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.

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

‘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.

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.

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).

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.

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

“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).

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

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.

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,

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.

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.