web stats

CBR Live! Archive

Breaking down "Event" comics, Part One: Identity Crisis #1-7; or, why you should always stop one issue short of your goal!

Now that Infinite Crisis is in the books and we're into the Great Unknown at DC, I thought it would be fun to check out the past two years in the "big event" comics world and see what worked, what didn't, and ask why DC hates comic book fans so much. Oh, I'm kidding about that last bit! Or am I?

Anyway, it's been two - wow, two already? - years since Identity Crisis #1 came out and kicked the whole thing off. I read that series, almost gouged out my eyes when I read the last issue, and swore off the whole "Crisis" thing that was brewing in the DC Universe. Why, I thought to myself, should I buy comics that I am 99.9% sure would suck? I mean, seriously. I have better things to do with my money. Now, based on my reviews sometimes, you might think that I often buy stuff that I hate - but that just ain't true. I buy stuff with the anticipation that it will be good, and usually I like what I buy. If it continues to suck, then I drop it. Believe me, if Squadron Supreme continues to piss me off, I'll just stop buying it. But right now, I like it. However, after Identity Crisis #7, I was almost completely positive that I would hate Infinite Crisis, so I skipped it. And I'm glad I did.

However, it has been the big event in the DCU for the past couple of years, so I thought, "Maybe I can read it without paying for it!" Yes, that's what libraries are for, but that's also what excellent comic book shoppe workers are for, and the guy who works at mine let me borrow all the IC stuff that came out after Identity Crisis, beginning with Countdown to Infinite Crisis right through the four mini-series and concluding with Infinite Crisis #7. So now I get to read them, evaluate them, eviscerate them (probably, although I'll keep an open mind), and give them back at no cost to me!

I'm perfectly aware that smarter people than I have already reviewed this stuff. I hope I can offer some perspective, however. I'll do this is a series of posts, beginning with the murder mystery that kicked the whole thing off - Brad Meltzer and Rags Morales' work of staggering genius, Identity Crisis!

I want to examine this from a few different perspectives. First, the story itself, without any judgments based on who the characters are or what they mean to us as fans. Second, I want to delve into Sue Dibny's rape, even though it's been examined to death. Finally, I want to look at what the series means in the context of DC and its history. How does that sound? If it sounds boring, you might want to stop reading now! But for the rest of you (I'm sure there might be one or two of you that I haven't driven off yet), let's go!

The story.

Essentially, this is a locked room mystery. Sue Dibny lives in a house in Opal City, where she and Ralph moved at the end of James Robinson's Starman series. The house is protected by Thanagarian, Martian, Kryptonian, and mother box technology, and we learn later that it has Apokalyptian tech (is that different than the mother box?) and some "scary stuff" that Batman added. In other words, it's impregnable. Except for, of course, a crazed ex-wife who wants her husband back! The first issue sets up the whole thing, and we get a vague reference to Sue's rape when Lorraine (Firehawk) asks Ralph if there are any villains hiding behind his shower curtain and he says, "Just once, but that was a long time -" before he gets cut off when the action with Bolt and the Luthor armor starts. The first issue is structured in a pretty standard way, with the timeline slowly leading up to Sue's death while we get scenes of the various heroes being called to action in the here and now. One of the things that annoyed people about the first issue, and the series as a whole, is the inclusion of red herrings, such as Bolt and the whole Luthor armor thing, but that's fine, because in a murder mystery, you need red herrings to throw people off. Finally, we get the juxtaposition of Bolt getting shot and Sue getting attacked. Meltzer throws in the pregnancy test to add extra poignancy, even though it's somewhat of a cheap trick.

The various heroes do their thing, but nothing seems disturbed. Originally, we're told that Sue was killed by "third-degree burns over 42% of her body," but that's not true, as we'll soon learn. All the heroes go after villains who burn things and villains who teleport, but at the end of the issue, Oliver, Carter, Dinah, Zatanna, and Ray go to Ralph, who tells them to find Dr. Light. Oh, the drama!

So far, so good. The first issue is a well written piece of work - gripping and tragic and full of action and interesting character interaction. The heroes don't have much to do, but Meltzer has a nice grasp on the large cast. We don't have any clues yet, but that's fine - he has six issues to go, after all.

There are three major plot points of Identity Crisis, and they're all connected. Sue's murder, obviously, and the attacks on the heroes' families that occur later in the series - Jean Loring is hanged in her home, Captain Boomerang kills Tim Drake's father, and Lois Lane gets a threatening note. Sue's murder, Ralph believes, was committed by Dr. Light, and we find out why in issue #2, the infamous "rape" issue. Dr. Light got aboard the JLA satellite years earlier and raped Sue, which leads to the third, and perhaps most important plot point: the "mindwipe" of Dr. Light, who knows far too much about the JLA and must be made to forget. Zatanna performs a partial lobotomy on him, messes around a bit too much, and turns him into the moron we all know and love. These three plots are the core of the book, while the ancillary stuff - Digger comes to know his son, briefly, Firestorm dies, Calculator gets a cool new job as the anti-Oracle - is used to ground us deeper in the DCU.

The story hums along - Dr. Mid-Nite determines that Dr. Light didn't kill Sue even as the subset of the League that is in on the "mindwipe" tries to capture him and gets humiliated by Deathstroke; Tim Drake and Owen Mercer bond with their respective fathers, Jack Drake and Digger Harkness, and each will experience tragedy through the loss of their fathers; and the "mindwipe" technique becomes even more sinister when Ollie reveals to Wally that they used it more than once. Ironically, by going after Dr. Light, the League helps him remember what they did to him, and he freaks out. Somehow - it's never sufficiently explained - when he goes nuclear in issue #3, he implants his memories in Wally's head, and Wally realizes that Batman was also there, and the League "mindwiped" him, a far more egregious abuse of power than simply doing so to villains. The mystery of the murderer grinds slowly, however, and it is here that the story falls apart, especially in issue #7. The heroes keep eliminating suspects, which is fine, but they still find no clues as to who the killer is. One thing that annoys me about murder mysteries - and I've said this before, so forgive my repitition - is that the identity of the killer comes out of nowhere, and when we go back and re-read the story, we can't find any clues pointing the way. I read this trying to find any clues that point to Jean as the killer, and there really aren't. The footprints on the brain are the only clue, and that's just something that Dr. Mid-Nite finds during the course of the longest autopsy in history, as he's still carving Sue up a week after her death. Batman grasps the method of entry intuitively, but that's just a flash of revelation. On page 3 of issue #7, Batman says, "Ray? It's not Ray ..." but how he comes to that conclusion is never explained. Ray himself only finds out through one of the most hackneyed devices in murder mysteries - the murderer says something stupid and reveals the truth - in this case, Jean asking about the note that was sent to Jack Drake, which no one else knows about. There is, quite literally, no evidence that Jean committed the crimes, save for the footprints on Sue's brain, which, let's be honest, could have been left by anyone who got their hands on Atom's outfits. Jean's confession would certainly not be admissable in court.

These events occur at the end of issue #6 and all of issue #7, where Identity Crisis goes off the rails. I actually thought the series should have ended with issue #6 and Ray turning off the light as he gets into bed with Jean, because the drama would have been heightened for the subsequent series. But that's okay - technically this was a self-contained story, despite setting up two years of stories, and they needed a resolution. But Meltzer's resolution is pretty awful and almost negates the interesting first six issues. First, Jean's reason for terrorizing the families of the heroes is so she could get back together with Ray. As Ray makes clear early in the series, she dumped him, so it wasn't like he stopped loving her. If she wanted him back, couldn't she just ask? A scientist geek who spends most of his time at molecule size can't be meeting a lot of women, so he'd probably jump at the chance to get back together with Jean. Okay, she's crazy, but she planned the whole thing like a master criminal, with very few flaws, which doesn't seem like a crazy thing. The aftermath of her confession is awful, too, as Ray puts her in Arkham Asylum without a trial. Yes, Arkham - the most horrible place in the DC Universe. This stretches credulity even more, as Ray would have to know about the evil in Arkham and make sure she was in a sanitarium thousands of miles away from Arkham. And according to the atlas of the DC Universe, Ivy Town is in Connecticut, while Gotham is in New Jersey, so why would Jean go to Arkham anyway? (Of course, the atlas puts Opal City in Maryland when it's in the Midwest somewhere, so we'll take it with a grain of salt.) Later, of course, we find out via the newspapers that Jean is being tortured by the inmates - nice going, Ray! The ending is supposed to be somewhat downbeat but still hopeful - yes, two innocent people died, but it brought everyone else closer, and Ralph still gets to talk to Sue as if she's there. Unfortunately, it's a bad ending to what had a great deal of potential.

The rape and its implications.

I'll get to Sue's murder in good time, but I want to write a few things about Dr. Light's rape of Sue in the old days of the JLA. I have known a few women who have been raped, and one who was raped while I knew her. We have read the responses to not only Sue's rape, but other rapes in comics and how the writers concentrate a lot on the way men react to it. The natural response of men is to go out and beat the shit out of the rapist, so I don't have that big a problem with writers portraying men like that - and, let's be honest, most comic book writers are men writing about men, so the women will get short shrift. However, this is a particularly egregious example. Felicia Hardy had a rape retconned into her backstory, which made me angry, but Smith did show that it spurred her into action to become the Black Cat. It's an awful motivation, but it's something. Sue, meanwhile, gets to have a rape that is only revealed after she is dead. Because it is a retcon, we never know how she and Ralph dealt with it, and it is something that needs to be dealt with. What annoys me the most about it is that it is simply a plot device to get to the "mindwipe" of Dr. Light, which is what Meltzer really wants to examine. Identity Crisis is ultimately about trying to define what makes a hero and how heroes can survive in a morally murky world, something I'll get to in time. It's not about Sue's rape, and therefore Sue's rape is diminished and cheapened somewhat. Dr. Light is certainly punished, but Sue never comes to term with the rape. Of course, there are two rapes in the comic - Jean Loring almost certainly gets raped in Arkham, and this is treated even more lightly - by Meltzer at least - than Sue's trauma. When this series first came out, I thought that DC claimed it was a self-contained mini-series (I'm sure Brian has the press release committed to memory, but I don't), but it becomes obvious at the end that Meltzer is setting up the subsequent history of the DCU, so he doesn't feel the need to deal with Jean's rape, which, unfortunately, cheapens it as much as Sue's. The upsetting thing about Sue's rape and the one that Jean (presumably) experiences is that the women become mere symbols of man's impotence. Sue is raped and we find out far more about how it affects the Justice League than Sue, or even Ralph. Jean is raped and we follow Ray Palmer around as he gets all depressed. At no time is Meltzer concerned with how the women feel. Rape is far too important an issue to trivialize it in this way.

What Identity Crisis tells us about DC.

Identity Crisis, taken on its own, is a perfectly fine story. It's not really a good murder mystery, but murder mysteries are very difficult to pull off, so I can forgive Meltzer. This is a story about a horrific act that causes several people to commit a similar act to cover it up. They debate the morality of their actions and ultimately decide that they must violate someone for the greater good. It is the stuff of good, if not great fiction, and Identity Crisis tries to examine these themes, as well as other, secondary themes, such as what brings us together with friends and family, what drives people to betrayal, and how secrets twist relationships and poison lives.

However, it's not simply a story about random people. It's a story that is set in a very specific "universe," with very recognizable characters. The characters are superheroes, and therefore this becomes a different kind of story, and this is when what Meltzer and DC are doing becomes something that needs to be considered.

Meltzer has stated that Identity Crisis is a reaction to the "goofiness" of superhero comics of the days when he was but a wee lad. It is an attempt, it seems, to retcon twenty- or thirty-year-old comic books so that the villains aren't so stupid. Dr. Light, especially, has always been a joke, and Meltzer just couldn't handle that the comics he loved - as a child, mind you, not as an adult - were childish. Therefore, he had to explain why Dr. Light was such a moron - a word he uses in Identity Crisis to describe him. DC went along with it, perhaps because the people running DC feel the same about the comics of the 1960s and '70s - they were far too goofy and people today would scorn them.

But why do they feel this way? They read these comics when they were children, so they fact that they're goofy doesn't really matter, does it? Some children's literature is deadly serious, sure, but a lot is quite goofy. Does anyone feel the need to go back and explain using deadly serious scientific terms how those stupid insects inside the Giant Peach not only grew but were able to speak English? I think someone needs to write a book showing that they would attack and sexually abuse and finally eat James, because let's face it - Dahl's original book just isn't very "realistic." Maybe Meltzer has an inferiority complex because he read comics back in the day that weren't very "adult," but is that a reason to allow this? It seems like a silly reason to write a story.

By raping Sue and then killing her and by raping Jean, DC has done more damage than it knows. I mentioned that this kind of story could easily work with anonymous characters. But DC, whether Dan DiDio and Brad Meltzer want to admit it, has a long history with characters who have long been established. There is wiggle room with regard to the characters, of course, but what Identity Crisis does is subvert the entire notion of heroes. These people are not heroes, and if they weren't wearing fancy tights and named stuff like "Hawkman," we wouldn't consider them heroes. That doesn't mean the story isn't compelling, but we can't really condone their actions, and we will always look down on them somewhat. We can understand their actions, but we are repulsed by them. DC wants us to see Identity Crisis as something that "humanizes" their superheroes, but the problem is - you can't "humanize" someone from another planet, or someone who inexplicably runs faster than anyone, or someone who can scream at an inhuman level. There is always going to be a disconnect between the audience and, say, Superman. There has to be. That's not to say we can't enjoy the stories and even love them and relate to the ideals the heroes fight for, but there is always going to be separation from the characters. And that's okay. Superheroes are, on a very tangible level, adolescent fantasies, and for the most part, they're male adolescent fantasies. That's perfectly fine - I love superhero stories, and accept them for what they are. They can, and have, been used for almost any other kind of story - Alan Moore famously turned a superhero into God, and writers can use superheroes as a metaphor for almost anything. However, it is difficult to do, and DC's mainstream superheroes in a mainstream superhero comic - and remember that Identity Crisis was not labeled "for mature readers," meaning a seven-year-old could have read about Sue's rape - appeal to about as broad a base as anything in comics. Therefore, DC has a responsibility to use these characters much more wisely than they did in this book. People will argue that Meltzer has the right to tell any story he wants as long as it works, if DC allows him, and that's a point, but I disagree. DC owns these characters, sure, but they have also spent decades sketching out their basic personalities. When you use these kinds of characters, you have a responsibility to appreciate how they have been portrayed in the past. If you don't like that, fine. But don't write this kind of story.

Ultimately, DC and Meltzer wanted to try to find out what makes someone a hero in a world where black and white morality is compromised. Again, the problem with that is that none of the principals in Identity Crisis acts like a hero, or even tries to. In a world where Zatanna exists, mindwiping Dr. Light is actually the easy way out, and heroes don't take the easy way out. Mindwiping Batman is an even more egregious example of simply wrong behavior. Ray's treatment of his obviously insane ex-wife is disgusting. DC has taken characters who are icons and should set a standard for behavior and turned them into mean little people. As I mentioned, it may make for good fiction in a noir setting, but it jars with the brightly-colored world of the DC Universe. By attempting to make their universe "realistic," what DC has done is said that even heroes don't have to have standards - whatever they feel like doing is fine. Ollie may try to justify the League's actions to Wally, but his arguments are weak. The failure of Identity Crisis is not that the story exists, but that the story does not take into account who these characters are. And that's DC's fault.

I understand that this series is simply the first step in a massive crossover that presumably addresses these issues. I get it. However, I am trying to judge these series on their own merits, because even though they are part of a larger tapestry, there's no excuse for not telling a complete story in one title. Identity Crisis is an interesting book, and that makes its wrong-headedness even more vexing. It will be interesting to see how DC addresses these problems in the subsequent mini-series (which I haven't read, so please don't spoil them for me any more than they've already been spoiled!), or if they choose to ignore them. Unfortunately, once you enter "adult swim," you have to explain things a lot more. You can't just get away with saying, "It's all for children!" anymore. And the more you explain something, the less it dazzles you. Has DC shot itself in the foot with this whole Crisis thing? Only time will tell.

Lots of people have written about Identity Crisis, obviously. Here's a sampling: go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and this fun post by our own Lord and Master, back when he was angrier.

Next time: Countdown to Infinite Crisis! Won't that be fun!

21 Comments

I was under the impression that Dr. Light wasn't always a joke but became one after a really out-of-character outing in Wolfman's NEw Teen Titans. The story is even referenced in Identity Crisis, and the mindwipe is used as an in-story explanation of why a formerly formidable villain suddenly became a joke.

Personally, I really enjoyed Identity Crisis, though I understand why people are angry with it.

As for the cheesiness versus "realism" I offer a big old "meh." Watchmen and All-Star Superman are polar opposites, but they have most of the same fans. I think there is room for both. Unfortunately, I think that comics have, for too long, been about good guy versus bad guy. You have superhero versus supervillain and you solve the issue by the more moral one beating the snot out of the other. Isn't that a little twisted? Not that you can't make a good story out of that, but can superhero comics be allowed to recognize what other mediums do: that good and evil aren't black and white, and violence very, very rarely solves any problems?

This is, in my opinion, the biggest problem afflicting the Superman titles. People write Superman like he is perfect. He shouldn't be. Martin Luther King Jr is about as great a hero as we've ever seen, but he cheated on his wife. I think our message to both adults and children should not be "Always be morally perfect" but rather "Always try to do your best and if you slip up... it's okay. You're still a good person."

So as for Green Arrow, Zatanna, Hawkman, etc... yeah. They did do bad things, but... come on. If we're being realist here, everyone of us would call the JLA horribly immoral for not outright killing Joker. Even the biggest human right's activist would want to see him dead. He is a mass murder who escapes from Arkham the day after he is put in. He should die. And for the record, I'm against the death penalty. Either that makes me a hypocrite or I realize there are extreme cases in which people have to go against their morality for the greater good. That's how we get the phrase "Necessary evil."

As for Ray putting his wife in Arkham, my reading was that he wanted to punish her and he was out of his mind with grief and revoltion.

This brings me to another major point in superhero comics. "Should heroes change the world or keep the status quo?" My answer: they should change the world. We write a lot of comics about how trying to change the world by yourself leads to corruption, hatred, and ultimately fails. While there is some truth in that, what message does it send to the reader? "Don't rock the boat. Obey authority. If you try too hard to really fix the world, you'll turn into a meglomaniacal villain." I understand that if Reed Richard built a device to cure world hunger and if Superman and Wonder Woman brought about world peace, the Earth would no longer look like ours and we could no longer empathize with it, but I honestly think that writing this excuse is going to make a lot of wannabe real life heroes learn that it is best not to try to effect real change in the world.

Maybe that last comment has nothing to do with the post, but I saw an opportunity to debate morality and I have trouble passing that up.

Identity Crisis and to a lesser extent Infinite... remind me of the speech the Hoaxer makes near the end of Flex Mentallo:

"Only a bitter little adolescent boy could confuse realism with pessimism"

(though in that case you kind of feel it's Morrison addressing his own excesses of Arkham Asylum).

My problem with Jean's fate is that it pretty much undermined the entire moral point that the series appeared to be trying to make. I mean, here we have this woman who's crazy and happens to know the secret identities of every one of the leaguers and their sidekicks, etc. But it would be crazy crazy immoral to even think about erasing those identities from her mind.

So let's lock her up with all of Batman's nastiest villians instead and see how long it takes for them to get her to tell all...

"My problem with Jean’s fate is that it pretty much undermined the entire moral point that the series appeared to be trying to make."

Your biggest mistake is thinking there was a thematic point to be made here. The only point of this mini was to set up 2 years and 300 dollars worth of tie-ins, minis and one-shots.

My problem with the series is that I know Meltzer can write a good mystery/thruller (as is evidenced by his novels), but either editorial mandates or lack of space made that impossible in this series.

Unfortunately, I can't even pawn the rape off on those excuses, as it seems to be his style to do something horrific to his characters at least once or twice a story (suicide, rape, etc...).

Great piece, Greg, especially your points about how the series reflects on DC's current mentality. Loved the stuff about making "James and the Giant Peach" more realistic, too.

Kal, by the sound of it, you're looking at things from a practical standpoint, but when you're talking about most superheroes, especialy the older ones as we are, it doesn't work very well. Most of them are people who go out there and put their lives on the line for no personal gain. They don't do it for money or fame or anything. They only do it because it's right. That's hardly practical, is it? But it's central to their characters. And having something so massively impractical be that important to them undercuts a lot of your points about what they should be. Besides, morality itself isn't very practical when you think about it.

However, Kal, I agree that there needs to be more variety in the types of stories told in comics, superhero ones especially, but that doesn't mean the DC universe is the place to do it. It's exactly the same thing Greg pointed out when he stated, basically, that Identity Crisis was a good story, but the wrong story for these characters.

By the way, Brian, great quote.

Kal Void: Even the biggest human right’s activist would want to see him dead

Except me, of course... which I guess makes me more morally lofty than even a hypothetical fiction. Nice.

Anyway, as for Identity Crisis, I didn't like it. Okay, I bought the first issue, and I knew I wouldn't like the rest. Yes, while I'm an avid "follow creators over characters" reader, I will admit to Elongated Man being my favorite character.

But here's the thing. I eventually read the rest, and, you know, it was decent... until #7, which is the worst comic ever written. It's so mind-numbingly dumb that's it's utter shite. And it doesn't clear up any but one of the multiple plot threads brought up by the mini-series... so, yeah, it's all a waste of time for a bunch of set-up and a solution that makes no sense.

Why would Jean Loring know everyone's secret identity? I can't believe this supporting character we haven't seen in years would know who Tim Drake is. I very much dislike DC's current "everyone knows who everyone is" policy.

But the dumbest... DUMBEST thing ever... was "So I brought a flamethrower just in case." AAAGH! If there's so much security in their apartment, how does it not notice someone grow to human size with a bloody flamethrower and walk around setting people on fire? Why the flamethrower? Arrrrghhhhh

It's just bad comics. Countdown wasn't much better, that was the worst issue of whatever year it was, too.

Yes, that is true. It appears as though on the various worlds of Mars, Thanagar, New Genesis/Apocalypse, and Krypton, the security technologists never thought to invent such a device as a 'camera' or 'microphone'.

I enjoyed your article - just a quick criticism (that can be applied to lots of other Identity Crisis pieces too).

A lot of commentary tend to conflate what Wally calls a 'mindwipe' (Zatanna's 'forget' spell) with what Hawkman calls 'cleaning up' Dr Light ('what others have called the lobotomy). There's a big difference between the two - as Green Arrow says at one point, 'making them forget our real names was one thing... altering someone's personality... that was the end.' I agree - I'm inclined to think that zapping someone with a forgeting spell is a little shady but otherwise acceptable comic-booky way of resolving some of the issues that go with this genre's beloved convention of secret identities.

Of course, Batman also cops a 'mindwipe', and we should distinguish the ethical dilemma that goes with that from the different ethical dilemmas that go with, respectively, windwiping baddies and 'lobotomising' Light.

And those distinctions have implications for how we judge the characters. For example, I take the discussion about Superman and how he 'hears what he wants to hear' to refer to his knowledge of the mindwiping of villains (and not of Batman, and not of lobotmising Light) - a practice not quite to Superman's tastes, but not that bad, in a comic-booky sort of a way. I know a lot of people were steamed to think that Superman was be written as if he condoned those other two actions - I don't think it reads that way. Also, this means we should give Green Arrow a bit more of a break that he has been given - after all, he opposed the lobotomising, even clocked Hawkman because of it and has been arguing with him ever since.

Also, the reason why the Wally comes to know that Batman was in the original punch-up with Dr Light is explained: Light showed him the scene when he freaked out (Light can 'do optics').

cheers!

Mister Intensity

June 2, 2006 at 4:03 am

Funny thing is, Meltzer's explanation for Dr. Light's "goofiness" is more goofy than John Ostrander's explantion for that behavior in Suicide Squad. Ostrander's explanation that Light has an inferority complex that increased every time he was defeated by less and less formiable heroes did a lot more to humanize and make comic books and their characters more adult than the "sadistic behavior that had to be stopped by a mind wipe" ever did.

Then again DC always have to fix things that weren't broken to begin with just to justify what they're doing.

Seems to me people are attaching far too much importance to that stray tabloid headline about Jean Loring being abused in Arkham. After all, the only other headline we saw in that particular tabloid (the revelation of the existence of Boomerang Junior) was wrong in what I would consider a major point (the identity of Junior's mother -- did we ever get that cleared up?).

Has the accuracy of the Arkham story been established?

Oh, I can feel the old wounds being ripped open - hear that tearing? That's the sound of scabs being ripped off and old wounds being re-opened across the internets...

I'm not so sanguine about Identity Crisis being a bad mystery as you are, Greg. It was billed as a mystery, and it was such a poorly contrived one that it made the Encyclopedia Brown books from my childhood look like brilliant pieces of detective fiction. The build-up was fine for the most part, but the reveal was pathetic. I almost expected someone to pull a rubber mask off of Jean at the end and reveal that it was actually Professor Hyde-Whyte (oh, those meddling kids...)

Leaving the mystery aside, then, the other aspect of the book is as a commentary on superheroes as people. I've read too much at this point for this aspect to have been of much interest to me. In fact, as I was reading the story, the mind-wipe issue only kept reminding me of Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme miniseries - which handled the same issues, but was (IMO) more well thought-out than IdC managed. I kept finding myself comparing IdC to SS as I read it, and every time I found it lacking.

Finally, the rape issue. Without this, I probably would have just shrugged about the whole thing. Without the rape, the story was just a bland story with a disappointing mystery and some supporting cast deaths - summer cross-over fare, for the most part.

The rape, though, was offensive and lazy. Why did Sue need to be raped? Why not just attacked? If Light had assaulted her to near-death, would that not have worked to motivate both the mind-wipe by the heroes (make the psycho into a pussycat because he wouldn't play by "the rules" and leave the "civilians" out of things) AND the eventual suspicion of Light as Sue's killer (after all, he tried to kill her once before). But she's a female character, so of course the attack has to involve a rape, and that's lazy storytelling. That sort of thing pushes me right out of things that I'm reading, and makes me start to analyze the work more than just sitting back and enjoying it, so once that reveal occurred, the rest of the series just soured for me.

So overall, IdC was a wide miss for me. I enjoyed IC much more than I thought I would coming off the heels of IdC, and if it weren't for the rape retcon, I might have enjoyed IdC more than I did.

Hey, nice post. I've been reading a lot of great stuff today.

I too went back to look at these three parts of the whole DCU Crossover eventacular (only in less detail than you are going into).

I think most people agree. The setup was good. It was a horribly dark beginning to a mystery that went pearshaped. Suddenly the murder mystery wasn't the main point and the red herrings became more interesting throughout the year following as they popped up in various other titles (Luthor's armour in Teen Titans for instance).

As for the rape scene, I think you had some good points. It was primarily used to show how the men deal with it, not the women. Although on the flip side I do think it helps go back and show that the bright and shiny spit polished past wasn't the same under that brilliant surface. I do like the idea of exploring the stuff that gets glossed over. People didn't talk about sex so they brushed the rape under the carpet and didn't acknowledge it because that's how they thought you did things. That's a powerful idea. It was a man's world so something like the rape of a girlfriend affected the men "more" in some weirdly disturbing irrational way. They did what they did because that's what was done. It was the Modernist ideal now explored through a post-modern lens.

Still, using rape and death to explore the morality of backward talking mind-magic isn't the best way to do things in my book. You're using two very real and horrific acts to explore comic-book superhero magic - there's no way that something silly can be seen as anywhere near as horrific as rape and/or murder. Using real life crimes to explore made up ones just rings too hollow.

Small point regarding Jean's motivation. I think the idea was not just to get Ray back, but also to make him appreciate her more and be a better husband. There is a scene I believe where they make it pretty explicit. They talk about how when a loved one of a hero dies, all the other loved ones of other heros get extra attention. Presumably, then, she thought this would not only get them back together, but also "correct" whatever problems made her leave him in the first place.

I need to get around to reading Countdown before you analyse it... I bought it from Lone Star a few weeks back in an attempt to get into mainstream comics... I can't make myself read the awfulness that is Identity Crisis though...

J'onn, Countdown is MUCH worse writing-wise than Identity Crisis. After you read Countdown, you should read the infamous abhay review of the issue (along with our esteemed pal Greg Burgas's review of course.)

I don't think I've read abhay's review of Countdown. Man, that HAS to be good. But you're right, T., Countdown is pretty awful. I will still examine it with a critically impartial eye!

The abhay review is the greatest review ever written.

Especially the original, unedited version.

"Identity Crisis" is/was the beginning of the end of my interest in superhuman melodrama. It's a 'change for change's sake' kind of story that serves only to provide a basis for future material, with no inherent value of its own. These kinds of things piss me off.

If it weren't for Brubaker's Captain America and Exiles, and working a couple evenings in a shop so I get to read stuff for free, I don't know as I'd be reading any of it. The shop is small and hasn't ordered any Civil War beyond the pull-listers, so I haven't read any of it, and I really don't care. I'll find out what happened in Wizard in six months anyway.

I'm reminded of the Tick comicbook spinoffs "Paul the Samurai" and "Man-Eating Cow" which both ended with a two-issue (four comics) crossover called "Crisis on Finite Tick Spin-Offs" ... a fun little story. I don't see that today's older comics readers really want change in the characters they've been reading for forever, and even if you can get a kid into comics these days how is a continuity-heavy crossover going to get/keep them interested, especially when there's no reference footnoting* to the backstory that's being referenced/mucked with?

* Footnoting, incidentally, is what got me more deeply interested in comics when I started in the mid-80's. Spidey says something about a past event, the footnote says what issue it happened, and next week I'm begging mom to take me to the store so I can find the issue ... och, my wallet ...

When I read Identity Crisis, I kept waiting for the good stuff to happen so I could enjoy it. They never did.

The whole thing was...off kilter somehow. The characters were out of character, even with their current infinitely ret-conned personalities. I mean I would have thought the new Batman would have definitely found out they mindwiped him and then proceeded to capture all those involved and drop them in a deep cavern in the batcave with no food. Not that I like the new Batman mind, just saying...

DC had a good model for their comics. The characters were iconic, larger than life and so were their stories. That's what made them special. They weren't like Marvel's characters and they couldn't be. Let's face it, Clark Kent is an alien God pretending to be a loser to have a personal life, while Peter Parker is a loser who admirably perseveres against it. Spider-Man's stories shoudn't be larger than life. Superman's shouldn't be about missing rent, getting dumped, going to the john or rape.

Both companies make great comics, but different, and that's how they should be imo.

On a funny note, I never got the 'rape' implication in IC until people talked about it on the web. Till then I was like 'no...surely they don't mean rape, right?'. That's how out of place I thought it was.

Leave a Comment

 

Subscribe to CSBG

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives