X-Men: Regenesis - October 19, 2011 - A Simulblog

The following is a simulblog with Arthur of Arthur the Lesser. You ought to be forewarned: there will be spoilers.

I will link to Arthur's article when it is made available.

I have been having a difficult time lately expressing how big and how sad it is that the final issue of Uncanny X-Men was released this week. Uncanny X-Men is the longest running book put out by Marvel Comics. With a couple of exceptions, it has run non-stop since its "genesis" in 1963. Those exceptions include the "cancellation" from after issue sixty-six and the temporary suspension of the book during the Age of Apocalypse and replacement by Astonishing X-Men. But even the canceled book continued to put out reprints from issue sixty-seven until ninety-three, and Astonishing X-Men was merely another name for Uncanny X-Men during the alternate-universe account of what would happen if Xavier died and Magneto continued in his footsteps. As of today, the longest running Marvel book is X-Men: Legacy, which was originally published as X-Men, Volume 2. The longest running current comic put out by Marvel is a book that came out when I was eight, a book that I had every variant cover for. This makes me old. This also makes me kind of sad. I think that we must view Uncanny X-Men #544 first and foremost as a moment for mourning.

The first page of this book is a reprint of the original 1963 X-Men #1 with alternate dialogue and narration. At the beginning we had Professor Charles Xavier trying to make five youngsters - Scott Summers (Cyclops), Jean Grey (Marvel Girl), Warren Worthington, III (Angel), Henry "Hank" McCoy (Beast) and Robert "Bobby" Drake - into heroes. The dream of the first issue is transformed into the nightmare of the final issue. Cyclops has, in many ways, transformed into a Magneto figure, now militaristic, segregationist, and willing to do anything for the cause. Marvel Girl has died a couple of times now. It appears that she may be permanently dead right now, unless one believes that she is likely to return in Marvel's Point One series which, at the very least, seems to deal with the return of the Phoenix in some form. Angel has gone through several transformations, but it appears that he may be the new Apocalypse and may also be irredeemable. Beast has been away with the Avengers for some time, but returns to criticize his oldest friend's deplorable methodology. And young Bobby Drake, who remains in so many ways a good-spirited child at heart, remains loyal to the school and the brighter side of the dream. Strangely, Professor Charles Xavier is never mentioned. When at first I saw a figure dictating the story of the X-Men, I thought it would be Xavier writing his own variation on There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale and then closing the book at the end. But Xavier is nowhere to be seen. Maybe I'm not reading all the right books, but I have yet to see mention of where Charles Xavier stands on this whole schism thing. For right now, that is my biggest mystery.

Cyclops admits, at the end of the story, that he feels that he has finally graduated from Xavier's school. In this way, Uncanny X-Men is framed as the struggle of Cyclops and his allies as they wish to accomplish the dream of a mentor. Cyclops has completed his instruction and now becomes the instructor. But did anyone else feel like the tone of this issue is incredibly dark? I got the vibe that, even in his own book, the general feeling is that Cyclops is doing the wrong thing. Going into a reboot, however, I had thought that this book would have more of a hopeful vibe. But I don't get the feeling that there is any hope on the island called Utopia. I don't believe that Cyclops or any of his followers feel hopeful for the world. As a matter of fact, the only individual who seemed the least bit hopeful at the end of Uncanny X-Men's run was Mr. Sinister. (And maybe Uncanny has always been the story of Sinister as well. He's been placed behind the scenes of so many events, after all.) Two things happen with Sinister: 1. he experiences a transformation that I don't completely understand, and 2. he acts as if he can predict the actions of Cyclops and the mutants surrounding him and, moreover, he likes what he sees. After all, he does say, "The X-Men are over. The future? Distinctly Sinister." I think we can assume that Sinister will be the main adversary over at Uncanny.

Assuming that Professor Xavier doesn't pop out of a closet in Utopia, Cyclops has been abandoned by all of his original allies. And the people who remain are mostly individuals who have often been the foes of the X-Men and the whole of the Marvel universe. In many ways, Cyclops has thrown himself into the lion's den, but in many ways he has become just as much or more of a lion than anyone else there. I've mentioned time and time again that Cyclops is one of my favorite characters, but I have a strange sinking feeling in my gut regarding Uncanny X-Men #1 and the following stories. I don't like that Uncanny seems to be the book that plays to the hawks and Wolverine and the X-Men seems to be the book that plays to the doves. Wolverine's criticism is important. If a child believes that being an X-Man entitles killing those who stand in the way of your principles, then there is a serious problem. For Uncanny to continue being a great comic, I think Scott needs to grapple very seriously with Wolverine's criticism and his reason for leaving. Maybe it is too late for a school. Maybe Wolverine is moving backward. But moving forward cannot simply mean killing for the sake of a cause. Cyclops needs to find another way. We've got enough of this might makes right talk in the United States of America, and quite frankly, I don't want to hear it in the book that has shaped a lot of my own beliefs and ideals over the years.

The Uncanny X-Men that we knew has concluded. Something completely different is coming. Uncanny X-Men #1 comes out November 2nd, but before then we will see the other side of the coin, with Wolverine and the X-Men #1 coming out next week, October the 22nd. There should be an Arthur blog up before then, but if it doesn't happen, just stare at this splash page from Uncanny X-Men #544, a page that I immediately put on my desktop background:

X-Men: Regenesis - October 12, 2011 - A Simulblog

The following is a simulblog with Arthur of Arthur the Lesser. You ought to be forewarned: there will be spoilers.

I will link to Arthur's article when it is made available.

When Arthur agreed to simulblog the X-Men: Regenesis comics, he referred to himself as the "resident xologist," and I would have to agree. But when it comes to the X-Men, I'm no slouch myself. I may not know everything that has happened between "Operation: Zero Tolerance" and "X-Men: Schism." I may have asked a lot of questions about how Hope is now a teenager and who exactly this Dr. Nemesis guy is. But I've read every comic between 1963 and late 1988, and I'd like to believe that I know what is at the heart of the X-Men.

After the new 52 presented me with a chance to get into a lot of DC comics without having to have hundreds of issues of experience, I began to feel guilty that I had left my first love, the X-Men behind. I've spent so much time getting caught up on Green Lantern and Batman in the last year or so that I've completely stopped getting caught up on my X-comics - I should be at least to 1991 or 1992 by now, after all. At the same time, my entire twitter feed was dominated by silhouettes of who would be on which X-team after the events of X-Men: Schism, silhouettes that were slowly filled in. At work, one night, I asked my buddy Zac if X-Men: Regenesis would be a good place to start following the X-books again. He said yes, and when the fifty-two issue month of September was over I got caught up on X-Men: Schism.

In many ways, the one-shot titled X-Men: Regenesis is either an epilogue to the events of X-Men: Schism #5 or a prologue to the events of Uncanny X-Men #1 and Wolverine and the X-Men #1. The story itself is a little bit underwhelming: Wolverine and Cyclops campaign among their (former) friends and allies in order to make sure that they have the right team at their sides. In the process, we begin to understand the various motives that push characters either to stay on Utopia and join Cyclops' army or to fly to Westchester and start over with a new variation on the old theme of Xavier's dream. While the campaign trail is expressed in rational and peaceful terms, there is an underlying current of mortal combat between Wolverine and Cyclops as exemplified by a gritty primordial representation of what is happening. Are Wolverine and Cyclops campaigning? Or are they fighting to the death beside a fire wearing tribal garb? Is the tribal motif an attempt at exploring the depth psychology of the Schism aftermath, or an excuse to show our favorite X-characters in little to no clothing? I'm sure you can make that decision for yourself.

X-Men: Regenesis speaks strongly to the fact that there are plenty of reasons for choosing one side or the other, and that few of them have anything to do with what Wolverine and Cyclops are fighting about. Everyone has particular needs and motives, and many people are forced to make huge sacrifices. I'd like to take a moment to look into some of the driving forces that bring characters to one side or the other. Psylocke was one of the first characters who stood out. She agrees that she will be on Wolverine's X-Force team, but the school is not her way. She says to Wolverine, "We have to go forward. The school's the opposite of that." But when Cyclops offers a head-of-security position, there is an ambiguous discussion regarding her being a spy/counter-spy. Is Cyclops trying to get information from Wolverine's mission and block him from getting information regarding Cyclops' own mission? Gambit's motives were entirely suspect to me. He nonchalantly says, "Found all the trouble there is to find here. May as well head East." But hasn't he also found all the trouble there is to find in the East. He lived at Xavier's school for many more years than he did in Utopia. If you ask me, Gambit has three motives that he is covering up: 1. he finds a kind of kinship with Wolverine, 2. he is secretly an idealist devoted to the dream of Xavier's school, and 3. he believes that Rogue will end up there and he can rekindle his relationship with her.

But the case of Storm is where I think we need to focus. Storm believes that a lot of Scott's militaristic ventures are horrible, citing X-Force as "an abomination." She feels used by Cyclops because of her great power, and her inclination is to go to Wolverine's side. But Cyclops plays Storm and gets her on his side, making her believe that she is the good individual who will keep all of the former baddies on Cyclops' side from creating further abominations. Of course, there's already solicitations for a book called Magneto: Not a Hero, so Storm might have her work cut out for her. Of course, my reason for looking so closely at the case of Storm is that, near the end of X-Men: Regenesis she represents a case of great instability. I could see her jumping ship if she feels that Scott's mission is irredeemable. Reflecting back on the book, there are many cases of instability. Kitty and Colossus could switch sides in order to be together. The same is the case with Magneto and Rogue. The Guthries could switch sides simply because they feel cured of whatever curses them. And Emma Frost could switch sides on a whim simply because she's not getting enough attention from Scott.

At the end of the issue, we are told that Cyclops' side - Colossus, Namor, Storm, Emma Frost, Magneto, Psylocke, Hope Summers, Dazzler, Domino, Warpath, Dr. Nemesis, Cypher, Madison Jeffries, Magik, Magma, Sunspot, X-Man and Dani Moonstar - will be featured in Uncanny X-Men #1 (on sale November 2nd) while Wolverine's side - Gambit, Iceman, Kitty Pryde, Beast, Rachel Summers, Toad, Cannonball, Chamber, Husk, and Dust - will be featured in Wolverine and the X-Men #1 (on sale October 26). But there are a lot of characters who aren't on either of those lists. And some of the teams don't seem as heavily affiliated as others. X-Force seems to be at the whim of both Cyclops and Wolverine. Dazzler's X-kids team doesn't seem heavily involved with Cyclops' militaristic methodology. And X-Factor investigations seems like it may exist outside of the battle lines. And let's not forget the myriad factors that could make parties switch teams or decide to abandon the methodology of either side. While Marvel has presented Regenesis as being pretty black and white with its marketing campaign, it seems like everything is still pretty grey. Oh, and what of the fate of Professor Xavier? Where's he going? And Archangel? Has he just gone completely to the dark side? Will Cable's rebirth and X-Sanction tie in heavily?

But, finally, the most difficult question, the question at the bottom of the last page of X-Men: Regenesis: Whose side are YOU on? This has eaten away at me for some time. After all, Cyclops is probably my favorite Marvel character, and I understand that in many ways he has had to bear the weight of Xavier's dream even more heavily than Xavier himself. But the truth of the matter is that Wolverine is right. If a young mutant believes that killing all those who oppose her is what it means to be an X-Men, then Xavier's dream has failed. In other words, I'm with Wolverine. While the split is promoted as the new Blue and Gold teams that were established when (Uncanny) X-Men split off into both Uncanny X-Men and X-Men, volume two, it is also just as comparable to the X-Men and the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, two teams who have battled on and off since X-Men #2 in 1963. And Cyclops' side is the none with all the villains on it, villains who are always switching sides, and why stop now? In many ways, Wolverine's decision is a step backwards, and the events that are unfolding make it irresponsible to presume that simply opening a school is enough, but Wolverine's decision is the right decision.

Next week's Regenesis title is Uncanny X-Men #544, the final issue of Marvel's longest running comic book series. It should be awfully sad, especially since I've read a few hundred of those issues myself. Until then, read Arthur's article, once it is up. And don't forget to weigh in on whose side you are on.

The New DCU: September 28, 2011 - A Simulblog

The following is a simulblog with Chad P. of Political Jesus, Josh Toulouse of Fat Train, and Arthur of Arthur the Lesser. You ought to be forewarned: there will be spoilers.

Chad's article, "Savage Nerdery: Week Four of DC's new 52: Simulblog Reviews," can be read here.

Josh's article, "The New DCU: Sept. 28, 2011, A Simulblog" can be read here.

Arthur's article may or may not exist in the future.

The final set of thirteen new titles were released this week: All-Star Western #1, Aquaman #1, Batman: The Dark Knight #1, Blackhawks #1, The Flash #1, The Fury of Firestorm: The Nuclear Men #1, Green Lantern: New Guardians #1, I, Vampire #1, Justice League Dark #1, The Savage Hawkman #1, Superman #1, Teen Titans #1, and Voodoo #1. If you've been following along and dedicating yourself like I have, then you've just finished reading all fifty-two of the new first issues. What do you think? As you know, I don't do issue-by-issue run-downs, but I'd love to hear your opinion. Let's get some good discussion going today.

Like my first post, the only thing that this post is concerned with is the Justice League. And there was a lot of Justice League this week. Aquaman, The Flash, The Fury of Firestorm, and The Savage Hawkman are all considered Justice League titles by DC's web site. Justice League Dark is not included on this list, but it features a recent variation of the Justice League (Batman, Zatanna, Wonder Woman, Superman and Cyborg) while also replacing the Justice League in a way with magical individuals. Batman: The Dark Knight, Green Lantern: New Guardians, and Superman feature individuals who have, at least at one point in time, been quintessential members of the Justice League. Teen Titans is like a baby Justice League. And finally All-Star Western gives the background of Gotham City, potentially impacting the back story of Justice Leaguer Batman.

I do not believe that we get a lot of important information this week regarding the battled between Superman and Batman this week. But I think this week was the best at filling in the gaps for the people on the cover of Justice League #1. Furthermore, I think that two of the greatest successes from the reboot came out this week: The Flash #1 and Aquaman #1. The reason that I think these books are successes is that I knew almost nothing about either Barry Allen or Arthur Curry, but after reading the first issues they have become two of the most interesting characters for me. Considering the fact that the goal is to bring in new readers, I think the reboot is at the very least a partial success. Barry Allen is the kind of superhero that I'm not familiar with. Batman is smart. Superman makes you believe. Green Lantern is strong of will. But Barry Allen is a sweetheart. One of two moments of strong emotion for me this week was when Flash was asked, "These things - It's as if they're personal to you?" And Barry responds, "They all are." (The other was the horrible feeling when Clark Kent went to Lois's door and met her boyfriend in Superman #1.) We can tell that he feels the troubles of the people he deals with. And it also seems clear that he's looking for love, which will probably be a really big point for this book. While the plot of the first issue did not intrigue me, I am incredibly intrigued by the character and where he is going.

Aquaman may be one of my favorite books of the entire reboot. Much like Justice League #1, the book is kind of subtle. There are no enormous earth-shattering battles. There is just Arthur Curry, the Aquaman, a half-Atlantean who wants to get to know his human half. The issue begins with Aquaman fighting crime not in the ocean, but in the middle of town. He then attempts to dine with the people only to be interviewed and made fun of. The book is incredibly comedic. When Aquaman orders fish everyone thinks that it is tantamount to cannibalism because they believe he talks to the fishes (and not in the "I got on the wrong side of the mob" kind of way), and when he's interviewed he's asked, "How's it feel to be nobody's favorite hero?" Aquaman #1 gives us an underdog story with a little bit of Little Mermaid added for zest, and it almost steps beyond the fourth wall insofar as it addresses our questions and mockery regarding Aquaman. I'm happy to see that Aquaman is Geoff Johns' new baby. I'm expecting that Aquaman is going to be the best DC comic within the year. I know it's bold. But so is my prediction that the Lions are going sixteen and oh this season. Boldness does not denote impossibility. It makes possibility.

Before giving you my scorecard for the entirety of the DC reboot, I want to tell you which comics from this week I am going to continue reading. All Star Western, Aquaman, The Flash, Green Lantern: New Guardians, Superman and Teen Titans easily made the cut. And who here loves how they're handling Kyle Rayner in New Guardians. I do. I do. There were a few shaky titles this week that I am at least going to read the second issue of, but likely no further. Batman: The Dark Knight was by far my least favorite Batman title, destroying Harvey Dent's brilliant Two-Face by transforming him into a titan serum Arkham Asylum video game wannabe. Ick. But I'm giving it one more issue because I'm biased toward Bat-books. Justice League Dark had an interesting villain and I loved seeing the current incarnation of the Justice League getting torn apart, sometimes literally. But I have little concern for the characters who are going to be the leads in this book. Well, except Zatanna. She's pretty awesome. The Savage Hawkman starts with an interesting idea and then turns it into a stupid mix of X-Files and Spider-man symbiotes. And while Voodoo has a lot of sexual exploitation, I felt like it told a decent story. I'm completely done with Blackhawks, The Fury of Firestorm: The Nuclear Men, and I, Vampire, though. It was hard for me to complete those first issues, let alone go out and get the second issues next month.

THE SCORECARD

All books are ranked from best to worst within their division of the reboot.

SUPERMAN

1. Action Comics #1*
2. Supergirl #1
3. Superman #1
4. Superboy #1

BATMAN

1. Batman and Robin #1*
2. Nighwing #1
3. Batman #1
4. Catwoman #1
5. Birds of Prey #1
6. Batwing #1
7. Batwoman #1
8. Red Hood and the Outlaws #1
9. Batgirl #1
10. Detective Comics #1
11. Batman: The Dark Knight #1

GREEN LANTERN

1. Green Lantern #1*
2. Green Lantern: New Guardians #1*
3. Red Lanterns #1
4. Green Lantern Corps #1

JUSTICE LEAGUE

1. Aquaman #1*
2. Justice League #1*
3. Wonder Woman #1*
4. The Flash #1
5. DC Universe Presents #1
6. The Savage Hawkman #1
7. Justice League International #1
8. Green Arrow #1
9. Mister Terrific #1
10. The Fury of Firestorm: The Atomic Men #1
11. Captain Atom #1

THE DARK

1. Animal Man #1*
2. Swamp Thing #1
3. Demon Knights #1
4. Resurrection Man #1
5. Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E. #1
6. Justice League Dark #1
7. I, Vampire #1

THE EDGE

1. All Star Western #1
2. Voodoo #1
3. Stormwatch #1
4. Men of War #1
5. Grifter #1
6. Deathstroke #1
7. Blackhawks #1
8. Suicide Squad #1
9. O.M.A.C. #1

YOUNG JUSTICE

1. Teen Titans #1
2. Static Shock #1
3. Blue Beetle #1
4. Hawk and Dove #1
5. Legion Lost #1
6. Legion of Superheroes #1

Well, that's it for The New DCU Simulblog. You know what's up. Make sure you leave some comments here and check out Josh's post, Chad's post, and Arthur's posts if/when it goes up. I think I'm going to feel a little bit more lonely with this simulblog out of the way. The question now is: What's next?

Anybody up for a simulblog on X-Men Regenesis?

The New DCU: September 21, 2011 - A Simulblog

The following is a simulblog with Chad P. of Political Jesus, Josh Toulouse of Fat Train, and Arthur of Arthur the Lesser. You ought to be forewarned: there will be spoilers.

Chad's article, "Savage Nerdery: Week 3 of DC's new 52: Simulblog Reviews" can be read here.

Josh's article, "The New DCU: Sept. 21, 2011, A Simulblog" can be read here.

Arthur's article, "The Next Post is Not About Comic Books, I Promise" can be read here.

There were twelve new titles this week: Batman #1, Birds of Prey #1, Blue Beetle #1, Captain Atom #1, Catwoman #1, DC Universe Presents #1, Green Lantern Corps #1, Legion of Super-Heroes #1, Nightwing #1, Red Hood and the Outlaws #1, Supergirl #1, and Wonder Woman #1. Since there was one last title than the previous two weeks, I consider that a break. At this point, I think you know the drill. I don't like doing individual reviews, so I pick up on some trends in this week's comics and how they construct the new DC universe. As always (Are two previous posts considered always?), leave me some comments if you want to talk about what is going on in the individual comics. And heck, leave me some comments if you want to talk about anything I cover in the post.

The first thing I'd like to discuss is a conversation that you should be familiar with. It revolves around who Batman and Superman are. And why is it so important? Because on October 19th, we're going to see the two battle in Justice League #2. While Week One gave us a good understanding of Superman, neither Week One nor Week Two gave us any significant details as to who Batman is. Batman is Batman. My friend Zac told me, however, that the definitive Bat-book is Batman and I just read #1 this week.

At first, I was unsure whether Zac's proclamation was correct. Batman and Robin wowed me a lot more last week than Batman did, but I learned two of the most important things in this Bat-book. For one, all of the Bat-books are tied together in a really interesting way. When Batman brought Damian to crime alley in an attempt to give up living in the past (and even dwelling on the present) in Batman and Robin, it is because, as Bruce Wayne, he has decided to renovate the city and give it another golden age in Batman. Furthermore, in Nightwing #1, Dick Grayson is described by an unnamed villain as "the fiercest killer in all of Gotham. And he doesn't even know it." In Batman #1, Harvey Bullock shows Batman a victim who was tortured and killed with knives that have pictures of owls on them, and the DNA under the victims fingers, which should tell who his killer was, is that of Dick Grayson. (And let's not forget that when Kara's powers kick in during the action of Supergirl #1, she overhears the same conversation in which Grayson is declared a killer in Nightwing.) For another, I realized that I should stop trying to figure out who Batman is and try to figure out who Bruce Wayne is. In Batman #1, there are a couple of important scenes that tell us exactly who Bruce Wayne is. Reporter Vicki Vale calls him "Gotham's own Man of Tomorrow," which calls to mind the title of the first issue of Action Comics: "Superman vs. The City of Tomorrow." Also, Harvey Bullock describes Wayne as someone who doesn't see Gotham the way the people see Gotham. If, by the time of Justice League #1 and 2, Superman is the blur proper, with the ability to see through costumes and see the real person, he'll see Bruce Wayne. He's a newspaper man, so he'll know exactly who Bruce Wayne is. He's an industrialist, much like Lex Luthor, and as such, he's going to be an enemy of Superman. After all, Superman battled a wrecking ball in order to save poor people from being demolished with a building. Won't there also be wrecking balls and gentrification as Wayne attempts to clean the streets of tomorrow. Superman stands for the poor, who are not receiving equal protection of law, and Bruce Wayne stands for the wealthy, and though he speaks of high ideals, his programs could possibly make things worst. And for the sake of covering over his horrible past.

What we learn of Superman takes place in the pages of Supergirl #1. The take home message seems to be that the entire Super-family is different. Amazingly different. This reboot of the entire universe is first and foremost a Super-reboot. It could be said that the Green Lantern reboot happened when Geoff Johns took over the series and brought Hal Jordan back. It could be said that the Batman reboot never really happened, that Batman never really needed to be rebooted. Or perhaps it simply happened at Crisis on Infinite Earths. But my point is that some things are staying the same and some things are changing drastically. As for Superman, Superboy and Supergirl, it seems like their powers are drastically different, and judging by how long it takes Supergirl to realize her powers versus Superman, it seems like she might actually be more powerful than Kal El in this universe. And since her first appearance is traced to DC's present day (unless she can hear the future, because she certainly heard the events of present-day Nightwing), some other things must be true. Whatever huge role she played in Crisis on Infinite Earths must have been played by someone else if the Crisis remains canon (perhaps the original Dove of Hawk and Dove?). I am excited for two things more than anything else in this new reboot: 1. the Batman/Superman battle as a battle of the people (Superman) vs. the man (Batman), and 2. the new shape the DC universe will take with such a different Super-family present.

Whereas last week was family week and rage week and old DCU week, I think that this week is closer to ladies' week. Birds of Prey is an all-women's team. Catwoman, Supergirl, and Wonder Woman were a couple of the strongest titles. And even in the book Red Hood and the Outlaws, which surrounds the exploits of bad boy Jason Todd, the main character was actually Starfire's Tamaran body and the fact that she has loveless sex with anyone she encounters without ever really remembering so much as their name. While the new DCU has a whole lot of exploitation similar to this, from the clothing changing scenes in Batwoman to the flashy Harley Quinn on the cover of Suicide Squad to the half-undressed battle and escape scene in Catwoman, it also features some of the most interesting female leads and female stories I've seen in comics. I'm incredibly interested, for example, to see how Catwoman explores the confusing and erratic relationship of Batman and Catwoman. And Wonder Woman may be the single most necessary reboot since Morrison's take on Action Comics and what I expect to see in Johns' take on Aquaman next week. (Part of me thinks that we're going to be talking about Aquaman and Action Comics more than anything else throughout the next few months, but we'll see.)

Before I move on to my recommendations and what lies ahead, I want to make a note about the Legion books. Last week, I read Legion Lost #1 and this week I read Legion of Super-Heroes #1, and I really didn't like either book. Already, at the beginning of the new DCU, they are engaged in something of a crossover, and it honestly feels like we're entering both stories in the middle of a very confusing arc. Legion Lost had a manageable amount of characters, but the issue went by so quickly and I felt like we had little to no character development. In fact, I think some really important people may have died, but there is no emotional weight because I don't really know anything about them. I remember trying to keep track of the team members of Legion of Super-Heroes. I wrote down Chameleon Boy, Dragonwing, Phantom Girl, Ultra Boy, Chemical Kid (that was a particular favorite name for me), Colossal Boy, Mon-El and Brainiac 5, but I had to stop because every single page introduced at least one new character. My trouble with these books was that I was completely incapable of getting into them, but I also happen to know that they are simulblogger Arthur's favorite books. You don't see why this is troublesome? You see, Arthur has really fantastic taste, and he has great reasons. He is one of the few people in my life where if I disagree with him I feel like I might not understand something that everyone understands, like something went over my head. I understand that the word legion means a lot of effing characters, but is it possible that the Legion books require a pretty heavy investment prior to reading? Must you be familiar with the Legion in order to enjoy the books? Of course, the other side of these questions is: Are any of these books accessible to readers who don't know anything about the characters? I've found that I don't like books as much simply because I don't know the characters sometimes. Not all the time, of course. Animal Man was fantastic and I know nothing about him.

Well, I think those questions could keep us discussing for the rest of the history of the DC universe. Between now and then I think I should let you know which comics I'm going to keep reading. I think that Wonder Woman was the absolute best book that came out this week. I also suggest reading Batman, Birds of Prey, Catwoman, Green Lantern Corps, Nightwing, Red Hood and the Outlaws andSupergirl. I am a little on the fence about DC Universe Presents. There is something really deep going on in this book that currently surrounds Deadman, but sometimes it can be a little too wordy. I think I'll give it another issue or two at the very least. I think I'm definitely going to skip Legion of Super-Heroes, Blue Beetle, and Captain Atom. They didn't do much for me.

Check us out next week for All-Star Western #1, Aquaman #1 (with Geoff Johns), Batman: The Dark Knight #1, Blackhawks #1, The Flash #1, The Fury of Firestorm #1 (which sounds pretty tight), Green Lantern: New Guardians #1, I, Vampire #1, Justice League Dark #1, The Savage Hawkman #1, Superman #1 (so excited), Teen Titans #1 (even more excited), and Voodoo #1. Until then read the Josh's article, Chad's article, and Arthur's article, and leave some comments here. Perhaps about this...

The New DCU: September 14, 2011 - A Simulblog

The following is a simulblog with Chad P. of Political Jesus, Josh Toulouse of Fat Train, and Arthur of Arthur the Lesser. You ought to be forewarned: there will be spoilers.

Chad's article, "Savage Nerdery: Week Two of DC's new 52: Simulblog Reviews" can be read here.

Josh's article, "The New DCU: Sept 14, 2011 A Simulblog" can be read here.

Arthur's article, "Sill Not Quite a Simulblog" can be read here.

This week's list of number ones was just as numerous as the previous week, with Batman and Robin #1, Batwoman #1, Deathstroke #1, Demon Knights #1, Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E. #1, Green Lantern #1, Grifter #1, Legion Lost #1, Mister Terrific #1, Red Lanterns #1, Resurrection Man #1, Suicide Squad #1, and Superboy #1. Another similarity between this week and last week is that I intend to tackle a couple of interesting trends in the re-construction of the DC universe that have popped up this week rather than doing individual reviews. Again, that does not mean that I don't want to talk about the individual issues. I read them all, so by all means, let's talk. In the comments section, we shall discuss everything and anything, and you don't have to be a member of this simulblog community to ring in.

It is my observation this week that while the old DCU focused on Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman as their top three heroes, the new DCU has officially changed its focus to Batman, Superman and Green Lantern. On DC's home page for The New 52, the 52 comics are divided first into three families, the Superman family, the Batman family, and the Green Lantern family, and then into four larger groups, the Justice League, The Dark, The Edge, and Young Justice. There are four Super-titles, eleven Bat-titles, and four Lantern-titles. Wonder Woman does have her own comic book, but it doesn't come out until next week. Wonder Woman was not featured in Justice League #1 and even though there was a perfect place for her in Swamp Thing #1, we instead saw Superman, Batman and Aquaman. The only references that we can trace to Wonder Woman is that of a woman named Exoristos in Demon Knights #1 who appears to be an Amazon from Themyscira and a possible appearance of Wonder Girl at the end of Superboy #1. Rather than having a family of comics featuring Wonder Woman, Donna Troy, and Wonder Girl, the entire Wonder story is confined to one title listed under the Justice League heading.

Another thing worth noting about the various families is that there is a fairly strong emphasis on family in these comics. In Batman and Robin #1 the title characters are father and son, embracing their family tree and their interpersonal relationships difficultly ("You were easier to look up to when you weren't around." - Damian), and possibly making the same mistakes (Did the story remind you of the Joker's backstory just a little bit? I have half of a mind to believe that Damian may have just created his own arch-nemesis.). Furthermore, there is a mysterious villain wiping out members of the extended Bat-family, the Batman, Inc. heroes from around the world, starting with a Muscovite Batman who looks like a mix between Azrael, Bane and Man-Bat. In Batwoman #1, Kate Kane is joined by her cousin Bette Kane, and though part of the focus on this book was enough costume change scenes to make a 1980s Dazzler book seem sane, the other part was devoted to the tragedy surrounding Kate's sister. And let's not forget last week's Batgirl #1 where Barbara Gordon is considered the brightest of the Bat family, Batwing #1 which is inevitably going to tie into the Bat-hunt of Batman and Robin #1, Detective Comics #1 (I'm so glad that Alfred is real in modern-day Batman and Robin. The possibility that he was dead and replaced by a holograph in Detective Comics was frightening.), and Damian's teasing of all the other Robins.

Regarding the Super-family, we meet a boy who is a clone of both Superman and some human DNA donor in Superboy #1. While much of the audience can probably guess that the human donor is Lex Luthor, part of me wonders if the negative qualities described aren't also qualities we might find in Lois Lane from time to time. Regardless, the question of Superboy's parentage is a serious issue in this first story arc. And though neither Green Lantern #1 nor Red Lanterns #1 focused on the Green Lantern family we'd expect - Hal Jordan, Kyle Rayner, John Stewart, Guy Gardner, and possibly even Alan Scott - there is a similar sense of cohesion, of a family defined sometimes by opposition and enmity. Sometimes a family member has to deal with the fact that he/she doesn't trust another family member to do the right thing. Through the Bat-family, Super-family and Lantern-family, the new DCU is developing a really interesting emphasis on family being more than just an easy method of categorization.

If I had to give a name to this particular week of the New 52, it would not be "Family Week." I think it would be something closer to "Anger Management" week. Though Batman and Robin #1 deals with a murderer who is trying to erase all of Batman, Inc., and some thieves dealing with some dangerous chemicals, the theme of the issue is that Bruce Wayne is taking responsibility for his son and attempting to turn into a Brighter Knight. Rather than obsessing over death, he wishes to ponder life. Rather than fear, he wishes to value hope. Of course, Damian is not going to have any of this. Batman and Robin continues the reversal of roles between Batman and Robin that we saw when Dick Grayson was Batman. Whereas the original combinations featured a dark Batman with a bright Robin, Bruce Wayne attempts to be a bright Batman to his son the dark Robin.

While Batwoman #1, Deathstroke #1, Demon Knights #1, Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E. #1, Grifter #1, Resurrection Man #1, Suicide Squad #1, and Superboy #1 all feature characters dealing with their darkness and rage and the potential for redemption, it might be that Green Lantern #1 and Red Lanterns #1 take the cake in this category. Rather than following Green Lantern Hal Jordan, Green Lantern #1 purports itself to be a Sinestro book. And we're not talking about the Sinestro who was originally chosen by the Green Lantern Corps before the time of Hal Jordan. This is the Sinestro who was chosen by the Green Lantern Corps to wear Hal Jordan's ring after Jordan was booted from the Corps. He is the same one who committed atrocity upon atrocity and who lead his own Sinestro Corps in the hopes of destroying the Green Lantern Corps. But now that Sinestro has rejoined the Corps, he seems willing to do the right thing. He even kills a member of the Sinestro Corps, a former ally. When he appears to Hal Jordan in order to give him his ring back, he almost seems frightened of how the Guardians' decision to have faith in him has changed him. Red Lanterns #1 follows the struggles of Atrocitus who is attempting to get his groove back after the passionate anger that used to fuel him has begun to wane. By the end of the issue, we see that Atrocitus has decided to become a kind of righteous avenger, his rage fueled by injustice and his victims all victimizers. Of course, there are two twists. First, it is going to be hella difficult to get the rest of the Red Lantern Corps behind this decision, and second, a young man on Earth is beginning to head down the path that Atrocitus once walked toward rage and he's going to need a mentor.

Finally, I think that we need to talk about this Mystery Woman who keeps popping up. She was there at Victor's football game in Justice League #1 and apparently she showed up in Flashpoint #1, which I didn't read. Chad has mentioned that some people are calling her the Time Trapper, and I've read that there are some calling her Red Raven. There is mention that she can be found in every single first issue of the New 52. I opened Demon Knights #1 as a test case, mainly because I love the art, but found myself confounded by the multitude of women wearing hoods in that book. When I opened up Superboy #1, I was not expecting to have an easy time finding her, but sure enough, she was there. I feel a little like there is pie on my face because I didn't notice this character a single time until I opened up my comic books and looked specifically for her.

So, who is the Mystery Woman? Is this who Superboy describes as "someone else, no, something"? No doubt the Mystery Woman is meant to tie together these comics and provide an upcoming bridge between stories. But what will that crossover look like? We've already got a Grifter comic, and rumor has it that the redheaded woman in Superboy #1 is Caitlin Fairchild from Gen 13. While many people are probably digging through their DC back issues and trying to explain this woman away as some kind of Monitor or variation on Raven, maybe the answer actually lies in former Image/Wildstorm properties. Keep your eyes open. This is bound to turn into something significant.

As for this week's picks, I am definitely going to keep reading Batman and Robin, Batwoman, Demon Knights, Green Lantern, Red Lanterns, and Superboy. I'm going to give Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E. and Resurrection Man at least one more issue despite the fact that I disliked Frankenstein's art and am a little shaky about how much I care about the character of Resurrection Man. As for the comics I'll be happy never to read again (or, at least, not until they get a new creative team or an interesting arc), their names are Deathstroke, Grifter, Legion Lost, Mister Terrific (I wanted to like this comic, but found it impossible to connect to the main character and his compressed back story), and Suicide Squad (a sexy cover of Harley Quinn does not a good read make, but it is a fantastic cover; part of me thought that they'd take the team on more of a Suicide Girls, hot punk-goth girls, path - that was not the case).

Tune in next week for Batman #1, Birds of Prey #1, Blue Beetle #1, Captain Atom #1, Catwoman #1, DC Universe Presents #1, Green Lantern Corps #1, Legion of Super-Heroes #1, Nightwing #1, Red Hood and the Outlaws #1, Supergirl #1, and Wonder Woman #1. Until then read Arthur's article, Josh's article, and Chad's article, and leave some comments here.

The New DCU: September 7, 2011 - A Simulblog

The following is a simulblog with Chad P. of Political Jesus, Josh Toulouse of Fat Train, and Arthur of Arthur the Lesser. You ought to be forewarned: there will be spoilers.

Chad's article, "Savage Nerdery: Week One of DCU's New 52: Simulblog Reviews" can be found here.

Josh's article, "The New DCU: Sept 7, 2011 A Simulblog," can be found here.

As for Arthur, he is satisfied with leaving comments here and there.

This week's "The New DCU" post is a little late compared to last week. Whereas one new comic came out last week (Justice League #1), thirteen comics came out this week (Action Comics #1, Animal Man #1, Batgirl #1, Batwing #1, Detective Comics #1, Green Arrow #1, Hawk and Dove #1, Justice League International #1, Men of War #1, O.M.A.C. #1, Static Shock #1, Stormwatch #1, and Swamp Thing #1). Instead of doing an individual review of each comic book (remember how long my review of Justice League #1 was?), I have decided to do an overview of the construction of the new DCU as witnessed by these thirteen comics followed by a rundown of which comics I intend to continue reading. If you have a question or want to discuss one of the comics or interesting moments that I didn't have time to address, leave me a comment. We'll turn this into a forum if need be.

Since last week's article focused on the Justice League as the center of the new DCU, I think perhaps it would be wise to spiral out from that center. While Geoff Johns and Jim Lee's book takes place five years before the establishment, several comics this week give short testimonial to the shape of the Justice League in the present (or nearer to the present). Stormwatch is a predecessor of the Justice League that has been "protecting the world from alien threats for centuries." Martian Manhunter is cited as a member of the Justice League. He even says, "I am known in some quarters as a hero. I can wear that shape. But when I need to be a warrior I do it with Stormwatch" (Stormwatch #1). When Animal Man leaves his house to negotiate a hostage crisis, his son asks if he can come along and film his father's heroism. He says that he will send it to the Justice League as an audition tape (Animal Man #1). The Justice League International is created as a United Nations controlled version of the Justice League, and it features Green Arrow as a Justice League contact and Batman as a Justice League connection (JLI #1). Finally, Batwing references a group of heroes known as The Kingdom who seem to be something of an African Justice League (Batwing #1). From these citations, the Justice League is understood as a very public organization whose members are heroes working for the sake of the greater good.

Since Justice League #2 is supposed to feature a battle between Batman and Superman, I thought it wise also to gather some information about who these heroes are. Action Comics #1 appears to take place before the events of Justice League #1. It features a Superman who is not nearly invincible, who is not as powerful as a speeding train. Lex Luthor muses that the "'Superman' who appeared six months ago could hurdle skyscrapers and toss trucks around" but that he is now faster and stronger and soon will be unstoppable. By the time of Justice League #1, Lex's prediction may have come true. Superman seems to be a fully formed "blur" capable of easily defeating Green Lantern, a character armed with the most powerful force in the universe, a green power ring. The Superman of Action Comics #1 is the people's Superman, a Superman who does not believe that the law works for the rich and poor alike. As such, Superman is illegal, the enemy of the city of Metropolis, not its favorite hero. (The issue is titled "Superman Versus the City of Tomorrow.') Superman creates of himself a cautionary tale, saying, "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me." This is the first time that I've met a Superman that I really think I can relate to. In a time of idealism in American values, Superman was a patriot, but his patriotism slowly seemed to be a fault. In the 1980s, Alan Moore's The Watchmen spoke of the problems that happen when one nation has a superman and others don't. Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns shows what happens when you insert the Superman of the 1940s into a post-Nixon America. He becomes a dog for the federal government, serving the corruption of the powerful. In many ways, Morrison's Superman is the anti-Frank-Miller-Superman. He is the Superman who should be, not the Superman who could have been. (I know Chad will be a fan of this discussion because of his love for Superman and hatred for Miller and Moore's pessimism.)

Batman appears in Batgirl #1 (He doesn't actually appear, but Batgirl is described as his star pupil), Batwing #1, Detective Comics #1, Justice League International #1, and Swamp Thing #1, but none of these seem to date nearly as far back as Superman's appearance in Action Comics #1. Detective Comics #1 features a solo Batman and possibly Harvey Dent as district attorney (unless the Harvey they referred to was Harvey Bullock...), so it is potentially pre-Justice League and potentially similar to the era of Justice League #1. The Batman of Detective Comics #1 is pretty similar to the Batman we have known and loved for years. As Bruce Wayne, he is a playboy. As Batman he is hated by the corrupt Gotham police, romancing "a certain cat" that Alfred does not agree with, and most importantly, he is engaged in a strange dialogue with arch-villain The Joker. All of these projections suggest that the Batman of Justice League #1 is almost indiscernible from the Batman we know and love, except insofar as he is potentially younger and slightly more green. My guess is that he is not the experienced Batman who was capable of defeating Superman in stories like The Dark Knight Returns and Hush. The question of who will win in a battle between Batman and Superman may come down to a much more simple question, "Is the new DCU's Batman enough like our Batman? Does he always have kryptonite?"

I suppose we'll find out on October 19.

The concept of time in the new DCU is really interesting. Action Comics takes place a long time ago, but references events that happened six months ago. Animal Man takes place more recently, but references how things were "over the last three years." Batgirl reflects upon what happened in the past, how the Joker shot Barbara Gordon, she was paralyzed for three years, and then she recovered. Stormwatch #1 takes place after the events of Superman #1, which hasn't even been released yet, and reflects on centuries of history. There are a couple of really cool things that happen when every comic is taking place at a different time. First, it makes it easier for creators to explain what is canon and what is not canon from previous comics. Second, there is a sense of history that can be denied if fifty-two comic books started either "at the beginning" or "now." Third, the timeline resists what I call "The Wolverine Paradox" (a paradox that applies just as readily to Marvel's Spider-man and DC's Batman and Superman, as well as plenty of others). Sometimes over the last few decades it has seemed like Wolverine pops up in every single Marvel comic book every single month. If one presumes that each story is happening concurrently and that each feature Wolverine in a different place, then there is a problem. But if the presumption is removed that all comics happen at the same time, like in the new DCU, then Batman or Superman can appear in every single issue of every single DC comic book without a problem. The downside of every comic taking place at a different time, however, is that the timeline becomes incredibly confusing. I'm having trouble figuring out when events happen in reference to one another, and what exactly would be defined as "the present," if such a thing even exists in the new DCU. Right now, it's not as big of a problem, but in the weeks and months ahead I can see this turning into serious confusion.

Before I go on to my recommendations, I want to reflect for a moment on something that Arthur said in his previous post, "Why I Can't Simulblog," which can be read here. I have entered into the new DCU wide-eyed and excited, mostly because of my lack of knowledge concerning the old DCU. This new DCU gives me a chance to really talk about DC comics without feeling like a total noob. I felt this way until I encountered what I will call "Arthur's Prophecy." Arthur, who has read his fair share of DC comics and really knows his stuff, wrote, "And when subtle jokes about the previous continuity seep in, we’ll talk about them… and then someone will appear from the old universe. And then little pockets will come in. And the second there is a crack on the dam that is right now new and fresh and hip eventually the DCnU will be flooded out by the old stuff, and then I’ll add Flashpoint (2011) to the gradual death of the medium." I went into this week with my eyes open to possible cracks. Batgirl directly references the events of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke. Batwing seems to presume the events of Morrison's Batman run have taken place. Those don't seem to be terribly problematic. It is just another way of populating the universe. Hawk and Dove, however, refers to the possible existence of a crisis. Whether it's Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour: Crisis in Time, or Infinite Crisis, or some other crisis altogether, we potentially have our first crack. A crisis could potentially welcome another world in which the events of the old DCU were still canon, and it could potentially allow for travel between universes. Fearing Arthur's Prophecy, it is my express wish that DC explains this crisis as something as simple as Darkseid or Brainiac trying to take over the world rather than time bullets and Superboy punching reality.

As for my picks, I intend to keep reading Action Comics, Animal Man, Batwing, Detective Comics, Stormwatch and Swamp Thing. Animal Man was the comic that really surprised me this week. Blending the horror of Alan Moore and Darren Aronofsky, Jeff Lemire delivered a surprisingly frightening vision of Buddy Baker and family. I am still on the edge about Batgirl and Justice League International. Batgirl seemed more interested in editing than telling its own story, but I will probably continue reading simply because she is a part of the bat family and I'm intrigued by this villain who is targeting her. As for Justice League International, I think I'll keep reading it because of its Justice League and Batman tie-ins, and also because I have a strange love/hate relationship with Booster Gold. But the art isn't all that great, there are too many characters, and there is no apparent interesting story. I expect that I am going to abandon Green Arrow, Hawk and Dove, Men of War, O.M.A.C., and Static Shock. I love the person of Green Arrow, but like Hawk and Dove, O.M.A.C., and Static Shock, this comic seemed like too much of a 90s callback/reject. I am interested to know if we saw Captain Marvel and Black Adam battling in Men of War or someone else like Superman and Zod, but not interested enough to keep reading. And I'd really love to know more about this crisis that killed the original Dove, but I'll read more about it on the message boards. None of these decisions are set in stone, however, and I would love to hear which ones you Must Read, Maybe Read, Won't Read and whether or not you think I should change my mind.

Tune in next week for Batman and Robin #1, Batwoman #1, Deathstroke #1, Demon Knights #1, Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E. #1 (I've wanted to see more of him ever since Morrison's Seven Soldiers of Victory!), Green Lantern #1 (with Geoff Johns!), Grifter #1, Legion Lost #1, Mister Terrific #1, Red Lanterns #1, Resurrection Man #1, Suicide Squad #1, and Superboy #1. Until next week, read Chad P.'s article, "Savage Nerdery: Week One of DCU's New 52: Simulblog Reviews" and Josh Toulouse's article, "The New DCU: Sept 7, 2011 A Simulblog." And don't be shy. Let's start a really great discussion in the comments section about the stuff we didn't get a chance to discuss. Here's a possible prompt:

To paraphrase the great poet, "Can't read my, can't read my, no, he can't read-a-my Joker face."

The New DCU: August 31, 2011 - A Simulblog

The following is a simulblog with Chad P. of Political Jesus, Josh Toulouse of Fat Train, and Arthur of Arthur the Lesser. You ought to be forewarned: there will be spoilers.

Chad's article, "Savage Nerdery: The New Genesis of DC Comics, A Simulblog," can be found here.

Josh's article, "The New DCU: August 31, 2011, A Simulblog," can be found here.

And Arthur's article, "Why I Can't Simulblog," can be found here.

In the scheme of things, I don't know much about the old DC universe. And maybe that means that this new DCU was created for me. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the influence of Josh Toulouse, Arthur, Amy Bolan and Chad P., I'd probably still be shouting out, "Make mine Marvel" and reading every single X-Men-based comic since 1963. (I've made it all the way to the last months of 1988. That's 25 years of comics.) Since I'm not exactly the oldest supporter of DC comics, I thought I'd lay it all out for you. I've read select Batman stories from 1987's Batman: Year One to 1993's Batman: Knightfall, select Green Lantern stories from the destruction of Coast City in the 1990s to the last few comics before Blackest Night, some stand-alone stories like Elseworld Batman tales and All-Star Superman, and I've been present for several conversations regarding the DCU. The only thing I know about Flash or Wonder Woman is what I learn in cross-overs like Final Crisis. I am a noob to the DCU, and this is the perspective that I am bringing to this simulblog series.

I believe that it is significant that Justice League #1 is the first comic book to be released in the new DCU. With a release date of August 31, 2011, it is the only comic book of the new 52 that doesn't have a September release. Furthermore, its permanent spot on the release schedule is the third week, with Justice League #2 coming out on October 19, 2011. Justice League's September release came out almost a full month early. I think this points to one of the most interesting architectural changes the DCU has ever seen. Whereas the original DCU began with independent heroes isolated to their particular city and acting out independent stories with independent sets of villains only to be brought together somewhat awkwardly a couple decades later, the new DCU begins with unity. The old DCU set up its borders, whereas the new DCU begins with heroes crossing borders. Justice League #1 begins with the Green Lantern of Coast City crossing into Batman's Gotham City and it ends with both heroes crossing into Superman's Metropolis. Hal Jordan comments that the entire space sector belongs to him, but his concept of dominion is soon changed when Superman knocks him flat on his butt.

This serves as a good segue-way into a discussion of who's who in the Justice League, and what the purpose and effect of the Justice League will be in the new DCU. Already we've met Batman, Green Lantern, and Superman. (Since these three are the main characters of the first issue, does this mean that the Big Three of the old DCU, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, are about to be overthrown?) Batman is somewhat insular and brainy, and when he meets Hal Jordan he almost seems as if he's something of a socially inept geek. Of course, he wows Green Lantern by his crime-fighting prowess despite his lack of super powers. Hal Jordan, the Green Lantern, is incredibly over-confident, and it seems clear that he has yet to be knocked down a few pegs by a truly good villain (or by Superman). Batman makes it clear that if he keeps shining his light everywhere he's going to get people killed. Some things never change. Superman is perceived as a rogue alien from Metropolis, and despite the confidence of both Batman and Green Lantern it seems to me that the two heroes are merely covering over the fact that they're kind of terrified of this Kryptonian powerhouse.

The first words that Geoff Johns writes in Justice League #1 are: "There was a time when the world didn't call them its greatest super heroes. There was a time when the world didn't know what a super-hero was." Clearly, by "them" Johns intends to name the Justice League. One is lead to believe that the time when the world didn't value or know of super-heroes includes the events of this issue, which happened five years ago. Not only were the members of the Justice League unknown; they were downright feared. The first part of the story features the Gotham City Police Department indiscriminately firing upon both Batman and the alien that he is chasing (and later Green Lantern). One officer communicates over the radio, "Is it one of them?" and is answered, "The way they're leaping twenty feet at a time? I'd say yes." This leads one to believe that the humans are scared of what in the old DCU would be called metas, individuals with super powers. (Ironically, the GCPD considers Batman "one of them," a meta.) The second part of the story features a Superman who may not stand for truth, justice and the American way, who may not have taken to heart all the simple country values of his Smallville origin and the responsibility that his powers entail. This may just be a self-serving Superman, and he may just be the reason why the world is up in arms against metas. Of course, this is only the state of events from five years ago, a dark period in the history of the new DCU perhaps, but in this same opening we are given hope. Johns suggests that the Justice League will become the greatest heroes, and perhaps just as importantly, the world will recognize them as such.

On the surface it appears that Darkseid is going to be the villain who unites the Justice League and allows them to rise to their rightful place in the new DCU. The alien that Batman tracked through his detective skills and that Green Lantern tracked with the alien-detecting device known as his Green Lantern power ring mentioned the villain before self-detonating. The alien that it took both Batman and Green Lantern to defeat was merely a minion of a higher power, the power of Darkseid. Darkseid and his army of followers are certainly a big enough threat to require the combined power of the world's heroes. Of course, this would be too simple. When the heroes duke it out in Metropolis, they do so in a demolition zone, a site that is being prepared for Lexcorp construction. The sign promises that Lexcorp is "building the city of tomorrow today." An astute reader will notice this and wonder if Lex Luthor is the true villain behind the events that will assemble the Justice League. Of course, this is a new universe: perhaps Lex Luthor is to the Justice League what Professor Charles Xavier is to the X-Men in the Marvel Universe (or what Nick Fury is to the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe).

Overall, the new DCU appears to be focusing on subtle storytelling rather than flashy new adventures. Of course, that may just be Geoff Johns, but with Justice League as the flagship comic book, it would seem that other writers will be pushed to do the same with their titles. Not only will the new DCU be populated with new and interesting takes on characters, but it appears that a large span of time will be populated with new and interesting takes on the stories that these characters enact. Already, we have a look at what the world looks like five years ago in Justice League #1. I think we can assume that some titles will start their stories now whereas other titles might plunge back even further. We have met Batman, Green Lantern, and Superman, but we don't know how they come to be heroes. I'm not 100% certain where Johns is going with the Victor Stone/Cyborg story, but it seems interesting. It looks to me like Vic's father is spending all of his time studying metas so that his football playing son might some day walk among them as an equal. Of course, there's always that chance that Vic Stone might be transformed into Cyborg as a means of humanity fighting against the metas. Oh, and I'm sure that we'll see Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Flash at some point, too. After all, they are on the cover...

Next week, I intend to read every single new release. That means I will be reading Action Comics #1 (with Grant Morrison!), Animal Man #1, Batgirl #1 (I'm really interested to see how this one plays out), Batwing #1, Detective Comics #1, Green Arrow #1, Hawk and Dove #1, Justice League International #1, Men of War #1, O.M.A.C. #1, Static Shock #1, Storm Watch #1, and Swamp Thing #1. Of course, since I don't believe I could possibly read every DC comic for the rest of my life, I'll probably start crossing comics off the list if they don't interest me as much. Until then, however, read Chad P.'s article, "Savage Nerdery," Josh Toulouse's article, "The New DCU," and Arthur's article, "Why I Can't Simulblog."  And don't forget to leave your own opinion on the new DCU.

Interpreting Modern Love: A Simulblog

The following blog post is a simulblog. Chad P of Political Jesus and I decided to both write our interpretation of the song "Modern Love" by David Bowie. His blog, also titled "Interpreting Modern Love: A Simulblog" can be read here. Any similarities between these posts are strictly the result of the same likemindedness that has fueled the friendship between Chad and myself. I will not see Chad's blog until both blogs are finished and published, and Chad will not see mine.

I was really excited when Chad suggested that we write a simulblog about the David Bowie song "Modern Love." First of all, I think we all have to agree that David Bowie is fantastic. Second of all, there's a sense of continuity in thought between the various works of David Bowie over the year, something of a constructive understanding of the universe. Third of all, I understand that Cavemen Go is only as good as the community that surrounds it, and a simulblog such as this is, in and of itself, an act of community.

Just by looking at the title "Modern Love," I get an impression of what this song means. David Bowie is reflecting on what he thinks love looks like here and now, or there and then, considering the song was released in 1983. (I was born in 1982, so I guess David Bowie is ruminating about what love looked like circa the time when my parents were constructing a family. I suppose I'm more connected to this question than I had originally imagined.) The song is qualified, however - the song is not titled "Love," but "Modern Love." It is love situated in a particular place and time. This, of course, makes me wonder where we find David Bowie's vantage point regarding "Modern Love." Does he consider himself part of this modernism? Or does he find himself as something of a pre-modernist or post-modernist?

I've written a couple of similar blogs under the column heading of "Pop Deconstruction," and I'm sure that there are those among you who would assume that I will lump David Bowie in the same camp with me, a postmodern kind of iconoclastic individual, simply because I love David Bowie and I want something in common with him. I believe that you would be correct with the assertion, but only superficially. I believe that I am motivated more by an understanding of the works of David Bowie than by my need to think of us as alike. Let me be a little less vague and say it straight: David Bowie's "Modern Love" is a description of the face of modern love from the critical and also self-critical perspective of a post-modern thinker.

Much of "Modern Love" describes a bland day-in/day-out habitual existence. The spoken first words say, "I know when to go out and when to stay in. Get things done." This line screams of the gospel of American Protestant productivity. (Is this an American song, then? David Bowie is British, but the album was recorded at the Power Station in New York in 1982.) Follow rules. Stay productive. Earn money. Give a tenth of it to the church, and show up for Sunday service. This is your duty to "God and man." But is there not also a hint of the first wave of the over-medicated American lifestyle? Bowie sings, "I catch the paper boy, but things don't really change. I'm standing in the wind, but I never wave bye-bye." The protagonist feels isolated and powerless, incapable of reaching out and making a real connection with another individual, passionless. He drinks too much coffee in the morning, his way of giving into the unbearable monotony of existence, buttressed by anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications, perhaps cholesterol medicine as well, and then whiskey and sleeping pills to prevent insomnia. Our protagonist is a zombie. "There's no sign of life."

The chorus of "Modern Love" is potentially heretical. It seems, at this point, like David Bowie himself is describing his response to this kind of thoughtless, passionless existence. He says that he will never fall for modern love, which "walks beside" him and "walks on by" him, his only purpose to get "to the church on time." The gospel of "Modern Love" is a gospel of unfeeling obedience in hope of some sort of salvation. All of life passes the modern individual by, because all this individual is concerned with is getting to church on time. The idea of life as getting to church on time seems to terrify Bowie. It makes him party, makes him revolt against this sheepish behavior which masquerades itself as the highest good for humankind. Regarding putting ones trust in sluggish humankind and the God that supports this type of living, Bowie continues to revolt. He despises confessions and he despises the religion that enslaves and essentially destroys the heart. His final verdict: He doesn't believe in modern love.

Much of the American Christian public would just ignore David Bowie as an atheist, an unbeliever. Is there truly no religion for Bowie? Is there truly no belief? I think many would rather focus on the fact that Bowie's beliefs are not orthodox, and ignore the truly fruitful question: What are Bowie's beliefs? Much of Bowie's works of the previous decade (the 1970s), showed a strong religious and almost messianic dimension. The song "Starman" from the album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars paints a picture of some divine being who wants to enter into a relationship with humankind, who does not shun passion and sexuality, but incorporates it into the religious experience. The Jewish and Christian scriptures speak of a God who created humankind, but Bowie pushes us to prove that there is life on this planet. In songs like "Life on Mars?" from my personal favorite Bowie album, 1971's Hunky Dory the question, "Is there life on Mars?" should almost certainly be read, "Is there life on Earth, the kind of life that is worth saving?" The descriptions of sailors fighting in the dance hall and lawmen beating up the wrong people suggest that there is not.

If you ask me, a religious person myself, I think that Bowie's criticism of "Modern Love" is not impossible to incorporate into the life of a religious individual. One need not kill the religious impulse in order to be a postmodern, critical individual. Certainly, his criticism is harsh, making it difficult to bow, to follow doctrine, scripture and tradition, to be a loyal and obedient sheep. But is a sheep really a good model for religious individuals, particularly Christians, to follow? The creativity that Bowie admires and elevates on Hunky Dory offers a positive answer to the negative criticism of "Modern Love." Who could ever imagine a creator God without the power of creativity? Who could ever imagine a humankind cast in such a God's image without the power of creativity? David Bowie challenges us to look to individuals like Andy Warhol ("Andy Warhol") and Bob Dylan ("Song for Bob Dylan"), to reinvent ourselves and the world around us. And what better models could we take. If you do happen to get to church on time, perhaps you'll learn about an individual named Jesus who is called the Christ or the messiah, an individual who was anything but a sheep, whose creativity, for better or worse, changed the entire world.

What is the answer to "Modern Love"? Post-modern love, a love that shuns neither passion nor sexuality, that appears in different forms in different people, that values creativity, and thoughtful retooling of existence. Was it Jesus or P-Funk who once said, "The kingdom of heaven is within"? (Trick question. Some version of this statement has been said by both parties at various times.) If the highest command of "Modern Love" is to get to the church on time, then we have clearly missed the point. When you get to that church, you'll be the same passionless individual who is so incapable that he cannot even wave to the paperboy as he passes by, who can neither connect with a person nor a personal God. David Bowie's postmodern love prepares us for life-changing relationships, and casts us as interesting and original individuals, the "Golden Ones" of "Oh! You Pretty Things," rather than mindless sheep following a shepherd because we're not smart enough to do anything else. If the kingdom of heaven is within, then the tools of a strong heart and mind and the ability to enter into a relationship with the divine are how you get there.

As for me, I'm with Bowie. I don't believe in modern love either. I do believe that the song "Modern Love" is a fantastic and thoughtful song. I think it might be time for me to find out what Chad thinks. Come join me.