Arnold 365, Day 269 (Terminator 2: Judgment Day)

Banner by Adam Friedli.

Arnold 365, Day 268 (Kindergarten Cop)

Banner by Adam Friedli.

Arnold 365, Day 267 (Total Recall)

Banner by Adam Friedli.

Superheroes, Cheating and Resurrection

My good friend Arthur over at Arthur the Lesser wrote a comic book related post titled "A Little Less Bright" on his non-comic book blog recently, and it deals with the idea of death and resurrection in comic books. He details that there are some characters who are dead, and who must remain dead for the sake of the story and lists Uncle Ben, Bucky Barnes, Gwen Stacey, and Barry Allen as his examples. Aside from characters such as these and characters who don't really matter (thank goodness there are no such thing as people who don't really matter in the real world), there's a high likelihood that a character is going to come back from the dead. He then cites a series of comic book characters who have come back from the dead (sometimes despite being on the don't touch list) - Bucky Barnes, Jason Todd, May Parker, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter - and this list is nowhere near exhaustive.

Arthur's post was really about a boy in the real world who was dying of cancer. His last wish was to be a superhero, so he died a superhero. His name was Electron Boy, but the people close to him knew him as Erik Martin. Erik Martin's story is important, and as close as we may get to our comic book heroes they will never be as real as Erik Martin was when he was alive, as he is in the hearts and minds of those who were able to be a part of his life. I do not wish to disrespect Erik, but I really want to focus on another ethical issue, so let us shift now from the fact that heroes like Electron Boy don't get to come back to life and rejoin their families, at least not in "this life," to the fact that the unwritten code for what one must do when a loved one dies must be re-written in a world where the people who surround you consistently come back from the dead. I'm not talking about zombies. I'm talking about your beloved wife coming back from the dead if you're Cyclops and your wife is Jean Grey. I'm talking about your aunt coming back from the dead if you're Spider-man and May Parker is your aunt.

The focus of this post is a discussion that I was a part of on a comic book web site called Comic Vine. The message board topic was about how Cyclops cheated on Jean Grey. I started writing on what has happened during the numerous times when Jean Grey was dead and Cyclops tried to move on with his life. In fact, I argued, it would be much easier to say that Cyclops cheated on Madelyne Pryor with Jean Grey than that he cheated on Jean Grey with anyone else. Of course, I was way off topic. It seems that they were talking about how, during the Grant Morrison run, Cyclops telepathically cheated on Jean Grey with Emma Frost and the ethical implications. (Is it really cheating if it's all mental?) And I think that's why I'm focusing on the other side of the discussion here. Yes, Jean Grey was dead and Cyclops was trying to move on. He dated Aleytys Forrester, the daughter of a ship captain, after she died and then he married Madelyne Pryor and had a very important child with her. (But, let's face it, Cyclops had proposed to Jean Grey, a woman who was then going by the name of Phoenix. We'd already seen death and rebirth by that time and her name was Phoenix. He had to - and I believe he did - know that she was going to come back.) But when Jean came back he left his wife and child and everyone seemed to be okay with it because we believed that they were meant to be.

Is there a new rule in comic books that if your true love comes back from the dead your responsibility belongs to that person alone? I can't help but to think of the movie Castaway, where FedEx executive Chuck Noland returns from a deserted island, only to find that he was believed dead and that his true love has moved on with her life. In the end, Chuck Noland simply has to find another way, another love. But Cyclops returns to Jean Grey. Now, nothing of this new rule excuses Cyclops from wrongdoing. It's more like the daughters of Henry VIII, Mary and Elizabeth: If Roman Catholicism is true then Mary is the true-born daughter and Elizabeth is a bastard; If Protestantism is true then Elizabeth is the true-born daughter and Mary is a bastard. No matter how you look at it, someone's a bastard. The same is true for Cyclops, only he is the bad guy in both cases. If the normal rules of society, marriage and the unwritten rules of love hold true, then he cheated on Madelyne Pryor when Jean Grey returned to life. But if there is some comic book clause regarding resurrection then he should have waited for Jean Grey and marrying Madelyne Pryor was the act of cheating. In all likelihood, however, both are a kind of cheating.

I know there are some people who think this is ridiculous. But I want you to think about this. Some of you don't have to think too hard: you've already had this experience. You have loved someone very deeply and then you have lost that person. It took years, but you found the courage to move on with your life, to love someone else, because that's what the other person would have wanted. Now, imagine you live in a universe where you experience the return of lost friends and enemies quite often. You might not have any reason to be certain that your lost loved one will return to life, but the chance alone seems to warrant a different way of acting, a different unwritten law of love. Some will live forever without taking another significant other, simply because of love, because of an impossible belief that you might once again share a bed. Some think this is crazy. I really don't. The way I love Amy, I can't imagine ever being able to love someone else again. But if Amy passed and there was a real hope, maybe a one in three chance, that she'd be returned to me in a few years, that impossible hope would be possible, maybe even probable. And if, in that time, I took on another significant other, I would consider myself the most wretched of the wretched.

It makes me want to write letters. Dear Kitty Pryde, you say Colossus died? Just wait longer. Dear Colossus, you say Kitty Pryde is no longer with us? Have hope. She shall return. Dear Cyclops, you say Jean Grey is dead? Again? The Phoenix will probably return like she did last time. Dear Black Canary, has your beloved Green Arrow left you? Just wait longer. Dear Lois Lane, has your protector fallen? He's effing Superman. Do you really think he can die? Without being insensitive, I want to tell these people in the world of abundant resurrection that they need to stay true to the people that they love. They do not have the choice to move on. A death is not a kind of breaking up. Because when they come back, they still often act as if nothing has changed. As should you, the living of the comic book world. Our lost loved ones aren't returned to us in "this life," but yours often are. Find a way to be true to them. Don't just hook up with the blonde who wears lingerie all the time, reads minds, and turns to diamond.

Arnold 365, Day 266 (Kindergarten Cop)

Banner by Adam Friedli.

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...

A Good Name: Roland

There is something really wonderful about the name Roland. It just has this sound to it that is pleasing. It just rolls off your tongue. In fact, the name Roland sounds like the phrase "rolls off your tongue." That's how well it rolls off your tongue.

Where did the name Roland come from? Well, last year Amy and I saw Tears for Fears live on the other side of the state. They were fantastic. One of the best performances I have ever seen. They're perfectly happy with Everybody Loves a Happy Ending being their last album and they've been touring for it for seven years now. There are two members of Tears for Fears that you need to know, Curt Smith and Roland Orzabel.

Roland played confidently, and though he had long flowing hair, sang in falsetto and swayed like a female back-up singer in a Motown band, he overflowed with strength and masculinity. There was a kind of confidence in this guy, and for some reason that confidence is forever tied to the name Roland. Amy and I also happen to adore Stephen King, though she knows much more than I do, and possibly one of his most important characters, the one that is at the center of the Dark Tower series, which is at the center of King's entire corpus, is Roland Deschain, the gunslinger.

While Roland would be the perfect name for a child, I think it might also fit for a pet dog. And what kind of dog would look better beside a gunslinger than a really fantastic looking German shepherd. (I may have promoted this breed of dog before, and I apologize for repeating, but they're really awesome dogs. They look like they still have the chops of a wolf, after all.)

And finally, to complement Roland Orzabel's interest in his Spanish history as heard in such albums as Raoul and the Kings of Spain, Roland might be a good name for an animal that you'll find in many Spanish speaking countries in South and Central America, the beloved iguana.