot ;)

But seriously, how many kids still read comics other than Manga? Not too many. Let's face facts most kids today are far more into Naruto than the number one comics right now which is Thor (I think), they couldn't care less about Thor or any X-Man who didn't appear in the three films. They only know Spider-man from the movies and Batman and Robin from the cartoon shows. They are not the ones reading and buying today's superhero comics.

So DC and Marvel are now catering to adults who are ashamed that they still read children's books and now are hellbent to prove to others that the comics that they read are really meant for adults with the all the so-called "mature" context, which is in fact very immature, in order for them to not to feel like complete and utter losers, instead of reading novels or actual mature comics.

Of course they can also just be like most people here and actually like enjoy superhero comics for what they are, but I guess that is asking too much.

Ultimately, what scares me more than anything is the violence that you see in, for example, "The Soprano's". Don't you think that when people see, eg Terminator, it may try to be as gory as hell, but people really know that it's just special effects?

As aside: Wouldn't like any children to see either.

Saying that, what about the violence children regualrly get dished out in "Tom and Jerry"?

Ultimately, the depiction in art (ie, comics, movies, epic poetry, tv) of violence, like sex, is highly subjective in terms of the viewer/reader and subject to wide interpretation on moral and artistic terms.  The worst use of any representation of violence is as an unironic, cynical plot device calculated to evoke a negative emotional response, and that, storywise, seems out of place or unnecessary.  And the worst thing I can say about this is that it is unimaginative, cynical, jarring, ugly, and leads to a disruption of my suspension of disbelief.  Art is art and we cannot proscribe it or censor it.  We can only reward what we like and challenge laziness, especially if you are a patron.  All of which is very hard to do in a highly ironic, postmodern culture.

 

I much prefer the stories I knew as a kid, where Superman (for example) would hang up his cape in shame if he ever killed anyone.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30883

The scary thing is that there are plenty of people out there who would think that's true! In any case, I think the only reason comics have not come under the same kind of scrutiny as other forms of entertainment is because they just aren't as popular as video games or movies or what have you. I'm old enough to remember and young enough to be affected by the whole Mortal Kombat fiasco of the early nineties where Nintendo removed the blood and put "sweat" instead and even had a feature called "make up" or some stupid phrase like that as if it was going to make kids stop wanting to hurt each other when they get mad in real life.

I don't oppose violence in certain comics like Sin City or something like that, but I do think it would be irresponsible to do it in something like Superman. Remember, not all post-crisis fans approved of the killing of the pocket universe villians either. There are still several debates about it on the DC message board to this day.

I agree with the statement that most readers today are closer to 30 then they are to 10 and grew up with these things but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. It means we're here for the long haul and are going to stick around for a while. 

Totally off topic, doesn't this General Petraeus have a really good comic-book character-sounding name?

Yeah! I'm sure I remember him fighting The Fantastic Four in a special double-sized issue.

Every time I hear "Petraeus" spoken by a commentator I think they're saying "General Betrayus", which sounds like one of those ridiculous names Jack Kirby used to come up with, like "Scott Free" or "Beautiful Dreamer."

"The Para-Demons knew where we were!  But how could they, unless...someone here is a traitor? But who?  Certainly not Lance Lionheart, or Percy Puresoul?"

"NO, fools!  I was I!"

"General Betrayus?  Not YOU!"

Co-signed! 

To be honest, I don't mind all these stories that seem to irritate all of you. But then, as I'm sure you've all noticed from the nature of my posts, few though they are, that I am a relative newcomer to the world of comics and I don't read too much into it (feel free to put me in my place as and when you deem it necessary). Having not been alive until 1988, I can't wax lyrical on all the relative merits of the Golden Age, Silver Age, Iron age etc. To tell the truth, I don't really know much about them apart from what I've read on Wikipedia or on these message boards. I just like the stories to be engaging (which I feel they are), and the artwork to be good (and some of it is truly incredible, like the current JLA comics, such as the one with the nightmare where a mass nuclear strike on every city sees all the superheroes except Superman die horribly, and the Earth explode when Superman flies away.). Don't judge me  :)

Perhaps the single most insightful comment on this message board.

There is the continuity imposed by editors and writers--continuity obsessed upon by fanboys--and there is the continuity understood by the casual culture.  Thus, even if an editor decides Superman can eat Kryptonite like candy, he will always be vulnerable to Kryptonite in the pop culture.  Solid writers build on that; slipshod writers diminish that.  Hollywood—that great calculator that reduces all equations to the lowest common denominator—"groks" the pop culture and delivers it in iconic form.

The appeal of these characters is they are inextricably absurd, running around in tights, cracking wise or melodramatic, expressing an ethos ultimately wacky but wonderful in its black/white simplicity.  The hubris is placing the angst of Hamlet in the mouths of wrestlers and rodeo clowns.