I Aten't Dead

Just resting. Big changes at Casa del Padnick (looking for a new job in publishing) and a HECK of a lot of travel took the blogging bug out of me for awhile, but I'll be back. Just you wait.

In the meantime, amuse yourself with some of my Marvel musings:

Has Fin Fang Foom ever fought Galactus? If not, why not?

When I started reading Civil War, I kind of wanted Millar to surprise me and show me that Captain America was in the wrong. But to quote a great man, "Not Like This! Like This!"

Aunt May's dead. Again. Was that really the best way to go with the whole unmasking storyline? Couldn't they have taken this opportunity to take Spider-Man somewhere actually new?

In honor of the second greatest cover of 2007, I'm trying to a write a song. So far I've got:

"His name was Ego:
He was a planet
With heart-shaped craters on his head
and a beard all filled with dread"

I'm trying to figure out why Spider-Man killing Mary-Jane with his "love" in Reign icks me out but a similar development near the end of Peter David's run on The Incredible Hulk I was fine with. Is it the fact that Kaare Andrews specifically locates the radiation to Peter Parker's erm, "fluids"?

Yeah, yeah it is.

NEXTWAVE: Agents of Atlas. Am I right, or am I right?

Fixing Civil War

I was enjoying Marvel's Civil War. The basic premises, a conflict between security and individual rights played out as a literal battle between established superheroes, and how honorable people can end up violently disagreeing over important issues, are very strong and the art is very pretty. However, there have been MAJOR problems that have turned me off the whole thing.

And it didn't need to be that way. Here's how I would solve the problems of Civil War. (Nope, no hubris here).

1. The production delays. Yes, these are a problem. And whether by delaying the whole series until the late summer, to give Steve McNiven more time to draw, or calling in a fill-in artist, or simply not delaying other major titles so as not to spoil the shocking, shocking (ultimately, not that shocking) reveals, the delays should have been anticipated and dealt with. Personally, I would have disentangled it from the Marvel universe proper until it was resolved or almost resolved.

2. More to problems in the story itself, I'd make the Superhero Registration Act damned specific. Right now it's a vague mess. And if the debate is security vs. privacy, which it should be, the law should be a strongly enforced anti-vigilantism law, because, honestly, if you're using your mutant powers to bake cupcakes, who cares, but if you're just a regular joe using M-60s to mow down Mafia goombas, I think the police would like a word with you. Then the debate becomes whether superhumans have the right to take the law into their own hands without accountability to the public, and then, if you agree that they need to be watched, well, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

3. As a corollary, the opening incident needs to be the direct result of the superhero committing a crime in the name of justice, and innocent people dying because of it. As it stands now, the New Warriors, funded by a television company and being documented by their own news crew, failed to stop a bad guy from killing lots of people. It is hard to see how the New Warriors could have been MORE public and MORE accountable, considering most of them died trying to save lives and there is still a major corporation that can be sued for damages, and being restrained by the law would NOT have prevented the explosion.

If I were writing Civil War, the Stamford Incident would have been caused by any of Marvel's monstrous or murderous anti-heroes beating Nitro to death, releasing his explosive energy in a civilian setting. In my dream scenario, it's Ghost Rider, who uses his penance stare to make Nitro go boom, so that only he remains in the burnt out field, charred bodies all around him. (Now he has to lam it on his bike every time the super authorities catch up with him, but can he out run his own guilt? But that's my pitch for a GR ongoing, and I digress...) So instead of heroes dying before they can prevent a mad man from killing, we have an immortal demon chasing vengeance regardless of the human cost... and THAT could get some people talking about new laws and new enforcement.

4. Captain America is the conscience of the Marvel Universe. Once he picked a side, it was all over. So I'd switch Captain America's and Spider-Man's positions, making Spider-Man the anti-reg leader and Cap the conflicted supporter/patsy of Iron Man. Yeah, it's America torn by Civil War, but even with the cliché, it works. It also makes more sense that Tony Stark would court his old friend and long-time ally, the universally beloved World War II hero Steve Rogers, to be the face of his campaign, rather than the publicly reviled Spider-Man, who Tony Stark may have worked with before but barely knows. And I could imagine Cap. America, Iron Man, and Reed Richards (the daddies of MU) making a good case that the kids can't just run around breaking things unsupervised.

It also puts Spider-Man in a more interesting position. More than anyone else (except maybe Matt "Daredevil" Murdock) Spider-Man knows the dangers of having his identity exposed. At the same time, Peter is hardly used to working on a team. What will he do when he has the power and responsibility of leading others into battle? Is openly flaunting a law putting his family in less danger or more? It also opens up class questions (Rich (Iron) Man/Poor (Spider) Man) and age gap issues.

5. I wouldn't put all the assholes on one side. The pro-registration side could have a very strong case, if they were not also so into throwing their friends into concentration camps, hiring mass murderers to hunt down people who have broken no laws but disagree with them, and play Odin by trying to clone gods. Not that superheroes can't make mistakes or be wrong, but shouldn't both sides be guilty of doing terrible things? Wouldn't it make more sense for the side without public and government support to be doing the more desperate, ethically questionable things? (so far, the worst thing they've done is let the Punisher save Spider-Man's life).

6. And less "shocks". The conflict is strong enough to carry seven issues without reveals like Thor, Clone of Thunder, the all new Suicide Squad Thunderbolts, and Dark Speedball. All that does is distract from the main idea, the underlying moral conflict. I know it's the major crossover, tying into tons of books and launching more than a few series, but the story would be better served by paring down the "moments" and leaving more space for character work and emotional beats.

So, to re-cap,

1. Cut it off from the rest of superhero books, for now.

2. Clarify that the debate is over vigilantism, and who watches whom.

3. Have the catalyst explosion be caused by over-zealous, not incompetent, super "heroes."

4. Put the moral center of the universe in the center of the conflict.

5. Morally compromise both sides, especially the less powerful side.

6. Get rid of the stupid stuff.

Oh, wait, that's Kingdom Come.

I Swear I'll Stop Meming Soon

(and this one's for Brandon)

Validus Reviews Civil War

(image courtesy of Kevin)

Wish I Had Thought of This Last Week

So, what's the over/under on how many years until Marvel releases Ultimate Civil War #1?

And for the perfecta, how many years after that does issue #7 come out?

Why I'm Dropping Civil War

Before this starts, I just want to point out that I was really enjoying Civil War.

Until last Wednesday.

Putting aside all the fanboy complaints of lateness and "character assassination," Civil War #4 made the series objectively bad. In a, "I have lost all interest, why should I continue to read it?" manner.

If you read my review, you can see that my complaint before was that it seemed like the deck was stacked against the pro-registration side, and that a more even handed approach would better serve the theme of how an ideological argument between two honorable men can lead to war.

Well, with issue four, "stacked against" became "marked cards." Instead of just acting like jerks, the pro-registration side has moved on to morally abhorrent behavior, recklessly creating an abomination of both science and religion and hiring psychotic murderers to do their bidding. Worse, there is no good reason given for why Reed Richards and Tony Stark feel they have to take such extreme and obviously stupid actions, they just go ahead and take them.

And it's that last page reveal, that Iron Man has turned to Bullseye, who once killed a church full of nuns, that revealed to me how hollow Civil War is. Because at that point Tony went from very probably the bad guy to absolutely the bad guy, but why he's the bad guy has NOTHING to do with the registration act they're supposedly fighting over.

Mark Millar still hasn't told us why the registration act itself is bad, just why the people defending it are, and the longer the story goes on without a cohesive argument against or even for the act, the more obvious it becomes Millar doesn't care what they're fighting about, just as long as there's a law that some heroes end up on one side of and some heroes end up on the other. They might as well be arguing "Great Taste" over "Less Filling", the Great Butter Battle, or, god help me, the color red vs. the color blue. Tony would still be wrong.

And if Mark Millar doesn't care why they're fighting, then I don't care that they're fighting. The whole thing becomes just superheroes punching and killing each other because Millar wants to see who'd win, a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

So I'm done. Now that I know there's no "there" there, I know I will get no more enjoyment out Civil War (unless Jake performs another hilarious evisceration of the next three issues). Instead, I will use my four bucks to buy Casanova and Fell, where I know the writer at least is, y'know, thinking.

A Dichotomy

If past sales are any indication, Marvel Comics best selling book of the month and its worst selling book of the month both came out last Wednesday. One of them features Captain America acting like a total asshole. The other features a total asshole trying his damndest to act like Captain America.

Guess which one I actually enjoyed reading.


(To be fair, neither comic featured the page of the week, which sits at the unlikely crossroads of Popeye, Little Nemo, Futurama, and Badass Week.)

It Had to Be Said #4b

God dammit, Dr. Obvious, stop making good points.

He said, and I quote:

if the lion's share of the revenue is going to be coming from licensing, going for fewer, high quality issues could well support that better than more, lower quality issues.

I agree with that one hundred percent.

I really think that the future of comics publishing is a move away from periodical, serialized magazines and towards more original graphic novels. Not that the floppies will ever go away entirely, but there probably will be a lot less of them, particularly from the bigger companies.

And since original graphic novels will be a lot more self contained, telling complete stories in one volume with less reference to other works, missing the on-sale date because of production delays won't matter as much. Publishers will have more incentive to try to produce the best content possible rather than hit their own artificial deadlines.

Deadlines will still matter, from a marketing point of view, just like they do in print publishing. A book that will sell a ton before Christmas can't be delayed to January 1st, for example. But unlike today, the delay of one book will only hurt the sales of that book, so a publisher could afford to let one or two books release late for the sake of quality.

Today, however, superhero comics from the Big Two don't work like that. Instead, the work a lot more like network television shows: Ongoing, episodic fiction. Like TV shows, comics are meant to be enjoyed now. Entertain you this month (or this week) and there will be a new one to take its place next week. In this analogy, the publishers are the show producers, the retailers like the networks (I'm simplifying for the sake of analogy, don't slow me down with the facts).

Now, if Lost was delayed suddenly, because J.J. Abrams got writer's block, or a hurricane hit Hawaii and destroyed the set, or Evangeline Lilly got sick, ABC would be in trouble. To be deprived of the revenue from the advertising on their BIGGEST show AND to lose the platform to promote and launch other shows would really hurt the network, and they would have every right to demand Bad Robot a) get a new writer, b)build a new set as quickly as possible and c)write around Kate for a few episodes. And that's just equivalent to Superman/Batman being late.

Civil War is much worse. Civil War is a Law and Order sweeps three-parter spanning the main show and the two spin-offs in which Jack McCoy is shot, Det. Munch moves back to Baltimore, and Det. Goran is promoted to Captain. If that three parter was delayed by two months, NBC would be in a world of shit. That's THREE major shows indefinitely postponed, at something like the last minute. So that's three hours they have to fill on three different nights. There is no way, NO WAY, NBC would allow Dick Wolf to get away with a problem like that.

Television shows are, however, already set up to hit their deadlines. They have multiple writers, huge teams of ten or sometimes twenty, who work together to pump out scripts, and multiple directors who take turns guiding episodes from script to stage to screen. There's large enough cast of characters that some weeks you can focus on B because character A (or actor A) needs to be off screen for a bit. And multiple ongoing plots and sub-plots so that you can resolve some one week and leave others open to keep viewers interested. There maybe one executive producer/head writer to keep everything together and a consistent tone, but basically they get a lot of people working together so that they can guarantee their retailer, the network, that there will be 22 products a year, rain or shine.*

And as long a comics are going to be produced and sold in episodic installments like they are, that is, as long as they are going to mimic the television plan rather than the book publishing plan, then they are going to need to be able to make a similar guarantee. Maybe in the future they can have a little more freedom, but for now, deadlines mean everything.

hmmm... team of writers, rotating directors, large cast with interweaving plotlines. Why does that sound familiar...?



*This is, by the way, how almost EVERY show on television operates from The Sopranos on down, so don't tell me this hurts the quality of a television show.

It Had to Be Said #4a

The goal of a comic book company is still to sell comic books (even if the majority of their revenue comes from licenses and toy sales).

In response to my last post on the comic book business, Dr. Obvious makes the, um, obvious point:

Sadly though, Marvel doesn't make its money off selling books. It makes its money from license deals. See my post here to see exactly why book sales really don't matter to them. Sadly, this isn't true for retailers, like you said.

True, Marvel makes most of its money from licensing and toys, that's been true since the early '80s at least.

But publishing is still a large chunk of their revenue, so it still matters.

Just looking at the report Dr. Obvious linked to, Marvel made $25.1 million off publishing alone last quarter. Toys and licensing combined equal $65.3 million, so publishing is still over 27% of their total revenue.

That's a lot to endanger with a blown deadline like this, especially at a time when licensing revenue is down.

I am not trying to be chicken little. I really don't think anyone is going to lose their store over this, though it may be tight for some.

But if this isn't a one time thing, or if Marvel AND DC had both allowed their entire lines to slip due to one book coming out late, then a lot of stores would be in trouble, and Marvel today cannot survive without them.

The retail sales alone make Marvel a lot of money. Additionally, the single issue sales support the trades sold in (regular) book stores. No periodical sales, no trade sales. And there goes 25% of their revenue right there. That's deadly.

Even if they could somehow survive a 25% drop in revenue, they can't just fold up the publishing wing and become a storehouse for intellectual property. The comics still provide the ideas for future licensing opportunities and toy designs. No direct market, no new comics. No new comics, no new toys, no new movies, and no new TV shows.

The comics on the retailers' shelves, at least for now, are still the foundation of Marvel Comics as a business. They may not be the majority of the building, but take away those sales and the whole business falls.

It Had to Be Said #4

The goal of a comic book company is to sell comic books.

The goal isn't to make art, or even tell a good story. It certainly isn't to keep your imaginary friends alive.

A comic book publisher wants to, nay, needs to, sell books.

If that means putting subjectively bad but objectively popular artists on covers because more people will buy it, fine.

If that means occasionally pandering to immature fanboy sensibilities, fine.

If that means cosmetically changing a character to better match their more popular movie or TV incarnation, fine.

Even if that means canceling a much loved, well reviewed book because it isn't selling and is therefore losing money, fine.

Does that mean they shouldn't even try to put out a good comic? Of course not, because the long term goals of selling books and making money depend on making art, telling a good story, and, yes, keeping your imaginary friends alive. But in the short term, compromises sometimes have to be made.

If only there was a good example, some bit of news that hit today that could best illustrate my point...

Ah yes, Civil War is going to ship one month and two months late, and take four or five popular titles with it, so as not to spoil events in the main book.

Compare that to Infinite Crisis, which went to multiple artists and, by issue 7, un-inked art, in order to have the books ship on time. (Or close to on-time, I'm not sure. I think it slipped but I'm not sure by how much). What was important was that, like Civil War, Infinite Crisis tied into a lot of books, and if it had missed its ship dates, it would have thrown off the One Year Later launch and 52, which were both successes.

The publishers at Marvel chose quality art over business concerns. Those at DC chose to place the sales of the rest of their line over the quality of their flagship book. Which was the right choice?

As a fan, of course, I hope for nothing but the finest quality in the comics I buy. And as any fan of Astonishing X-Men knows, sometimes you just gotta wait. I'm pretty sure I'll be waiting for Seven Soldiers #1 for the next five years. And it will be worth it. And though I enjoyed the series overall, I was honestly disappointed with Infinite Crisis #7.

However, Brian Hibbs and every retailer who is pissed off right now are absolutely right! Some books you wait for. Your MASSIVE company-wide crossover is not one of them. It must ship, rain or shine, because too many other books depend on it. Even if you're sure you'll get the sales later, comic book stores operating on thin profit margins may not be able to wait for later. Deny them sales too often, and they go out of business, then you don't have a place to sell your late-ass but perfect books, and then you go out of business. And then all my imaginary friends die with you.

Business HAS TO come first. HAS TO. Nobody likes to put out a bad book but it's sometimes put out a bad book now or lose your opportunity to put out a good book later. That means hitting your deadlines, even if you think the book isn't perfect. That means selling to the audience that already exists. That means putting out stories like everybody else is doing because that's what sells. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SELLS and in the short term that's how you stay alive.

BUT... that only keeps you alive for today. If you still want to be around tomorrow, you ALSO have to try new and different stories, experimenting with genre, structure, style, tone. You also have to try to expand or create new audiences. You also have to give some artists a little more creative freedom because they just aren't going to make deadline. You have to try to create good art.

Because that's how you make the real money!

[Edit: Declarative Rabbit says in one sentence what I tried to get across in the whole long post.]

Civil War #3

Now that I have my comments working (that sound you hear is me, repeatedly slapping myself in the forehead), I can see that Jenn of Reappropriate asked for my further thoughts on Civil War.

And the review remains pretty much the same. The art and plot are still fantastic. The photo-referenced pencils and inks give a realistic, weighty feel to the action. Just look at the panel of Iron Man punching Captain America in the face (no scanner, can someone help a brother out?). [Thank you, Lady That's My Skull.]



I've seen more violent, gory punches before, in the Authority or Ultimates, and I just assume that the Hulk has hit Cap in the face harder, but that certainly seems like the most brutal punch I've ever seen. Maybe it's the way Cap's mask is tearing off, or the slanted bloodstains across Iron Man's yellow happy face mask (no, I don't think it's just a coincidence), but the shear amount of detail and "realism" in the image make the whole panel more beautiful and the whole action more ugly.

And again, plotwise, it's really strong. Once the characters have taken their places (and I'll get to characters in a second), the scenes flow into each other with a nice sense of inevitability. You never get a scene which makes you think, "am I reading the same book?" which plagues most massive crossover events. And the question "who shot first" is going to plague Marvel for years (that's a good thing). Was it Iron Man, for setting up a trap in the first place? Or Captain America, who, under the guise of compromise rejected out of hand Iron Man's attempt at negotiation and reconciliation? And then there's that gorgeous last page, implying that the shit REALLY about to hit the fan, which will only be topped when a certain Green Goliath is done playing Spartacus.

But then there's the characterization and dialogue. On the anti-registration side, there is still ZERO doubt that they are in the right, despite the fact that there are STRONG arguments to be made against just letting Hercules beat the crap out of everybody he thinks is a bad guy! But the pro-registration side is worse. Tony I've written off as an asshole, and could deal with that (amazing how much that one moment of self doubt in issue two did for me). And Reed Richards has issues, but he's never been this cold to his wife and brother-in-law before. But the real problem is Spider-Man. Spider-Man is supposed to be the anti-asshole, bantering with his enemies even as he lays the smackdown on them. But here he's calling Daredevil and the Vision "schmucks," being patronizing to the Young Avengers (who are, what, 6, 7 years younger than him at most?). Even if it wasn't "out-of-character," it's still tipping your hand to put all the assholes on one side, and all the guys who just want to help people and play basketball with kids with cancer on the other.

So pretty much same as before. I'll enjoy reading the series through, and since I'm NOT a regular Marvel reader, I don't have to worry about "the long term" effects and just enjoy the story as is. But so far it's just good, and all it would take for it to be great is if the characters and dialogue were as nuanced, detailed, and real as the art.

Thursday Thoughts #1

First off, a big shout out to When Fangirls Attack! for the link love. Not only was the link accompanied by a strong recommendation to read (aww, thanks guys!), it also boosted my visitor count.

Seriously considering turning this into a feminist comics blog, just to keep up the stream of readers.

But no comments yet. Not even from James Meeley. James, if it helps, I really did enjoy your wife's list of good or bad superheroes to date. That was some funny stuff right there. Not sure how it fits into your belief that "a super hero comic is not the platform for 'exploring sexual identities'", particularly the bit where she suggests Namor would be bad in the sack or that Ralph Dibny could inflate his body parts "the right way," but whatever. I guess as long as it's not two dude holding hands.

On another note, did you know I bought comics today? A crapload of them. Too many to review tonight, but I did break down and buy Civil War, which I had only been skimming in my local comic book shop.

You know what? It's really good. The art is amazing. The shot of the Patriot leaping through the air, just a quiet little WOW moment in the midst of a lot of talking heads. Fantastic. And the writings been good too. Not as strong in the dialogue or characterization (besides Tony, no one seems to have second thoughts about the side they've chosen.) But Spider-Man unmasking on national television? J. Jonah Jameson fainting? Yeah, right here and now I'm willing to say that's better than anything that happened in Infinite Crisis, and coming from DC fanboy like me, that's saying something.

My only major complaint is that they stacked the deck to one side. I mean, I understand Iron Man's position, in the abstract I already agree with it. And if it was Iron Man, military industrialist and former secretary of defense, vs. Daredevil, defense attorney and vigilante, you would have a classic debate between the government's need to protect its citizens vs. the individual's right to privacy and autonomy, balanced by two characters of roughly the same popularity. And if Iron Man had Spider-Man as a proxy, Daredevil could have used Wolverine.

But once Captain America took a side, the moral debate was over. (I don't remember where I first read that. If you remember, or you wrote it, could you tell me in the comments section?) Cap's right. He's always right. He's Marvel's equivalent of Uncle Sam. Heck, he IS Captain America. So once he chose the anti-registration side, the debate was over. At that point, it becomes clear that there is more going on here than good people violently disagreeing over the best solution to a difficult, complex problem. Once Cap picks a side, it means there is something else, something ANTI-AMERICAN about the other side, something driving the heroes to war.

And once that element is introduced (and please let me be wrong about that), the actual, meaningful debate will be over. And THAT would suck.

Course, Millar could surprise me. Captain America could express some doubts about his decision. Spider-Man's life could improve now that he's taken true responsibilities for his actions. And if Cap's side does turn out to be the wrong side, and Captain America realizes this and Learns a Lesson, I'd be willing to declare Civil War the best cross-over miniseries I've ever read.

J. Jonah Jameson Was Right

A week late and a buck short but...

So the big news LAST Wednesday was about Spider-Man publicly unmasking in Civil War #2.

A lot of bloggers were really upset about this move, because it "ruined" the character. I argued that publicly unmasking actually made a lot of sense, because:

a) instead of being an unaccountable vigilante acting outside the law (J. Jonah Jameson's perfectly justified objection to Spider-Man), he's taking personal responsibility for the choices and mistakes he's made and will make as Spider-Man. It also allows him to testify at trials, be called in to help the police, and in general be a BETTER protector of the city;

and b) he's not exposing himself and his loved ones to any MORE danger, he is actually helping PROTECT them. Now they know WHY they are being targeted by villains who ALREADY KNOW who he is AND he's scaring off the villains who might want to attack Mary-Jane, supermodel, but not want to mess with Spider-Man, Avenger.

Furthermore, I pointed out there are several successful superheroes in the Marvel-verse whose true identities have never been secret, specifically the Fantastic Four.

I feel that masked vigilante heroes only make sense when, in the case of Robin Hood, Zorro, Batman and V, the hero FUNDAMENTALLY does not trust the established authority. Spider-Man, who is very civil hero, clearly DOES trust in the power of the press and government to protect and help people, so why is he hiding his identity from them?

But Carla at Snap Judgments made a good point. I've addressed the literal arguments against unmasking Spider-Man, but not the metaphorical ones. That Spider-Man, the story and character, lose a lot of their power if Peter Parker is a public hero. And while I agree that this drastically changes the character and story, I don't think it hurts the character at all.

Let's look at Spider-Man metaphorically. Peter Parker is an Average Joe, maybe a little smarter and harder working than most (he had TWO after school jobs, not counting the vigilantism and pro-wrestling). He's low on cash, gets ignored by girls and picked on by bullies.

Spider-Man is his secret talent, the place he can go where he's not only strong and fast, but also funny, admired and feared! And when you consider that Peter was bitten by that spider when he was 15 but was NEVER known as Spider-Boy, you can see that the mask didn't just hide his identity, it also hid Peter's age. As Spider-Man, he was treated as an adult!

So when Peter was a teenager, the duel identity made a lot of sense. He had a talent and a secret life he loved, but one his Aunt would NEVER have approved of, and respect and admiration from a public that would NEVER have taken him seriously if they knew how young he was. Think of a rock singer who hides her talent from her parents, because they don't approve of that kind of music, and hides her age from the band because they'd tell her to go home if they learned she was in high school.

But as an adult, the duel identity becomes metaphorically problematic. You have to ask who is he hiding his true self from, since he's not doing a very good job of hiding it from the Green Goblin and Venom. He's hiding who he is from his friends, the government, and the public at large.

Going back to the singer, if a 25 year old teacher decided to pursue her rock career, would she hide her background because her parents still didn't approve? Or would she say "No, I'm an adult and I'm proud of my talent, AND I'm proud of being a teacher, and I don't care what anyone else thinks"?

Unmasking is a very adult way of taking responsibility for his life and saying to the world, "I am Spider-Man, and I'm proud of what I do." If you're going to argue that he shouldn't take that kind of adult responsibility for his life, that he should hide who he really is from friends and foes alike, then you have to argue that Peter should never have turned 18, graduated from high school and moved out of Aunt May's house. And MAYBE THAT'S TRUE.

But personally, I believe that the strength of an ongoing story like Spider-Man is character growth, that stories build on what came before but shouldn't reproduce them. Growth necessitates change, and it won't always be positive, but, to me, it makes a better story.

That's not to say I don't have specific problems with the context of the unmasking. I think the debate in Civil War, whether super-powered people should be registered and contained by the government, is one-sided (no, they shouldn't) and just off the much more interesting debate, whether all CRIME-FIGHTERS (like, say, the Punisher) should be registered and contained by the government. And* I wish that this change didn't come hot on the heals of three major changes to his powers, living arrangements, and costume, all within the last two years. Each one of those changes is big enough that you kind of wish the writers had two or three years to play out the implications and new story possibilities before the next BIG CHANGE.

But you know what? I like it, and I want Marvel to keep this as the status quo for as long as possible. I think a Peter Parker who tries to have both a normal life and still hold up his great responsibilities, allowing everyone he knows to know why he is the way he is, could show a more complex and interesting character than the repetitive "Oh noes, how can I save day and not reveal who I really am to the people who love me and think that know me so well" stories that got worn out by Superman long before poor Peter Parker picked-up his power.


*Edited after actually buying and reading Civil War. Turns out the debate is exactly what I wanted it to be, just one-sided.

Tuesday Night Recommendation #2

She Hulk #8

Why should you buy it?

a) It's a Civil War tie-in! Those are always fun. Uh yeah, ignore that one.

a) Dan Slott. Marvel's answer to Geoff Johns. The man knows continuity, knows superheroes, and knows how to find that quirk, that angle, that makes you look at them in a whole new light.

b) She-Hulk! She's a seven foot tall, drop dead gorgeous looker, who is also a green giant of infinite strength, who is also a lawyer specializing in the vagaries of superhero and superpowered law! How can you beat that?

c) The Thing. Which was excellent. Which was also written by Dan Slott. Was cancelled. Because of you. Because you didn't buy it. Murderer.

Don't let another excellent Marvel book die. Because you know they'll just replace it with another X-book.

(maybe they should re-title the book X-She-Hulk, but maybe that sounds too transsexual.)