Comic Book Resources

Tim is wrong. It’s sad, but true.

The funniest thing about Come in Alone (and you’re right, it’s excellent), is how much a certain writer named Warren Ellis doesn’t follow what essayist Warren Ellis says writers should do.

Random Thought! I should also do an essay on realism in superhero comics since I have some specific thoughts there. For example, how is Norman Osborn so successful as director of HAMMER? The guy has never run an organisation that size and is fighting about twelve different wars on twelve different fronts against people who have far more experience in this area. Isn’t he playing way over his head? He’s got to contend with the New Avengers, the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Nick Fury — NICK FURY! The man who had this job and did it better than anyone else ever! It seems like a convenient character change to justify a story and things like that bother me. We all know he’s going down, but I’m amazed he’s lasted this long, honestly.

Look at Obama’s experience before becoming President. Stranger stuff has happened.

If you’re talking about “The Old Bastard’s Manifesto,” you (along with others) missed the “best before 01/01/01.” Okay, it’s a loop hole, but one that stands up, because he explicitly said that the piece was only relevent until that time (at least with regards to holding him accountable).

John Sparrow David Thompson? Really? I’d have gone with Sir John A. MacDonald. He was a hard-drinkin’, hard-fightin’ Scottish badass. Much more fun to write.

Y’know, I may just have to…. borrow that idea….

I started using “Ultimate Matt” years ago because…some poorly thought out reasoning that fell somewhere between a joke and “that’s what people do online”. I just kind of stuck with it because I was used to it. I don’t write or say anything insightful enough online about comics to have felt any pressure to “get serious”; I write a blog just to have an outlet since my wife could care less about comics.

I really, really didn’t like Sweet Tooth, but that’s largely a personal thing. It just kinda pressed the wrong buttons for me, if that makes any sense whatsoever.

I kind of dug the first issue. I’ll give the next couple a shot. I really like Vertigo’s promotion as it’s an easy way to get people to give that first issue a shot — and, in your case, you won’t be back, but you gave it a shot.

Dogma is bad. Even, and probably especially, when it’s your own. Move with the times. Mutate and survive. And other cliches from before my time.

I agree with Greg; Tim is wrong. They have helped me out a few times when I picked up comics again after a 10 year hiatus.
Also, much agreed on usernames/real names. I’ve done some things online that I wouldn’t even dream about doing IRL thanks to the anonymity of the internet.

Whoops accidentally posted as anonymous for my post about anonymity.

Sure real names would mean more politeness and more tact in posting..but it would be a helluva lot more boring and you’d get a lot less tough love too for writers and artists who need it.

T. — I disagree. Using my real name hasn’t silenced me from voicing my opinion. Nor has it silenced many critics that I respect. It really just means that you spend an extra two seconds considering what you’re saying and if you’re willing to stand by it completely. Usernames say to the world “I’m a coward who’s afraid to stand by what I apparently believe in.”

And, as I said last week, there are exceptions — as there will always be when someone makes a stupid broad, general statement as I just did. See, sometimes using your real name doesn’t stop you from saying rushed, thoughtless things…

What I love about recap pages is that if the past issues are recapped in the story itself, reading a TPB becomes really annoying. Imaging a novel recapping everything that’s happened so far at the beginning of every chapter.

But what if you’re commenting on racial, religious or political issues online? To me there’s just too much risk with not enough benefit to make it worth attaching your real name to such views. In general in this age of facebook, myspace and twitter, the need to voluntarily make your views and lifestyle even more transparent is ridiculous to me.

You could always choose not to comment. Or run the risk of people dismissing you because of your username. I agree there’s a certain absurdity in the transparent, tell-the-world-everything nature of the internet — which is why my first point here stands.

If you’re ashamed of your views on racial, religious, or political matters, you probably shouldn’t be commenting on the issues.

First name’s “Dan”, by the way.

Besides, T., we all know where you live, anyway.

sweet tooth looks way too creepy for me, i read the preview and that deerboy gives me the creeps

If you’re ashamed of your views on racial, religious, or political matters, you probably shouldn’t be commenting on the issues.

Some of us work in very liberal, politically correct environments. It’s not about being ashamed of your views so much as not willing to be unemployed or ostracized as a result of them. Same goes for someone working in a very conservative or politically incorrect environment who may not want to reveal their far left views for whatever reason.

“…it seems that the argument that some have is that they don’t want people in the real world to track them down online because they’re afraid of the consequences… If that’s the case, shouldn’t you perhaps take a look at what you’re saying online that would have real world consequences?”

Sometimes it is not what you post, but where. Specifically, teachers have to be very careful where they post under their real name because some school districts are touchy about such things. Friend of mine is a teacher in Arizona. It is a very conservative area. If the school would find him posting at Henry Rollins’s site, for instance, it could cost him his job.

“Someone in my apartment building has a dog that won’t shut the hell up.”

I think they named it Chad Nevett.

Chad, just curious, what do you do for a living? Does it require working 9-5 in an office with a bunch of regular coworkers?

I’m not ashamed of my opinions but I know also that my next potential employer is just one Google away from my controversial view on Topic X. In fact, it needn’t have anything to do with clashing politics, it can just be some boss typing “Chad Nevett” into a search engine, discovering his 17000-word blog-a-thon on Bendis Avengers and then deciding that this guy wastes too much time on stupid shit (in his view, I’m saying). You can argue that “Well someone like that wasn’t worth your time anyway,” but even in my early twenties, I feel like that’s being a bit naive.

Cass, that’s another good example. Or say even with dating if you’re single…in this post-Google world, potential mates tend to google you as soon as they can after meeting you and deciding they’re interested. What if someone paints an inaccurate picture of you based solely on what they see of you online without being able to see what you have in real life to balance it?

To me with any decision it comes down to this: (1) what is the best result i can expect from this decision, (2) what is the worst result i can get from this decision, and (3) am i willing to risk #2 to get #3?

To me the potential pros are minor and incosequential at best, the potential cons are much bigger, especially considering once you put something on the internet it’s there forever out of your control.

Publius, George Orwell, Collette, George Eliot, Voltaire, AE, Boz, George Sand, Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain, O. Henry, Pablo Neruda, Saki, Silence Dogood, Stan Lee, Toni Morrison, Woody Allen, and Washington Irving.

Bitch ass cowards, all.

That should have read: “(3) Am I willing to risk #2 to get #1?”

T. — Currently unemployed. The difficulty of finding work could be a result of my online activity, but I don’t know. It could also be the result of the horrid economy in this city.

Alan — Nice.

Cass — Trust me, I’m aware of that attitude. But, also, without using my real name and standing by my writing, I wouldn’t be writing for CBR either.

Omar — I considered pen names and, in many cases, there was an effort to avoid reprisal (in much harsher forms than what’s been discussed here) from the government. And, in others, as I said, there are exceptions to the rule. Now, when even a fraction of people who post online under assumed names reaches the level of discourse that warrants comparing them to that group of people, I’ll change my views.

I know your name, T.! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

And I always use “Dan.” I just assume people know who I’m talking about. He’s famous for his contrariness!

By the way, I agree with you about Incognito and about mindset in general. Some people bug me for it, but I think it’s very important when you’re experiencing entertainment.

My parents, in-laws, and some of my friends don’t get why I read comics. I’ve never been asked to explain it. It’s a non-issue. My principal wouldn’t care, and has better things to do with her time. Even if the superintendant of schools looked me up, discovered I’ve posted on comic book message boards, and found it absolutely appalling… I’m in a union

“What if someone paints an inaccurate picture of you based solely on what they see of you online without being able to see what you have in real life to balance it?”

If you have to counter-balance your behavior online, then that speaks to Chad’s point about just behaving in a more presentable way online.

And a fear of being ostracized for your views is a sign of shame. There are people at my work who would judge me for stating my support of gay marriage rights, for example, but that’s not something I’m willing to hide for the sake of getting along with coworkers.

Also, employers are not allowed to fire you for having misogynistic opinions about women in comic books. If someone were to attach you to those views and fire you for it, you’d have the basis for a hefty lawsuit.

T. – good point about dating. Luckily, I’m married.

“And I always use “Dan.” I just assume people know who I’m talking about. He’s famous for his contrariness!”

I only use Apodaca because I figure people do already know who I am. I’m just lazy and I got tired of typing the 4 extra characters.

My girlfriend did google me before we met, by the way, and did what any sensible person I would actually want to date would do. She asked me what “Comic Book Resources” was and I told her about my posting habits.

I’ve just used this name for so long(Wizard board before here) that it’s always been my comic handle (just like my baseball handle is Cardsfanboy) and it just seems like more of a hassle to remove my handle from my name. (mind you I know of at least one professional baseball writer/researcher that ran into problems because his online name was what he was known more by, and to sell his ideas to front offices he had to point them to a somewhat silly name)

I don’t hide my name, and never will, but feel that there is a somewhat nice disconnect from my real name and my screen name that makes it a little easier to stay in character for the type of board I’m on. (of course because of his last post on this subject I did add my name to my screen name)

I’m also glad to see I’m not the first or only person to questions Osbornes ability to stick with the big boys, I know they want to make him a villain on par with Lex Luthor, but it’s still a stretch to think he could, for even one minute out play Tony Stark or Nick Fury(of course Nick Fury unknowingly working for Hydra all these years, tells you how silly some of the decisions that Marvel editorial is allowing to come out of their current lines)

Regarding the dating issue, what you see of me online reflects who I am fairly well (emphasising certain aspects, of course), so I don’t mind. It’s stuff that would come up anyway. Besides, if you’ve met me, learning that I like comics (which is 90% of my search results) wouldn’t be a surprise.

It’s very important to some people’s careers that they manage their online reputation, so I think it’s perfectly understandable to use a nom de internet in those cases.

I am not one of those people, and am basically a coward. It’s not that I’m afraid of my name being associated with my comments. It’s that I know things on the internet never go away, so if I know my name will forever be linked with what I’m about to write, I’ll demand perfection from myself. This means I’ll write, edit, re-write, and a comment this long would take 45 minutes. It would probably make my contribution to the discussion better, but I have better things to do.

Also, you’re totally right about anonymity leading to people being jerks. I like to think that I’m not one of those people, but that’s probably what they all think. So maybe I should just embrace it and be a douche. People who like Grant Morrison comics because they secretly want to be speed-raped in the ear by the Flash. It gives you the same “what the hell was that? My head hurts” sensation without having to, you know, bring an impossible fictional character to life.

The best TV drama of all time always started with “Previously on The West Wing”.

I’ve been reading comics for 45 years and I still get confused by the continuity. And if I’ve got to pay 4 bucks for 17 pages, I really don’t want two of them to be telling me what I missed.

I love the recaps.

Cass — And, for the record, my blogathon was just under 29,000 words. Yes, I checked. I’m actually a little disappointed that I didn’t crack that 30,000 mark.

Mutt — I mentioned The West Wing to Tim as an example of recaps done right. Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was also very good at that. If recaps aren’t done well, the solution isn’t to eliminate them, it’s to do them better.

I know I’m going to get a lot of flack over this, but I’ll say it anyway…

Being conservative has the potential to get you a lot more flack than being liberal. It has to do with the stereotypes. The average conservative has a knee jerk reaction against the average liberal, and vice versa. The problem is, the average conservative’s knee jerk reaction against the average liberal is usually that he is probably well-intentioned but deluded about issues, or is a pollyanna. Maybe smug, elitists, whatever. But not really moral judgments like “evil,” unless you are to Glenn Beck or Michael Savage extremes. The knee-jerk reaction to conservatives from liberals though? Usually “fascist,” misogynist, racist, heartless, insensitive, anti-poor…I find a lot of snap judgments against conservatives go toward moral character. Throw in the fact that I’m black and then come the Uncle Tom or self-hatred stereotypes. If people know my affiliations before they get to know me in person and get a well-rounded picture, the assumption from jump street would be “self-hating misogynist, sexist fascist.” Especially when living in a super-liberal city like NY the way I do.

Also, I’m married but if I was single it would be even worse. I’ve actually had conservative male friends who have been dumped when revealing they were conservative, some even after a few dates that went well. Imagine if I was single and people found out my politics before I even went on a single date?

you deserve to get flak over that generalization. I mean seriously only humor shows do the knee jerk liberal response you are talking about, there is an entire “news” station that is dedicated to making itself as the knee jerk conservative responder.

I agree that both sides have people that make snap judgement, but when you talk to a conservative about say something legitimate like health care, the next word out of their mouth is socialism (as if it’s remotely related—just get away from the labeling and have a nice informed discussion instead) and that is a conservative response to everything, instead of being legitimate in their characterization they go with words designed to invoke inaccurate imagery like socialist, godless, liberal media(that is another hilarious one) , welfare case, etc.

I understand your viewpoint T, but to act as if one side is more reactionary than the other side is absurd.

Thank you for linking to the article by Ng Suat Tong, Chad. It was very thoughtful and illuminated a lot of problems with modern American comics. The time it takes me to do my own comic strip art ( which is far simpler than most professionally-published work ) has made me appreciate how much intellect, skill, and above all effort cartooning takes.

On the other hand, given how most contemporary pencillers only do one monthly series at a time ( and even then it’s a crapshoot regarding whether or not they’ll get 12 issues finished in a year ), it seems kind of inevitable that the writer would take top billing; they’re far more exposed.

What if someone paints an inaccurate picture of you based solely on what they see of you online without being able to see what you have in real life to balance it?

Then that person is a moron.

Of course, I say this as someone who has an incredibly generic name. I am Google-proof! Mwahahahahah!

A list of top bands/musicians that doesn’t include Frank Zappa?

“Well, God, Jed, I don’t even want to know you.”

That article reminds me of the Astonishing X-men Hardcovers

http://www.ifanboy.com/comics/marvel_comics/astonishing_x-men_hc_vol_02/cover-large.jpg

Seriously, look at that shit. Luckily, they’re equal size on the Omnibus

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Qs3x6ljjL._SS500_.jpg

Chad: Sports Night did a good recap as well.

Jesus, I had no idea so many people thought I was a coward because I don’t use my real name when I talk about how much I like the “Ultron Unlimited” storyline.

I think T makes several good points. Yes, in a perfect world no good employer, or first date, or job interviewer would think badly of you or hold it against you because you blog or post about comics, or other such things. But this isn’t a perfect world. Yes, if your liberal boss fired you because he went online and found out you were a hardcore conservative, you could sue him. But you’d only win if he/she were stupid enough to admit that’s why they fired you. Chances are they would use some minor or imaginary infraction or tardiness or whatnot as their excuse. Obviously, not a lot of employers are going to do that, but some are. If you’re job hunting, and the person going through the resumes Googles you, is of the opposite political spectrum, and finds politcally based posts of yours, don’t you think there’s a decent chance they won’t give your resume as serious a look? It might not be right, but you’d be naive to think it never happens.

I’m pretty liberal, and most of my friends are very liberal. But T is right in the fact that a good portion of liberals automatically assume conservatives are racist/sexist/anti-poor or whatever. Granted, I disagree with him that the conservative reaction to liberals is not a moral judgement. I’ve never had a liberal tell me I was going to Hell, and actually mean it. That’s pretty much the definition of a moral judgement right there.

And my name is Adam Johnson, in case anyone gives a shit.

The thing that’s irksome about recap pages is that writers of the comics that do have them don’t seem to be aware, during the writing process anyway, that they’re going to be added in. So you’ll often see the same info you just read (and typically knew from the start) regurgitated on the very next page, and, what’s worse, that writers tend to just dump it all out there – “Man, I can’t believe the Chameleon took over my life for a few days! I wonder if he managed to screw my chances with Vin’s sister, Michelle.” * ….. * [601 to Present - Wack-A-Mole]. It grows very tedious after a while, and you wish the characters would just move along with the current story instead. So I am pro recap pages, under the stipulation that the writer be told in advance, and furthermore, that he be commanded by his editor not to pad the story with rehash just for the sake of keeping the audience up-to-date on plot.

@Chad: Didn’t mean to nick your wordcount there, which in length by the way, constitutes a full novella. I believe that I misquoted the figure from Tim Callahan, who was actually citing your wordcount midway through the ordeal.

Apodaca said:

“Also, employers are not allowed to fire you for having misogynistic opinions about women in comic books. If someone were to attach you to those views and fire you for it, you’d have the basis for a hefty lawsuit.”

In a right to work state, they don’t have to reveal why they fired you. All they have to say is that they had just cause.

Chad, it was a joke. That’s why I included a smilie.

Cass — No offence taken. I was curious to see what the word count actually was…

Alan — I got that. My ‘nice’ was in appreciation of the joke. Nice joke.

I’m pretty liberal, and most of my friends are very liberal. But T is right in the fact that a good portion of liberals automatically assume conservatives are racist/sexist/anti-poor or whatever. Granted, I disagree with him that the conservative reaction to liberals is not a moral judgement. I’ve never had a liberal tell me I was going to Hell, and actually mean it. That’s pretty much the definition of a moral judgement right there.

Hey, don’t get me wrong. Lots of conservatives make harsh judgments on liberals too, but the moral ones usually come from extremists of the Glenn Beck and Michael Savage variety or the religious kind like fundamentalists. The snap judgments the AVERAGE conservative makes about liberals tends to be that they mean well in theory but are either shortsighted, naive or hypocritical in actual practice. Or just outright stupid about how the real world works. Or at worst that they hate America. These stereotypes that conservatives make are nothing to be proud of, we’re no angels in the stereotyping department. The problem is, I find the average run of the mill liberal, not even the extremists, assumes the racist or sexist or poor-hating thing about conservatives, and for black conservatives, the self-hating thing.

Problem is, it’s easier to disprove stupidity or naivete than disproving racism, self-hate, or sexism.

It’s always seemed to me that Liberals have tended to be more hostile in their judgements of Conservatives than the other way around, but it seems to be changing lately. (And it’s the Conservatives getting worse, not the Liberals getting better.)

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe a lot of people prefer pseudonyms simply because they’re shy?

Nobody else has asked about this, but I was wondering why the comics are available one day earlier in Canada this week. I can see why Labor Day might delay the distribution in the US, but I thought Canada had Labour Day as well? (Note correct spelling.) My calendar shows both countries having holidays. Is Canadian Labour Day a lesser holiday? (Of course, I always buy my books on a Saturday, and I don’t even do it every single week. I don’t mind waiting.)

But not really moral judgments like “evil”

Abortion.

With the anonymous thing, yeah, we talk a lot about politics, but this is primarily a site about comics. Let’s get some perspective here. Do I or do I not have the courage to stand by my convictions regarding proper characterisation of Batman? What the fuck does it matter, it’s Batman, he doesn’t actually exist.

And after all, isn’t it fun to be someone else for a little while. Isn’t that what Superhero comics are all about?

Recaps are okay.

Give Stormin’ Norman a break. Osborn Industries easily could be bigger and more complex than HAMMER. After all, the CIA has something like 20,000 employees while General Motors has 240,000. I suspect the difficulty of managing an organization is roughly proportional to the number of employees.

I think Alpha Flight is one of the best names for a superhero group ever.

Rob — It’s not the size of HAMMER, it’s the work that they do that causes me to wonder if Osborn can do it. Particularly as this isn’t portrayed like the CIA where the director is a political appointment and there are lifers there advising him, getting him up to speed, etc. This is guy-with-no-military-or-intelligence-experience-dealing-with-17-problems-that-this-job-doesn’t-usually-involve-on-top-of-the-28-things-he-needs-to-be-doing-at-once…

Chad – When I used Obama as an example, I wasn’t trying to just get a political dig in, I was being serious. Obama really had no work experience directly relevant to the size and scope of the US Presidency. Community organizer to civil rights lawyer to law professor to junior senator to US President, one of the ultimate management multitasking political jobs? Yet he seems to be learning the ropes on the job. So we do have a real life parallel.

T. — I would agree, but the presidency, like director of the CIA, does come with a lot of advisors and people (like in the State Department and other agencies/departments) that have served in their posts throughout numerous presidencies… Osborn apparently gutted SHIELD and is portrayed as running the show with little advice/help from anyone. I should alter my statement: I don’t think he could run HAMMER the way he’s been portrayed as running HAMMER given his background and what we know about him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12678229/ns/us_news-security/

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

Several CIA directors have had a background in politics, economics, or the law rather than the military or intelligence. For instance, John McCone:

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

John Alexander McCone (January 4, 1902 – February 14, 1991) was an American businessman and politician who served as Director of Central Intelligence during the height of the Cold War.

Kennedy exercised greater supervision, and appointed a Republican with a general engineering background. McCone, despite a lack of intelligence background, is often considered one of the most competent DCIs and excellent managers. He directed the IC during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Choosing Norman Osborn with no experience in government is a stretch, but not that much of a stretch. The president might consider his leadership of a major corporation sufficient. Besides, we don’t know what Osborn did between his attempts to kill Spider-Man. Perhaps he served on government councils in an advisory role. And if Osborn Industries is into defense work, he might have gained expertise in military and intelligence issues.

Leon Panetta, the present CIA director, has no real military or intelligence background. True, he’s a “Washington heavyweight” with political clout and organizational skills. But we can imagine that Osborn has moved in Washington circles too.

In any case, outsiders like McCone, Panetta, and Osborn inevitably rely on subordinates to bring them up to speed. They provide the vision and others provide the detailed knowledge. Fortunately, Osborn has the vision in spades.

So…not that much of a stretch.

Except, as I said, Osborn is portrayed as being a one man band in many ways, not relying on advisors and such. Him being in the position doesn’t bother me, the way it’s been written does.

I, too, feel that recap pages are fairly innocuous, but one book that does them right is Incredible Hercules. The recap pages with that book are actually funny and entertaining in their own right, without feeling like an irritating info-dump. They have personality and, even though I read pretty much everything in trade, I’m glad they get included in the collections and I read them anyway just because they’re funny.

Plus, I actually do like the refresher in case I’ve put a book down for a significant amount of time and want to be reminded of where things stand before moving on. Hell, I actually would like that with regular novels, as well, although it would get a bit silly after a while.

“how is Norman Osborn so successful as director of HAMMER? The guy has never run an organisation that size and is fighting about twelve different wars on twelve different fronts against people who have far more experience in this area. Isn’t he playing way over his head?”

As Monterey Jack would say…TOO RIGHT! I have my own ideas on how to explain that (which I will save for the off-chance possibility that I’ll get to write a Marvel comic before somebody else explains it), but I will say this much – after reading Incredible Hulk #600, I think Thunderbolt Ross would’ve been a better fit for the role Norman is playing. Maybe Norman could’ve been his right-hand man (a commentary on the military/industrial complex?) but not as director of HAMMER. Ham-fisted would be a gentle way of putting that move.

Might as well ask how Tony Stark runs Stark Industries by himself. Or how Reed Richards builds a skyscraper full of complex electronic machinery by himself. (What, he does all the hammering and soldering himself, like some sort of super blacksmith?) Or how Scott and Emma run the various X-compounds. (Who exactly did the shopping, cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing, maintenance, gardening, etc. at Professor X’s mansion? Especially when he was alone before the X-Men arrived?)

Answer: Every Marvel leader has a huge support staff that does all its work off-panel. It happens this way because Marvel doesn’t want to destroy the illusion of the “lone wolf” or mad genius who doesn’t need any help.

The recent Black Panther books are the only ones I can think of to portray the complexity of a leader’s life with some accuracy. T’Challa generally has staffers around him to implement his orders. Whether the comics show it or not, Stark, Richards, and Osborn must have such an organization also.

Like Attilan with its Alpha Primitives and Hogwarts with its house-elves, every major organization has a support staff. Until some writer shows them, you may think they don’t exist…but they do. They’re figuratively or literally invisible until a writer chooses to focus on them.

Here’s a random thought for ya!

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/09/09/paul-levitz-to-step-down-from-dc-comics/

DC’s biggest competitor is now Disney, the current position seems to demand a public face that Levitz is uncomfortable becoming, and there is even talk of a name change for the company to Warner Bros Comics.

DC needs to either pull Jeannette Kahn out of retirement or get Jim Shooter in charge.

“The best TV drama of all time always started with “Previously on The West Wing”.”

I would have noticed if they started each episode of “The Wire” with that.

And after all, isn’t it fun to be someone else for a little while. Isn’t that what Superhero comics are all about?

Ted, maybe Mr. Nevett would be pro-reg if he lived in Marvel Universe.

On Osborn: that’s why the only way he can do his job is through his cabal; by allying with the main villains, he can seem to have better results than anyone before. Plus, he does rely on other; he is trying to form as many teams as possible, and to rely on them to do big publicity stunts, doing with his avengers and his X-Men team what he did with his Thunderbolts. That’s how he went from director of a small unit after the Civil War to person in charge of national security, it would make sense for him to keep on with it.

Or, you know, it’s genre fiction where lone geniuses don’t need support staffs of thousands and worrying about that issue is already missing the point so badly you as well be in a different hotel room on a different continent from that point, and in fact have never encountered that far-off missed point at any moment of your life.

Who knew the demand for Unicorn Poop comics was so vast?

Yeah but they are aiming for realism there, aren’t they? Osborn has met Obama and is clearly a rather poor commentary on the previous Republican administration. And even if the story wasn’t realistic, it should at least be logic, and work according to the laws of its fictional universe. It’s not a silver age comics homage, so it shoud at least be plausible.

If they’re aiming for realism, the serious plotting problems with having a maniac who used to throw pumpkin bombs and fly around on a bat-shaped jet sled running the United States’ security apparatus might be a bit more important to address convincingly. And the whole Dark Avengers setup seems to require that public security officers have no paper trail within the government for which they work; “realistically” one couldn’t just slap Charles Manson in a policeman’s uniform and get away with it, but Norman can put a Hawkeye suit on Bullseye and suddenly there’s no such thing as voice recognition technology in the Marvel Universe.

That said, I’m not necessarily the guy to defend Dark Reign; I find the storyline so utterly wrongheaded on so many levels that it got me to stop buying any Marvel books just to avoid the all-pervasive material. Geoff Johns may like his inappropriate and tone-derailing violence porn, but Marvel seems to be gleefully butchering the idea of heroic fiction these days.

I have no real fear of people linking my views on comics with my real name – I’d tell them the same things in real life that I say online, and at least online I can finish a sentence without being interrupted – but I do prefer that my employer not be able to know exactly what sites I visit and what time I post on them (whether that be “during work hours” or “at a time when I really should be asleep if I plan on staying awake at my desk tomor…er, later today”) and I while I know we’d all like to say we’d never work for a company that checks up on its employees or fires them for surfing the ‘net, in the current economic climate I’ll work for whomever is willing to pay me and thank them for the opportunity.

If that makes me a bad person, so be it, but if the only thing keeping someone from being a total douchenozzle in their posts is a lack of anonymity … well, that makes them a bad person. Someone once said “Character is how we act in the dark.” (And I’m afraid I don’t know who said it, and Google isn’t helping, probably because I don’t have the exact quote and possibly because it’s just a saying and not a attributable quote at all.) I think that can easily be updated into “Character is how we post anonymously.”

(And I’m not saying people who post anonymously are somehow morally superior to people who don’t, just that people who post like jerks are jerks whether they do it anonymously or not, and people who post like jerks when they’re anonymous and post like civilized people when they use their own name are just jerks who can put on a civilized face.)