Comments on: Nostalgia November Day 29 — Legion of Super-Heroes Annual #1

By: TheGoose

TheGoose — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:18:34 +0000

@Sijo: I completely agree.

By: Sijo

Sijo — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:59:43 +0000

I’m still unconvinced that leaving the villain unnamed was a good idea. Sure, I understand that there are stories where never revealing a fact can be intriguing- say, in one of those involving the Loch Ness monster, and how the characters never quite get to either prove or disprove that it exists. In this case, the monster is the true star, and is its mystique that matters.

I just don’t see how that applies to a murder mystery. Especially in a superhero comic. If there’s a murderer loose, most people want to a) know who it is and b) to see him stopped. Why even use a JLA villain at all if they never intended on revealing who it was? Besides, as I mentioned DC did officially state it was Ivo in Who’s Who. So much for leaving things unresolved. Maybe you’re just too used to stories that *pretend* to be mysteries but are just teases, as with my Nessie example. Nothing wrong with that, but they most definitely don’t fit a murder mystery, especially if it’s investigated by heroes from 1000 years in the future. Also, a comic’s reading atmosphere is very different from a novel’s, where it might be more effective.

By: TheGoose

TheGoose — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:41:49 +0000

@steve: You are correct. This issue was featured in Wizard’s 100 single issue stories.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:54:19 +0000

This was featured in Wizard Magazine’s top 100 comic stories or possibly 100 single issues, somthing.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:37:05 +0000

wwwk5d

Giffen’s artwork during 5-Years-Later was his best, in my opinion. That’s some really great graphic storytelling. It wasn’t just about “making everything munched” but using moods to tell the story. But I can see why it is not everybody’s cup of tea.

By: Brud Lee

Brud Lee — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:48:29 +0000

wwk5d-

“Someone like Ivo wouldn’t be that well known in the Legion’s era anyway.”

That’s the fun part for me. It wouldn’t ring true if Ivo was revered as a mastermind a thousand years later, he wasn’t a super-threat in the 20th century.

By: Matthew E

Matthew E — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:42:37 +0000

When I saw the title of this post I thought you were going to be reviewing “Monster in a Little Girl’s Mind”, which is one of my favourites. Oh well; this one’s pretty good too.

By: nikki

nikki — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:28:20 +0000

You are just realising this now stephane? Not only is supergirl not back in place it could be the case that the stories she appeared in simply never happened or happened differently. Its safe to say there is no legion continuity that is reliable anymore after this back door reboot

By: wwk5d

wwk5d — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:15:42 +0000

Love this issue. One of my favorite eras from any comics run. Giffen was experimenting here but the artwork is still easy to follow, as opposed to murky weird shit we see during the 5-Years-Later era.

I didn’t mind that we didn’t get a specific name. Someone like Ivo wouldn’t be that well known in the Legion’s era anyway.

By: Stephane Savoie

Stephane Savoie — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:10:25 +0000

Legion books pre-Crisis made a few uses of descendent-characters.
A few years later, editorial would start coming down hard on stuff like that to accomodate modern continuity, resulting in some poorly-justified plot turns (Kent Shakespear was supposed to be a descendant of Superman, but that was nixxed, and all sorts of Green Lantern shenanigans ensues after the Corps was disbanded. (And all that Superboy/Supergirl stuff, of course)
(I just realized that with this new Geoff Johns Legion, we have neither Supergirl nor Laurel Gand. Shoot.)

By: TheGoose

TheGoose — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:21:07 +0000

“And I’ve thought about it: the story would be worse. I like the idea of a faceless, nameless random old villain taking revenge… by being nameless, he stands in for all of the villains and it’s not tied to one particular character. He comes to represent all of the sad little men who built robots to fight the JLA and could never get over it… without a name, he’s all of them.”

Interesting. From that angle, I like that they didn’t name the villain. Do you think that what was Levitz and Giffen were aiming for? But, if it wasn’t, why would they not name the villain for the reader? The payoff of a mystery is finding out who did it.

By: Chad Nevett

Chad Nevett — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:06:52 +0000

It doesn’t? Wouldn’t the Legion want to know so they could arrest Ivo. I mean, Ivo could easily come out of suspended animation and try again to kill the other descendants of the JLA.

They know who did it and act accordingly, we just never see them say the name of the individual.

And I’ve thought about it: the story would be worse. I like the idea of a faceless, nameless random old villain taking revenge… by being nameless, he stands in for all of the villains and it’s not tied to one particular character. He comes to represent all of the sad little men who built robots to fight the JLA and could never get over it… without a name, he’s all of them.

By: TheGoose

TheGoose — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:58:57 +0000

“In this case, the specific identity of the villain does not add to the story.”

It doesn’t? Wouldn’t the Legion want to know so they could arrest Ivo. I mean, Ivo could easily come out of suspended animation and try again to kill the other descendants of the JLA.

“If they named him, the story would not be better, nor would it be worse.”

If the story wouldn’t be worse off, why refuse to name the villian in the first place.

I don’t get it.

By: Dave Hackett

Dave Hackett — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:32:35 +0000

They never call Ivo by name, mostly to save prior continuity headaches (Pulsar Stargrave anyone?) but it is pretty clearly him.

By: Chad Nevett

Chad Nevett — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:42:32 +0000

Exactly. Murakami’s books often have mysteries of some sort that are never solved (as he has said that he thinks mystery stories are great until the solution is revealed) while others solve them. In this case, the specific identity of the villain does not add to the story. If they named him, the story would not be better, nor would it be worse. Mostly because if you are aware of Ivo beforehand, you can figure it out — and if you’re not it’s just a name.

By: Joe Rice

Joe Rice — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:08:09 +0000

“A Haruki Murakami mystery story” . . .AKA a good one. Naw, just kidding (not about that being good) but you can have a good mystery and know the solution and a good one and not. Different aims. I tend to go more for the latter, but Chandler wrote some great ones of the former. “Murdery By Death,” of all things, gives a pretty stining critique of the ‘mystery as puzzle’ idea.

By: TheGoose

TheGoose — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:05:28 +0000

@Chad: I disagree. I mean, if Levitz and Giffen are going to great lengths to subtlety say that the assassin is a villain of the Justice League and also subtlety say which one it is (a JLA villain who is obsessed with immortality has to be Prof. Ivo) , then why wouldn’t it matter who the assassin is?

By: Chad Nevett

Chad Nevett — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:52:57 +0000

Sijo — A Haruki Murakami mystery story…?

By: TheGoose

TheGoose — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:50:29 +0000

Nice review. You pretty much hit on all the notes about why I like and dislike this annual.

Though, I do agree with Sijo that knowing the assassin does matter. I knew who the assassin was, but I wish the annual had actually said out loud who Prof. Ivo was. Otherwise, people who don’t know any of the villians of JLA will be lost.

I also like how Chameleon Boy showed off his detective skills and one of my favorite parts of the annual was when Brainiac 5 revealed that he had given his force-field belt by just standing up from his chair and showing that he didn’t have his belt.

Its a pretty good annual, but I, personally, like the Legion of Substitutes annual more.

By: Sijo

Sijo — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:07:08 +0000

Laurel Kent was retconned after the fact as a Manhunter android impostor during the Invasion! crossover, which I think was a very poor handling of the character.

And wasn’t the assassin Professor Ivo- the guy who made Amazo? I think I read that in one of DC’s Who’s Who. He eventually obtained the immortality he sought but became horribly disfigured; he blamed the League so he started killing their descendants. Could be another story, but it would be too coincidental…

And yes, knowing who the assassin was matters. What kind of mystery story would it be otherwise?

And I think the point with Brainiac and other genius-types is that being intelligent *isn’t* the same thing as being clever. Then again, they don’t have to be arrogant either.