Comic Book Resources

On a tangent; I never realized how similar the covers for X-men #136 & Crisis #7 really were.

Homage?

I'll never understand why so many people buy into hype. I don't read Captain America and I didn't buy #25. I'll check out a comic if I hear from enough people that it's got a good story. Thanks to this blog I intend to check out Nextwave and Bone. But cheap gimmicks won't get me to buy a comic. I guess it's the carwreck mentality: everyone else is looking, I should look too!

If people pick up Cap and like it and start reading it, more power to them. I just don't see many new readers lasting long.

On a tangent; I never realized how similar the covers for X-men #136 & Crisis #7 really were. Homage?

The "carrying the dead hero" is actually a cover that you see a LOT. If I wasn't so pressed for time this week I'd have dug out a bunch more. It's pretty creepy.

Greg: What did you think of Gwen's father's death a couple of years before hers? That was the first real comic book death of my experience. Ferro Lad's rang no more true than any of Doctor Doom's--at the time it came out, anyway; it did stand in the long run, of course--and Sue & Johnny Storm's father, killed in a fairly early issue of FF, seemed created to die. But Capt. Stacy's passing hit hard, especially calling Spidey "Peter" in his last breath.

Ted, it may seem weird, but I read about Gwen BEFORE I read about Captain Stacy. I was a little kid and there was no such thing as a comics shop, so my collection was very spotty and hit-and-miss. When I wanted Spider-Man I usually bought Marvel Tales which was doing the two-for-one reprints, buying the regular book was not something I did regularly. When they finally got up to the death of Gwen's dad it was a while after the death of Gwen in the regular book and I took it better. I thought it was a good story and a nice end note to the arc.

I think what has driven the carnage is sales, but it's also the modern comics writer. More and more, I get the feeling that, while these guys love the characters, they hate writing comics. Writing comics is not sexy or important, like writing screeenplays. Killing characters in comic books is a way that comic writers use to make themselves important, serious writers, not guys whose products are read in ten minutes on the can.

I think the thing that is painfully overlook in this article, which seems to just be stemming from the fact that a) Cap's death was tied to the Civil War event and b) there has been an amazingly huge reaction over it both in the comics community and the media, is that the issue is actually well written. To me, that is what's important. The death was powerfully done and sets up some interesting stories. Yes, characters die a lot and those issues are eaten up by fanboys. But you know what? The same people complaining are the same ones buying those issues. I think they just need to get over it and take the issue for what it is, which is a damn good comic.

Why do modern readers insist on seeing old campy comics as "unintentionally hilarious"? Do you think it never occurred to the artist that having that little boy step over the Flash was a little absurd? It was intentional. It was camp. You might like to think you're laughing at, but you're just laughing with.

Do you think it never occurred to the artist that having that little boy step over the Flash was a little absurd?

Oh, I suspect it did. To be honest, I think the Captain Cold cover is the one that's got the big unintentional laffs.

Anyway, I was there. I thought it was goofy then. So I don't think I'm really the ironic-hipster Superdickery.com demographic you're thinking of.

It worked in Milligan's X-Force though.

After having the first arc kill off characters at a rapid fire pace, the next few arcs where no one died really made the characters become more special, but you liked them more as you knew they could be killed at any time.
Then when they had the issue where we knew one of the main three was going to die... man, possibly the best comic experience of my life, I was breathless getting through that one, in a rush to see who it was, but not wanting to turn pages in case it happened on the next one.
And then when it turned out to be U-Go Girl, the greatest character ever, I was shocked as all hell, saddened and yet satisfied with the story.
The book never fully recovered from her death, in my opinion, but it was a good story, and I'm glad (in a way) that they did it.

The “carrying the dead hero” is actually a cover that you see a LOT. If I wasn’t so pressed for time this week I’d have dug out a bunch more. It’s pretty creepy.

Do you mind if I help?

Arak #45 (1983)
Astounding #32 (Atlas Comics, 1955)
Batman #156 ("Robin Dies at Dawn", 1963)
Captain Action #3 (1969)
Conan the Barbarian #100 (1979)
Crime Mysteries #2 (1952)
Daredevil #164 (1980 -- 3 months before X-Men #136)
Detective #574 (1987)
Flash #305 (a twofer)
Green Lantern/Green Arrow #86 (the “Speedy is a junkie” issue) (1971)
Hulk #189 (1975)
Human Fly #18 (1979)
Journey into Mystery #110 (1965)
Legion of Superheroes #296
Lois Lane #128 (1972)
Major Bummer #12 (1998) (homage of Crisis #7)
Monster of Frankenstein #2 (1972)
Silver Surfer (1st series) #11 (1970)
Spirit #2 (Kitchen Sink, 1983)
Superman: Man of Steel #10 (homage of Crisis #7)
Warlock (1st series) #7 (1973)

"There’s a market trend I wish somebody’d latch on to. A good story with characters we can care about. Wow, what a concept."

Um, Cap # 25 WAS a good story with characters we can care about.

The hype by the media and/or Marvel may be worth criticizing, but the issue itself, if you've been following Cap since Brubaker took over, was fantastic. And it certainly felt of a piece with the 24 issues that preceded it.

"There’s only one way to build real reader loyalty. Quit looking for the event and look for the STORY. Readers will show up for a good story. We’ve seen this proven a number of times in recent years, with Neil Gaiman’s Sandman and James Robinson’s Starman, and others. It’s not like it can’t be done."

Cap #25 looks like the beginning of a good story, one I'll show up for. (And, in case you missed it, Gaiman bumped off a few characters in Sandman as well, including one very major one.)

Cheers.

Two points:

-- The death of the Jason Todd Robin was still sleazier, since it wasn't a 1-800 number as you report; it was a 1-900 number, costing fifty cents a pop for voters. I remember that being why I decided not to vote, and to stop reading Batman comics for a while as a youngster.

-- I have to disagree with the strange contention that Captain America #25 was a well-written issue; it's well-structured, yes, but it boils down to the supporting cast having flashbacks about How Great and Important Captain America Is in order to telegraph the death at the finale. The Sharon twist isn't all that effective either, since it's had exactly three pages of setup just three issues ago. This feels less like a well-executed swerve and more like a late, crossover-dictated plot detour to me. Brubaker did a good job incorporating it into the comic he was writing, and he seems sold on the idea, but it feels abrupt and rather off-track in the context of the pre-Civil War ongoing plotlines.

"(And, in case you missed it, Gaiman bumped off a few characters in Sandman as well, including one very major one.)"

That was all story driven.

And, it was Sandman.

You really shouldn't be comparing superhero deaths to Sandman when trying to make a point for them.
It just highlights how lacking and pointless they are.

Ditto with James Robinson on Starman. I don't believe that the deaths were gratuitous (even in the early issues, when the new Mist kills a bunch of people, you get some description of the lives these people have and how arbitrary and unfair it is that they buy it.)

Hell, the last major story arc in Starman was called "Grand Guignol" which is french for "Theater of Blood." I don't mind death in comics, as long as it is well done, and a little realistic (by which I mean, we see the people around them mourning, remembering, grieving, and putting their lives back together.)

James Robison and Neil Gaiman show that they can write death maturely, not gratuitously, even when their comics seem to be full of violence and death (a war, or the "Grand Guignol" in Opal city.)

Fellas, by all means brawl away about the relative merits of the current Captain America storyline, but I feel compelled to point out that I mostly mentioned the Cap thing as an excuse to run a reprint while we figure out Julie's new post-surgery diet and so on.

The fact that so much of what I wrote six years ago about Event Death Hype still applies is depressing, though.

"Fellas, by all means brawl away about the relative merits of the current Captain America storyline, but I feel compelled to point out that I mostly mentioned the Cap thing as an excuse to run a reprint while we figure out Julie’s new post-surgery diet and so on. "

I feel cheated.
That column went from statement against the industry, powerful due to it's repetitvness, to cheap filler piece in the blink of an eye.
Kinda like Supermans death, Batmans broken back, The Age Of Apocalypse, Bloodlines, Ben Reiley and Fire From Heaven in a way

I know. I'm a bad man. Especially since it's turning out today's been a lot quieter than I thought it would be. I just felt it was silly for people to be snarling about stuff I wrote in early 2001 as being unfair criticism of the Cap book.... and a bit sad that so much of it still applies.

Good Lord! I paid a mere 20 cents more for the 4-issue collecting "Death in the Family" trade than I did for a single issue of Captain America?!

Sorry, that was the thing that stuck out to me.

"Good Lord! I paid a mere 20 cents more for the 4-issue collecting “Death in the Family” trade than I did for a single issue of Captain America?!

Sorry, that was the thing that stuck out to me. "

I was amazed how cheap the Superman memorial set was.

The fourth printing of the issue where Superman died was the first comic I ever brought from a comic shop (I wasn't a regular reader then - I was ten), that and a Wonder Man issue (the cover said 'Wonder Man Quits', I was intrigued).
I remember with the Superman issue the comic guy explaining to my mum that it was the fourth printing, so it wouldn't go up in value.
We both stared blankly at him.
As if I cared.

Fun Fact: You all talked about it, but I actually did it - I threw up on Superman #75.
Not intentionally, but it was next to my bed when I was sick a few months later.

Jon Roth:
"James Robison and Neil Gaiman show that they can write death maturely, not gratuitously, even when their comics seem to be full of violence and death (a war, or the “Grand Guignol” in Opal city.)"

Robinson and Gaiman are good and all, I'll agree, but this didn't feel gratuitous to me. I (unfortunately) read the Death of Superman and the Death of Robin when they came out, and as a long-time comics reader, this honestly felt nothing like that.

FunkyGreenJeruslam:
"That was all story driven."

This seemed like the beginning of a story rather than a destination, but otherwise, I'm not seeing any fundamental difference. No 1-800 numbers, black armbands, or holographic covers here. Not yet, at least. (Maybe that'll change.)

FGJ:
"And, it was Sandman.

You really shouldn’t be comparing superhero deaths to Sandman when trying to make a point for them.
It just highlights how lacking and pointless they are. "

Was Sandman a better book than Brubaker's CA? Sure. Better than most superhero comics? You bet. But I don't see how the quality of Gaiman's (or Robinson's) work on a single title precludes the possibility of a well-written storyline involving a superhero death, even in a mainstream comic like CA. Unless you're going to reject superhero stories (or in deference to Starman, mainstream superhero stories) all-together. If so, cool enough, to each their own.

And apologies to Mr. Hatcher if I contributed to a brawl on a blog a wandered into. No offense meant to you or anyone posting. Much of the article seemed on target, particularly the later (well, technically earlier) stuff, and the whole thing was well-written. Just didn't seem to fit what was actually in the comic that a lot of people currently seem to be complaining about, IMHO. Apologies again.

Cheers.

No need to apologize. When I say 'brawl' I say it with tongue firmly in cheek. Happy to see new names in the comments at all. Hell, I'm happy someone besides my family reads the stuff.

" No 1-800 numbers, black armbands, or holographic covers here. Not yet, at least. (Maybe that’ll change.)"

On the back of a major crossover?

I read earlier today the death came out of the same planning meeting as Civil War, so I have little faith in it.
I was going to pick up Brubakers run in trades, but I may just wait a while now and see how it plays out - if people say its good, I'll check it out.

"But I don’t see how the quality of Gaiman’s (or Robinson’s) work on a single title precludes the possibility of a well-written storyline involving a superhero death, even in a mainstream comic like CA. "

It doesn't.
I just don't have much faith in Marvel these days (or DC for that matter), so when they bust out a good book like She Hulk or Blue Beetle I jump all over it, but of everything else I'm really skeptical.

Hello, first time, somewhat long-time (since CBR picked you guys up) here.

I just wanted to respond to your (understandably reprinted) comments about the death of Jason Todd.

I was reading Batman comics in those days, and yes, I paid my .50 to vote on the matter. I voted to kill him, and I'll tell you why.

My reason was actually three-fold:

1) The readers were allowed to choose. From my perspective, if Robin doesn't die, then things continue on as they have been. But if he does die, what happens then? Curiousity, and yes morbidity, played a role.

2) I never liked Jason Todd. From pre-COIE Dick Grayson clone to post-COIE juvenile delinquent, I never liked the character in the slightest. Dick Grayson had grown beyond the sidekick role, and Batman's development since the 70's had made it time to see him on his own again, IMHO. Year One also whetted my appetite for a solo Batman, which kind of leads me to...

3) Dark Knight. Even though I think Year One is ten times as good as Dark Knight, the idea in that story that he had suffered the loss of having Robin die was a fascinating development in the Batman mythos. It was obvious in DK that the dead Robin was Jason Todd, and when the Death in the Family story came about; I, and others I am sure, took it in part as a referendum on the DK continuity. I voted in favor of Dark Knight

In closing, I just want to say how much I enjoy what you guys do, keep up the good work.

/Man, do I feel like a putz, I too never noticed the similarity between X-Men #136 and COIE #7, and I've been readin comics for well over 20 years. I honestly never liked the COIE cover, even as a big Perez fan. I do like the X-Men cover, but looking at it closely now, Cyclops anatomy is all screwed up- he has no crotch.

I think the reason a lot of people (including myself) are so mad about Cap's death is not simply because he died. It's the great pains Marvel went through to break him first. The point of Civil War seems to be that Cap was wrong and out of touch, and not really a good representation of America. To say all that, and then to kill him off, thus silencing any chance for this accusation to be rebutted, is shameless, cowardly, and quite frankly just sloppy. It's like they're saying, "Still want Cap to be the leader? Too bad. Iron Man's in charge now and there's no use crying about it." Ultimately, Captain America's death is nothing more than one more symptom of a group of smug, pseudo-intellectual hacks who have entirely too much power. But I think for a lot of people it may be the last straw.

Haha, comicbookwriters having power, let alone too much power. Now there's unintentional funny.

"Oliver Queen Green Arrow, the Barry Allen Flash, the original Supergirl, and literally dozens of second-tier, day-player supertypes like Marvel’s Captain Marvel, Guy Gardner, Wonder Man, Vigilante, Raven and Jericho from the new Teen Titans, Hawk and Dove, three or four different JSA’ers, a couple of Starmen, a couple of Manhunters… all killed off."

Back; still dead; sorta back; back; back; back; still dead as far as I know; back; back; back, evil, and dead again; replaced, replacement dead, replacement back; original Hourman and Hawkman back; none back that I know of; none back that I know of, but a lot more killed off.

Getcher scorecards; can't tell who's dead without a scorecard...

Geez, Greg, it's like you're channeling everything I have to say about the topic of death in superhero comics (if I was, y'know, articulate and such).

Here's what they need to be careful of:

I had the issue in hand and glanced through it in the shop to see what the hype was (I usually don't read Marvel but keep in touch), thought about buying it because it seemed like a pivotal moment and issue, maybe something I had to check out and get on board with.

Then I realized that by the end of the year any combination of one of three things will probably happen:

1) We get new guy in Cap suit that goes nuts and must be taken down which will prove, once again, that only Rogers can be Cap because "it's the hero and not the suit that matters"

2) There will be a crisis that demands Rogers return and he'll be cloned by science/re-animated by Dr. Strange/or come back through the Cosmic Cube unharmed to save the day

3) We'll just forget he died. It was a dream. Or something. Sharon was having a hallucination. Sort of like when Magneto died those five-thousand times in the X-Books (my favorite being when, late 90's maybe, it was the end of a run before Morrison and the X-Men killed him after he was ruling Genosha and then went and got a beer afterwards...brilliant). And then Mags just shows up again. No explanation. I love it. They don't even need to explain how totally dead guys come back anymore.

In short, I thought about this, and then put down the book. Bought what I came in for, and left. I doubt I'm missing anything I don't already know, no matter how well written it may be done.

The one that irks me the most was Ted Kord-the best Blue Beetle ever...

It's interesting reading about your reaction to the death of Gwen Stacy, because I actually read it in 'Marvel Tales' when I read it for the first time--a big double-sized issue, reprinting both the death of Gwen and the death of the Goblin. And as I recall, I was pretty OK with it.

I think there are two reasons for this. One, I read it in Marvel Tales. In my "current" Spidey comics at the time, Peter had just revealed his identity to MJ, the black costume stuff was going on, and Gwen Stacy was very much "of the past." (Even the Jackal was about 100 issues gone, by then.) So it wasn't a fresh tragedy.

And two, I don't think I've made it any secret that I'm a big Doctor Who fan. I think that you do get a bit different perspective on death if your formative fan experience is Doctor Who, because it's always been a series that's borderline horror, and it's always been a series where good people do die and it's presented as "hey, it's a tough world, the important thing is that justice gets done." (There are Doctor Who stories with higher body counts than 'Pulp Fiction', 'The Godfather', and 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Combined.) So when I read that two-parter, I saw it as, "Gwen Stacy died--poor thing. But justice was done. The Green Goblin is dead too." (It was a very Doctor Who-ish death, too...he tried to kill Peter, Peter neatly avoided his trap, and it closed around the Goblin.) It fit into my moral framework in a way a lot of later comic deaths don't.

Then, of course, they brought the Goblin _back_. Of all the characters that should have stayed dead...

The "hero carrying a dead/fallen her" cover has been done ad nausium.

Wizard had an "article" on how many there were going back thru the dawn of comics (there were about 100 or so) and even THEY (not that those guys have ANY intelligence - which is why I've since dropped the mag) even knew that ALL of those covers were, in and of themselves, homages to Michaelangelo's "PIETA" (statue of Mary holding the recently deceased Jesus).

If I have a chance, I'll dig out the issue from my magazine pile and go over the list.

But, even if I don't get the chance, I just wanted to fill you in on how many there have been and that they were all derived from a classical master.

~P~
P-TOR

When I disagree with you Greg, I disagree big. But when I'm in agreement with you, I am with you 1000%, as in this case. I too think that the death of Gwen Stacy was a huge mistake in the SPider-Man mythos that laid the foundation for many of the other missteps. I think it gets mistakenly lionized by fans because (1) it was such a major storyline, (2) it was more "adult" and fans love almost anything that makes superheroes seem more adult and mature, even if it's a bad idea, because they feel it will finally convince the public at large that comics aren't best suited to kids.

Another big problem with the Gwen Stacy death is that it negates the big lesson of Uncle Ben's death. Spider-Man does what he does because he discovered that if he doesn't become Spider-Man and fight crime, good people can die including those he loves. But in Gwen Stacy's death, someone he loved die precisely because he was Spider-Man and fought crime. So what's his reason to be Spider-Man now? Writers keep using the Uncle Ben reason of guilt over inaction, but the problem is that with Gwen's death now he has an equally valid reason for guilt over taking action. Since both guilt over inaction and guilt over taking action both led to the same reasons, it means he now needs a new reason to remain Spider-Man besides the old Uncle Ben reason. I think JMS realized this and it caused him to create the Norman/Gwen affair, so that Gwen would actually die for reasons unrelated to Peter being Spider-Man, thereby letting him off the hook. But that opened up a whole other host of problems.

Im actually going to defend the Death of Jason Todd.

Ok, first off, I hated the storyline. I thought it was a poor work by Starlin, and it made me wish he would not touch characters who werent flying around in space.

But hears the thing that makes the death of Robin a positive part of comic books. The call in vote...yes, the thing you all hate. Why? Because fan interaction.

One of the things that brought fans to comic books back in the day was the community that formed around it. This is something that is echoed today in comic conventions, messageboards and blogs and even arguments at the comic book store. But back then, there were two ways that fans interacted: either by fan zines (which I know Mr Hatcher knows quite a lot about), and the letters page. The old EC comics were I believe the first notable book that tried to create a fan community, allowing people in the community to get special "insider" knowledge. There are pages in EC books that are filled with inside jokes about different EC titles and the writers and staff. You had to be in the implyed community of readers to get all the references. Fan letters would also be answered and fans felt like they were interacting with the comic book writers themselves, and even, via the page, their friends.

Marvel echoed this in the 60s as well, with stuff like Stan's Soapbox and the famous letters page for "True Believers". Marvel was doing what EC did, and started a fan community that these readers could be a part of. By taking the time out to answer readers questions, Stan Lee was giving the appearence that readers opinions mattered, and that they were insiders at Marvel. The introduction of the Merry Marvel Marching Society, The No-Prizes, and even powerful slogans like "Make Mine Marvel!" and every catch phrase Stan Lee ever came up with all made the "secret" society even tighter, and fan intereaction even greater.

Now what does this have to do with the Death of Robin? Well, DC put it up for a vote by the fans, therefore trying to include something that had been slightly neglected in the previous years. The whole element of fan interaction is what made comics successful back in the day, and gave them a fan base. People who felt like they were outsiders to everyone else were able to relate to a nerd like Peter Parker that was picked on by bull Flash Thompson, and they were even able to be in a "special insider" community with the guy who wrote that story! It;s why people stayed, and why today we have stuff like comic conventions and this messageboard.

I know that was long and I hope someone reads it and comments. I would really like to hear Greg's opinion on all of this.

looking at the post I just posted, I really wish I spell checked it. I typed it so fast that there are at least 4 spelling errors in it and at least 2 convoluted sentences. Please excuse those.

The “carrying the dead hero” is actually a cover that you see a LOT.

Probably because it's icongraphy you see a LOT in art, as in art that doesn't involve superheroes. The pieta, as mentioned above is one example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieta

But there are loads of other visual representations of carrying the dead hero ranging from the death of Siegfried to the Death of General Wolfe

I would really like to hear Greg’s opinion on all of this.

Really that's a whole 'nother column. But the short version is that the fun fan-involvement things you cite from the heyday of Stan and Merry Marvel have morphed into something really kind of unpleasant, and on the whole have been bad for comics. The insane levels of today's fan rage and arrogant entitlement you see all over the fan press and on the internet sprouted from that, and editorial decisions meant to either placate fans or anger them/stir them up ("get some buzz on the book!") have been one of the most stifling influences on mainstream superheroes for the last twenty years. Stories meant as fan service, placating the needs of continuity geeks or setting up things in the 'fictional universe' the characters inhabit, as a genreal rule of thumb make for bad comics. I think mainstream comics work much better when the creators are distanced from the audience and just doing their own thing. It's the difference between the Green Lantern of Rebirth and the Green Lantern of New Frontier, or between the Jeff Smith Captain Marvel and the Judd Winick Captain Marvel.

I'm all about fanzines and the DIY ethic and expressing yourself and so on. Where we trip up is thinking that these things need to have actual status in the editorial process, that they should weigh as heavily in the creative process as fans say they should. The trouble is that most creators working today are coming from that fan/geek pool; a great many of them are, I think, writing fan fiction and getting paid for it. That's what leads to really incestuous, self-referential, incomprehensible comics like Brad Meltzer's new Justice League. I like Joss Whedon's work quite a bit but I'm the first one to tell you that his X-Men isn't a patch on his other original work. Because his X-stuff is coming from his inner geek place, it's fanfic really.

I want comics that are coming more from a place of general-interest, new-reader-friendly, back-to-basics craftsmanship. I think fan-service comics drag everything down. The Event Death is just one of the creepier symptoms of that.

The Jason Todd thing struck me as one of the creepiest manifestations of all, and note that even Denny O'Neil, who orchestrated it, has since expressed regret and said it was probably a mistake. A story ending dictated by fans phoning in their Nero-esque thumbs-up/thumbs down isn't about the story at all, it's a novelty act. A novelty act about a character dying, even knowing it's fiction and nobody really gets hurt, is still catering to the worst instincts of the audience.

...and that's the SHORT answer. Really it's a column all by itself. But I like comics better when the creators are isolated; they are over here, creating, and the audience is over THERE, either purchasing or not purchasing. Fan excitement is great. Fan creativity is great. But fan involvement in the editorial/creative process is something to be wary of, especially since when fans get what they ASK for, they usually hate it.

I agree with you Greg, fan involvment has led to bad decisions. But it also shows the skills of the writer if he can come to a happy medium between the two.

Personally, I agree that writers without fan influence work better than writers who constantly listen to the messageboards, but they also tend to get full of themselves and take the character places that the main fanbase is lost. Is Winick listening to fans? Is that how Trials of Shazam got created? I just figured it was the complete opposite. (Though, thinking about it, there probably is more of a move by comic fans to make everything darker).

Yeah, many writers today are "fanboys" (Geoff Johns anyone?) And yes, they seem to be writing Fanfic to an extent. While that isn't by any means the same level that had been seen previously in comics, I'd be lying if I said that I was enjoying the new JSA.

So in conclusion. I dont know. Ha. I guess I proved your point with the first paragraph of my first post. I came out in support of the Death of Robin because of the fan interaction, yet said I hated the story. I guess that proves it.

Why are superhero comic so dark nowadays? I mean I was really digging the whole Black Adam having a family and runnign a country, and then the family gets killed off and he goes beserk and kill millions of people. Do anyone else think that this is too dark and over the top