But Jean Loring? Like Alice in Wonderland, we're asked to believe seven impossible things before breakfast.

1) She loves him far more than he loves her, going against his reason for becoming the Atom in the first place. (ie, to help her win cases so they could get married)

2) She's a smart woman (and therefore evil, because in Meltzer's universe, smart women are evil) so she conceives this elaborate plot to bring Ray back to her, rather than doing something simple like throwing on a see through nightie and asking Ray over.

3) She decides to injure her best friend (because she's an Evil Career Woman rather than a Good Homemaker like Sue).

4) She somehow manages to use Ray's shrink suit (though if Ray Palmer tried to use the white dwarf star matter to shrink and re-enlarge anything but himself, the thing would blow up.)

5) And she manages to shrink not only herself, but a flamethrower too.

6) A rational person becomes criminally insane overnight (which is impossible, as my social worker dad would tell me)

7) And an idiot as well, or she wouldn't have left an obvious clue.

Never mind the plot holes, discrepencies, stereotypes, cliches, etc.

"I'm Hal Jordon and I'm hardcore. My ring chafes my hand. I ignore it. I have work to do. Some people think Boxing Gloves are childish, a remnant of a past time. Well, I've got enough willpower behind my punch to make Tyson look like Rodney Dangerfield. I might mail his teeth back to him in prison. I'm like that. Hardcore."

Get knotted.

As to "it contradicts Morrison"...three things. One, I read Seven Soldiers relatively recently, and don't even remember Grundy being in it, so whatever Morrison did with the character, it can't have been so great that we should enshrine it as the definitive version, and two, I have said it before and I'll say it again, Morrison is a great writer, but he's a lousy writer for a shared universe, because anyone who writes a treatment the next writer can't monkey with isn't doing his or her actual job. And three, frankly, if Morrison had written a "smart Grundy" storyline, I can see Declarative Rabbit instead of Curious Cat saying, "Smart Grundy is another brilliant twist from the God of All Comics". I really feel a lot of this is just "Meltzer can do no right." (Which, again, is not to say that Meltzer has done a lot right; I will at some point in the not too distant future be discussing the Elongated Man on my own blog, and I will have harsh words about the death of Sue Dibny. But he's not irredeemably awful.)

“Smart Grundy? That’s no fun!”

Why?

Julie knows Grundy from the Justice League animated show. And she likes that version. She thinks he's funny.

I could have told her that "that continuity is intact, the Timm-verse Grundy is still dumb," but when I say things like that she gives me the look that translates as I think you need to turn off the computer for a while.

In the lackluster execution way.

Shh! Don't give Meltzer any ideas...

Fun is for children! Meltzer's work is for serious adults.

Serious, serious adults with hardons for tornado robots.

In what way is a room full of rainbow-colored tornado robots not fun? It's like they opened the door to find themselves fighting an army of Gummi Bears...

But why does that mean the possibility of him becoming smart should never ever ever ever be explored? Especially after the widely-accepted understanding that he comes back with a new personality every time he dies?

"We’ve already seen the “big strong guy who’s also a criminal genius” thing. Somebody referenced Mr. Fixit, but don’t forget the second Blockbuster either. They’re good for about five or six issues before they get dull."

I could very easily say the same about "fill-in-the-blank SMASH!"

Even if Grundy stays smart for a while, DC can always use Mammoth as their go-to "we need a big dumb villain for this scene" guy.

Why?

Because Solomon Grundy, if he is smart, does not GRUNDY SMASH! and without that what's the POINT of Solomon Grundy? He's a BIG DEAD WHITE THING THAT SMASHES PEOPLE.

We've already seen the "big strong guy who's also a criminal genius" thing. Somebody referenced Mr. Fixit, but don't forget the second Blockbuster either. They're good for about five or six issues before they get dull.

I'd be surprised if Meltzer even read Seven Soldiers. If he did, his approach to the cape genre seems to indicate he wouldn't get it, but who knows? Doesn't matter to me who follows what. This is a dumb book either way.

Misunderstand or ignore? I'd have thought you'd applaud him for not following in the "nerd puzzle".

"Smart Grundy? That’s no fun!"

Why?

What make's Morrison's version of Grundy's origin, which contradicted previous versions, sacred? Why not take Morrison to task for "not understanding" those stories? I liked James Robinson's version, and that's what Meltzer seems to be working with.