Comic Book Resources

I feel its already a mystery story. I mean its a mystery to me as to what exactly happened. The hard part would be making it "workable."

And then which artwork... the original or what printed in the trade version?

Original artwork.

The rape scenes would be hard to make into anything else as drawn, but aside from having to retain that element Jean Loring's sudden change in body langauge and facial expressions in the last issue is going to be hard to make into anything other than "suddenly crazy murderess."

I believe the flamethrower appears on-panel, so, no.

Jean Loring's crazy-looking could be due to some sort of psychic meddling or a murderer who uses possession or something - a murderer or accomplice with deadman powers or something. Or it could be Sublime, the living code!

If you wanted to lose the rape, you could make it an attempted rape, or he could be tying her up from behind. Or you could keep it a rape, but treat it seriously, and make it a meaningful, necessary part of the plot.

Atom could be the murderer. That could explain away some of Jean's freakiness and crying.

Wouldn't make it a better story, but it might make it a better mystery.

"Atom could be the murderer. That could explain away some of Jean’s freakiness and crying.

Wouldn’t make it a better story, but it might make it a better mystery."

Well, he would have got away with it if he was the killer, wouldn't he?

I kinda like the idea of Ray being the murderer, scaring his wife, having her thrown in Arkham on the strength of his super-hero status, then going on the run.

Quitcher merning

Identity Crisis is just fine as it is!

It may or may not be fine, but the question here is just whether it could be re-written into a workable mystery. One thing it certainly wasn't.

It worked for me

I don't think "workable mystery" is a subjective thing, though.

I can get behind "I liked it even though it wasn't," or "I didn't really care about the mystery aspect, because I liked it for the character work," or "The mystery was not the point of Identity Crisis, the point was the examination of the heroes vis a vis the mind-wipes, so the murder was secondary, so the fact that it didn't work was unimportant," or something like that.

That stuff is totally subjective. I wouldn't dream of saying you shouldn't like Identity Crisis.

But "workable mystery," I believe, is an objective thing.

So I don't think "it worked for me" cuts the mustard here. The complaint about the mystery in Identity Crisis is that it was a puzzle whose solution did not make sense. Based on the facts presented to us, you simply could not solve the mystery. Jean Loring accidentally killed her then burned her body with a flamethrower she carried with her "just in case"?

You need more than "it worked for me" to explain how that makes sense.

Brian -

There are different types of mystery stories, though. What you're talking about is a "fair play" mystery story - one where the author goes to the trouble of planting clues and red herrings so that, by about 75-80% of the way through the story, the reader has a chance to figure out what is going on (often only a slim chance, unless you're reading Encyclopedia Brown or watching Muder She Wrote or something, but a chance).

In Identity Crisis, the mystery is a MacGuffin - just something to drive the story forward across seven issues. Despite early signs that it might be a fair play mystery, in retrospect it clearly was not designed to be. It turns out to be a terrible mystery because its not really a mystery at all, just a plot device to keep the story moving.

Now, it is an interesting question to ask whether this story could be turned into a decent fair play mystery just by changing the dialog. I think it might be possible. You'd have to give Jean a real motive beyond "crazy" (Jean is clearly identified as the killer in the art, so unless you're allowing some panel editing, you'd need to leave the basic actors as they are), and you'd need to lay it out in her scenes early on in the series. Maybe she's been brainwashed by Deathstroke's evil serum[TM] (last seen in Teen Titans). Maybe she's possessed. Maybe (and this is the thematic explanation I would have liked in the series) she was herself the victim of mindwipes in the past and they addled her brain - either from heroes removing her memory of their secret identities or villains brainwashing her into hating the Atom. Regardless, simply adding a motive for Jean among all of the red herrings in the series would go a long way towards making the story a fair play mystery.

(You'd also need to work in some reason that she'd know Robin's secret ID and be able to call on Calculator to send a patsy to Tim's father's house. Again, if she were working under Deathstroke's evil serum[TM], this could be easily (if a bit hackishly) explained.)

Incidentally, reading old DC comics makes it clear that Batman's being a whiny little beeyotch. Back in the Sixties, the Justice League mindwiped each other and supervillains all the time; heck, in 'Brave and the Bold', Batman and Green Lantern learned each other's secret identities, then volunteered for mindwipes! And a caption told the reader that the Justice League have all agreed that in the event that they learn each other's secret identity, it's standing policy to mindwipe. Standing freaking policy!

Clearly, someone should show Batman the League charter, then tell him he signed on for this. Don't know why he doesn't remember that, though. Maybe someone mindwiped him.

See, Jean as a crazy killer is the only part that worked for me.

Keep in mind, Jean has an in-canon history of mental illness.

Yeah...I think so. The art was pretty flexible in the series and with some minor dialogue switches and maybe some kind of weird explanation for the rape sequence the story could work. Would it be a good mystery though? I don't think so.

Probably. Whether it would be a good mystery is another matter entirely.

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque

But “workable mystery,” I believe, is an objective thing.

So I don’t think “it worked for me” cuts the mostard here. The complaint about the mystery in Identity Crisis is that it was a puzzle whose solution did not make sense. Based on the facts presented to us, you simply could not solve the mystery. Jean Loring accidentally killed her then burned her body with a flamethrower she carried with her “just in case”?

You need more than “it worked for me” to explain how that makes sense.

Okay - it's been a long time since I read the story and I've only read it once.

As Jer said, I don't feel any particular need to be able to work out the answer from in-story clues, but the one big clue that is stressed over and over through the story is that you have to work out who stands to gain from the murder. In this case, the biggest winner (up until she was found out) was Jean. Highly circumstantial I know, but it's something.

As for the flame thrower being taken along "just in case" I guess it might seem a bit irrational, but then Jean wasn't rational - and maybe she was expecting to come up against microscopic bugs or something.

I'd say that there's not enough of Jean in earlier issues to really make it work. I realize there's a cliffhanger built around her, but there's so much else going on too. Identity Crisis really isn't about the mystery.

I'll put my hand up to thinking it was a 'workable mystery'. It only bugs comic book reading menks because the questions like "How does Jean know Superman's and Batman's Identity in post-crisis continuity?" come up. I thought the reveal of Jean was workable and actually fit with the plot and the overall mystery ("Who Benefits"). The comic book geekery that makes it 'not workable' isn't that hard (in pre-Crisis continuity the League wives knew all the identities, hell, they were all there in their secret IDs at Ray Palmer's wedding; and even in post-crisis continuity why is it so inconceivable that a husband might tell his wife things he shouldn't?)

The irony is that the mystery actually works against the broader comic-geek landscape: Jean Loring had multiple nervous breakdowns and personal baggage throughout the 70s and 80s; as comic book supporting characters go, she's as unstable as you can get.

Weren't Jean's various mental problems tied in to her having vast psionic powers, which caused the Secret Society to go after her in issues of Super-Team Family?

That could give you a way to write away the SSOSV flashback sequence, and perhaps a way to rewrite the myster interestingly...

“How does Jean know Superman’s and Batman’s Identity in post-crisis continuity?”

The one that really scratched my head was her knowing Robin's identity, and using his dad as the patsy. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the other Teen Titan's don't know Tim's real name. Let alone that info filtering through to Jean.

I have a problem with the villain revealed to be Jean Loring.

Identity Crisis was hyped to be all about heroes and villains. Re-evaluating how we look at the Justice League. I think it put the relationships in the Justice League under a microscope, and that was fantastic. What I liked was how Meltzer looked at the League. He looked at it in the same way that Alex Ross has looked at the League.

I liked how Meltzer showed that the villains were cooler, smarter, and better organized than they were in the old days.

But then to reveal Sue's murderer as someone else entirely was just kinda sloppy.In the grand scheme of things what end does it serve? Jean murders Sue. Sue is dead, Jean's crazy and locked away in Arkham, and Ray Palmer is where? I may have to re-read it, but did Jean hate Sue, did they ever have an argument. Was Jean jealous of Sue. Other than insanity, what was Jean's motivation for Sue's murder? Was it just to re-unite with Ray? Not that it's a bad reason for murder, it just seems like a weak reason for murder.

The more I think about it the less I think I like the idea of a another good character turning bad, another good character getting killed off, and the long-term, long-ranging, far-reaching irrepairable damage in the aftermath of it.

I realize that this is OT, somewhat, but going off of what Dave just said, I think the big problem isn't that Identity Crisis is a bad comic; it has a lot of very enjoyable parts. It's that it isn't as good as it should have been or as good as it had the potential to be.

Parts of it are really inspired and then the main thrust of the plot just doesn't size up.

Well, strictly speaking, only one addition is necessary:

"This is an imaginary story"

Jean didn't actually intend to kill Sue at all--she didn't hate her and she wasn't jealous of her, she just wanted to put a little scare into the super-hero community with a failed "attack" on their loved ones, because super-heroes tend to get all touchy-feely after such a scare. Sue's death was (at least according to Jean, and according to Meltzer she's telling the truth when she says it) an accident, pure and simple.

(Meltzer's claim to why she has the flamethrower is just that she grabbed every single piece of super-equipment she could lay hands on, not knowing what she'd need and wouldn't need. I still think it's a little weak, and one of the two major plot holes in the mystery, but that's his explanation.)

I do agree, though, that I'm not fond of the long-term consequences of the decision. But as I've said before, that's not Meltzer's problem, that's down to DC's editorial staff. They should be thinking about the long-term in decades, not "What's next year's big event?"

Seven issues and Batman doesn't solve the issue inside of two issues?

He's the World's Greatest Detective, and because this is comics that is not hyperbole and he is outsmarted and outwitted for six issues by Atom's crazy ex-wife.

That is crap.

The Heroes spend three or four issues looking for a dude with flame powers when most arsonists dobn't hae flame powers and motive is always a bigger clue in every real-life case more than the whole idea of "who and how could have someone be setting someone else on fire." I was in the Scouts. If everything is on the fire angle then I killed Sue Dibny.

Of course Jean Loring was "hanged" so they go after Slipknot even though David Caruso can tell you that one super-villain (and he has not been able to tie a knot since 1988 our time) is one out of thousands that can tie a hangman' noose.

Even the Red Herrings sucked!

Never mind that in TV cop dramas, which technically has as much to do with mysteries as Identity Crisis, the people that the cops look for are the people who know the victims and have motives, opportunities, not exclusivly the guys who to all the folk in the world know how to use guns and knives.

"He was shot! The first perp I'll check out is Gunman! Wait! Thre are kife woulds. Next I will visit Captain Cuttingguy."

Superetards.

Personally I have no problems with I.C. I just re-read the trade on a flight and still think it holds up. Remembering the agonizing wait between issues, I can honestly say I haven't been that excited about before or since...

Does it mean I'm better than Batman if after Issue #5 I told my wife (who was reading the series as well) that Jean did it and why?

I think the reason the super-heroes take so long to solve it is that they're starting from a false premise--and a perfectly reasonable one, given their natures. They assume a supervillain must have done it.

They're very sure it must have been some sort of super-person, because of the elaborate security systems at the Dibney residence. Super-person equals super-villain, because there's such an obvious built-in motive there; super-villains hate super-heroes, and any chance to get at one is a good thing. So you've got your motive, "super-powers" is a good starting point for means, now you just need to find the specific supervillain that did it.

Given the number of potential blind alleys there, the number of supervillains that _could_ have done it, it's no surprise that it took them a while to realize they were working from a false premise. I don't have any problem with the plot logic there.

But even accepting that, why put basic evidence gathering (such as PHONE RECORDS) on the back burner?

Let's be honest, though:L given how long it took the heroes to work out just what really killed Sue Dibny, would they have even thought the whole scenario was a villain attack had Jean's (alleged) original plan to just KO Sue worked out?

THAT is the plot hole that devours the story; Jean's explanation only works if you srhug and say, 'She's crazy." And that's just arbitrary plotting.

Does it mean I’m better than Batman if after Issue #5 I told my wife (who was reading the series as well) that Jean did it and why?

I don't know but it does suggest that maybe IC is a "fair play" mystery after all

Or that he realized there was no reason to put an incredibly obscure character as Jean Loring in the story at all, unless she was going to be of paramount importance in unraveling the storyline.

Cronin says 'Jean Loring accidentally killed her then burned her body with a flamethrower she carried with her “just in case”?'

I've read a lot of people expressing their disappointment with this proposition, in particular the 'accidentally' and 'just in case' parts. Too implausible, they say.

But whose word do you have for it being an accident, and for the flamethrower being there 'just in case'? Only Jean Loring.

As I read it, the implausible explanation is Loring's, not Meltzer's.

Actually, it's Meltzer's too. I asked him that specifically in an interview--is Jean telling the truth when she said she didn't intend to kill Sue? And he said that as far as he was concerned, yes, Jean was telling the truth, she really did just have the flamethrower there as part of a random assortment of "super-gear" she grabbed, and she really did just intend to scare Sue.

On the other hand, I absolve him of any of the OMAC crap; he had no idea any of that was going to go down when he had the League mindwipe Batman.

What do you mean "OMAC crap"? The OMAC Project was by far the best of the minis leading into Infinite Crisis!

I have another problem with Jean's scheme that seems weird even when you consider the "Bitch Be Crazy!" angle. I may have the facts wrong, here, and I'm sure someone will correct me...but to me this bit really undermines the whole thing:

If Jean's intention with this whole thing was to make Ray concerned enough for her that they'd get back together, shouldn't the whole thing naturally culminate with her faked attempt on her own life?

Why wouldn't she stop after that? If THAT didn't work, why would having Robin's dad killed do the trick? It doesn't even make crazy-person sense.

I have had a longstanding prejudiced against Underwear Heroes but Identity Crisis changed that. It's a great, intricate mystery filled with real, adult themes and issues to make a reasonable person stop and think about things. The mystery makes perfect sense at the end because it doesn't make sense. If you are confused by that I say, Of course you are! Of course you are because the obvious doesn't sink in when you can't understand. Jean Loring bringing a flamethrower with her to another woman's house doesn't make sense. But Jean Loring is a female person, and a realistically created female person WILL DO THINGS THAT DO NOT MAKE SENSE. She is not a completely accurate female character (only a woman could write it properly), but the reactions of the men are very realistic. Kudos for a mystery that comes together and brings up themes that are important in today's day and age.

So the answer to the question is there is nothing at all wrong with the comic book--except for the fact that it is all about underwear hereos in the first place. Despite this handicap, it managed to overcome it all and deliver some relevant, mature entertainment, which is utterly obvious to anyone with a relevant matured mind.

Zoombaboom Babies!

Dwight R. Vlahos

'Actually, it’s Meltzer’s too. I asked him that specifically in an interview–is Jean telling the truth when she said she didn’t intend to kill Sue? And he said that as far as he was concerned, yes, Jean was telling the truth, she really did just have the flamethrower there as part of a random assortment of “super-gear” she grabbed, and she really did just intend to scare Sue.'

Hmm. Oh well, I'm going to stick with my first interpretation which was that Jean's statement is unreliable, and mindwipe myself in relation to Meltzer's statement. Works for me!

... what what what.

It's okay for female characters to do things that make no sense, because women make no sense, and you certainly can't expect men to write women right, and it's okay anyway because the male characters were written right, which is all that's required to adequately explore a theme?

I hope that post was actually some sort of elaborate post-modern parody of wrong-headed praise of Identity Crisis. The alternative, that it was written with a straight face, is too horrible to contemplate.

Actually I thought it was "fair play" just badly done in the execution of the murders themselves. I told my wife that I thought Jean did it, but it was mainly just because I saw the motive clearly (due to the whoe "who has the most to gain" aspect) as they showed Ray and her becoming closer in the series. I couldn't explain how she did it but she was the only one I could explain why.

I wasn't a huge DC guy (still not really) so I had no idea about her history or that she was an obscure character in terms of the Atom or JLA history. And really I didn't like the explaination either. I thought it made more sense for her to actually intend to kill Sue then the whole "whoops, good thing I brought a flamethrower and call in a hit on Robin's dad" thing.

I agree with Dwight.

Say all the bad things you want about Identity Crisis, but it's convinced me to carry a flamethrower everywhere I go.

Just in case.

"It’s okay for female characters to do things that make no sense, because women make no sense, and you certainly can’t expect men to write women right, and it’s okay anyway because the male characters were written right, which is all that’s required to adequately explore a theme?"

Exactly Lynxara, although the above is the exception that proves the rule, because normally men and women communicate differently and do not create understanding between themselves. If the Distinguished Competition were truly a smart corporate entity, they would immediately open up an imprint just for women, with all women writers. Perhaps something called "Hearts and Minds" with puppy stories or something else womanly. The men do not completely dominate their comics, but in the ones they do the content almost (ALMOST) hits perfection (aside from the aforementioned difficulty of using underwear heroes at all).

MarkAndrew, it is probably better to not do that, but local laws vary from state to state.

"As Jer said, I don’t feel any particular need to be able to work out the answer from in-story clues"

I don't think that's what he said. I believe he said:

"It turns out to be a terrible mystery because its not really a mystery at all"

"I think the reason the super-heroes take so long to solve it is that they’re starting from a false premise–and a perfectly reasonable one, given their natures. They assume a supervillain must have done it.

They’re very sure it must have been some sort of super-person, because of the elaborate security systems at the Dibney residence. Super-person equals super-villain, because there’s such an obvious built-in motive there; super-villains hate super-heroes, and any chance to get at one is a good thing. So you’ve got your motive"

Ummmm. The only super-villain enemy that the Dibnys have or had was/is the original Sonar.

Which means that no super-villain explored in the comic has motive.

Slipknot can't tie a know anyway.

The villains whose MO involves burning people and things don't have the neccessary skills to infiltrate an apartment and leave no evidence.

Your "obvious motive" doesn't work because aside from Sonar, there is no super-villain that holds a grudge against Elongated Man or hates Elongated Man. Most super-villains don't care about Elongated Man.

This theory works if we expect random thugs to try to and incinerate Myrna Loy.