Comic Book Resources

As a soldier in WWII, Steve found that most of his disagreements with Nazis could be worked out in an impromptu encounter group.

Yeah, that does seem beyond the realm of credibility.

Yeah, that doesn't really make much sense. I can understand Cap preferring not to kill unless it's absolutely necessary, and believing the Avengers shouldn't go around acting like judge, jury and executioner, but *never* having killed anyone? Nobody can suspend that much disbelief.

Maybe you could write into Marvel and come up with an explanation of why Cap would be haunted by the guy's death, and win a no-prize. For a story that happened literally decades ago.

"Maybe you could write into Marvel and come up with an explanation of why Cap would be haunted by the guy’s death, and win a no-prize"

As the man lay dying, a dwarf ran up to cradle his head, wailing "He has the mind of a child!"

That particular story was the first Captain America story I ever read.

Eventually, I realised that as a soldier Cap must have killed people, but at the time (when I was a pre-pubescent) it made him very heroic - he didn't kill, until faced with a situation where it was absolutely necessary, and I carried that idea with me for YEARS.

Heck, he wouldn't even kill Mr. Hyde, even when Hyde destroyed all of his pre-icecube mementos, including the "only picture he had of his mother."

I still hold fast to the idea that Captain America was Peter Parker's "hero" and one of his guiding lights - "what would Cap do?" -- even after several years of recent continuity that slap that idea around and then push it in the harbor.

Rats. Here I thought this article was going to talk about Cap-Wolf, or the armor. S'okay. Plenty of time to make fun of that stuff later (with all due respect, because Gruenwald was my first Cap writer).

I did enjoy that bit during Waid's second Cap run, where he's tried everything, and finally run out of anything but a lethal option to stop the Red Skull, and takes it, however reluctantly (that it ended up being some convoluted Korvac plot, we'll just ignore).

And the opening of Brubaker's run was alarming, but that was intentional, to show just how, well, cranky Cap was after the Avengers broke up, and that he wasn't straining himself to avoid using full force.

So I guess what I'm saying is...gosh, I like Captain America.

"For a story that happened literally decades ago."

As opposed to figuratively decades ago?

'Swhat happens when you have 'progressives' write comics.

I dunno, in for a penny in for a pound. He's a super soldier who is so "super" he never had to kill any enemy combatants. I'm willing to go with that.

Consider the alternative: during WWII Cap killed some faceless German grunts but allowed, and continues to allow, all manner of vile Nazi super-baddies to live.

That's just too disturbing an idea to contenance.

Except in the comics up until Gruenwald said that, he had killed people in the war, and used plenty of guns. Even in Steranko's run he blew up a dozen Hydra agents, and not in just a wounding way.

In the actual comics in the 40s, of course, there's an issue where Cap picks up a stationary machine gun and mows down 400 Japanese soldiers or something like that.

I always found that storyline somewhat dubious, but at the same time, by making Cap into an absolute paragon, Gruenwald was better able to draw a sharp and interesting distinction between him and Flag Smasher, as well as him and the Super Patriot (who showed up at a similar time)

Flag Smasher... talk about wasted oportunities...

Back in the 40s we actually had covers with Bucky parachuting down while firing a machine gun. I don't think he was aiming at the Nazis' weapons - and besides, he's not Green Arrow anyway.

But of course, half the point of having a Captain America these days is to remark how he _can't possibly_ have the same behavior parameters that were ok as of WW II. Cap is never more admirable than when he does question himself and admits his shortcomings; that's why the Englehart run has never been surpassed or even really approached, not even by Roger Stern.

Dear Ed. Rubber bullets. 'Nuff said.

I think that was a little-known clause in the Comics Code: "Super-Heroes must never be shown killing somebody, unless the writer promises to make him really, really angsty about it for the remainder of his run." Which would also explain Superman's reaction to killing the first Post-Crisis General Zod.

That said, it takes some mental gymnastics (as well as disregarding certain aspects of continuity), but I think I can justify the statement. It's WWII, and the US military has but a single super-solider in their ranks. It would be foolish to risk him on the front lines. No, better to save him for high-profile, low-risk missions of high propanganda value. Especially when the newsreel folks can show him hauling the "bad guys" off to a POW camp. Steve Rogers, soldier? Yeah, that guy probably had to kill some folks, but that guy's not in that panel. Captain America is.

Of course, I'm also convinced Cap was spying on the rest of the Invaders, either wittingly or not. Namor was, too.

Dear Ed. Rubber bullets. ‘Nuff said.

I think anyone who shows up for a war with rubber bullets is getting an immediate Section 8 and a kick in the ass, Captain America or not.

Brubaker is correct in may ways. Lee and Kirby's "flashbacks" t the WWII days began with Cap blowig up a Nazi sub, showed Bucky machine-gunning Nazis, and so forth. (It helps that both Stan adn Jack served, and Kirby saw combat.)

Gru's Cap was quite interesting in msny regards, not least the use of an almost "Fighting American"-style political satire visible in his snake-Reagan, entrepreneur-Skull, Watchdogs, and ULTIMATUM internationalism storylines. At the same time, he insisted that Cap hadn't killed in wartime (one loc claimed the only Nazis slain by Cap were victims of ricochet from his shield) and had him routinely (and very campily) taking American cheese sandwiches and milk as his favorite meal.

Having mentioned camp, it behooves us to recall how far Gru went in bowdlerizing Cap's attitdes and history incomparison to, say, DeMatteis' run or even Stan Lee's Silver Age Cap. This was the guy who was so vanilla he wouldn't feel Diamondback up to save his own life with an airship-ignition key, after Engelhart had Cap on a fa-from-platonc Bahamas vacation with Sharon Carter.

I've always found this idea ludicrous. The guy's origin involves him begging to be allowed to join the army, for heaven's sake. If he was as passionately non-lethal as that, he'd have been a conscientious objector.

"In the actual comics in the 40s, of course, there’s an issue where Cap picks up a stationary machine gun and mows down 400 Japanese soldiers or something like that."

Well, look at what Cap actually says in the panel in question: "I have never taken another person's life." Clearly, he simply doesn't consider Japanese to be people. There, problem solved.

When you're 8 it makes perfect sense. War is 'fun' and people don't really get killed. When you're older it doesn't stack. But that storyline made a huge impression on my 8 year old self for handling the implications of taking a life.

The current attitudes are what happens when comics aren't for kids (Or kids aren't for comics).

Well, look at what Cap actually says in the panel in question: “I have never taken another person’s life.” Clearly, he simply doesn’t consider Japanese to be people. There, problem solved.

That was awful, Danny!

In a highly amusing way, of course.

When you’re 8 it makes perfect sense. War is ‘fun’ and people don’t really get killed. When you’re older it doesn’t stack. But that storyline made a huge impression on my 8 year old self for handling the implications of taking a life.

The current attitudes are what happens when comics aren’t for kids (Or kids aren’t for comics).

While I didn't like how much Cap freaked out over the death (only because, as mentioned above, I don't think Cap should have been unfamiliar with killing a bad guy in battle), I think you could definitely do a good bit in a comic with ANY character about how messed up it is to kill someone.

Gruenwald didn't need to add the "I never killed anyone before" part for him to make his point in the story.

Did the latest Hulk issue remind you of this, or is it just fun to find continuity errors written by the master of continuity?

I'm generally of the opinion that what defines Cap as a character is that he always tries to find another way, that sense of hope and whatever else.

Now, I'll fully believe that he has that as part of teh character because all that he saw and had to do in World War II when he was younger.

Sure he was looked up to in WWII, but he woke up and suddenly found himself idolized and then had to live up to that.

I think anyone who shows up for a war with rubber bullets is getting an immediate Section 8 and a kick in the ass, Captain America or not.

Maybe Cap took a page from another adventurer's book and carefully attached little boxing gloves to each of those bullets.

That floating head of Captain Angst doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I do, however, like that it looks like Cap sprayed the entire clip into that guy and everything else that was in front of the barrel. If Cap's going to shoot someone he's going to do it properly instead of trying for one of those "knock the gun out of his hand" trick shots.

My first encounter with this type of issue was in Operation: Galactic Storm. The heroes divided into two factions at the end: kill the supreme inremmigence or not. Cap was in the NOT side. I found this completely unbelievable. The Kree launched a genocidal war against the humans. The key word there is WAR. Not a fight with some random costumed idiot, a full fledged WAR. A Genocide war.

Hmmm. Does this sound familiar? Like, oh, World War II? "No, I don't think we should send in a stealth commando squad to kill Hitler." Bull.

I understanding being a paragon of virtue, etc., etc., etc. There comes a time when that line gets crossed and you don't feel bad about it.

The 40s comics were CRAZY, I'm sure he used lethal force somewhere in one of those. Had all of his admitted kills been off-panel though, it would have made some sense.

Anyway, freaking Captain America is not gonna flip out after killing some ski suit terrorist. Or whoever he killed in volume four. And that Nazi he punched in his origin didn't get confused and run into electrical wires.

Did the latest Hulk issue remind you of this, or is it just fun to find continuity errors written by the master of continuity?

I don't really think it's a matter of a continuity error, as I think Gruenwald was quite cognizant of the previous issues featuring Cap killing people, he just decided to retcon them.

And if I were a less honest guy, I'd say that yeah, the Hulk issue was what inspired me to do it, while in reality, I just happened upon an issue of Gruenwald's Cap the other day and thought about how silly the "no killing" thing was.

My first encounter with this type of issue was in Operation: Galactic Storm. The heroes divided into two factions at the end: kill the supreme inremmigence or not. Cap was in the NOT side. I found this completely unbelievable. The Kree launched a genocidal war against the humans. The key word there is WAR. Not a fight with some random costumed idiot, a full fledged WAR. A Genocide war.

Hmmm. Does this sound familiar? Like, oh, World War II? “No, I don’t think we should send in a stealth commando squad to kill Hitler.” Bull.

I understanding being a paragon of virtue, etc., etc., etc. There comes a time when that line gets crossed and you don’t feel bad about it.

I disagree, in that, yes, I do think Cap would be okay with a stealth commando squad being sent in to assassinate Hitler.

However, if Hitler was captured alive, I don't think Cap would be okay with the soldiers killing a prisoner of war, which is what happened in Galactic Storm. The Avengers decided to kill a prisoner of war.

An amusing thing is that, in one of the biggest moment in Marvel intergalactic history, and the key hero is Black Knight!

I don't think THAT will get many references in the future.

In fact, IIRC, Cap was complaining not because the Avengers wanted the Supreme Intelligence dead, but because they wouldn't take the time to put together a war crimes tribunal and do it properly. They didn't want to execute the Supreme Intelligence, they just wanted to murder him. Cap believed there was a difference.

Personally, I'm with Omar Karindu in believing the problem with Gruenwald's run wasn't that Cap suddenly didn't kill, it was that he suddenly was so bland and nice as a person. Cap in the 60s was a hero and a patriot, but he was also a wise-ass, trash-talking counter-culture hero who believed that it was perfectly alright to protest the government's actions and still be patriotic. Under Gruenwald, though, he became so straight-laced that Marvel now feels like the only way he can be relevant is as a martyr.

Comics are wish-fulfillment fantasies. As the readership ages the wishes become more complex. Therefore you get things like a soldier who never kills, but wins battles.

I've been trying to reconcile the peaceful, 'everyone's a winner' Cap of the early Avnegers, with his receent appearance in New Avengers as a hard-ass drill instructor type.

It seemed a bit off to me.

ummmm. John Seavey.... "Cap in the 60s was a hero and a patriot, but he was also a wise-ass, trash-talking counter-culture hero who believed that it was perfectly alright to protest the government’s actions and still be patriotic. "
During Gruenwald's run Cap quit being Captain America rather than take orders from the government. I think most of the problems with Gruenwald's run on Captain America was that his tenure outlasted his creative ideas.

Comics are wish-fulfillment fantasies. As the readership ages the wishes become more complex. Therefore you get things like a soldier who never kills, but wins battles.

That almost deserves a no-prize, but it's a little too meta.

Bryan said:

"During Gruenwald’s run Cap quit being Captain America rather than take orders from the government."

I know, but he was so _nice_ about it. "Gee, I'm really sorry, but this goes against my principles and I feel very strongly that I should decline."

The Stan Lee Cap would have told them exactly where they could shove the shield he was giving back to them, and probably would have cold-cocked Gyrich one on his way out the door.

My thoughts as someone who has been reading captain America regularly for, yipes, two decades now:

I really liked most of Gruenwald's run on Cap when it first came out. As time goes by, I get older, and my views become more, um, middle-of-the-road, I do find that some of his writing on the book now seems overly idealistic. I guess the guestion is, who was he writing for? An open-minded, somewhat naive teenager, or a more cynical 31-year-old? Keep in mind that comic books two decades ago were a *somewhat* different medium, with the readership consiting of both younger & adult readers.

When I was 11 years old, Cap's anguish at having to take a life did seem a little bit overblown, but nevertheless still reasonable, as well as a credit to his character & morality. Two decades later, yeah, it doesn't make much sense, now that I have a better knowledge of just how bloody & brutal World War II actually was, as well as having had the opportunity to read pretty much all the back issues of the book. Gruenwald's moral dilemma seems a non-issue when you keep in mind all the times Cap used lethal force in WWII, and the time he blew up a bunch of Hydra agents during the Steranko storyline, and the time he used his shield to decapitate Baron Blood.

I do appreciate the idea that Cap dislikes using lethal force, and if he is able, he will defeat a foe without resorting to killing, but if he needs to save innocent lives and sees that the only way to do so is to kill the enemy, then he will do that. I just think Gruenwald went overboard in trying to get that point across.

Of course, the Captain America in that issue was just another dimension's Steve Rogers visiting the Marvel U on holiday. Problem solved! Is there nothing Dan Slott can't do?

Is there nothing Dan Slott can’t do?

Not that we can discuss in public.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was a rule that came down from higher up that Cap doesn't kill...

I remember an issue of Marvel Age where some guy submitted a script he'd written and a bona-fide Marvel editor critiqued it...In the story, Cap picks up a gun and shoots something or throws it at someone...The editor made it pretty clear that Cap would never even pick up a gun, never mind fire one...

I have no idea why I remember that.

I remember an issue of Marvel Age where some guy submitted a script he’d written and a bona-fide Marvel editor critiqued it…In the story, Cap picks up a gun and shoots something or throws it at someone…The editor made it pretty clear that Cap would never even pick up a gun, never mind fire one…

That was, if memory serves, a Marvel Age column by...Mark Gruenwald.

Yeah, I was just about to point that out, Omar. "Editorial" certainly did come up with the "Cap doesn't kill" idea, it's just that "Editorial" happened to be writing the book.

My own personal continuity of Cap has it that he killed people in WWII, as a solider, but that after he came out of the ice, due to his experiences in the war, vowed to kill no more. So Cap: the soldier killed, which led to Cap: The super hero who doesn't.

That's how I reconcile what I love about Cap (strong moral code, and the ability to always "find another way", however unrealistic) with the fact that being a WWII super soldier that never killed an enemy combatant is a pretty big pill to swallow...

Paxil vs cymbalta.

Paxil. Paxil withdrawl time.