Comic Book Resources

I did like that issue and kind of wonder if Justice League will ever get back that mojo...

I'd probably have gone for ASS #8 or something.

What was nominated?

I may be in the minority, but that was easily the most overhyped/disapointing single issue of the past year.

You are sooo not in the minority.

I'm with Jesse. The art was decent, but man it was brutal. It was like Metzler didn't come up with a plot, and decided to write an entire issue based on what should have been a few pages. It didn't do anything for the characters, and it was one of his hand full of issues on the title. Especially to come out at the end of his run with so much unresolved, it felt like a waste more than anything.

I hope you're being sarcastic. I tend to think you are.

Re: Sarcasm -- I agree. It's hard to tell one's tone through writing, but really, it works either way as sarcasm or a compliment. As I recall the issue wasn't too bad, even if I'm kind of sick of DC carting in a second generation version of every single dead character with little to no character development (as they did with Dr. Polaris in this issue).

Have a good day.
John Cage

Ludicrous!

Incredible.

Eisner Award Winner Brad Meltzer.

When I saw that I wept.

For what it's worth here's the nominees:

* Amelia Rules! #18: Things I Cannot Change, by Jimmy Gownley (Renaissance)
* Delilah Dirk and the Treasure of Constantinople, by Tony Cliff (self-published)
* Johnny Hiro #1, by Fred Chao (AdHouse)
* Justice League of America #11: Walls, by Brad Meltzer and Gene Ha (DC)
* Sensational Spider-Man Annual: To Have or to Hold, by Matt Fraction and Salvador Larroca (Marvel)

No Titans East Special #1? Absurd.

I haven't read any of the other issues nominated, but as far as single issues go, JLA #11 was probably the best I read.

If you click on the JLA link on the Comics Reporter page, you can cringe while you read the hate aimed at Michael Turner in the Newsarama forum.

"I am not a fan of Turners work and would like to see less of him on covers at both DC and Marvel."

"I use to be a fan of Turner's work, but over the last year or so, the work hasn't impressed me at all. "

"I hope Turner is off the covers when McDuffie takes over."

OK, maybe not hate... but it kind of makes me think twice about trashing anyone on a forum today...

Oh look, it's Comics Should Be Good's second favourite whipping boy, Brad Meltzer.

Oh look, it’s Comics Should Be Good’s second favourite whipping boy, Brad Meltzer.

To be fair, they only judge him on his work...

But seriously, of every comic released in the year, that was the best?
You really think that?

Oh look, it’s Comics Should Be Good’s second favourite whipping boy, Brad Meltzer.

Wait, I haven't been keeping track. Who's our favorite whipping boy? Because I've got to try out my new whip.

It's pretty upsetting that Darwyn Cooke's The Spirit didn't get a nod in this category.

I've never read a Brad Meltzer comic so I can't really judge, but his name sounds like a bad fast food sandwich ("Ummmm, lemme get a Steak 'N' Egg Meltzer, with a side of...") so eff him .

Crash won best picture.

Man, that Amelia Rules story -- first issue of the title I ever *saw*, much less read -- basically made me a devoted fan of the entire series. (My inability to acquire the 2 most recent issues, #s 20 & 21, torments me on a pretty much daily basis.)

The JLA issue ... well, it didn't suck. That's about it.

I have no idea who the Eisner Award voters are, but with any luck at some point they'll sober up & be ashamed of themselves.

I was a big fan of that Amelia Rules issue too. It's not the best-ever issue of the series, but it's a great one. The JLA issue, on the other hand, is 22 pages of Vixen and Red Arrow having trouble breathing in a pile of rubble. Nothing interesting happens, we don't learn anything new about the characters (other than the constantly-rehashed-ever-since "Vixen is stealing powers from other Leaguers" revelation, I suppose), and if the art weren't by Gene Ha, it would be entirely unmemorable.

I actually liked that story a lot better when they did it with Red and Boober on Fraggle Rock.

The votes took place on Bizarro World!

Out of that list I would've picked Johnny Hiro or Amelia Rules.

But I'm more bothered by Best Writer: Brubaker over Vaughn and Wood? Bah!

Is this a joke? That was the best issue single issue of 2007? This is almost enough to make me lose faith in the Eisners.

I'm thinking the best single issue I read last year was JLA-related, but it was written by Garth Ennis and featured Tommy Monaghan in it...at least if that was 2007, I lose track of time...

I DID write a whole entry when nominations were up about why it was a joke that JLA #11 was nominated, so the sarcasm is a bit easier to detect that way.

Oh look, it’s Comics Should Be Good’s second favourite whipping boy, Brad Meltzer.

The guy's comic book work has been mostly terrible.

That said, when do we even talk about the guy? If it weren't for people giving this bad comic book writer an AWARD for GOOD COMIC BOOK WRITING, then I wouldn't have talked about him all year long.

Was it good? Yeah, it was good. Easy the best of his JLA run. Was it the best of the year? Hardly.

"But seriously, of every comic released in the year, that was the best?"

I know bloody well that the Amelia Rules! and Sensational Spider-Man issues were better. Maybe not the best, but certainly more deserving of recognition.

I blame Gene Ha for this.

The guy’s comic book work has been mostly terrible.

Well, you have a nice little Jonestown here of people who agree with you that Meltzer and Loeb are bad and Morrison is always great, so I guess you'll never know differently, Brian.

Honestly, the groupthink around here about certain creators drives me buggy.

But seriously, of every comic released in the year, that was the best?

I think the list of nominees is flawed generally in the first place. I can think of three other stories off the top of my head that could have been put in this category. Which I think ought to be the complaint here, not to go for the knee-jerk reaction of immediately piling on a writer that no one here likes around these parts.

The overall problem is that this book was certainly a stand out when compared to the rest of Meltzer's JLA crapfest.
Whereas all of Darwyn Cooke's Spirit was of such high quality that the committee would have been hard pressed to choose just one issue.
But since JLA basically sucked, a GOOD issue like #11 stands out from the crowd, and, what with lowered expectations and all, leads many to think that it's much better than it is.

A lesson to all comics writers: put out one good issue a year, surround it with atrocious, pretentious crap, and win an Eisner.

Well, you have a nice little Jonestown here of people who agree with you that Meltzer and Loeb are bad and Morrison is always great, so I guess you’ll never know differently, Brian.

Honestly, Morrison is only known as "The God of All Comics" as snidely sarcastic tongue-in-cheekery. IMHO.

He's not an awful writer though, just full of himself. Most of ASS has been quite good. But I've mostly preferred Dini's Batman over Morrison's.

Well, you have a nice little Jonestown here of people who agree with you that Meltzer and Loeb are bad and Morrison is always great, so I guess you’ll never know differently, Brian.

I don't know that Morrison is always great, but the best thing Metzler has written was Archer's Quest, and that was quite average (especially compared to the Smith run that preceded it), and Loeb has written anything good in years, and quite frankly, I'd put all his success down to the artists he works with.

Honestly, the groupthink around here about certain creators drives me buggy.

Well go look at the sales charts or something, both the writers you mention are doing well there.

"Jonestown"? Seriously? I take it Brian Cronin is Comics Should Be Good’s #1 favourite whipping boy, at least when Graeme is around.

Well, in all fairness, Meltzer and Loeb usually are bad and Morrison is pretty great.

By the by, I think Brubaker rightfully won.

That issue made me drop the book.

Well, you have a nice little Jonestown here of people who agree with you that Meltzer and Loeb are bad and Morrison is always great, so I guess you’ll never know differently, Brian.

Honestly, the groupthink around here about certain creators drives me buggy.

Jonestown? What, you couldn't think of an appropriate Nazi reference instead?

It's all right, Graeme, I forgive you comparing me to a mass murderer because I think Brad Meltzer is a bad comic book writer.

I’m with Jesse. The art was decent, but man it was brutal. It was like Metzler didn’t come up with a plot, and decided to write an entire issue based on what should have been a few pages. It didn’t do anything for the characters, and it was one of his hand full of issues on the title...it felt like a waste more than anything.

You've just described ever single comic book Meltzer has ever written.

I'm laughing at this comment:
"But the best thing Metzler has written was Archer’s Quest, and that was quite average."
What was average about Archer's Quest? It certainly wasn't the fight in issue 18 or the scene at the revolving restraunt.

So when did Wizard buy out the Eisner Awards?

I could never even get past the level 5 boss in Archer's Quest.

Brad Meltzer was the guy who got me into comics in the first place, through Identity Crisis. The art was wonderful, the story was tight and the dialogue felt real to me through most of it. It was the comic that introduced me back into the DCU when I was wading through the comics section of Barnes and Noble back in 2005 and if I hadn't read it I probably wouldn't have been inspired to write comics today.

You can rip on his Justice League run and you can point out some of his foibles, but Identity Crisis was a SUPERB piece of fiction.

And I liked that Justice League issue quite a bit, too. I love the numbnuts who say that they wanted to see what the rest of the JLA was doing while those two were trapped, or that it didn't have to be as long as it was. Then again, I always think it's funny when people's critical thinking and analysis skills make themselves scarce when a writer they have problems with writes a great story.

Wait what no it's not.

As you admire humor, Chris, you will note that, amusingly enough, a year ago I noted that this issue of Justice League of America was the best issue Meltzer had ever written.

So I give the guy his due when he writes a good comic book.

But to then say that it was one of the five best single issues of 2007 (let alone the BEST)?

That's baseless.

I'm with kmfpl...

In this corner we have all of the snarky geniuses who know what's going on...

...and in this corner we have the Eisner judges, chosen for "...their knowledge of comics and their reputation for integrity."

Does anybody really do ANY research before you just type whatever comes into your mind?

Have you read the title of this forum - "best SINGLE issue of 2007"?

So instead of competing over who can put down Meltzer or Loeb more -- why not tell us what issue you think SHOULD have gotten the award instead, and try to convince us why??

It's basically an elevator episode. Run out of ideas or blown your season budget on other episodes? Just trap two characters in an elevator and let the magic happen. Oldest trick in the book.

My comment wasn't directed at you, Brian, so much as it was at the people who insist that Meltzer has never written a good comic in his entire career.

And, for the record, I wouldn't have put it on my top 5 list either, probably not even my top 10. I still think it was good, though.

And Brian Cronin, it's nice that you put together this forum and you're right, you did give the issue praise a year ago.

However, you really don't do yourself any favors when you insult people based on your faulty knowledge of history.

Graeme's "Jonestown" analogy is commonly used the same way that the saying "drink the Kool-Aide" is used. There was NO mass murder, it was a *mass suicide* because no one bothered to step up and say, "What the **** are we doing here??" and instead, everyone went along for the ride and drank the poison, knowing what it would do.

But that's just a minor point. Let's talk about fun stuff instead.

If you think there's a done-in-one that's better, why don't you tell us what you think it is?

I’m with kmfpl…

In this corner we have all of the snarky geniuses who know what’s going on…

…and in this corner we have the Eisner judges, chosen for “…their knowledge of comics and their reputation for integrity.”

Does anybody really do ANY research before you just type whatever comes into your mind?

Have you read the title of this forum - “best SINGLE issue of 2007″?

So instead of competing over who can put down Meltzer or Loeb more — why not tell us what issue you think SHOULD have gotten the award instead, and try to convince us why??

You're "with kmfpl" and then state an argument that has nothing to do with kmfpl's point, which was that he was disgusted that people were knocking a dead guy, so it put him off knocking any creator.

That said, I understand your point, at least as it relates to All-Star Snubs, when people say "Player X should have made the team," then they cannot name a player on the team that they would have chosen INSTEAD of Player X. I agree, that's lame.

That's not this situation.

People have already noted that they'd have accepted any of the other nominees, so right there, your point is addressed.

But if you want me to think of five better single issues from 2007, I will, just for you, and I won't even choose one of the best of the year, All Star Superman #6, because I don't want anyone to be upset at a Morrison comic being praised:

And I'm only picking books I have reviews of up on the blog, too!

Skyscrapers of the Midwest #4

Sensational Spider-Man Annual #1 (which was actually nominated!)

True Story, Swear to God #2

Marvel Adventures: Avengers #9

Whatever issues of Scalped that were one-off issues, at least three in 2007.

Jim Jones had multiple people murdered BEFORE the mass suicide, hebitudinous, not to mention the debate over how many of the members of the group were force-fed the poison.

But yeah, you're right, I shouldn't have been put off by being compared to Jim Jones if he had "only" led a "mass suicide." In fact, I shouldn't "insult" people by pointing out that they compared me to Jim Jones because I think Brad Meltzer is a bad comic writer. My apologies.

Chris: If you want to convince me that Brad Meltzer is a good writer, you're going to have to find a different example. Identity Crisis was terribly written. Even if you take out the rape scene, it's still a nonsensical mystery plot with an unacceptable resolution and far too many meaningless scenes that existed only so Meltzer could fulfill his fanboy dream of writing a scene with those characters.

hebitudinous: Actually, a number of the Jonestown victims (including the children) attempted to resist the group suicide and were either force-fed the poison or shot. And it's a stupid, insensitive analogy in any case.

Also, the mass "suicide" was greatly . . . assisted. Saying "none for me, thanks" wasn't really an option. I recommend the documentary Jonestown: The Life and Death of People's Temple if you'd like to know what you're talking about, hebitudinous.

Ah, Michael said it better than I. I type too slow.

My comment wasn’t directed at you, Brian, so much as it was at the people who insist that Meltzer has never written a good comic in his entire career.

And, for the record, I wouldn’t have put it on my top 5 list either, probably not even my top 10. I still think it was good, though.

Fair enough on both points, Chris!

I really liked Archer's Quest, and I thought JLA #11 was better than any of the issues of Archer's Quest.

So yeah, he's definitely written some good stuff.

And there's certainly a mild level of unfairness in the situation that an actual good issue of Meltzer's is getting derided because it's nowhere near the BEST of the year, which is not his fault. So do note that I am complaining about the nominating committee and the voters (mostly the committee), not Meltzer. It's not like he MADE them give him an award!

It's like Steve Nash's MVP. It's not HIS fault that the voters gave him two MVPs he did not deserve!

Brian, thanks for the five suggestions.

If when you say "True Story #2" you're talking "This One Goes to 11", then you're right, it was indeed an amazing story. I don't know how or why it wasn't nominated.

But as far as Jim Jones...in what fantasy alternate universe do you live where Jonestown is primarily known for mass murders or Nazis?? Jonestown is synonymous with mass suicide, thanks to his grape kool-aide. Sure there were murders that took place before the mass suicide, but I challenge you to come up with a single reference that Jonestown = Nazis.

I know you're busy holding up these forums, but but re-read your comment, man!! Fact-check your sources before you put stuff out there, and if you make a mistake, man up and move on.

It’s not like he MADE them give him an award!

Are you sure about that, Brian? He could have made Zatanna brainwash them into doing it. It's kind of his M.O.

Buttler, watch the documentary yourself. The world thinks of Jonestown as a mass suicide first and foremost.

Re-read the comments. Graeme didn't insult Cronin. Cronin was making the point that there's a lot of groupthink on this particular page.

Remember the joke...iceberg, Goldberg?

OK, maybe not hate… but it kind of makes me think twice about trashing anyone on a forum today…

Why? Because they might someday die? The quotes you picked out not only aren't hate (as you yourself said), they're not even very harsh. Those are mild criticisms, at worst. Yes, Michael Turner was a pretty okay artist once upon a time, but that time wasn't recently and probably wasn't coming back. The fact that he died doesn't change his recent body of work, or make those posters bad people for saying they dislike it...

Holy crap, hebitudinous, you're still insisting that wasn't grotesquely inappropriate? Isn't it time to, you know, man up, admit you've been a jackass, and move on?

And what does that "watch the documentary yourself" comment even mean? You obviously know nothing whatsoever about the subject -- it's not a freaking opinion poll about people's misconceptions of history, which you so aptly demonstrate all on your own. It's about what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Because, you know, you really don’t do yourself any favors when you insult people based on your faulty knowledge of history.

I really shouldn't care about this, but I couldn't help it:

Jim Jones had at LEAST five people murdered soon before the mass suicide (we can debate whether that, too, involved large amounts of forced poison intake).

The US Department of Justice defines mass murder as the "killing of four or more victims in one location within one event without a cooling-off period."

Jim Jones is a mass murderer.

And as long as we're nitpicking, it was Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid.

I’m laughing at this comment:
“But the best thing Metzler has written was Archer’s Quest, and that was quite average.”
What was average about Archer’s Quest? It certainly wasn’t the fight in issue 18 or the scene at the revolving restraunt.

I didn't say it was bad, just average. Nothing particularly special.

I read it, I was suitably, but not overly, entertained, and then didn't really think about it again.
Average.
(And as I said, especially after the excellent run Smith had done just before that - excellent for the book, and excellent for Smith).

Identity Crisis was a SUPERB piece of CRAP.

I dislike much of Metzler's comic work, but I also think Morrison is a good, if overrated writer, so what do I know?

Do you know why you can't let go of this?

You can't let go because you disagree with the Eisner judges. You're attacking anyone that disagrees with you. Graeme was making a point about groupthink. He wasn't the one making it personal, you were.

In the same vein, you insist of equating Jonestown with Nazis and mass murder, but like it or not, people that are far more qualified than you equate Jonestown with mass suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones - look at the first sentence.

And you probably think that this post right here is a personal attack, when all I'm trying to do is to get you to think before you type.

You're the one that's running these forums. I'm just trying to be a reasonable guy instead of calling people names. If that's the kind of forum you want to run, then go for it. I like a lot of things I read here but the way things are going, well, we'll just move on.

Why don't you sleep on this and re-read it in the morning. It may make more sense.

I couldn't let it go because I couldn't let your false statements lay there. I should have, but I couldn't. They called to me, saying, "Brian, correct me! Correct meeeeee!!!!!"

But I won't make that same mistake again. Your current false statements will stay unchallenged by me.

Why don’t you sleep on this and re-read it in the morning. It may make more sense.

Actually, you should.

Brian didn't equate the Jonestown massacre to nazisim, he was making the joke on the fact that moderators are often called Nazis by people they have disagreed with or ruled against, but this time he was being equated with a cult leader who led a mass suicide and a massacre of his followers and several others.
He was insulted, responded with a joke, and then you jumped in and decided to get patronizing over a non-issue, because either way, it's not a nice thing to be equated with.

And by the by, the term 'Jonestown Massacre' is regularly used to describe the event (http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/18/jonestown.anniv.01/) - heck, there is even a band 'The Brian Jonestown Massacre' which took it's name from the fact, and if you really want to get picky, and it would just be you doing it because everyone else is fine with the term, two hundred of the participants were children, and therefore unable to make decisions for themselves - throw that in with the fact that it's believed that not all adults were willing participants, and the fact that none could be called 'in right mind', then suicide isn't an appropriate term.
Fuck me.

In the same vein, you insist of equating Jonestown with Nazis and mass murder, but like it or not, people that are far more qualified than you equate Jonestown with mass suicide.

Yeah, comparing someone to a cult leader who incited mass suicide is a very nice thing to say and not insensitive or insulting at all. Seriously, mass murder, mass suicide, you're not making yourself look any better here.

I don't hate Jeph Loeb by the way, which I've stated several times over here, and so have others. I quite like some of his work, especially the Bat books with Tim Sale. And Greg Hatcher isn't one of the Morrisonians.

I read it, I was suitably, but not overly, entertained, and then didn’t really think about it again.
Average.
(And as I said, especially after the excellent run Smith had done just before that - excellent for the book, and excellent for Smith).

I gave 2 reasons in my previous post on why Archer's Quest wasn't average.

Neither of which I can remember, and you gave no detail on what made them great for you, so it's a bit hard to have that debate.

Look, for such a continuity heavy story*, it didn't really have much impact - if the story had never happened, it wouldn't have affected much - not in the larger DCU (not that stories have to), but not even in it's own book.

Look, it wasn't as good as Smith's run, and it was better than Winnick's... it was average.

*And I respect it was actually trying to show the legacy Green Arrow had, but it still referred back a lot - in fact, it may have even been Cliff Note writing.

talking to comic fans, i think they'd rate Green Lantern #25 as the best issue of 2007.

I enjoyed this issue, but I wouldn't have picked it as "Best Issue of 2007". From the nominees I only read Sensational Spider-Man Annual and it was way better than JLoA #11.

Michael: What do you mean, "unacceptable resolution"? What didn't make sense about it? What was your beef with the rape scene? What was nonsensical about the mystery? And you give me a mainstream comic in the past five years without "meaningless scenes" and I'll eat my hat.

Chris Jones wrote:

"Brad Meltzer was the guy who got me into comics in the first place, through Identity Crisis. The art was wonderful, the story was tight and the dialogue felt real to me through most of it. It was the comic that introduced me back into the DCU when I was wading through the comics section of Barnes and Noble back in 2005 and if I hadn’t read it I probably wouldn’t have been inspired to write comics today.

You can rip on his Justice League run and you can point out some of his foibles, but Identity Crisis was a SUPERB piece of fiction."

and

"Michael: What do you mean, “unacceptable resolution”? What didn’t make sense about it? What was your beef with the rape scene? What was nonsensical about the mystery? And you give me a mainstream comic in the past five years without “meaningless scenes” and I’ll eat my hat."

(I'm not Michael, but I'll say what I disliked about Identity Crisis -- apologies to others for the thread-jack)

With respect, sir, your first sentence has a lot to do (IMHO) with your opinion on Identity Crisis.

Did you, after getting into comics due to Mr Meltzer, go back to older comics? Did you buy Showcases or Archives? I don't ask this to be snarky, but out of curiousity.

One of the larger complaints about Identity Crisis was the poor craft involved, that the past continuity was ignored or contradicted where needed to make the story "work" (to the extent it does, anyway) and that many characters were portrayed horribly out of character. It threw in a gratuitous rape (one that Mr Melzter assured the readers would be dealt with respectfully) that was unnecessary to the story. It relied on one of the oldest, hoariest cliches in the genre for resolution (the murderess slipping up), it threw Jean in Arkham, Arkham, of all places!

The beef with the rape scene was: it was unnecessary. Can you think of anything in the story that wouldn't have been equally served with Light simply pummeling Sue until she needed hospitalization, or even just threatening her so badly that she was terrified? The rape, a very serious item, wasn't intrinsic to the plot at all. It was a red herring, nothing more. It was there so we could see the League mindwipe Light and try to round his edges (and here's another flaw -- why only Light? Why not Joker? Isn't he a tad more of an issue than Light overall?).

It also had the misfortune of being retconned into the past. Because of that, there was no way we could ever see Sue or Ralph dealing with it -- it also again plays into the "why not Joker (or anyone else)" idea, because, since it was retconned it, it COULDN'T be done to everyone. This makes the League either incredibly stupid, horribly indecisive, or both.

Now, if you weren't familiar with DC history, you might not have seen these as issues. It might well come off as a tight, well-written story. But to some people who have been following the DC universe for several years (some since its inception), it was sloppy, poorly contrived, and relied on things that made no sense (since when does Firestorm explode when punctured?).

Marvel is doing the same thing, jettisoning continuity for their stories. And for some, especially people who haven't been reading for years, there is no conflict. For others, however, there IS a conflict, and it becomes very jarring when "we" (the people who remember continuity) are told how well something is crafted when it doesn't jibe with the very universe it is based it.

If you play in a universe like Marvel or DC, you should at least basically familiarize yourself with the major events. Jean left Ray. She cheated on him, and they divorced. Ray always loved Jean (he never stopped loving her), and had Jean tried the much-less-complex plan of putting on a slinky negligee and giving Ray the slightest inclination she was interested, he would have come a'runnin.

For me, the resolution was terrible. Jean was that convenient kind of crazy that appears in movies and novels, able to create complex plans, but dumb enough to slip up. This ignores Sue bringing the flamethrower "just in case" (and the fact that the World's Greatest Detective never bothered checking the phone logs, something anyone who watches Law and Order would think of). It ignores the idea that Deathstroke could "out-will" Green Lantern (and that GL wouldn't simply use a ring construct from distance instead of punching him).

Sorry for the incredibly long post, but Identity Crisis was, to me, the beginning of some really terrible "look at us, we're tackling mature matters!" stories that really weren't mature.

If you're really curious, take a look at other posts from Comics Should Be Good! about Identity Crisis. It might help you get an idea of the perceptions of others as the books were coming out.

To everyone else, I am sorry for subjecting you to my rant

As to the ACTUAL topic, no, JLA #11 was certainly not the best of 2007. If I had to pick from the list, I'd choose Amelia Rules #18.

Take it and run,

"Neither of which I can remember, and you gave no detail on what made them great for you, so it’s a bit hard to have that debate."
Why do I need to go into detail of what made those things great if you can't do this?

In fairness to Brian and the rest of the site, Jeph Loeb hatred is really my obsession, not the whole site's. I just bring it up so often it may seem that it's the whole site.

Whereas I hold no particular regarding Meltzer (or Loeb, for that matter) one way or the other. If anything, I vary wildly from the so-called groupthink by seeing Grant Morrison as bafflingly overrated ...

You can count me among those on this site that find Morrison overrated. I also like Loeb's work a lot of the time, and Geoff Johns most of the time. Sure, a lot of people on this site hold similar opinions about what they like and don't like, but I'd be willing to bet everyone also has at least one creator that they feel the opposite of the "norm" about. Everyone's got their own opinions, and what I like so much about this site is that usually people are able to express their differing opinions without it getting nasty.

As to the topic at hand, I didn't think JLoA #11 was a good issue at all. Best of the year is ridiculous to me. I'd have taken any of the Jeff Parker MA: AVengers issues, any Darwyn Cook Spirit issue, most of Dini's Detective stories, or hell, most issues of The Simpsons over JLoA #11. But that's just me.

I don't know if Meltzer is a good writer or not. For all I know, JLA #11 could well be brilliant. Turns out I haven't read _any_ of the stuff nominated for the Eisner this year. Then again that's not so surprising, since after I read "Identity Crisis" I pretty much gave up on new comics altogether; since then I've read, let's see, an issue of the Incredible Herc and a couple ishes of All Star Superman.

Just a possible data point for y'all to argue over, should you feel so inclined.

People, people, let's all calm down and just look forward to next year when any issue of Ultimates 3 by Jeph Loeb and Joe Madureira will surely win the award.

Since I'm a guy who normally reads about the capes, I can't really comment on the non-superhero stuff that was nominated. But I will say that Fraction and Larroca's Spectacular Spider-Man Annual #1 was one of the best Peter/MJ stories ever written.

Other fantastic single issues from 2007 which should have received recognition: Moon Knight #13 by Charlie Huston and Tomm Coker, in which Mark Spector applies for his Registration Card, was brilliant. As was X-Factor #16, in which Maddrox discovers one of his dupes has been living as a preacher with a wife and child in Minnesota. Just another superb issue.

Several points:
Fraction and Larroca's SSM Annual #1 WAS much better than this year's winner.

Archer's quest was not bad, as it employed the cute device of the Shade having been GA's "porn buddy" (see the British "Coupling" for details), and was combined with good art. The use of The Shade was particularly memorable as he had recently been revamped by James Robinson in Starman.

Comparing online posters to Nazis or cultists is immature. That said, it does not deserve any response, as when people hijack the forum to argue about such issues, it just validates the original poster's misled comment. Just ignore it, people!

Not knocking someone's work because they may die some day is a particularly appaling idea. If we followed that advice, negative critiques, or more generally, regular news which casts negative aspersions on its subjects would be impossible - "because they might die, someday".

As far as Turner's work goes, I shall refer you to ebay, where a quick look at the resale prices of his Superman/Batman issues will reveal his recent death to have impacted them NOT ONE IOTA! A highly regarded artist or writer generally finds his touchstone work and acheivements skyrocket in price after his death. Thus, it is obvious that the general attitude towards Turner's DC work was NOT as awed as the DCNation page wishes for us to believe - no doubt they're trying to sell the idea in order to produce demand for a Michael Turner retrospective volume which they can make money off of. And certainly, some folks will buy it. However, untimely as his passing may have been, it does not make Michael Turner a GREAT artist. Perhaps time would have made him better, perhaps not. Of course, everyone, even Rob Liefeld, has his fans, and Michael Turner is no exception. However, to call out those who have criticized his work, either

in the past, present, or future, in not a good idea.

As far as current Marvel comics ignoring continuity, the recent secret invasion crossover shows that Bendis! had a definite plan in mind from his earliest work for Marvel.
So too does Johns' work on GL and GLC, as regards DC continuity.

I didn't ask *you* not to trash anybody, I was only talking about me. And I'm a big softie who cries every time I watch RUDY, so I'm not trying to apply my rules to you, I promise.

My feeling when I clicked on that message board (from last summer, when nobody knew about Turner's illness), was not that people were wrong. I don't think those people were wishing death on Michael Turner. It was just the embarrassment like being caught telling fat jokes about someone when they walk into the room.

FWIW, I didn't read any of the nominees, but I read a couple issues of Meltzer's JLA run. It was ugly enough to make me never want to pick up a Meltzer comic again, and wonder what the hell DC was thinking when they handed him the keys. Of course, i wonder that about DC a lot these days...

I didn't take it as a personal criticism - so don't worry that I'll die in an untimely manner and you'll need to cry. (Joke)

I just meant that although it might be cringeworthy reading in light of Turner's untimely passing, such comments should not be hindered in any way shape or form - unless they are on the subject of his predilections for young girls and farm animals (another joke).

It's ok, I'm over it now. You'll notice I had no problem trashing Meltzer or DC today!

But I do it with love, and mean it in a positive way!

I have to admit that I really enjoyed Identity Crisis, and it probably had a lot to do with the fact that I hadn't heard of most of the characters involved before I read it, including Ralph and Sue Dibny, Jean Loring, and Dr. Light. However, even I found the reveal a little hard to believe: they'd turned the apartment upside-down and inside out with their super-powers and somehow missed any and all evidence of Jean standing in front of Sue and torching her with a flamethrower?

To Earl:

Almost all of what you said sounds completely reasonable. I can get your argument that people were acting out of character, I can get that it was throwing out a ton of continuity, all of that.

The only argument I cannot understand, and the only one that strikes me as utterly preposterous, is that the rape scene was "unnecessary".

Knocking Sue around would have been pretty bad. Threatening her would have left no impact at all. Raping her was VILE, and that's what Meltzer was going for. Of course it was completely "unnecessary". It's one of the most brutal, hideous things you can do to another human being and in that one moment it turned Doctor Light from a cackling goofus into a truly foul, truly dangerous human being.

As for the whole "why not Joker" thing, that also strikes me as a little bit ridiculous and I think it shows that maybe you missed the point of the whole thing. Think about the JLA as a bunch of cops, just for a moment. They capture a mass-murdering lunatic like The Joker, okay, he goes into the clink for a little bit and they hate him for his crimes, maybe they're even sickened by him, but it's not a PERSONAL hate. Now if you go after the cop's wife, or girl friend, now it's not just her significant other but EVERY OTHER cop on the force who wants him not in jail, but to suffer. And of course, if they get someone like that in their hands, IN THE ACT, bad things will happen to him.

Furthermore, I thought it was made pretty clear that the JLA overstepped their boundaries by screwing around with Doctor Light. The reason they don't do it with everyone else is because there's a fine line between a guardian and a fascist, which is what the JLA realize, most of the time. But they slipped up. They made a big mistake and there were consequences.

And that's what gets to me about people saying that the characters are acting "stupid" or whatever. The psychological term for it, I believe, is "actor-observer bias". It's when you're less critical of your own dumbass mistakes, blaming it on environmental factors or whatever, and more critical of someone else making a dumbass mistake, blaming it on personal factors. And it applies to fictional stories too. Sometimes it's a matter of poor craft, but sometimes it just so happens that you're in a better seat than the person you're watching and feel the need laugh and mock and criticize the person for not seeing something that's "so obvious", when in fact the only reason YOU can see it is because you're up in the balcony.

And I can see using that train of logic with the phone-record thing(now that you bring that up, it is a pretty glaring plot hole) and the not using the ring thing. But take away the wall for a minute and put yourself in their position: You just saw your best friend's wife raped. You have the man who did it in your clutches. You have the power to alter his mind forever, knowing that it's the wrong thing to do but keeping the greater good in mind.

What that is is your sense of justice clashing with your sense of vengeance. And we all have that. Even superheroes. They're human beings; sometimes they mess up, in both small and important decisions. Not even the Flash or Green Lantern can be perfect all of the time.

...

So, yeah. That's why I like Identity Crisis

So the hideous injury and debasement of this beloved female character was put in there basically to mark a change in the development of a male character? That's an interesting idea. There ought to be some kind of term for that.

Beloved? By who? People who remember the silver age? They were both old and irrelevant by the time the series came out. You can thank Meltzer for creating a generation of comic readers who care about Sue and Ralph Dibny beyond the fact that they were silver-age relics that we should like just because they've been around a while.

And I know this isn't something anyone likes to think about, but rape is pretty common in the United States. It makes sense that it would happen to somebody close to a super-hero sooner or later.

Jonestown? What, you couldn’t think of an appropriate Nazi reference instead?

In retrospect, that was unfortunate, if not outright irresponsible on my part. I feel very bad. I apologize wholeheartedly and retract the comparison.

Sure, the whole Silver Age and Satellite Era -- or by people who remembered the much more recent Justice League Europe, which Sue pretty much owned.

I mean, by that argument ALL the characters in that story were old and irrelevant. Zatanna much more so than Sue.

And yeah, rape is common in the United States. Flying people, magic rings, people who run faster than the speed of sound, less common. So . . . what we should see in our comics are more rapes, less capes?

The world thinks of Jonestown as a mass suicide first and foremost.

And to be clear, that's what I was going at-- the cultyness. And I would agree with you that's what people think of Jonestown.

But I do think Brian is right in that I didn't need to invoke a tragic incident involving an evil man to criticize a popular tendency on a blog. I don't like it when people invoke Nazism and so I think I should live by the same rules which is why I have publicly apologized just now.

In retrospect, that was unfortunate, if not outright irresponsible on my part. I feel very bad. I apologize wholeheartedly and retract the comparison.

Of course you do, Graeme, because you're a good egg.

That's why I preemptively forgave you!

Chris Jones: "Beloved? By Who? People who remember the silver age? They were both old and irrelevant by the time the series came out."

ooooo.... them's fightin' words there, son....

Besides Ralph and Sue, you are touching on one of my biggest gripes with Meltzer. Want to deal with rape and violence against the families of superheroes? I agree that there's potential for stories there (see MIRACLEMAN, if you can get a copy).

But not on DC's flagship titles. Not on a book that should be a gateway for new readers. I've said it before, but when I saw Red Tornado's (flesh and bone) arm graphically being torn off in a "mainstream" JLA comic, I realized that DC didn't care about bringing my daughters in as readers. They've seen every episode of JL and JLU, but they don't need to see that.

IDENTITY CRISIS is not a flagship comic, so I'm torn on it's appropriateness. I thought it was a good examination of the issues, and covered the ramifications of family across the DC universe. I'm just a little queasy about the long-term ramifications. (Hey, at least it was a company-wide mini-series that had an effect. That's a plus, isn't it?)

Now, this has nothing to do with JLA #11... I'm just saying, I won't read it. I won't support DC's direction. Some flagship titles SHOULD be all-ages. Well, PG at least.

No, no, I'm learning. Sue was a disposible woman, especially if you don't care about comics that are more than few months old. Doing that to her was some kind of "today you are a badass" rite of passage for Dr. Light that made him worthy of the JLA's attention. High fives all around.

I dunno. I was 15 when I read Identity Crisis and like I said, it's pretty much what got me into mainstream comics in the first place. And depending on how young your daughters are, that stuff probably isn't appropriate, but that's why they make the JLU and LOS31(whatever)comics, for younger readers.

I've gotta say, though, kids can handle some pretty brutal fiction. I remember reading "Sandman: The Doll's House" when I was in the 7th Grade, just picking it up out of curiosity. It was unlike any comic I had ever read before, and it definitely disturbed me on a profound level, but it's another one of those kind of gateway comics that can get people to read them, I think.

And Buttler: I wouldn't know, but I would imagine that the series gave a lot of characters a pretty swift kick in the ass back into importance. And as for that last thing... that's not even worth dignifying with a response.

"No, no, I’m learning. Sue was a disposible woman, especially if you don’t care about comics that are more than few months old. Doing that to her was some kind of “today you are a badass” rite of passage for Dr. Light that made him worthy of the JLA’s attention. High fives all around."

How do you manage to get your pants on in the morning, you fucking nitwit? Don't spin what I said into some kind of retarded misogyny trip.

Ah, the 15 thing makes sense. If Bart's your Flash, you wouldn't have much of a frame of reference for why anyone would care about these people.

When I was 15, the Satellite era was about to give way to the Detroit era -- not a good time for the JLA, but Dibnys everywhere.

"Pants" tantrum aside, I do think the comic is "some kind of retarded misogyny trip," and trying to understand what the appeal is or what the argument is for it not being gratuitous isn't getting me any farther from that conclusion.

Chris, you yourself said IC is what got you into comics, and that you had no foreknowledge of any of the characters. That's the big problem (insofar as the debate only), here.

Can DC tackle heavy ideas like rape? Sure. DID they, in this story? Did they honestly deal with it? No, it was done for shock value and sensationalism only. At the time IC was coming out (this is why I suggested you check this site and others for discussions at the time it was being published, you can see more details), Meltzer ASSURED the readers that the rape would be addressed, that it was indeed an important, integral part of the story.

Guess what? It wasn't. It was a catalyst to get to the mindwipes, but it didn't serve ANY of the characters well in the meantime. And it sure as hell wasn't important or integral. You know what would have been brave? And Mature? And something that happens in real life? RALPH should have been raped, but DC would never go there, despite the assurances that they wanted to tackle adult themes.

Hell, DC has pretty much turned Arthur Light into Dr Rapey McRape, since he's brought it up again and again since then. Now, maybe dirtying up the Silver Age (which Meltzer professed to love even as he destroyed it, retroactively making the Leaguers into truly awful people) seemed okay to you, but I still believe that, since you don't have the history with the characters, that you can't really make an informed decision about the CHARACTERS. Sure, you like the character called Batman in IC, or Light, or Elongated Man -- my contention is (and was), none of those were the same characters DC had been showing us for decades.

It required a retroactive change (not just addressing the wackiness of the Silver Age, but out and out changing it) to several characters that taints not only that story, but hundreds of others. Every time Joker shoots or kills someone (or did since the retroactive event in IC through its' conclusion), I have to wonder why Zatanna and the others never bothered "rounding their edges." Did Barbara Gordon not count? Jason Todd (before he got better)? Every time Green Arrow or Black Canary talks about honor and trust, I wonder -- did Batman not count? Now, out of story, I know the answer, they couldn't address it because at the time these other stories were written, IC didn't exist. In story, you got me, I have no idea why the League didn't go further. I mean, raping Sue was over the line, but murdering other people, maiming them? I can see where, yes, these things DO happen to others all the time -- but speaking for myself, this isn't why I read comics. I expect my heroes to be BETTER than me, not worse.

This is ENTIRELY the fault of Meltzer and DC Editorial -- they either didn't think it through (aside from counting the money rolling it and high-fiving each other for being so "mature"), or they didn't care.

I am glad you enjoyed Sandman -- but that again wasn't mainstream DC. It was Vertigo, a more mature imprint that allows for these themes. And Vertigo actually tends to follow through logically. IC didn't. It pretended to be all adult and mature, and succeeded at neither (IMHO).

To sum up, we should probably agree to disagree. Thematically and philisophically, I think we're coming at this from two entirely different directions and neither of us is likely to convince the other. Any venom here is aimed directly at Meltzer, DC Editorial, and whomever green-lighted IC.

Take it and run,

Yeah, as someone who likes comics, it's very, very hard to read any of the JLA stories I grew up with now (which kids can read too, in the newly printed Showcase collections) without it being tainted by the way Identity Crisis pissed all over them and said they were all a filthy lie all that time.

I mean, my god, the wedding of Ray and Jean? When I re-read that recently, I saw Sue there in her bridesmaid dress and threw up in my mouth a little.

That said, I think we need a new flamewar topic in this thread.

I heard Brad Meltzer was talking about your mama, man. You gonna take that?

I'll agree to disagree. Can I ask, though, if there would have been as much bile from fans toward the series if it was an Elseworlds tale, and not involved in current continuity?

Elseworlds would have been a perfect idea for this story... but DC wanted it to "matter".

I don't think it works as an Elseworlds, either, but yes, it wouldn't be AS bad if it was an Elseworlds.

Re: Identity Crisis, Dr Light and "that" scene -
"No, it was done for shock value and sensationalism only."
*blinks* So you can't tell the difference between some mature subjects in a mainstream DC book and real life?

"DC has pretty much turned Arthur Light into Dr Rapey McRape, since he’s brought it up again and again since then."
Oh, Arthur's done far worse than that in the past (see Suicide Squad 27 for example).

So, Brian, why doesn't it work as an Elseworlds? How different is it from the Justice Lords, really? Besides the detail of the distasteful rape, of course, but isn't it the same "crossing the line" story? Just substitute the rape of Sue Dibny for the murder of Wally West.

I'll excuse the plot holes in the detective story, because they are par for the course in super-hero mysteries, IMHO.

I’ll excuse the plot holes in the detective story, because they are par for the course in super-hero mysteries, IMHO.

I wouldn't. Those are some pretty massive plot holes!

But that's not the only reason I don't think it would work as an Elseworlds, it's also because the problems with the rape were not due to it being in continuity - the rape was handled terribly in general.

But don't get me wrong, besides the:

1. Awful handling of the rape
2. The nonsensical murder mystery plot
and, to a MUCH lesser extent
3. Deathstroke versus the JLA
4. JLA mind-wiping villains and Batman

I didn't have much of a problem with the rest of the series.

I just think those parts (mostly the top 2) were so significant that it's like "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

All making it an Elseworlds does is make it so that the story can be ignored easier, which IS an improvement, true.

IC doesn't work as an Elseworlds, because it doesn't have the Elseworlds hook- taking familiar characters and putting them in unfamiliar settings or situations (Superman in Russia, Batman gets the Green Lantern ring, Justice League in the old west, B'wanna Beast in medieval Japan, etc). - unless it's a "What if the JLA were assholes?" thing. The whole selling point of IC was that it was a "story that mattered", promising long-term consquences for the DCU's future and a reexamination of its past. Making it a non-continuity story sort of negates its whole purpose.

Why do I need to go into detail of what made those things great if you can’t do this?

Because your the one saying it's an above average story - to the point that me saying it's average made you laugh.
And to be frank, for me, saying it's good because of 'the fight in issue eighteen and the bit in the revolving restaurant' isn't exactly a winning argument.
I can't even remember the scenes, but it wouldn't take much to jog the memory - and beyond that, why do you think these scenes are so good?
Why do you think it's a good comic?

You're the one who disagreed with my assessment (laughed at even!), so it's kind of on you to 'prove' me wrong.
If it's a good book, it shouldn't be hard to sing it's praises.
(I am genuinely curious as to what you like about it so much).

"And I know this isn’t something anyone likes to think about, but rape is pretty common in the United States. It makes sense that it would happen to somebody close to a super-hero sooner or later."

Now that is a very peculiar way of putting it. I'm sure Chris would say "hey, I'm not an idiot, I know nothing actually happened to anybody", and I'm equally sure it would be unfair to say he was quoting some kind of odds...nevertheless, he said it that way, and not another way, and it makes me want to pose the question:

Is this a common rationale for bad shit happening to nice superheroic people not being the writer's fault?

No beef with Chris, I don't care if he (or anyone) liked IC or not. Like it, hate it, go and be free! I just find the phrasing suggestive of a certain idea about what comics "should be", and wonder if it was just something typed in haste, or if it's something he believes in -- like, shit that happens to people in the real world should happen to superheroes too. Nothing intrinsically wrong with this viewpoint: it's responsible for half the appeal of Spider-Man, after all.

But I'm just curious.

"You’re the one who disagreed with my assessment (laughed at even!), so it’s kind of on you to ‘prove’ me wrong".
From an earlier post:
"Neither of which I can remember".
How does not remembering 2 moments in a 6 issue arc equate to it being an average story?

David wrote:

'Re: Identity Crisis, Dr Light and “that” scene -
“No, it was done for shock value and sensationalism only.”
*blinks* So you can’t tell the difference between some mature subjects in a mainstream DC book and real life?'

With respect, your rejoinder makes absolutely no sense.

"How does not remembering 2 moments in a 6 issue arc equate to it being an average story?"

Well, you were saying those were two great points. And if he couldn't remember them, they may not have been so great.

Well of course it seems ridiculous, until you look at the other nominees...

Well, you were saying those were two great points. And if he couldn’t remember them, they may not have been so great.

Exactly.

Combine that with the feeling of 'that was average' I had when reading it (both times I've read it), and I stand by my assessment of the book being quite average.