Comic Book Resources

I'm sad!

You're damn right you are, Tyson. Come over to our side - it's so groovy over here!

The comics medium needs MORE Magnum, PI references, not less! Get your priorities straight, Burgas!

Also: I played around with a big post on Dark Knight, but I think everyone else said what I was going to say better than I was probably going to say it. I am interested in your mammoth and controversial analysis.

No, no, I was all excited to be linked as sad. I'm honored, sir.

Now go drink your Kool-aid.

Don't forget Hard Case Crime also brings you the new Ms. Tree novel.

Thanks for buying my books, Greg! I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on Dead Men and Kid Houdini!

-D

Tony Stark's narration is presumably his thoughts, right? And he's supposed to think using standard English grammar? Do you think grammatically? I don't even think in complete sentences. Or write in them.

I read the first issue of Caliber and I'm glad to hear I'm not missing much. I thought the first issue was pretty terrible (and the art is fourth rate Alex Ross stuff--like what Marvel tried to pawn off in the early 90s when they realized that people liked painted art).

I'm in a bit of a comic reading funk too, but I thought that was because I was away from my comics for three weeks and they are overwhelming me. Maybe it's just that we've outgrown comics, finally. Took us long enough. Time to start the "Grownup Books Should be Good" blog. I think All-Star Superman #12 will snap us out of it in time.

Could someone explain to me the genius that is Grant Morrison? I continue to think that Morrison is a horrible writer and would like to hear why he's so great. I just finished reading Final Crisis 3 and thought is really bad. Why would they need a draft to gather heroes together? It makes no sense considering how many times these heroes have gathered to save the world. It's just ridiculous. And that's just a beginning. So it would be nice to hear someone explain.

I just found it funny, Tim, that in the very sentence where he thinks how smart he is, he screws up a rather easy grammatical construction. He does it again in a later thought. I am trying to ignore grammatical errors, especially when, as you point out, a character is "thinking," but I just loved that dichotomy. I agree, nobody thinks in complete sentences, especially the way they're presented in comic books. So if the thoughts are more fully formed than "real" thoughts, shouldn't they be grammatically correct, as well?

I still like reading comics, but I'm a bit burned out when it comes to writing about them. It happens to me every so often. I have a feeling having one fewer child around the house will help.

I'm looking forward to reading them, Dwight! I hope it won't be too long until I catch up on all my reading!

Tim can probably do it better than I can (heck, most people can probably explain anything better than I can) what it is about Morrison, Dean, but I just think he's an interesting writer. He doesn't do things in the "normal" comic book way, so even when he fails (and unlike a lot of Whorrisons, I think he's failed quite a lot), it's an interesting experiment. And when he succeeds, it's dazzling. I agree that a lot of the stuff in Final Crisis hasn't worked (yet), including the idea of a superhero draft, but the very fact that he thinks of something like that is more interesting than just assuming all the superheroes would come together randomly. It's kind of a dumb idea, but at least he's trying something instead of rehashing the standard superhero stuff we've seen for 70 years. I have no idea how Final Crisis will pan out, but for me, at least, he's one of the few writers who I will trust to make it all work out. Occasionally this bites me in the ass (Invisibles, The Filth), but usually (for me), it results in fascinating comics.

Stark is so arrogant that Doom and T'Challa don't even make it into the conversation? He's a racist . . . and an Eastern Europeanist.

Dean, if you want to know why Morrison writes good comics, I could easily point you to about eight thousand other posts on this blog. But, to put it simply, Morrison's a good writer because he crafts literary works of fiction that also happen to be brain-bending, four-color adventures, most of the time. Pound for pound, he's the best idea man in comics, he's got one of the widest arrays of influences, and his work simply speaks to me in a way that no one else's does. Flex Mentallo changed my life.

That said, Final Crisis is okay.

>>Don’t forget Hard Case Crime also brings you the new Ms. Tree novel.

Ummm ... it's been out for a year or so, no? Not that I've bought it, because I've been lazy & not in a mystery-reading mood, but still.

Dean, you could read my Morrison book to find out what he does in some of his comics that I would consider "good."

But as far as the draft is concerned--how did the heroes know to gather together in the past? What called them together? Usually it was someone--like Harbinger--or J'onn J'onzz. Why is a draft any sillier than that? (I did think sending draft notices in the mail was rather silly, but look at what the bad guys did with the internet! Technology is not to be trusted in the DCU!)

What do you think is so bad about his writing?

>>Occasionally this bites me in the ass (Invisibles,

Oh, geez -- don't *say* that. I've only just completed the run & will be reading it soonish, & if I dislike it anywhere near as I did SEAGUY ... well, I'll probably turn back into a troll the next time the majesty of Morrison is alluded to on CSBG. (I also just got, & & haven't yet read, his MARVEL BOY, but at least that's only 6 issues vs 59 or however-many.)

What, exactly, is Tony's grammatical error?

The "me" at the end of the sentence should be "I". It's a fairly common grammatical error, and most people don't care, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

From http://orangetangerine.blogspot.com/2006/10/so-you-think-youre-smarter-than-me.html

Au contraire, mon pest. A recent Language Log post linked to an older post explaining why either me or I is correct. Per the Columbia Guide to Standard American English:

"Than is both a subordinating conjunction, as in She is wiser than I am, and a preposition, as in She is wiser than me. As subject of the clause introduced by the conjunction than, the pronoun must be nominative, and as object of the preposition than, the following pronoun must be in the objective case. ...Some commentators believe that the conjunction is currently more frequent than the preposition, but both are unquestionably Standard."

The rules, they are a-changin', Greg. Way to not keep up with your Columbia guides.

Confound it! Thwarted again by the Columbia Guide to Standard English! Damn you, Callahan!!!!!!

Count me in for a controversial post on The Dark Knight. I didn't see it until a few days ago (YAY, I no longer have to avoid every post that mentions it!) and I certainly didn't enjoy it any MORE than the first one. I liked it, but I had many quibbles.

And although I'm sometimes a bit of a grammar cop, "smarter than I" is STUPID. It just sounds/reads wrong. I agree with Tony Stark's brilliant and grammatically incorrect brain.

Getting bugged by people dissing conglomerates is a waste of brain power, Greg.

People with power do unethical things to maintain and increase that power. That's proven true across the board. It's not just childish rebellion against corporations.

I've been enjoying Final Crisis, and while I don't love his ouvre as much as some people, I think that Morrison is usually pretty good and almost always very interesting. So please don't throw anything at me when I ask this but...

Did it feel to anyone else like Morrison either doesn't know that a "superhero draft" was essentially the central plot device in Civil War (and that comics fans in general - or at least the Internet-vocal ones - roundly rejected it as a stupid idea) or does realize it and is trying to show that he can do it better than Marvel did? At t

Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with either possibility. I just really stood out to me during those scenes in the book. At the very least it would seem odd if he was conscious of the comparability but didn't have it in mind when writing FC.

I think the draft thing was mostly just to give some suggestion of the differences in psychology between Alan Scott, and say, Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne.

You've got to round up a bunch of combatants to go and kick some bad guy's arse. How do you handle this?

Clark, naturally, has one of his far out alien buddies send out a telepathic e-vite.

Bruce, say, tries to manipulate them into doing what he wants without their even knowing it.

Alan Scott, who's prime was spent dealing with WWII, naturally thinks in terms of a draft. I don't think it's meant to be taken literally, in the sense that if someone opted not to show up, Green Lantern would send out a contigent to attempt to arrest them. First, that, admittedly, would be stupid and out-of-character, and second, he doesn't really have the authority to do that and he knows it.

So, to reiterate, I think it's just meant to give us a small glimpse as to how DC's major heroes all have unique perspectives and approaches. I am in favor of this.

(I am also, incidently, in favor of letting someone other than the Trinity be the Big Boss for a change.)

who's=whose

Gotta keep that spelling/grammar tight.

The Ms. Tree novel is more or less a re-telling of the first story from the comics, but it's still very well written and worth it for anybody who enjoys or wants to know more about the character.

Also, that Luis Royo on Caliber is beautiful. I hope it makes it into his next art book...

Personally, while I think Morrison is a good writer, I don't see him as a great writer. Certainly not the greatest comic book writer since paper was invented, at any rate. My main problem/dislike is that, apart from finding him a bit too self-indulgant at times, is that while I think he sometimes has good idea man, it's his details when executing those ideas that turn me off. His ideas sometimes get a bit too out of control and distract from just telling a good story. Not sure if that makes any sense....just saying, I know many people like the ideas and believe he does tell good stories, those were just my opinions. P

lease allow me time to run away before you start chasing after me with torches and pitchforks

Man, I thought Invincible Iron Man #4 was one of the best issues I've read this year.

To each his own I suppose.

But I don't know too many brilliant people who bother to use correct grammar in every sentence unless they're doing an official paper or an article. People don't usually think in correct grammar, either. That sentence could stand to be perfected, grammatically speaking, but it rings a lot truer as something somebody would say than the correct grammar would.

"...I am." "...only person alive smarter than I am."

Dan: If what you say is true (and I agree with you), then why aren't all these superheroes with power running around doing unethical things? That's what bugs me. It's assumed that individuals with power are above reproach, while corporations, who often have to answer to stockholders, are running around doing evil things. I don't have a problem with assuming that powerful entities are going to abuse that power, as we've seen it so very often, but that extends to superheroes too. That's all I mean when I get grumpy about it.

wwk5d: That's not a bad criticism of Morrison at all. He does come up short on execution occasionally. I think he comes through more often than not, however. And he is trying new things, which I appreciate.

I'll try to keep my grammar thoughts to myself! Sometimes I can't help myself!

JCAll has it right. The correct version is "...smarter than I am." When shortened by letting the verb be assumed, it is "...smarter than I".

I don't care what the Columbian Drug Lords Alternative Dictionary says, "...smarter than me" just ain't right.

Morrison's Animal Man is the best thing he's ever done. Doom Patrol is probably second. Other than that, Morrison isn't all that great. He certainly isn't a must read for me. Heck, I get more excited when I hear Tim Truman is writing something than I do when Morrison is.

And, of course, the backmatter is interesting and includes an interview with Charles Ardai of Hard Case Crime, which publishes pulp novels. The interview is interesting enough, but the covers of some of the books were phenomenal. I’m dying to read The Vengeful Virgin (”They Burned Bright - Till the Flames Consumed Them!“) and the book with the greatest straight-forward title in history - Somebody Owes Me Money. Damn, there are some cool-looking book[s] at that site.

Judging a Hard Case Crime book by its cover (and blurb) led me to buying Grave Descend, and that novel was fucking abysmal. No hook. Thinly drawn characters. A nonsensical eleventh hour twist. Total bullshit.

Hopefully, the rest of their slate is much, much better.

'Cause The Vengeful Virgin does sound really tempting.

About that Chuck Dixon war book, it takes into account that Soviet Union was planning to do its own Japan invasion weeks before the american one? And that the scale of that invasion (the russians were transfering a good part of its HUGE army to the east, including far more armor that the US couls possibly muster) and its target (the undefended northern japanese coast) mean that the commies would probably conquer the country well before the US could?

Well, it should.

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

>that Batman movie you may have heard of (and I’m working on a monster post about that which is sure to piss everyone off)

Sounds like I'm not the only one who didn't like the Dark Knight. I thought I was alone, amongnst the millionsof people who don't mind a Batman movie where Batman is not the main character. Plus, it was too long and no one has given me a satisfying explanation for that logic jump (the police hunting batman) at the end. Sorry if I just ruined the ending for the three people who haven't seen it yet.

Agreed that Morrison's very best work is still his (relative) earliest: "Animal Man" and "Doom Patrol." If you're one of those people who can't understand all the "Whorrison" love, then you probably oughtta buy those two series (the entire runs are both avialable in trade, I do believe). Then you'll know. That said, he's written some kick-ass later work ("We3") and lots of his other stuff is mostly wonderful, especially "All-Star Superman" and most of his "JLA" and "New X-Men" and "Seven Soldiers." Also, as mainstream "event" comics go, I loved his "DC One Million" (didn't bother reading the rest of the crossovers, just his main 5-issue arc), so I am more than happy to stick with "Final Crisis." (FWIW, I'm "meh" on "Batman" and gave up on "The Filth." "Invisibles" was a very mixed bag that deserves a full re-reading, from start to finish, which I'll get to some day.)

Greg, on the issue of power corrupting: There ARE plenty of people with superpowers running around the DUC (and the Marvel U and any other fictional U) doing unethical, even horrendous things: They're called superVILLAINS. The heroes are the ones who (usually) make the honorable, moral choices involving self-sacrifice, not selfishness. So it's silly to argue that comics writers shouldn't bash big corporations just because these writers craft stories about individual beings with great power.

In fact, when some writers try to tell "shades of gray" stories about the heroes' choices and behavior — I'm thinking Tony Stark et al. going all Big Brother in "Civil War," or the JLA deciding (after a close debate) to mind-wipe in "Identity Crisis" — many readers get all upset, even outraged. There's a huge resistance within fandom to entertain the possibility that heroes might be pushed into making bad decisions. Without bothering to comment on the overall quality of those two miniseries, they were nevertheless über-high-profile stories. So It amuses me when you ask, "Why aren’t all these superheroes with power running around doing unethical things?"

Meanwhile, here on Earth-Prime, there endless examples from every era of Big Business doing the wrong thing just to make a few people rich. The fact that the executives supposedly answer to stockholders doesn't seem to matter; those stock investors want big profit margins, and apparently they don't ask too many questions about how those margins are maintained. (Ignorance is bliss.) Whether we're talking about Enron bilking workers out of pensions or Wal-Mart actively union-busting, it happens all the time. For every high-profile example that ends up making headlines, there are umpteen other examples that affect the average worker or consumer but don't end up being big news. Sure, Greg, I agree that not every CEO is Gordon Gekko, but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine blatantly immoral choices made by corporate decision-makers.

On a lighter note: That aside about Crocs was great. Thanks for the link to that Newsweek piece — I laughed out loud. Good and funny stuff. (Although that writer, too, apparently struggles with decompression. The essay would've been better at half the length.)

"If what you say is true (and I agree with you), then why aren’t all these superheroes with power running around doing unethical things? That’s what bugs me. It’s assumed that individuals with power are above reproach, while corporations, who often have to answer to stockholders, are running around doing evil things. I don’t have a problem with assuming that powerful entities are going to abuse that power, as we’ve seen it so very often, but that extends to superheroes too. That’s all I mean when I get grumpy about it."

Well, they do sometimes, for one. That was the whole point of Identity Crisis, as far as I understand it.

But also, it's because one of those subjects is based in reality (where corporations do operate tyranically, unless forced to stop), and the other is not. Thus, it becomes easier for the fan to believe that a superhero could be intrinsically good. There aren't any glaring, factual examples to argue otherwise.

Andrew Brown said...
"Plus, it was too long and no one has given me a satisfying explanation for that logic jump (the police hunting batman) at the end. Sorry if I just ruined the ending for the three people who haven’t seen it yet."

This kinda reminds me of the weird tangential debate that broke out after Cronin's latest 'Theory of Comics', because it seems like one of those cases where not understanding something really is, objectively, the fault of the viewer and not the work. Gordon spells out that 'logic leap' for his little kid, and in a handy bit of foreshadowing, Alfred spells it out to Rachel earlier. All the explanation is in the movie itself, IMO.

But then I didn't love 'Batman Begins' all that much, so I can certainly see why someone wouldn't like a Chris Nolan Bat-movie.

Well, I will agree that Morrison sometimes has good ideas, not here in Final Crisis, but I did enjoy Animal Man, but with Doom Patrol, I just felt like he was trying to come up the weirdest ideas possible and that it got in the way of good story telling. My biggest problem with him is his dialogue. It almost never comes across as natural to me, and is often confusing. There are some lines in Final Crisis, I can't remember which ones specifically, that I just didn't understand what they were trying to tell. Plus, at least in Final Crisis, I don't think that he's bringing across the threat that well. He's spent more time showing us how he's taken the big players off the playing field that bringing any real sense of urgency. So far to me, this series is just coming across as a revamp of the New Gods, and I don't find this version very interesting or original. In fact, I'd have to say, even looking at what I may consider Morrison's strong points, creativity, this series has almost none of that. Most of the ideas have been done before and recently. Of course, I put some of the blame on Didio because I have a feeling as with most of what's coming out of DC, that Didio has his fingers too far in, and he's not letting his writers do what they do best, write.

Yes, he spells it out to his kid simplistically for all the ten year olds out there. But it still does not in any way make sense logically. Batman saves people over and over and over again, even beating down the SWAT at the end is for a good reason. But, all of a sudden people hate batman and the police are hunting him down because... Oh wait, I didn't actually see that in the Dark Knight? Just some copout scene where batman says he must look like the villain for Harvey's image, and Gordon backing him up by saying he's going to tell the police batmans CRAZY and hurting cops for shits and giggles. lame.

Rebis said:

"In fact, when some writers try to tell “shades of gray” stories about the heroes’ choices and behavior — I’m thinking Tony Stark et al. going all Big Brother in “Civil War,” or the JLA deciding (after a close debate) to mind-wipe in “Identity Crisis” — many readers get all upset, even outraged."

No, readers got upset about Tony Stark because the set-up sucked. There was no gradual move to Iron Man being a prick. It was ham-handed writing.

I also don't think people were all that upset about the mind-wipe in Identity Crisis. I think they were more upset because of the portrayal of the rape. Had that scene happened off camera, it would have had less impact, obviously, but it wouldn't have encountered all the internet angst it did. More ham-handed writing.

These tangential discussions are always fun...

Andrew, I think you have to ask yourself what the average person in Gotham sees and thinks about the Batman. Do they see him saving people? Or do they see his actions in the paper and on the nightly news? Given that, it would seem to be relatively easy to paint a guy that dresses like a bat and beats people up as unstable, and potentially dangerous. If the media is selling that story, people are going to buy it. Just look at recent real-world examples for issues where the facts and popular perceptions don't match up at all well.

Still plenty of reasons to not like the movie, but I don't think that this one is illogical.

Just some copout scene where batman says he must look like the villain for Harvey’s image, and Gordon backing him up by saying he’s going to tell the police batmans CRAZY and hurting cops for shits and giggles. lame.

not hurting cops for shits and giggles, KILLING cops for shits and giggles. Batman took the blame for all of Harvey's murders. I don't think anybody in Gothom is going to care much for the specifics when the paper headlines they read proclaim, BATMAN: MURDERER! Even if they're just crooked cops and gangsters, people are just going to want to see Batman caught. I don't see what's so illogical about that.

"Still plenty of reasons to not like the movie, but I don’t think that this one is illogical."

It's illogical because its never satisfactorily explained why Batman has to take the blame for the people Harvey killed. Half the city is in chaos, there's boats about to be blown up, buildings are collapsing around peoples ears and its all down to the Joker - but for some odd reason, Batman has to take the rap for the handful of people Harvey killed when they could have just as easy pinned them on Joker and nobody would have said anything (especially as at least one person Harvey killed was a mob guy, and its well known by that point that Joker is into ripping them off and killing them where possible).

That's what I don't get.

Andy: I completely reject your theory re: Alan Scott knows WW2 stuff, so he'd draft people.

Yes, he was in WW2, but he's been active since. He was the guardian of magic. He was the White King of Checkmate. He's been a modern JSA member for some time.

How many stories have there been when the JLA goes around and gives everyone communicator devices?
Hell, Johns and Morrison has gone to great pains to have everyone know who everyone is in their secret IDs...how about a phone tree? Looking at the art, it appears they got the JLA, JSA, Teen Titans and Shadowpact. That's 4 phone calls. But instead, they what, go to Congress to have the draft activated? And it's by postal mail? (As Jade appears to be in the group, and she's dead, no, I will say that Congress seems more able to get stuff done in the DCU than in real life).

Doesn't he own a TV network? How about just going on the news and saying, All superheroes, please go to the hall of justice.

This was Morrison thinking "Hey, here's a clever idea!---I'm sure no one will have read where I'm swiping it from---I'll use it even if it makes no sense!"

Paperghost: It could be as simple as Batman's not going to blame someone else for Harvey's crimes. He'll take the blame himself, but can't put the blame on the Joker.

Getting deeper. The Joker says "Oh sure, I killed these people and those and those...but I didn't kill those 3 people." and suddenly there's investigations and cover ups and so forth.

Andrew: You'll note I didn't say I didn't like the movie, because I did. But I have some problems with it, too. But that's all I'm saying!

As I've said before re: corporations in comics, I'd just like to see a corporation that isn't connected to Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne but is still not a horrible entity. If we can have nuanced portrayals of heroes wrestling with ethical choices (and we do, occasionally), there's no reason to simply say, "Oh, look - it's a conglomerate! They spread evil throughout the world!" Don't even bring it up if that's all you have to say on the matter.

Just to add to what Scavenger said above, isn't the other issue timing? The Joker couldn't be in two places at once, so someone else must have killed them. But I may have my time line off here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Even that, though, feels pretty flimsy. Would seem that you could pin the murders on another third party, even if not the Joker. But then again that does get back at the moral dilemma of Batman, and finding that line that he's unwilling to cross.

OK, but are ALL corporations in comics evil? Besides Wayne's and Stark's companies, I can think of one "good" corporation off the top of my head — S.T.A.R. Labs. For the moment, that's all I've got, but there must be others.

{{{As I’ve said before re: corporations in comics, I’d just like to see a corporation that isn’t connected to Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne but is still not a horrible entity.}}}

I'll agree with you that comics have been pretty anti-corporate -- probably partly because a lot of writers and artists have had strained relationships with the companies that employ them -- but I can think of a few more.

Danny Rand, the Iron Fist, is head of his own corporation. The Immortal Iron Fist #16 would be a good read, to demonstrate.
When Morrison was writing X-Men, he had X-Corporation operating in a positive capacity, world-wide.
Then there's the Taylor Foundation, from the various incarnations of the New Warriors. Admittedly there've been shady moments for them but overall I'd say they've been seen as a positive force in their storyworld.

If your rejoinder is "ok, yeah, but they're still connected with superheroes," that's telling, isn't it? There's still enough space within the superhero mythos FOR corporations. It's a small space, but it's there.

Good point, Stefan, especially about Danny Rand. S.T.A.R. Labs is the one everyone always comes up with, and I don't know if that counts - I don't know enough about them to know how "corporate" they are.

Those are good examples, but, as you point out, all of the corporations are run or intimately connected with superheroes, who are "good" and therefore would never run "evil" businesses. But I'll shut up now!

This week's issue of The Killer was the first once I picked up, and I had no problems whatsoever following the story. It is an excellent book.

That's good to know, Chris. It is quite a good comic, and there should be a collection of some of it (I can't remember if it's just the first four issues, but it might be the first six) out soon, if you're interested in reading the rest.

Well, Big Belly Burgers seems to be on the up and up in the DCU.

Damage Control, when not written by Millar/Bendis, is a good company in th MU.

It's really I think, just the basics of storytelling....either a company is going to be allied with a hero, being the bad guys of the story. Otherwise, why would they be in the story at all?

Can you name any good multi-national conglomerates in the real world?

As those that run them are legally obliged to raise the share value for the shareholders, any way they can, there aren't any good one's - even if the CEO wanted to be a good chap, if it didn't make more cash for the shareholder at the end of the day, he couldn't do it.

Also, as America is being run by an administration that likes to look out for corporations - be it cronyism or a smart free market policy - it kind of makes sense that writers are going to write about them.

Well, probably not, FGJ, "good" and "evil" being absolute concepts that rarely apply in the real world. However, I can't name any multi-national conglomerates who are actively evil, either. As you so correctly pointed out, it's all about the value of the stock. I would just rather writers left them alone, as they don't play well in the fantasy world of superheroes. But that's just me.

I would just rather writers left them alone, as they don’t play well in the fantasy world of superheroes. But that’s just me.

I think they work great for heroes - a huge faceless villain* with infinite resources and an easy understandable motive - making money, no matter what cost.
It's like having commies as villains all over again, but without having to worry about them collapsing over night.

Throw in the fact that in the real world you can trace a lot of things people dislike about modern life to them (just like you can with governments and commies) and you've got a villain made to last.

Also, it's not like this is a modern thing - corporations have been used as villains since the 70's in comics**. The only difference now is that it seems more topical due to Haliburton and the like.

*Like Hydra - you can take out the head man, but another will just replace it.

** If not 70's, then definitely the 80's.

greg-

just one nit to pick with ya': just because a character i write has an opinion doesn't necessarily mean that opinion is mine. that's the fun of writing (and acting, too) : you get to play with characters that are different from you.

thanks for readin'!

marc andreyko
writer, "Manhunter"

Yeah, I know, Marc. I often do that - attribute opinions that characters have to the writers. I don't realize I'm doing it until someone (like you) points it out to me! I have blinders on when it comes to that, and I shouldn't.

That being said, I really do like the book. I hope it's selling better since its "relaunch"!

Yes, more Archaia stuff is coming ASAP. Rejoice!

HALO corp. from Wildcats 3.0 provided an intriguing view of corporate activity.

Whoops, I didn't realize there was a whole Wildstorm debate going on. I'm way out of the loop here.