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...

Justin Tiemeyer's Law of the Internet

In September I wrote a blog entry titled Chronologically LOST in which I linked my internet public to a web site of the same name and wrote a short introduction that explained my history with LOST and the need for such a site. While I certainly did not intend for this to be the focus of the entry, a lot of attention has been paid to one particular sentence:

There is a new kind of law since the advent of the internet that if you can think of something, it's already on the internet

A short while later I attended an ice cream party at my apartment complex. (Yes, my apartment complex has ice cream parties!) I think I had peach ice cream. That's not the point. One of my most brilliant graduate school friends, Arthur Stewart, commented on my post and referred specifically to the Justin Tiemeyer's Law of the Internet. "Woah," I said. "I didn't invent the law. I merely heard it from someone else." As we discussed the idea, however, it became obvious that this thing we had stumbled upon needed a name. Since I couldn't cite anyone prior to me as the originator of the concept, I, Justin Tiemeyer, became the earliest reference that anyone could remember.

In a strange circular way, however, the title Justin Tiemeyer's Law of the Internet was justified. If you doubt me, type the phrase "if you can think of something, it's already on the internet" (the quotes assure that you find the exact phrase instead of simply keywords) into Google. You will find two entries, the first being my initial assertion in the Chronologically LOST post and the second being a reference to my original post by my friend Josh Toulouse on his blog Retrospective Reflections. (Upon publication of this post, there will probably be at least three references to this phrase on Google, the third being the very post that you are reading.)

I imagined a presentation of LOST in chronological order as opposed to narrative order, and before I knew it I had access to that very presentation without any work on my part. Josh imagined a cross between a Minotaur and a Centaur called a Min-Centaur and was able to find pictures of such a creature with a simple Google search. Since I have decided to take ownership of this Law of the Internet I would like to convince you that it is true in all cases. Anything that you can imagine is already on the internet. Give it a shot yourself. You'll find that it's true.

I imagine that many of you scientists out there have already raised the question, "What happens if I imagine something and I am not able to find it on the internet? What happens to Justin Tiemeyer's Law of the Internet if a counter-example can be found?" I thought about this ahead of time. A counter-example to my law is simply impossible. You see, Christian Science sets a precedent, a ridiculous precedent of course, but a precedent that I intend to follow in maintaining my law. When you have a law, you can defend it however you want, but this one's mine and here's how I'm going to defend it. According to Christian Science, those who become ill will become well again through prayer and faith. If one does not become well through prayer and faith, there would seem to be a problem with Christian Science. Not so. Christian Science says that any such problem is a problem with you: You're not praying right. You don't have faith. You don't truly believe in God's power of healing. Similarly in the case of Justin Tiemeyer's Law of the Internet. If you cannot find what you're looking for the fault is with you. Perhaps you're not very good at expressing what you're imagining. Perhaps you just aren't using the best possible internet searching techniques. This can be summed up simply as, "Don't go messing with my law. If it doesn't seem to work it's user error on your part."

The internet contains all of the wondrous landscapes of the human mind. You just have to look in the right place to find them. If you're looking for lesbian sex scenes between Super Mario's Princess Peach and Princess Daisy, you won't have to look far. If you're looking for Wonder Woman she-male sex scenes, you won't have to look far. (Wait a minute! Most of these are porn. Is the internet all about porn?) The thoughts of the entire world are at your fingertips. How amazing and horrendous! Such are apt words to describe Justin Tiemeyer's Law of the Internet.

Neill Cameron's A to Z of Awesomeness - A Comic Book Alphabet

Neill Cameron is a British illustrator who, with the help of followers of his blog, Facebook, and Twitter, developed an awesome illustration for each of the 26 letters of the alphabet.

Here are a few of my favorites:

Check them out for yourself at NEILLCAMERON.COM.