A message buried deep in the Bush thread asked me to comment on Dan Didio’s various assertions about “Young Justice” in a Heroes Con interview quoted on Newsarama. First he complained about the quality of the book’s sales, stating that a book which features such iconic characters should have far higher numbers. And second he asserted that “Slobo” ruined the character of Lobo.
The aspect that Dan perpetually leaves out of his two-part evisceration of “Young Justice” is that YJ was specifically designed to appeal to a younger readership. That was the mandate from editorial. That’s what I was asked to write. YJ was intended to skew young–in its stories, in its subject matter, in its readership–with the notion that it would draw in younger readers who would eventually “graduate” to the older-skewing titles. I was told at the outset that DC neither expected nor needed the book to sell huge numbers; it was aiming at the long-term goal of bringing in new, younger readers. So his complaining about the quality of the sales is irrelevant…not to mention that YJ outsold “Impulse” and “Superboy,” both of which were also cancelled, and even he admits the book was turning a profit. So pointing to these iconic characters–characters so “iconic” that DC did away with them–and complaining that sales didn’t reflect their presence is really beside the point.
As for Slobo, I wanted to introduce a Wolverine-esque character to stir things up. Since the book featured junior versions of Superman, Batman, and the Flash, a junior version of Lobo seemed perfectly appropriate. A character who was, in his execution and handling, far more serious than Dan remotely gives him credit for (because, y’know, having Slobo go slowly blind was such a knee-slapper of a storyline). And, frankly, I think that a company that raped and murdered Sue Dibny, murdered Blue Beetle, tortured and crippled Batgirl, and had both Superman and Wonder Woman at various times cold-bloodedly murder opponents, doesn’t get to say that *I* ruined one of their characters.
PAD
• 
To me, the problem with the Wonder Woman and Superman stories are that they *invite* you to analyize their actions, because the whole dámņ thing is set up to shock the reader by showing the lead character acting in a manner that’s out of character.
Huh? That’s the point of stories, to make characters make choices that they have to struggle to make.
That’s not a problem; that’s a feature.
Well, first Roger Tang, I agree with you. This is defintely a feature of comics that is positive.
To Luigi, I did not ignore your point in my opinion but if I did, surely I am not alone. You yourself didn’t quote me whole in your post. And for the record you stated that character is defined by action. By that logic (and it’s one I agree with btw), Wonder Woman’s former actions of NOT killing, define her as one who always finds a way not to kill.
Stating that not wanting a hero to murder is avoiding all the “tough questions” is a bit of a sideline. The truth is that you can study a hero killing in any number of ways, including alternative universes, without setting it into the hero’s character and ruining it for everyone. It’s sad in my opinion that DC has decided to make “New Frontier” an “Elseworlds” when at one time it would’ve been cannon.
And I agree with those who’ve stated that once you introduce the “real world” idea of heroes murdering people it negates the rest of your fictional universe.Indeed, you can not have it both ways.
Are the police who died on 9/11 or the soldiers in Iraq not heroes? First off, your using one single event to define the characters of an entire group. There indeed might have been a dirty cop present in the WTC on 9/11/01. There are muderers in Iraq (Hadeitha, etc…).A person can do heroic acts and not be a hero overall. The opposite however can not be true, and any true hero, in my opinion, will only kill as the absolute, 100 % last choice. Greg Rucka never sufficiently explored the other options because they were not tried in the least.
Bill, I do not feel I was being personal. Rather I enjoy everyone here on this thread very much. Den may not have said that the only way he’s entertained is to read/see the tragic heroes but that’s what I read from it. I stand by my statement, something like that says something wrong about a person who enjoys this kind of story so much as a lot of people do.
Finally Rex, let me quote your own response so you’re clear on what I am saying to you regarding Ralph being a “weak” character. You yourself have answered it.
Ask any person on the street who Batman is, and most of the time you’ll get a resonably accurate answer. He’s iconic in his own right. Even in comics circles, the first answer out of somebody’s mouth will rarely, if ever be, “A blend of Sherlock Holmes and Zorro, with a dash of The Shadow.”
The same with Superman and Wonder Woman. They are icons. Their names are used to describe other characters.
Ask a bunch of people, even in comic fan circles, to name the stretchy guy on the JLA, and nine times out of ten, I guarantee the answer will be Plastic Man.
If “A stretchy Nick Charles” is the entire breadth and depth of character description that can be mustered, then, yes, it’s a weak character.
So Batman himself is described as being part Shadow, part Zorro and so forth but he’s not a weak character. Ralph Dibney is described as a “stretch Nick Charles” and he is? Seems to me if inspiration and comparison is what makes a “weak” character, then no character in comics is beyond it.
Just because Plastic-Man exists doesn’t make Ralph weak either. Otherwise, Reed Richards is weak too. That also makes every GL after Alan Scott and every Flash after Jay Garrick weak. Obviously that is not the case.
Wanna know who else could’ve been killed to make a JLA murder mystery? It has to be someone from the JLA? Well, Sue and Ralph were NOT in the JLA at the time. And certainly not enough that that is the context one thinks of them in. Since that is the case you could’ve killed Alfred or even Mr. Terrific and while it would’ve been bad, it would’ve been equal to Sue Dibney AND would not have ruined the one fun character left in the entire DCU.
Bats is already dark and nuts but because DC wants to irradicate any sense of fun and humor from the DCU, under the wrong headed belief that angst equals “literature”, they chose a funny, warm and humorous pair and killed one and made the other a nutcase (from what I hear).
When it comes down to it this is really about the direction the DCU is going in. Either you think its great joy to read about people dying, killing and being angsty all the time and enjoy DC now, or you don’t and would want to abandon DC altogether until Dan DiDio is gone and someone who understands that variety is best for a comic company is in charge.
I don’t mind a dark twisted Batman, but I want it balanced with a fun Elongated-Man and I want the heroes to hold their moral line where they always have. So they can inspire us and those in their world to be better.
Michael
The one fun character? Again, I’m not that familiar with Sue Dibny, so I’m not sure what it is about her that sets the bar for “fun” so high, but there are lots of fun DC characters. Plastic Man, for one. Or just check out the new Atom series, which is all about having fun with the concept.
roger Tang: Huh? That’s the point of stories, to make characters make choices that they have to struggle to make.
Steven: Then after it’s all said and done, the only message that gets put out there is that they must hold all life sacred… no matter what.
Which kinda undercuts putting them in a situation where they *had* to kill. After Superman’s exile in space (and I don’t know if this is Byrne’s original intent, because Byrne left without putting the execution of the super-villains into any sort of perspective), he decided that he would not kill again. Which leaves me with a “HUH?”, because what’s the point of having Superman kill just so he won’t kill again.
And we get the same thing with Wonder Woman, where they stack the deck so that she has to kill, then reverses course to say they shouldn’t do that.
Luigi Novi: They stopped him without killing him probably because they couldn’t kill him. Not because none of them would have if given the opportunity.
dark Schneider: Well, I have the silly theory that Lobo could kill Superboy-Prime
Luigi Novi: And I have the silly observation that the above quote by me clearly says that they couldn’t kill him, not Lobo, and that the “they” refers to the coalition of heroes that confronted Superboy, of which Lobo was not a part.
I find it quite telling that so many of the arguments that I’m reading here in support of the notion that Wonder Woman’s actions were not legitimate employ the distortion of facts, reasoning and other’s words.
Andy: In superhero-comics you can´t have it both ways. Either they are realistic in a meaningful way – the you have to go the Punisher routine. Or you go the comic-book routine, where a “deadly” character like Deathstroke at worst does rough up someone. Nobody believes that any longer, but for that you just need suspension of disbelief. Having a character like WW kill someone is really like having the cake and eating it. It just doesn´t work.
Luigi Novi: False Either/Or Fallacy. The idea that “realistic in a meaningful way” necessarily leads to Punisher-like actions is false. Police officers are generally not Punisher-like murdering vigilantes, but they do sometimes take lives when they have to. I’ve used the analogy of police officers in this thread more than once, and I notice that no one is able to refute it.
spiderrob8: That’s just ridiculous. We can kill Superman even, but not Superboy Prime.
Luigi Novi: It’s only “ridiculous” if you gloss over the specifics, as so many of you have on this thread. Villains who generally try to kill Superman use kryptonite. Kryptonite doesn’t affect Superboy Prime. Some have used red sun rays, but then the immediacy of the situation precluded anyone from just pulling a red sun ray generator out of their pocket. So there’s no inconsistency.
Doomsday used brute force, but then again, I thought that was a lousy story, generally because the writing and art were bad, but in as it pertains to this discussion, specifically because it makes no sense that mere brute force would kill Superman.
spiderrob8: Every one ofm your arguments to me just doesn’t make any more sense of the story than that. WW had a million options, and will face these scenarios again, and will of course find a way out of them now. But this time, it was impossible. Come on.
Luigi Novi: Again, it is easy for arguments to not make sense if you keep chickening out of answering the specifics. So far, no one has been able to refute the things I and others have pointed out about the Wonder Woman situation. We’ve pointed out that the circumstances of the situation, and how the conclusion that the kill was justified is borne out of them, but you on the “Wonder Woman is a murderer” side of the table keeping running away from this point. Now why is this? If this arguments don’t make sense to you, why not respond to them directly? A million options? Okay. Mind listing a few of them?
spiderrob8: A soldier in Iraq can’t kill and be a hero? Um, last time I checked, they don’t live in a fantasy world where girls come to life from clay, and alien being come to earth looking exactly like an earthman, and people can swing from building to building on grappling hook, while dodging bullets. Different world, different rules.
Luigi Novi: Non sequitur. You point out that the DC universe is a science fictional/fantasy world, but you don’t explain how specifically this leads to the conclusion that killing is never justified. Without doing so, linking the two is arbitrary.
michael j Norton: To Luigi, I did not ignore your point in my opinion but if I did, surely I am not alone.
Luigi Novi: So what? That others did so makes the tactic more honorable? Seriously, where do you get these non sequiturs from? The fact remains that you employed a logical fallacy—arguing something is out of character merely if you’ve never done it before—and I pointed out that that reasoning is false. Because you made that argument, I directed it to you. That others also ignored that point (among others) has been noted. Where exactly in one’s timeline is the cut-off point? 1990? 1970? At one point in a character’s history must a character kill in order for it to be “in character”? The first issue?
michael j Norton: You yourself didn’t quote me whole in your post. And for the record you stated that character is defined by action. By that logic (and it’s one I agree with btw), Wonder Woman’s former actions of NOT killing, define her as one who always finds a way not to kill.
Luigi Novi: Nice little argumentative smoke-and-mirrors, Michael. But I’m not falling for it, as the only one who thinks this bit of tap dancing is “logic” is you. That actions define one’s character do not mean that you can just pick and choose one action or set of actions and say that “Okay, these actions over here define her character, but not these other ones over there.” One’s actions are often determined by the situation. If the specific situation WW faced never presented itself, then it is not surprising if they demanded an extreme response on her part that she had never had to give. That she may never have had to kill does not mean that she cannot, or will not ever. It must depend on the circumstances, and you have not shown why the circumstances of the story in question made the killing wrong.
michael j Norton: Stating that not wanting a hero to murder is avoiding all the “tough questions” is a bit of a sideline. The truth is that you can study a hero killing in any number of ways, including alternative universes, without setting it into the hero’s character and ruining it for everyone.
Luigi Novi: Or, to put it in less euphemistic words, the writers have to do it in another universe, and cannot do it in the main universe. Same problem. It’s a cop out that leads to writers being handcuffed from posing those tough questions to the main continuity’s character. If you acknowledge that those questions are valid springboards for stories, then it’s cowardice and censorship to say that you can’t use them in main continuity. No thanks.
michael j Norton: It’s sad in my opinion that DC has decided to make “New Frontier” an “Elseworlds” when at one time it would’ve been cannon.
Luigi Novi: Superman being raised in the Soviet Union would’ve been canon? Batman existing during the Civil War would’ve been canon? Batman tracking Jack the Ripper in 1880’s London would’ve been canon? Really?
michael j Norton: Are the police who died on 9/11 or the soldiers in Iraq not heroes? First off, your using one single event to define the characters of an entire group. There indeed might have been a dirty cop present in the WTC on 9/11/01. There are muderers in Iraq (Hadeitha, etc…).
Luigi Novi: You continue to evade the point. The point of the question was to challenge your assertion that heroes never kill and that all killing is murder. The hypothesis assumed by the question, therefore, was not that any of those thousands of men and women were dirty or murderers, but that they were cops or soldiers who did their jobs as they were supposed to, which may at one point entailed taking a life. By splitting hairs like this, you continue to display your intellectual dishonesty, and your inability to participate in this discussion in a good faith manner.
michael j Norton: A person can do heroic acts and not be a hero overall. The opposite however can not be true, …
Luigi Novi: Then you have an extremely naïve idea of heroism, because you can pick any person in history who is considered “a hero overall”, and find a non-heroic act that they committed at some point.
michael j Norton: …and any true hero, in my opinion, will only kill as the absolute, 100 % last choice. Greg Rucka never sufficiently explored the other options because they were not tried in the least.
Luigi Novi: Please elaborate. Explain what he could’ve had Wonder Woman do.
Rex Hondo: Ask any person on the street who Batman is, and most of the time you’ll get a resonably accurate answer. He’s iconic in his own right. Even in comics circles, the first answer out of somebody’s mouth will rarely, if ever be, “A blend of Sherlock Holmes and Zorro, with a dash of The Shadow.” The same with Superman and Wonder Woman. They are icons. Their names are used to describe other characters. Ask a bunch of people, even in comic fan circles, to name the stretchy guy on the JLA, and nine times out of ten, I guarantee the answer will be Plastic Man. If “A stretchy Nick Charles” is the entire breadth and depth of character description that can be mustered, then, yes, it’s a weak character.
michael j Norton: So Batman himself is described as being part Shadow, part Zorro and so forth but he’s not a weak character. Ralph Dibney is described as a “stretch Nick Charles” and he is? Seems to me if inspiration and comparison is what makes a “weak” character, then no character in comics is beyond it.
Luigi Novi: Try reading what Rex actually wrote. He stated that any response from a respondent on the street would NOT be that he’s “A blend of Sherlock Holmes and Zorro, with a dash of The Shadow.”, because he is iconic enough that describing him would not require referencing other characters. The issue is not that Ralph is weak because Plastic Man exists. Rex’s point was that Ralph is not a very strong character by virtue of the fact that no one could describe in any way that would be unique from other similar characters.
michael j Norton: Wanna know who else could’ve been killed to make a JLA murder mystery? It has to be someone from the JLA? Well, Sue and Ralph were NOT in the JLA at the time.
Luigi Novi: More distortion and hairsplitting. Red didn’t say anything about the characters being in the JLA. If you actually read what he said (you know, that thing you seem to hate doing), you’ll see he said:
Because it was a JLA murder mystery, and in order to get the JLA involved, the person murdered had to be someone the JLA would have a reason to give a crap about.
michael j Norton: Bats is already dark and nuts but because DC wants to irradicate any sense of fun and humor from the DCU, under the wrong headed belief that angst equals “literature”, they chose a funny, warm and humorous pair and killed one and made the other a nutcase (from what I hear).
Luigi Novi: Or, Bats is dark and nuts because that makes a more compelling and realistic persona, given his origin and m.o. As for angst equaling “literature,” well, some literature does contain angst as a perfectly valid element.
michael j Norton: When it comes down to it this is really about the direction the DCU is going in. Either you think its great joy to read about people dying, killing and being angsty all the time and enjoy DC now, or you don’t and would want to abandon DC altogether until Dan DiDio is gone and someone who understands that variety is best for a comic company is in charge.
Luigi Novi: Another False Either/Or. Another possibility is that one can dislike these stories, but still read some DC stuff that they like, since they’re not all like that. Just because you’re too pessimistic to see only two possibilities doesn’t mean that all other people fall into those two categories.
Steven: Then after it’s all said and done, the only message that gets put out there is that they must hold all life sacred… no matter what.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see why they has to be the “only message”, since I myself don’t think that “all” life is “sacred”.
Steven: Which kinda undercuts putting them in a situation where they *had* to kill. After Superman’s exile in space (and I don’t know if this is Byrne’s original intent, because Byrne left without putting the execution of the super-villains into any sort of perspective), he decided that he would not kill again. Which leaves me with a “HUH?”, because what’s the point of having Superman kill just so he won’t kill again.
Luigi Novi: The point is that he may have decided that he didn’t want to kill again because of how he felt about killing after he had done it.
Steven: And we get the same thing with Wonder Woman, where they stack the deck so that she has to kill, then reverses course to say they shouldn’t do that.
Luigi Novi: Why is a given outcome necessarily “stacking the deck”, but not others. In decades past, when writers always wrote the stories so that they never killed, because they had to write them that way, how is that not also “stacking the deck”? All writing is artificial, and all the outcomes of all stories are artificial. How is a directive to produce one and only one type of story or ending “stacking the deck”, and another type not?
Well, that’s kinda of the point. The writer controls the vertical, the writer controls the horizontal. Wonder Woman didn’t decide to kill, a writer did.
My problem is that they derive the most brain-dead lesson from these stories, that being “heroes don’t kill”, which is more simplistic than the Code Against Killing in the Silver Age, which allowed heroes like Star Boy to kill in self-defense, and for Superboy to defend his actions when they kicked him out of the Legion Of Super-Heroes because of it.
I don’t have a problem with writers going there, so much as I have a problem with the recursive loop they tend to fall into. It’s not portrayed as a tramatic event they had to cope with, it’s portrayed as an object lesson to why heroes shouldn’t kill… but they want to have it both ways by stacking the deck so their actions were 100% justifiable and the hero left with no other choice.
As I said upthread. To adult to be childish. Too childish to be adult. I had no problem with Iron Man killing in Ellis’ arc, because I think he hit the right notes with his story. Tony Stark took no pleasure in killing the villain, and did what he could to resolve the situation without lethal force, but he did what he had to do… and the story didn’t wring their hands and ultimately decide that killing was bad, even though he was totally justified.
michael j. norton: “Bill, I do not feel I was being personal. Rather I enjoy everyone here on this thread very much. Den may not have said that the only way he’s entertained is to read/see the tragic heroes but that’s what I read from it. I stand by my statement, something like that says something wrong about a person who enjoys this kind of story so much as a lot of people do.”
Michael, I know you were addressing Bill Mulligan and Den, and not me, but I feel compelled to chime in. Enjoying “this kind of story so much” does not say “something wrong about a person.”
Violence and tragedy are part of the human experience. Not every life has a happy ending, and thus some stories will reflect that. Want an example from “real” literature (I put that in quotes because I consider comics to be a valid form of literature)? Of Mice and Men has an awful, awful ending. I almost cried when I finished the book. But it was a worthwhile and thought-provoking story.
I’m not saying that Identity Crisis is on a par with Of Mice and Men, by the way. I’m simply pointing out that being entertained by a story that explores the uglier side of life doesn’t mean there’s “something wrong” with you. I think I’m safe in saying that Den isn’t a rape and murder fetishist, any more than I’m a fratricide fetishist because I was moved by Of Mice and Men.
I think you’d do well to accept that your tastes are simply your tastes, and Den’s tastes are different, and the world’s big enough for both of you to coexist. There’s no need to look for “something wrong” with Den just because he liked something you didn’t.
Son of a BÍTÇH! I only just now realized that “fratricide” is complete inapplicable to Of Mice and Men because George and Lennie aren’t brothers. I have no idea why I thought they were.
Crap. Crap. Crap. I am an idiot.
1Luigi Novi: Or, Bats is dark and nuts because that makes a more compelling and realistic persona, given his origin and m.o.
****
Yeah, because when we read stories of men who dress like Bats to scare people, we do so for realism!!!!
A million options? Okay. Mind listing a few of them?
***
I did. You ignored them or gave weak explanations against them. I don’t particularly enjoy debating things with you, and I choose not to do so any further. (Translation-I don’t like you very much, not that I expect you to care, but I choose not to waste my time with someone who glosses over any explanation I give just to repeat the exact same thing he said before).
To me, the problem with the Wonder Woman and Superman stories are that they *invite* you to analyize their actions, because the whole dámņ thing is set up to shock the reader by showing the lead character acting in a manner that’s out of character.
****
Yes, true. the stories make little sense to me, because they are these one time event things that won’t be repeated. Either Superman and WW are now characters who will kill from time to time, or the story is weak. Iron Man killed before and will kill again, when justified. We are given a story about Superman and a story about WW in which they “had to kill”-not that it was only justified, but there was no other option. But then we are told in each case, by either the characters or others, was that it was the wrong thing to do. And the characters vow not to do it again-but I thought they had no choice? So how can they vow not to do it again (without losing)? (WW might not have specifically vowed it, but the rest of IC showed her actions being used against heroes, and her going on some soul searching, not really necessary if there was no choice). Only because in those future situations, there will be “no choice” (I dispute that in the WW case-convientely there was no way to call anyone else for help-GL, Zatanna, etc. and be the Ultimate Nullifier effect) and yet miraculously, they will still find a way. So each story is cheap in my mind. and it invites the “If it was necessary for Max Lord, why not for X, Y, and Z”
I agree with Spiderrob8, I have been accused several times of just ignoring things said (even when I quote a full sentence instead of partially) and yet no one has been able to give me an instance when WW killed someone she had control of before Rucka and DiDio decided they wanted her to do it. This isn’t about censorship. If WW had done it before I’d question my view of the character and not the actions that took place. When Ed Brubaker brought back the lethal aspect to Captain America at first I was a little shocked but in the Golden Age he regularly dispatched enemies. Batman even carried a gun at one point so even though he chooses not to now, I could see the argument for it.
Again, I’d say this whole thing was a contrivence because DiDio things mature writing equals angst. It’s like he’s watched “My So-Called Life” and assumed all teenagers are like that.
And Luigi, normally you’re a rational debater who I enjoy but you’ve kinda lost me here. I don’t even know what to say when you’ve accused me of ignoring things and you’re arguing like a neo-con. Trust me, nothing I’ve said is out of line or a non-sequiter.
Bill (Myers this time), I may have gone a bit overboard stating that something is wrong with someone who enjoys this kind of story. To clarify, what comes across is that the people who are into DC right now seem to enjoy ONLY this type of story. And they defend Dan DiDio on this point when I’ve pointed out already that I’d be fine with alternative universes or any other way DC wanted to go with this instead of making it the only story out there. Luigi says you can dislike the current IC stuff and enjoy other stories because that’s not all there is but frankly, as someone who feels very,very çráppëd on by DC and took a break, that’s all I see advertised and thus the impression is that this is all there will be for the foreseeable future for DC. DiDio’s comments and actions don’t help the perception either.
To be honest this big event summer has got me looking elsewhere from both Marvel and DC. Both their events are taking up way too much space in their titles to allow other stories to be told.
On a side note regarding DiDio, did anyone read that crap he wrote in the back of WW # 1 recently? I bought the issue out of curiosity (and because I love Young Avengers which Allan Heinberg also writes and is basically Young Justice for Marvel) and read his little diatribe about how much he wants new writers but only if they’re already published. I have to say (and no offense intended to PAD here) if Marvel or DC were serious about developing new writing talent it would go a long way to probably solving a lot of these issues with Wonder Woman and IC and Civil War. The other thing is they’d be wise to develop a program for such a thing, in my opinion.
Since this thread has basically gotten away from any serious discussion and fallen into the “You’re just ignoring logic” mode, I’m gonna make this my final post on this thread. I don’t wish to get to the point where I can’t enjoy reading posts here. I genuinely like most of you and would hate to see that ruined like my love for WonderWoman.
However, if anyone has anything specific to ask of me, I’ll be glad to do so because I don’t wanna be the “play my way or I’m taking my ball and going home” guy.
Michael
Posted by michael j. norton: “Bill (Myers this time), I may have gone a bit overboard stating that something is wrong with someone who enjoys this kind of story. To clarify, what comes across is that the people who are into DC right now seem to enjoy ONLY this type of story. And they defend Dan DiDio on this point when I’ve pointed out already that I’d be fine with alternative universes or any other way DC wanted to go with this instead of making it the only story out there. Luigi says you can dislike the current IC stuff and enjoy other stories because that’s not all there is but frankly, as someone who feels very,very çráppëd on by DC and took a break, that’s all I see advertised and thus the impression is that this is all there will be for the foreseeable future for DC. DiDio’s comments and actions don’t help the perception either.”
To be fair, nothing that Den said indicated the he liked only stories like Identity Crisis, merely that he liked the level of complexity that IC added to the Elongated Man (and there is just something really creepy about that name to me — it’s kind of a double entendre). The idea that “Den likes those kinds of stories, therefore those must be the only stories he likes” is a logical fallacy called a syllogism. Another example of a syllogism is “apples are red, therefore all things that are red are apples.”
I, like you, used to feel “çráppëd on” when a comic-book publisher began pursuing a direction I found distasteful. I’ve since realized that comic-book publishers don’t owe it to me to always cater to my tastes. All they owe me is a comic-book in exchange for my money. If I don’t like it, I needn’t buy the next one.
Entertainment is different from, say, coffee makers, in the sense that coffee makers can be judged by objective standars of quality. Does the coffee maker make coffee without leaking or exploding or giving you coffee that tastes like dirty toilet water? But tastes in entertainment are entirely subjective. So if you buy a comic you didn’t like, you’ve really not got cause to feel “çráppëd on.”
Now if DC were to advertise this great comic in this special polybag so you can’t flip through it til you get home, and when you do get home and open the bag you find nothing but 32 blank pages, then you’d have cause to feel “çráppëd on.”
Yes, true. the stories make little sense to me, because they are these one time event things that won’t be repeated
Generally, that’s the case in literature.
My 2 cents: I hate the trend in comics to be angst filled and dark with stories more about the moral failings of super beings. I miss the days of honor-bound/fallen Samuri Wolverine or Simonson’s Heroic Thor. It seems the point to drive home is: “These Marvels or Super Powers are just selfish, narcisstic, hedonistic beings just like everyone else.” Okay, I get it, no more heroes. Just guys in capes.
To be fair, nothing that Den said indicated the he liked only stories like Identity Crisis, merely that he liked the level of complexity that IC added to the Elongated Man (and there is just something really creepy about that name to me — it’s kind of a double entendre).
You know, I could swear I once heard Harlan Ellison talking about how DC was going to have a book with a gay theme in it and it was going to star Elongated Man (which got a bog laugh) and then, when the obvious problem with that became apparent, Jimmy Olsen, but they ditched that because one of the acters who played Jimmy was gay and they didn’t want to start the idea that the character was gay…it’s been a while so I may not be remembering things exactly right. Maybe it was suppoed to star Elastic Lad (Jimmy), but that isn’t as funny. GAY COMICS #1, with ELONGATED MAN! F’nar! F’nar!
spiderrob8: Yeah, because when we read stories of men who dress like Bats to scare people, we do so for realism!!!!
Luigi Novi: The science fictional or fantastic elements that are the conceit of the premise are excepted. It is how the material is executed on its own terms that is either realistic or not, particularly with respect to characterization, emotion, theme, and so forth. It is precisely because these stories are fantastic that writers choose to address timeless aspects of the human condition that resonate with readers, in the hope that those premises allow the writers to explore those ideas without the reader bringing in the baggage of preconception, whether it’s using mutants to explore issues of bigotry, Harry Potter to explore issues of adolescent growth, and so forth. Arguing that stories like this are not realistic because they’re science fiction or fantasy is a non sequitur that ignores the very role of fiction and storytelling. It’s a common refrain by the rationalizers when someone expresses an opinion about a given work’s realism, and it’s pure bunk.
spiderrob8: I did. You ignored them or gave weak explanations against them. I don’t particularly enjoy debating things with you, and I choose not to do so any further. (Translation-I don’t like you very much, not that I expect you to care, but I choose not to waste my time with someone who glosses over any explanation I give just to repeat the exact same thing he said before).
Luigi Novi: You seem to be confusing our roles here. You did not provide any alternate scenarios or options for what Wonder Woman could have done. You and others did attempt to provide explanations as to why it was somehow untenable or out of character, but they those arguments were based logical fallacies, arbitrarily redefining terms, and distorting others’ words, and I refuted those fallacies quite well. It is you who chose to gloss over these responses by me by not responding to them. I, on the other hand, have not done this, as I have responded to all of your comments, and those of others, directly, and in detail. For you to argue that it is somehow I who am doing this is a lie. The fact of the matter is, if my responses were “weak,” then you would’ve responded by dismantling them as such. You didn’t, because you couldn’t, which is the real reason you are now claiming not to respond to me, despite your anemic smoke-and-mirrors about my being the one who glosses over things or repeats the exact same things—something only necessary because you keep ignoring them yourself.
But if you’re right, why don’t you quote those “options” you gave right here? And why not quote the “weak explanations” I gave, and explain what’s wrong with the underlying logic of them?
Simple.
Because you can’t.
And your only tactic left is the same one utilized by all trolls, flamers and paralogists: Chicken out. Run away. And distort the record of what was really said, accusing the other guy of doing what in fact you yourself did. You’re not the first message board coward to punk out in this way, and you’ll hardly be the last. 🙂
spiderrob8: the stories make little sense to me, because they are these one time event things that won’t be repeated. Either Superman and WW are now characters who will kill from time to time, or the story is weak.
Luigi Novi: Or, Wonder Woman might kill again if a similar combination of threat and limited options comes up. Or, they might not kill precisely because they’ve resolved, after these incidents in which they killed, that they don’t ever want to do so again. I made this suggestion above. (Was this a “weak” suggestion?)
michael j Norton: I agree with Spiderrob8, I have been accused several times of just ignoring things said (even when I quote a full sentence instead of partially)….
Luigi Novi: Maybe it’s because you have ignored things, and quoting doesn’t mitigate this.
michael j Norton: …and yet no one has been able to give me an instance when WW killed someone she had control of before Rucka and DiDio decided they wanted her to do it.
Luigi Novi: And yet you never answered my response to this point about cut-off points. Guess that’s just another thing that you didn’t really “ignore,” huh?
Maybe she didn’t kill anyone before because it wasn’t necessary.
michael j Norton: And Luigi, normally you’re a rational debater who I enjoy but you’ve kinda lost me here. I don’t even know what to say when you’ve accused me of ignoring things and you’re arguing like a neo-con. Trust me, nothing I’ve said is out of line or a non-sequiter.
Luigi Novi: Trust me, Michael, some of what you said has been, and I pointed out to you where. Your latest comment that my position is that of a “neo-con” is certainly another. Sorry if you think my saying so is not up to my usual “rational” standards. 🙂
I’m late to comment, but YJ was a favorite. I’d have read it into advanced old lady-hood, if only we were allowed to have it. I’d have never guessed it was for kids.
Since most humans have different takes on real individuals, I don’t know that variance under different authors “ruins” characters. And please don’t tell me raping a woman “ruins” her. That’s just a sad take on a human tragedy that is far too common among us females. Sue prevailed and had a history that extended far beyond the rape, which was only discussed after her death. I expect a lot of women carry the story of their rape to their grave without ever letting on that it happened. In retrospect, I don’t know that it has a big influence on how I see the character, though it adds a poignant backstory seeing how she managed to have a fantastic life, and was a survivor of rape. As a reader, I’m kinda glad to have that. Killing her is a separate issue, and I’d much rather have her still alive since I don’t know if she could ever come back. Breaching the heavens, is tricky stuff. I think only Oliver Queen managed to wiggle his way out without it damaging his character, and it’s because it wasn’t seen as an easy act to pull off.
However, I do agree that characters that are intended to be heroes should act heroic. There ought to be some expectation that good triumphs over evil. DC doesn’t seem so sure they believe that any longer. DC inherited iconic characters that rank up there with Santa Claus and the President as influential good guys in the minds of children. While we need to eventually learn that the president is merely human, I don’t know that there’s a point to portraying either Santa Claus or Wonder Woman as a murderer. Heroes don’t accept zero-sum arguments, so when Max Lord says the only way to stop him is to kill him, WW has got to see that this is “villain’s logic”, not “heroes logic.” Why she would fall for such a pathetic trap without even a brief attempt at other solutions is indicative of a lack of imagination, but also a disallusionment with heroic standards of conduct. It seems that cruelty for the greater good is acceptable since 9/11, and even the revelations of the horrors of Abu Ghraib haven’t caused authors to relent in their portrayal of torture as cool and effective. That’s damaging comics. They should really stop that, and maybe take a minute to think about what it means to be a hero.
A couple of wrongs dont make a Right
There PAD
Doesnt matter if DC ruin other charcter sense there Dawn. A ruin charcter still a ruin charcter.
To ‘someguy’
The thing is PAD didn’t ruin Lobo. His stories of Lil’ Lobo/Slobo are the ONLY times I’ve read Lobo that I found it worth my money. He didn’t ‘Ruin’ him, he made him actually good.
Even if you don’t like Slobo, then the solution to get old “I’m a badass” Lobo back is as simple as having Lil’ Lobo bleed, which was done.
Old fashioned “Biker” wasn’t changed at all, altered at all, a new character who was sort of related to him was used.
It’s like saying when writing a story with Ben Reiley someone ruined Peter Parker.
Just a few comments
1.) Luigi, I agree with you 100%! Wonder Woman’s murder of Maxwell Lord was something she HAD to do to save lives, starting with her own. A recent “Supeman/Batman” issue shows that Superman could kill Wonder Woman, perhaps easily. Not to mention the other lives she saved.
2.) Spiderrob8 was frustrated that he couldn’t refute your statements, so he called you a neocon. Now you know how I feel.
3.) Arc Light,
PAD’s “Supergirl” and “Young Justice” were cancelled because of sales. It’s really that simple. If PAD’s “Supergirl” were in the Top 10 saleswise, as the current book is,rather than teetering at the edge or out of the Top 100, we would still be reading about Linda Danvers. I don’t even particularly care for the current “Supergirl” series. But facts is facts.
4.) Just because Didio made a statement you don’t like and because many of you obviously were fans of “Young Justice”, does not mean it is right to crap al over Geoff Johns – who in addition to being talented is also a very nice guy. There is no need to attack him personally.
To Jerome.
About YJ and SG canned due to sales. I’m pretty sure both where making a profit. No they where not top 10 titles, but they where not exactly pushed by DC as muc has TT or the new SG are.
As to Geoff, I admit the man can write well, at times, but for alot of us who where YJ fans, he just plain ruined several characters.
Superboy has a new origin that contradicts his old one, and it’s not even mentioned that it contradicts the old one for 3 years.
Superboy finally ‘gets his soul’ because he ‘suffered’. Uhh, the man had suffered much before that, he had been in love and seen his girlfriend die and THAT didn’t trigger a ‘soul’?
Also does ‘you get a soul through suffering’ mean rich or spoiled kids have no souls?
Cassie: Remember when Cassie used to be a smart person capable of being a team leader? Then she just went to being Conners Girlfriend.
Bart: Changes ID because of getting shot in the knee and Wally saying the same stuff he had said a billion times before.
Maybe it’s just me but if seeing a different version of me DIE didn’t trigger me to change my identity, I don’t think a gunshot to the knee would.
Geoff comes across like he didn’t even bother to browse through an issue of YJ and just started writing characters the way HE wanted them.
That’s the same thing we criticize Chuck Austen for.
I admit Geoff can do fantastic work, but when it comes to Titans, I judge him by Titans, and he FUBAR’d 3 different characters.
IF Dido wants to talk about ruining characters, that’s 3 for Geoff right there.
HunterD,
Turning a profit and dramaticaly increasing sales are two sepaarate animals. But at least you argue your points intelligently and I do see some validity to them.
And, you know, I can’t get inside PAD’s head, but to respond to Didio’s comments with the idea that about ten different high-profile characters have been “ruined” strikes me as “Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah”, which is something I would expect from…Kevin Smith. Speaking of which
Sasha,
It took Smith THREE years to finish his “Spider-Man/Black Cat” limited series. The third issue was out around the release of the first movie, back in 2002. The fourth issue did not hit shelves until late 2005. Leaving readers in suspense for over three years in the MIDDLE of a story? Busy or no, that’s pretty unprofessional.
“profit and dramaticaly increasing sales are two sepaarate animals”
It’s true that sales for Teen Titans were good, but that happened after the cancellation, and it wasn’t guaranteed. It’s entirely possible that if they’d slapped “Teen Titans” above “Young Justice” at the time the cartoon came out, there would have been a sales boost. There’s no way to know.
As for a the profitability of YJ, I believe someone said that two thirds of DC’s line *wasn’t* profitable at the time. So I have to think the decision had to be based on more than just sales, or else a couple dozen other titles would have gotten the ax, too.
As for PAD’s comments about the high profile character’s being ruined, that was in direct response to comments that Didio made about PAD’s work. The worst anyone can reasonably say is that PAD sunk to Didio’s level.
Hi, been away for a while, but I saw that some of my comments seem to have sparked a mini-debate.
So, let me clarify in case there is any doubt: No, I’m not a murder and rape fetishist. 🙂
There, I hope that clears it up.
Seriously, I like light-hearted, fun stories, too. I just never cared much for the character of Ralph Dibny. If I don’t care about a character, then it’s hard for me to enjoy any story starring him, whether it’s a light or a serious one. I think it’s a shame that there had to be such a tragic story for me to fell some sympathy for me, but that’s simply my take on things.
What I don’t like are characters that are very superficial and Ralph had always come across to me as such. So have Blue Beetle and Booster Gold for that matter, particularly during the Giffen/DeMatteis run.
So now Ralph has some depth to him and I suddenly finding myself carrying about his happiness. That’s a real switch for me.
No he was THE amateur detective, recognized by everyone in the DCU as second only to Batman.
I would have to disagree with this statement. I can’t recall anyone saying he was “second only to Batman.” Just in the JLA, he’s had to compete with the likes of J’Onn and Hawkman to be the second best. Then there’s Nightwing and half a dozen other characters trained by Batman, plus Jason Bard, Christopher Chance, Slam Bradley and about 20 other plainclothes detectives in the DCU.
But, even if we were to concede that he’s the number 2 detective, he’s still just the second banana. Is that a great selling point? “Don’t worry, the guy who is almost as good as Batman is on the case?” Aw, hëll, let’s just get Batman!
And Sue was a big reason for that.
Given that her main role has been to be his cheerleading section, I can agree to that. 🙂
First of all thanks for the comment about argueing points well and seeing validity to them.
Too often in the online world people mistake argueing for debating, and I’ve always tried more debate than argument.
I agree there’s a difference between massively increasing sales and turning a profit, but as Jason sort of pointed out, TT had more help along the way. First and foremost it had the cartoon that helped out the sales. The toon has a huge following, the comic featured the entire cast of the cartoon (atleast at first) so it’s logical to think people who loved the toon picked up the comic simply for that where they may have skipped Young Justice.
Also, I saw LOTS more press on the new Teen Titans than I ever did for YJ. The kicking off of Teen Titans was a MAJOR deal for DC with tons of press in comic magazines. YJ wasn’t nearly as promoted. If you promote a title as a “must read” it’s going to get more readers than a title that’s merely just another book by the company.
As for PADs response, it may not be the height of moral superiority, but I do think it is a valid point in that they are accuseing him of ‘ruining’ a character that in many ways he never really wrote, and that can easily be changed (not even really retconned) to ignore his YJ work.
Meanwhile they have tons of characters doing other things that can’t be as easily written around, can’t be as easily ignored, that ‘really’ happened. And they say HE ruined a character.
I think almost any of us would respond with some indignation and talk of hypocrisy. (Although we may have used different examples of such.)
Den,
Have to admit I was never a huge Ralph Dibny fan. But both Blue Beetle and Booster Gold actually had well written series that were refreshing at the time. Especially Len Wein’s stories, which evoked a lot of his clasic Spider-Man stuff.
I am REALLY tired of people trashing the “humorous” Justice League, though. People complain about all the darkness in comics, and then when something that doesn’t take itself so seriously comes around, it’s either ignored or bashed.
Back to Beetle, I really felt his loss in “Countdown”, because the way the other heroes treated him is the way DC and many readers did- dismissively.
The character had so much potential and now he is gone for good…unless Superboy throws some more punches:)
I think there’s a limit to how far you can carry the “The cartoon is what sold the new Teen Titans comic.” The first issue of the comic came out in July 2003, while the cartoon didn’t premiere until August. The cartoon might have helped reorder sales and the second and third printings, but it didn’t sell 75K copies of the first issue in its first month.
Additionally, TT sales have consistently remained above 60K, even after the cartoon was cancelled (while the sales of Teen Titans Go, the title you’d expect to get a boost from the cartoon, have been much lower). Even if people started reading it because of the cartoon, they’ve stuck with the title; it’s not just a case of people picking something up because of the hype and then losing interest (which does seem to have been the case with TTG).
If I may…
I’m a little surprised that there’s an argument about Hal. However you may feel about his handling, the intent is well-known: DC did its best to ensure that Hal couldn’t be a good guy ever again with Emerald Twilight and Zero Hour. That they changed their minds eventually is beside the point.
Beyond this, however, I don’t understand Didio’s point about “ruining” iconic characters. Isn’t this something that’s cried out every time a character significantly changes? Sometimes it’s just a vocal minority operating more on gut than on logic (which isn’t the same as being wrong), but sometimes it’s a sustained, pronounced loathing from the general fanbase.
But, honestly, Lobo? Lobo’s a parody character. In the last ten years, he’s never been anything but. It’s hardly ruinous to try to do something else with a character so limited in scope. It may be a bad idea (can anyone imagine a serious Ambush Bug comic being anything less than a catastrophe?), but it’s not like it hasn’t worked before – several characters traditionally played for laughs have had some heart-wrenching moments. It’s not the end of the character, it’s just a different take on him.
But both Blue Beetle and Booster Gold actually had well written series that were refreshing at the time. Especially Len Wein’s stories, which evoked a lot of his clasic Spider-Man stuff.
I liked Len Wein’s Blue Beetle stories as well. In fact, I blame Giffen and DeMatteis for killing it. While Wein was true to produce a somewhat light-hearted series about a character who was neverless, competent. Giffen and DeMatteis were turning Beetle into the idiot.
As for Booster Gold, I was never a big fan of the character as a whole. His series had some good moments, but the thin premise of the yuppie super-hero really couldn’t sustain an ongoing title for long. It’s a such an 80s idea that I’m surprised that he’s popular enough to have sustained for so long, when there are characters with a lot more dimension who have been all but forgotten (Chronus, Resurrection Man).
I am REALLY tired of people trashing the “humorous” Justice League, though.
Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. Myself, I’ve never felt that Giffen was all that funny as a writer (and I don’t want to even get started on his habit of drawing nothing but chins and elbows as an artist). He has a tendency to take single joke and run it into the ground and then proceed to drill his way to China until I’m ready scream, “enough already!”.
>Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. Myself, I’ve never felt that Giffen was all that funny as a writer (and I don’t want to even get started on his habit of drawing nothing but chins and elbows as an artist). He has a tendency to take single joke and run it into the ground and then proceed to drill his way to China until I’m ready scream, “enough already!”.
As much as I’m not a huge fan of most of Giffin’s solo work, his stories with co-writer DeMatteis are simply hysterical to me and the pathos that they tend to sprinkle in make it very impressive in my eyes.
Den,
“I liked Len wein’s Blue Beetle stories as well”
Thank you! Two scenes i remember most were when Beetle was in a situation similar to the classic story where Spider-man is buried under a pile of machinery and slowly triumphs. The other is when HIS predecessor died. Both were examples of powerful and compelling storytelling, IMHO.
I always have liked the underrated characters, be they Blue Beetle or Sleepwalker or Manhunter
or Darkhawk. It’s part of what makes comics fun and is more interesting to me most of the time than a new creator’s Batman vs. Joker story.
I didn’t read a whole lot of DC but I did read Superboy ( I was here and there with Superman), Young Justice, and Supergirl. Supergirl took a while –but I was soon hooked. Linda really grew on me. At first I only read YJ for Superboy but the others grew on me quick, especially Impluse. The comic was absolutely awesome–it felt like the Seinfeld of DC to me. It was funny yet it could be serious when you didn’t expect it.
One by one all that ended. Superboy’s book is cancelled, then Supergirl and YJ. Now post-infinite-crisis, according to Dan, Linda’s gone, Superboy’s dead, and Impluse got aged into an adult and is now the Flash. It’s like DC has it in for me or something.
On the topic of Kevin Smith and his Spider-man series: I NEVER WANT TO HEAR THE WORD “RAPE” IN COMICS EVER AGAIN!!!
Ahum.
As for Young Justice: I for one wasn’t into comics during the series’ run. I found some scans of several issues, and went to get as many issues as possible (An argument in favor of allowing internet comic scans, btw). It is one of my all-time favorite series, and I applaud the characterization of the heroes in Young Justice. What DC seems to forget is the cameradery(sic?) that exists within a group of people who hang out with eachother. Even if you don’t like certain aspects of them, even if they annoy the hëll out of you, because of spending so much time with one another, you get to know eachother. Making jokes, having a good time, that is what people, especially teenagers, do in their life. THAT is far more realistic than what DC’s current series of Teen Titans is all about. Reading that, I think to myself, “how can you live a life like that?”. These people you see, they aren;t kids, they are old and worn soldiers, stuck in a teenagers body.
Another argument in favor of PAD’s portrayal of Young Justice: with JL and JLU , which heroes are the fan’s favorites? Those who have a sense of humor. The Flash, always kidding around (very similar to Impulse, btw). Batman, who can always recognize the rediculous side of the situation, very much like Batman. The Question, conspiracy theorist, not very socially well-adjusted, and thus an excellent source of humor. The Green Arrow, outsider, leftist pinky commie. Most, if not all of the DCAU characters are loved by comic-fans, because they have a sense of humor, and the writers are willing to allow them to stay real, instead of what DC is doing with their characters now.
No, in this case, I can’t say I agree with Didio. Make Mine PAD!
Also, at a completely different note: Peter, Retcon-bombs? I was reading it in the shop, and the shop-owner nearly called an ambulance. He thought I was having some sort of attack. :p
On the topic of Kevin Smith and his Spider-man series: I NEVER WANT TO HEAR THE WORD “RAPE” IN COMICS EVER AGAIN!!!
Ahum.
As for Young Justice: I for one wasn’t into comics during the series’ run. I found some scans of several issues, and went to get as many issues as possible (An argument in favor of allowing internet comic scans, btw). It is one of my all-time favorite series, and I applaud the characterization of the heroes in Young Justice. What DC seems to forget is the cameradery(sic?) that exists within a group of people who hang out with eachother. Even if you don’t like certain aspects of them, even if they annoy the hëll out of you, because of spending so much time with one another, you get to know eachother. Making jokes, having a good time, that is what people, especially teenagers, do in their life. THAT is far more realistic than what DC’s current series of Teen Titans is all about. Reading that, I think to myself, “how can you live a life like that?”. These people you see, they aren;t kids, they are old and worn soldiers, stuck in a teenagers body.
Another argument in favor of PAD’s portrayal of Young Justice: with JL and JLU , which heroes are the fan’s favorites? Those who have a sense of humor. The Flash, always kidding around (very similar to Impulse, btw). Batman, who can always recognize the rediculous side of the situation, very much like Batman. The Question, conspiracy theorist, not very socially well-adjusted, and thus an excellent source of humor. The Green Arrow, outsider, leftist pinky commie. Most, if not all of the DCAU characters are loved by comic-fans, because they have a sense of humor, and the writers are willing to allow them to stay real, instead of what DC is doing with their characters now.
No, in this case, I can’t say I agree with Didio. Make Mine PAD!
Also, at a completely different note: Peter, Retcon-bombs? I was reading it in the shop, and the shop-owner nearly called an ambulance. He thought I was having some sort of attack. :p
On the topic of Kevin Smith and his Spider-man series: I NEVER WANT TO HEAR THE WORD “RAPE” IN COMICS EVER AGAIN!!!
Ahum.
As for Young Justice: I for one wasn’t into comics during the series’ run. I found some scans of several issues, and went to get as many issues as possible (An argument in favor of allowing internet comic scans, btw). It is one of my all-time favorite series, and I applaud the characterization of the heroes in Young Justice. What DC seems to forget is the cameradery(sic?) that exists within a group of people who hang out with eachother. Even if you don’t like certain aspects of them, even if they annoy the hëll out of you, because of spending so much time with one another, you get to know eachother. Making jokes, having a good time, that is what people, especially teenagers, do in their life. THAT is far more realistic than what DC’s current series of Teen Titans is all about. Reading that, I think to myself, “how can you live a life like that?”. These people you see, they aren;t kids, they are old and worn soldiers, stuck in a teenagers body.
Another argument in favor of PAD’s portrayal of Young Justice: with JL and JLU , which heroes are the fan’s favorites? Those who have a sense of humor. The Flash, always kidding around (very similar to Impulse, btw). Batman, who can always recognize the rediculous side of the situation, very much like Batman. The Question, conspiracy theorist, not very socially well-adjusted, and thus an excellent source of humor. The Green Arrow, outsider, leftist pinky commie. Most, if not all of the DCAU characters are loved by comic-fans, because they have a sense of humor, and the writers are willing to allow them to stay real, instead of what DC is doing with their characters now.
No, in this case, I can’t say I agree with Didio. Make Mine PAD!
Also, at a completely different note: Peter, Retcon-bombs? I was reading it in the shop, and the shop-owner nearly called an ambulance. He thought I was having some sort of attack. :p
Wow. Dan DiDio must have a very short-term memory, hmm? Actually, wasn’t it all along that YJ was to blend in to the new Teen Titans right?
To me, the current Robin, Superboy, Wonder Girl, Impulse/Kid Flash II/Flash IV are our generation’s Ðìçk Grayson, Donna Troy, Wally West and others, and I’ve always felt that YJ was our generations TT (1st series), as the characters grow up (and Wonder Girl has grown up impressively, thanks to you!) I think DC has ruined that. Robin now a paranoid, Superboy dead, Wonder Girl beating the crap out of everyone with some crazy cult, and Bart becoming the Flash so quickly — by growing up quickly again. I think DC really has, yes, RUINED the brillant efforts you’ve put to these characters. Maybe that’s why you’re now at Marvel?