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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Superetards.