PeterDavid.net

LOL

I did get Friendly. Cap'll have to wait. It might be a bit before the issue is affordable again. Hopefully my LCS guys'll show me some love and give it to me at cover on re-order.

Meh. Sorry if I sound jaded, but to me the only question is whether it'll be months or years until Cap returns. I mean, we're talking about the same Marvel that's brought back everyone from Phoenix to Norman Osborn to Captain Marvel to Bucky. "Dead means dead"? Okay. :)

Anyway, FNSM was good. I like that Sandman is starting to become a sorta good guy again (even if he has his own motivations). And I'm assuming that was the gross-out Betty moment you were talking about. Glad it was approved, but I thought it would be even worse. Like a moment out of that John Waters movie from the 70's from the way you were making it sound. :)

I bought F.N. Spider-Man. I didn't buy Captain America. I had heard the hype. I looked at the issue. I put it back. Honestly, I wasn't reading Captain America before and I didn't think seeing him shot was going to be a fun read, so I passed.

I am thinking of starting a "Captain America's return" pool. $10 to buy in. Just put your money on how long you think it'll be for him to come back. I'll buy the block for "two years" right off the bat, though. I think they'll want to milk this for a while, but not too long.

I don't even have to say "Sh'yeah right." The announcement of Steve's death was "off screen," and then the next thing we see is a body.

Brubaker is a class act and he's playing fair with the audience. And I love the souped-up B-movie elements of how it happened (shades of "Manchurian Candidate"!)

Seriously, Peter, how did you feel when they first said Cap was going to die? I won't ask you how you feel now because you already know what's going to happen.

Whatever you do, please don't be the one to bring him back to life or pull him from an alternate time line or whatnot. As much as I hate this turn of events, I really want to see Marvel have some gumption by never bringing him back. Death in comics is painful but resurrection is deadly (does that make sense?)

after being on the spidey board all this time and reading your fair comments to critics, i just received my doc savage in the mail and your forward in it! i love friendly neighborhood and now you love doc savage?!?!?! my favorite of all time!!!! you are now officially the man. get marvel to let you do a doc savage book. man, doc savage... and i thought i was the only one.

"And I know what's going to be happening over the next months.

So I can't say anything."

Hopefully, what you do have to say about this icon's "demise" will come through in your writing. I was thinking that this is a golden time to be working at Marvel. Look at all the possibilities that have opened up for the writers - to be able to write and publish stories far different from what the staus-quo has been - its got to feel more liberating. And I like the shape the Marvel U is forming, with writers (and good writing) taking more of the lead than artists.

Cheers Cap! We'll miss you, but hopefully not for too long.

he's not dead, Peter lent him the holo- projector.

My guess is Mr. Barnes assumes the mantle for a bit. You can't destroy a symbol.

pleasepleaseplease no "Rise of the Captains" or clones...or cyborgs...or aliens....

tho I think what would be cool is a "C for Courage" ( riffing on Alan Moore here) type arc where every man woman and child dons the red white and blue...

PAD, I bet you a shiny quarter that F'n Spidey sales go up this month. I'm guessing that more people in the stores is a good thing.

The first thing I thought of when I read the AP story on Cap's death was the final panel in "Last Avengers Story."

Where were you when Captain America #25 was spoiled?

If anybody is interested, Stephen Colbert is making "Captain America" his "W0RD of the Day" on tonight's show. Should be interesting.

I was wondering if you'd have a comment on the death of Cap.

At least it didn't come out the week you had 3 books on the new rack!

Dave

Has anyone else heard this:

When I picked up my comics yesterday, the shop owner held up CA #25 and said that Fox News had said the comic was lending support to the terrorists.

I know, I know ... but, then again, this IS Fox News we're talking about ...

Cap isn't dead. He's the Mighty Avengers Iron Man(Wishful thinking). Captain Marvel isn't dead. Bucky isn't dead. Jason Todd isn't dead. Ted Kord isn's dead. Aunt May is dying again.
Now's the perfect time for Ultimate Cap to come over and show 616 Iron Man what a butt whoopin' is.
Like the new Friendly. The Sandman, hair and all, has been one of my favorite Spidey foes. He's always been a foe Spidey shouldn't beat, but he always finds a way. Are the any of the Spidey comics going to mourn Cap?

I'm guessing Captain America's death was submitted as a press release no differently than Spider-Man's death was last year, but the only reason this is making the news is because of how badly the US is doing in the Iraqi occupation.

For my money, the best contemporary run of Captain America (post-Avengers #4) was Steve Englehart's, in which a disenchanted Steve Rogers temporarily gave up his costume in order to become Nomad. Some thought-provoking political commentary, some great art from Sal Buscema (unfortunately later replaced by Frank Robbins which put me off a bit) and some really strong character development. If Brubaker can do as good a job on the current book, I may start reading it again.

Let's face it, as Peter quite rightly pointed out, nobody in their right mind believes that Captain America is dead- there is far too much money involved in licensing involved (although it's sorta cool to fantasize that Joe Simon could call and say, 'Since you're not using my character any more, can I have him back?' but if it makes for a good story in the meantime, it doesn't make the slightest difference to me.

If it was up to me, I would have sent Cap over to the Middle East for an extended storyline, maybe get him enlisted in the so-called war against terror. In the hands of a really inspired writer, can you imagine the kind of story that would have produced? And dropping the character into a 'real life' setting would have generated the kind of ongoing publicity that would have made artificially-generated event stories totally unnecessary. But that's just my take on it.

We all know that even though Steve Rogers is dead for now, Captain America will live on.

So who's the next cap? Bucky? The Falcon? Sharon Carter?

I personally like the idea Clint Barton (a.k.a. Hawkeye) taking up the mask. That is, if he's not Ronin.

Just as long as it's not the Punisher, which is unlikely considering he has two of his own books already.

You read it here first, folks.

The new Captain America will be... Kara Thrace!!

I haven't been a collector in years, so the news caught me by surprise. Still, like most comic deaths it seems contrived. It reminds me an awful lot of the "Death of Superman". Now, Marvel is coming out with the "five stages of grief" comics, which will probably sell a lot. Marvel's gonna laugh all the way to the bank.

To this day, the only death that resonates to me was that of the original Phoenix. She was dead. For years. There was no "special series" of titles that dealt with "world without Phoenix", and no clamor for someone to "pick up the mantle". I'm still annoyed that Marvel reintroduced Jean Grey. A cocoon in the bay??? What a rip.

In a few years, a new Captain will arise. One for the terror wars instead of WWII. He'll likely be grittier, edgier, and more Jack Bauer like or something. He'll probably sell more comics because of it, too.

But he won't be Captain America.

"Just as long as it's not the Punisher, which is unlikely considering he has two of his own books already."

I have this image of Punisher sneaking into a government compound so he can steal the shield and become Cap. He crawls through the ventilation system, knocks out a vent, and drops into the seemingly impregnable storage room.

Only to find Winter Soldier, Patriot, and Hawkeye arguing over who gets to be Cap.

I've read all of Brubaker's Captain America issues, and I'm just assuming this is another twist in his already really twisty storyline from him (it has been remarkably good so far.) I mean, with all of the crap that Red Skull has done this entire arc, you really think his Grand Evil Scheme was to just have Steve Rodgers gunned down by a sniper? C'mon, I think Bru's better than that, but I'll assume Steve'll be off the map for about a year, maybe. I seriously doubt we'll have Bucky America as the title character.

Remember, we are talking about the same writer who bumped off Red Skull and Foggy Nelson inside of, like, 3 issues of innagural his run on their respective issues, and then both characters revealed to be alive, like, 6 issues later, anyway. I'm hoping this is along those lines, because killing off Cap and replacing with Nu-Cap never works. Just ask the four Supermen / Jean Paul Valley / Ben Riley. Hopefully, Brubaker will do something *different*, which is what I'm looking forward to.

The only thing that bothers me about this hub-bub is how when "Captain America" is brought up in the papers, he's mentioned usually as a right-wing icon or something. If anyone has actually been reading Brubaker's work, you can see his stuff has been fairly non-political the entire run. Thats why I, as a Canadian, can read a "Captain America" comic and not feel as if I'm reading flag-waving propaganda, like "24" (something else that people try to highlight as "conservative" entertianment) Cap is an action story, not a political one.

The other thing that bugs me is bumping off Cap is that I feel as if it dilutes the ending of Civil War #7. I'm one of the few people who happened to *like* how he surrendered at the end of it-- it was unconventional and interesting. Killing him off was what we all expected, and CW #7 DIDN'T do that, which is what made it so neat. Then, 2 weeks later, they bump him off anyway. Feels like a cheat, to me.

Peter Parker is Your Friendly Neighborhood Captain America.

Actually, he'll be one of a five thousand Captain Neighborhoods in Tony Stark's 5000 Neighborhood Initiative. But Peter'll most likely be the friendliest.

Tallest brings up a point that really bothers me a bit about this scenario, which is that putting anybody else in the costume and mask does not make them Captain America. In my mind, Steve Rogers IS Captain America. Even without the mask, Steve is always Cap and vice versa.

Brian Douglas -

where was I? I was at work when my wife called me and said she'd seen something in the newspaper about it. my reaction was basically as Peter put it "shyeah right."

First let me "Accentuate the Positive"

I love Cap. Fantastic, Iconic, bloody dammnit all that America is and should be about. I had Joe Simon sign the shield of my Marvel Legends Cap figure.

Now, I don't collect the comic but I bought and read Winter Soldier and found it freaking great and felt "If they're gonna resurect him they've at least telling a great story" - I like Brubakers writing. a lot. Just don't have the budget for it. pretty confident he'll have a good story told. And agree that Clint Barton at as Cap would be the coolest idea ever - just my nerdly opinion.

now to "Relate to the Negative'*

I don't belive it. No doubt that sooner or later he'll be back.
It feels like a "stunt" - and I want to belive that it's not an intentional stunt - i guess more like the effects of it were a stunt.
I don't buy Cap and didn't buy this issue. I'll read the trade later. But there are people out there buying or trying to buy large numbers of these things. because they either belive they'll be super-valuable one day and pay for their kids college or to are sell them on ebay where there are no doubt people are bidding too much right now or soon will be.
and sooner or later it will be in the dollar bin with the "black pollybag with the armband issue" and it makes me kinda sick, kinda sad, and kinda pissed that it boils down to these people who are paying outrageous rates now are basically throwing money away that could be better spent.

Also , I think it stinks that the newspapers get away with spoliling something like this. If someone revealed the end of the new Harry Potter novel first thing moring of it's publication people would scream bloody murder. But apparently screw the comic book geeks - feel free to spoil their fun - If the paper spolied something from 52 i would have had to kill my wife for telling me on the phone if I hadn't read it yet.
It's not nice but it is Nerd Law - If you love the book you wanna read it before you know a damn thing.

Hang on to the Affirmative

BTW - hooray for the retails who say one or two to a customer, hopefully making sure that the real fans - the guys who bought it so that they have this bit of history, this start to probably a great little story, this something he'll put in a pollybag with a backboard and take it out and read it sometimes or prop it in his display case other times or have his kid read it some day- got their hands on them.

and horray for PAD too - one of the reasons i know you're a cool guy is your comments doin't "spoil" a damn thing about what's coming up. Thanks for that.

I should end this by calling myself 'Mr. In-Between" but those who know me call me

Mike "shaggy" g**

*yes, I know the song lyric is "Don't relate to the negative"

** that's not true - people who know me call me "Mike" or "Shaggy" or on rare occasions "g" but never all three at once.***

***but it would be cool if someone did.

So he gets shot in Captain America #25

In Civil War: Initiative (also out this week) we are told - second hand, admittedly - he is alive and recuperating somewhere.

Now, it is certainly possible (probable? - considering recent delays) that Marvel intended a time delay between these two issues. But it ain't there.

So we're left with newspapers blaring a headline that he's dead, and the content of the story only saying he's been shot. And we have at least one superhero in one title this week saying he's alive.

My belief is Marvel leaked this to the press...knew they'd bite...they just wanted to sell a lot of copies and hopefully get a few new readers for The Initiative. But Cap isn't really dead. Not even for a month. And everyone who bought a copy thinking it would be as much of a collector's item as Superman's death, are going to be pissed.

Crutch - Count me in. PAD doing Doc? Drool.

As for Cap? Marvel and DC both have screwed around much too often with supposedly 'dead' heroes for one to believe this one. Especially with a Cap movie supposedly in development. I'm betting an LMD such that Cap can go undercover as a condition of release.

Sorry if I sound jaded, but to me the only question is whether it'll be months or years until Cap returns.

Well, you're far from the only one, as I'm jaded too.

Why shouldn't I be skeptical of Captain America supposedly being dead? Or that Spidey was unmasked, that most of the mutants were no longer mutants?

Everybody has died and come back to life. Many really stupid and contrived stories have been written to try and bottle things back up

Let's face it, Marvel has only themselves to blame, because even if these particular changes stick, the perception that Marvel isn't going to turn back the clock on some of this stuff isn't going to change any time soon.

Me, I'm still miffed Colossus was brought back. I don't give a damn who did it, or why. His death was as heroic as one can get, and his self-sacrifice was completely pissed away for yet *another* resurrection. I can't wait to see who's resurrected next.

I believe PAD discussed the whole "is the death of a major character really just a calculated stunt?" at one of the I-CON panels last year. If memory serves (and feel to correct me if I'm off, PAD), his answer was something like: Of course! The people who read comics, and who work in comics, know that this massive, legendary character won't stay dead. Comics fans and pros smirk at the idea that the hype around the latest big death will be permanent, while mainstream newspapers react as if this has never happened before and must be true and unchanging. PAD also observed -- I think in an early BID column -- that comics writers, by cheapening death into a seldom-permanent state, have lost one of the most dramatic tools available to a writer.

But gosh, what if Captain America *really* is dead for good?

[smirk]

In Civil War: Initiative (also out this week) we are told - second hand, admittedly - he is alive and recuperating somewhere.

Joe Quesada, being interviewed at Comic Book Resources: (POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING):

She's actually giving her mis-information, none of that is true, but it is an element of the story that eventually gets revealed later on in the story.

My first comment wasn't a rant, but I think I will now.
1. I found Red, White, and Black and interesting read, but felt it tainted Captain America. It made he seem unworthy of the title, because he was the result of many experiments. The storyline itself was racist. Why would it have been African-Americans the serum was tested on if they were going to make a Caucasian super-soldier?
2. The idea that Captain America is not Steve Rogers is the biggest bunch of bull I have heard. "Captain America is an idea, not a man." If that is so, why is this the one man you keep putting back into the costume? If Steve Rogers is not Cap, then why wasn't Wilson or Fury the Cap in Ultimates?
3. I hate what they have done to Captain America. This was their one-up on DC. We killed one of our icons in a crossover, yet you chickened out.
4. WHY DO YOU "KILL" A CHARACTER THAT WE ALL KNOW ISN'T GOING TO DIE?
Like I said before, I hope Ultimates Cap gives 616 Iron Man the whoopin' he needs. (Yes, I used whoppin'. I am trying to keep it clean.)
Last thing, I promise. Captain America was the ideal man from the 40s. That is the way his character works best. He isn't like us, but he will fight til his dying breath to protect us.
down with shock writers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LONG LIVE CAP!!!!!!!!!!!!
To PAD, X-Factor is still my favorite book. Jamie vs. Hydra had people looking at me funny when I started laughing.

I'm starting a "Fire Ed Brubaker" petition.

No, no, not because of Cap's death. But because Brubaker is spotlighting Red Skull and not Cap's greatest foe: BATROC THE LEAPER!

Who's with me?

@Jack Gabriel:

Why would the serum having been tested on others first make Steve Rogers unworthy of the title? Don't you think his heroic qualities count more than whether the serum was tested on someone before him?

Why did you find the storyline of Red, White and Black racist?

I don't really want to give any spoilers about what happens in Cap so I'll just say that you should maybe do a bit of research about how he dies, what the ongoing storyline in Cap is about, how related to the Civil War crossover his death is before ranting on about it.

This just goes to show why it's a good thing that writers such as yourself, PAD, own the rights to certain characters they have created and defined (Fallen Angel), and why that should be the norm in years to come. Chris Claremont did not create the X-Men, but he put 17 straight years of his life into that book and it always just seemed wrong that Marvel was able to screw around with those characters after he left.

I'm really getting fed up with the direction Marvel has taken of late. Quesada rekindled my interest in comics by appearing on The Colbert Report and promoting Civil War, he drew me back to Marvel titles and undoubtedly drew a lot of new fans in as well, and what do they do with this all this new attention? They squander it. They squander it by having different books contradict one another (did Spidey make his own way to the Secret Avengers or was he carried there by the Punisher? Does the SHRA involve a draft or not? Is the Negative Zone prison temporary or permanent? NOBODY KNOWS!), by having characters act totally out of character, and finally by having the wrong side win: having those on the side of the government win at a time when people in the real world shouldn't be acquiescing to the government when it supposedly has good intentions but uses questionable means.

Then they portray Steve Rogers as this fish out of water, this guy who's all out of touch because he was born so long ago, never mind that he's had years, perhaps decades, to learn about the modern world and the people who live there. I have a hard time imagining this taking place if Mark Gruenwald were still alive and had a say.

And then they kill him. If they're just going to bring him back eventually, it's pointless. If they're planning on keeping him dead, it's not only causing needless grief for everybody who became attached to Rogers either back in the day or just recently after seeing him take a stand against the pro-registration people, it's throwing money down the toilet! You take a character like this, build him up with this big event, and then after getting everybody interested and making fans of them...you take away the man behind the mask.

As far as FNSM goes, did they ask you to tone it down or was the scene with Betty the same as the one you originally conceived? I have no doubt that I'd be screaming like a little girl if I had the same experience Betty did, but after your previous post mentioning the date I was bracing myself for much worse. When I saw it was in a restaurant my first thought was "oh shit," because I thought there was gonna be something in the food.

If it helps, when I got to my LCS shortly before 6 PM, there were no copies of Captain America left. It sold out ridiculously fast, so there's no reason to worry about anybody looking at the shelves and going "Hmm, do I wanna see how this Sandman/Uncle Ben thing turns out in FNSM, or do I wanna see Cap die? I only have four bucks to spend. Decisions, decisions..."

^signing agreement, all of the above statement^

I do expect (and hope) Cap is back soon, but at the same time it's reckless for Marvel to hype this and then pull the rug out. Death of Superman was a serious black eye, to say the least. That has me a little split about just how soon Rogers should be returned.

I am thrilled Colossus is back in print. (He was mentioned, wasn't he? ha) I do get a positive vibe every time I see him or Psylocke in a book, so I'm looking forward to Cap's return. Hopefully it'll be a while, but not too long, only because all that media coverage shouldn't be turned against the industry. oi

I somewhat agree with Rob Brown's comment about getting fed up with the direction that Marvel's taking. However, my feeling may be different. In my opinion, Quesada has done nothing positive for Marvel. The whole "Avengers Disassembled" led to my dropping the Avengers. I put up with that story, but once it concluded, I was done. Nearly three decades of following the Avengers ended through what I felt was a writer who had no understanding of the team and its individual members (especially, the Scarlet Witch) and the series' history. Then came the "House of M" misfire. Didn't read the mini-series and had no interest in it. I did read those crossovers in the books I was already getting--including "Hulk"--but the mini-series itself, just no. When Quesada said the main purpose was to reduce the number of mutants, that alone was about as stupid as anyone could have said--especially in light of this new "initiative" garbage. We had "too many" mutants but SOMEHOW every state's going to have its own super-group? I can see it now, the team from Wyoming has as many--or nearly as many--members as the team from Florida, despite the vast difference in the two states' populations. But having more than 10 million mutants worldwide--out of a population of 6.5 BILLION--is "too many". Yeah, that makes sense. Marvel then cancelled "She-Hulk", only to bring it back a few months later, a decision I still don't understand. Then, following the whole "House of M" mess comes the announcement of a NEW MUTANT (despite the "no more mutants" BS--I won't even go into that asinine failure of understanding basic genetics shown from that) and one of the most asinine retcons to the X books--I'm still with the X-books, for the most part, but I'm slowly growing disenchanted even there (aside from X-Factor). Then, Marvel announces a new Spider-Man book from PAD and pulls the old "crossover trick" between the new book and the other two titles which completely put me off picking up FNSM at all. Then comes "Civil War". Lame. Then come the Civil War spin-offs. Double lame. The whole thing started off from a stupid accident and ends with a registration scheme which doesn't change the fact that civilians may still be killed during battles between heroes and villains (had the "New Warriors" been registered, how exactly would they have handled the villains that would have prevented the deaths?). And, next? "World War Hulk". Puh-leeze.
In over twenty years of active comic book collecting, my Marvel pull list hasn't been this anemic since those earliest days when my budget didn't allow for a lot of books. My "March Shipping" schedule has a paltry 18 Marvel titles, of which 7 are limited series (Dark Tower, Ultimate Power, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes II, FF: the End, Squadron Supreme: Hyperion vs Nighthawk, Thunderbolts Presents: Zemo--Born Better, Wonder Man). Of the 11 ongoing titles, "newuniversal" is still on the "wait-and-see" list and "Thunderbolts" will be gone (I'm not sure I'll make it through this first arc under the new direction). The other 9 titles are Ms Marvel, She-Hulk 2 and 7 X-books (Ultimate X-Men, X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, New X-Men, New Excalibur, Astonishing X-Men and X-Factor). If Squadron Supreme ever gets back on schedule, it'll be back on the list also (ditto for any new Book of Lost Souls), but for someone who once disdained the bulk of DC titles (other than Legion of Super-Heroes and Wonder Woman) and only became a big DC reader at the time of Crisis on Infinite Earths--but still, pretty well split between the Big Two--this is very disheartening. Have I outgrown Marvel or has Marvel left me behind? I can't say for sure. I do know that while I haven't been completely enamored of everything DC has done in the past few years, DC has still managed to capture my imagination in a way that I don't get from Marvel.
I wish I could say that I'm looking forward to something new from Marvel, but the stuff that Marvel wants to hype just doesn't do it for me. (Note, for instance, I love "X-Factor" but we don't see much hype/promotion for the book for new readers. The same with "She-Hulk 2"--there's just no real hype/promotion for the book.) Even this "death" of Captain America doesn't do anything for me. I haven't cared for the comic in years and haven't really invested much in the character himself in many years. When he's appeared in something I'd read, he was just sort of there; some situations seemed "right", some seemed "wrong", but it didn't really matter all that much. But, I know that Steve Rogers will be back AS Captain America, and in the not-too-distant future (given Marvel's investment in fighting for CONTROL of the character in the last decade, he HAS to come back). But his death? Meh. Senseless. Pointless. Much like the company's philosophy in the past few years as far as I'm concerned.
Sorry for the rant there.

On a different note, I noticed the newest Previews has a listing for a HC titled "The Darkness of the Light" by one Peter David. Is that you, PAD, and, if so, what's the deal? I don't recall any prior mention of this book. Is this the start of a new series of books, or a one-shot test? It certainly sounds interesting from the description but I'd like just a touch more info, if possible.

But gosh, what if Captain America *really* is dead for good?

They would have to keep him dead for years before we'd believe it.

I don't mind the whole kill a character and bring them back routine--that's comics and there's no point in complaining about it. We all know they will be back. What bugs me is how some writers, knowing that we know the character will be back, try to get around that by killing them in ways so extreme that there is NO WAY they can return...only to return them, which requires an explanation that takes the suspension of disbelief and stomps on it until it bleeds.

I don't know...except for PAD and a very few other writers, the Marvel Universe seems to be losing a lot of what made it great. It's becoming an unpleasent mean place...with superheroes. Watchmen and Dark Knight were grim and dark but there was still that mythic quality. Too many writers seem to have no interest in even trying for that. Boy, will this stuff look dated in just a few years.

Then again, maybe I enjoy PAD's work more because we are close to the same age and I'm just not getting these youngsters (actually, I have no idea how old any of the other writers are but I hope it's very young).

Is it just me or has not a single news story used the it-begs-to-be-used headline: CAP CAPPED?

It's really sad to see what Marvel has come down to. The big mega-event ends with a thud and fizzle, with promises that all the following mega-events will be even better. Having no real ending there, they throw an ending into Captain America, which everyone knows is not an ending, just another "mark time" until another event.
Meanwhile, two new books hit this week to show us
what the new Marvel Universe will be like. Initiative kills off one group of characters
in order to introduce us to the next group of characters that no one will care about in six months. Later on we get to see a legalized group of villains beat up on a guy that can run fast. Mighty Avengers promises some fun what with a number of female members and Frank Cho as the artist, but there's just not enough of that to get us past Tony Stark's babbling. Both books read like 20 pages of Miranda rights with maybe a page or two of substance.

On the other hand, 52 continues to be the best read in comics and the end of Meltzer's first Justice League arc really delivered.

I have usually enjoyed your work, Peter, but it's getting harder and harder to justify spending any money on a product with the big block "MARVEL" on it.

I found Red, White, and Black and interesting read, but felt it tainted Captain America. It made he seem unworthy of the title, because he was the result of many experiments. The storyline itself was racist. Why would it have been African-Americans the serum was tested on if they were going to make a Caucasian super-soldier?

As a metaphor for the Tuskegee syphilis study, red, white, and black seemed to fairly represent the institutionalized racist agendas of its time.

Newton said that he was able to see farther because he stood on the shoulders of the giants who preceded him. How unworthy is an America that doesn't acknowledge its own blood-soaked foundations?

America's blood-soaked origin is not black and white. The blood of many origins were spilled, be it Irish, Mexican, Native American, African, Chinese, etc...
Red, White and Black focused on African Americans being the used for experiments. Anybody that knows the history of our country knows that they were not the only ones experimented on. It bothered me that Cap was created to fight evil men and yet it was made to be that he was created by evil men. The story tarnished his origin as well as his creator Dr. Reinstein. The Patriot's reaction to Cap is a prime example. Patiot looked at Cap with disdain.
Captain America's origin was the first comic book I read. He has been one of my favorites for 20+ years. His death proves one thing, he is the only hero who is truly out of place. His death also proves patriotism is dead.(No neo-con here. Registered Democrat.)

I first read about this yesterday over on FARK. I don't remember the username of the particular poster, or theexact phrasing, but I had to laugh when they said something to the effect of, "dying has to be better than being drawn by Rob Liefeld again."

I would disagree that Marvel has taken a turn of late. Way back when Quesada took over they decided for the most part to throw continuity out the window, and make sure all stories lasted for five or more issues so they could be compiled in trades. I, unlike most, find Bendis influence at Marvel one of the worst. I had to lessen my like of Daredevil after Bendis held the reins for so long. His specialty is not knowing a characters history. That is why he could be good at Ultimate Spider-Man, because you don't have to know the character that good to write. He continually made Daredevi/Matt Murdock background characters in his own book. Thank God, Brubaker finally took over, his first storyline is the first I've enjoyed since Bob Gale took over for five issues. I am very glad that there are a lot of trades coming out from the old Glory days of Marvel.

I do enjoy the current run of Cap also under Brubaker. The best stories since the original run ended under Mark Waid. For some reason after reborn, Waid lost his stride, as the next series never quite captured that feel again.

It bothered me that Cap was created to fight evil men and yet it was made to be that he was created by evil men. The story tarnished his origin as well as his creator Dr. Reinstein. The Patriot's reaction to Cap is a prime example. Patiot looked at Cap with disdain.

Is that a noble agenda -- the pursuit of respect and glory?

Ok. I am on record saying I really disliked Civil War, particularly how it has twisted my favorite character, Tony Stark / Iron Man. I am also a huge fan of Captain America and have appreciated the recent revival of the character. So it surprises me that I am ok with this event.

There is no way Steve Rogers is gone forever. But in terms of story, not just marketing, Marvel has done what they have said (as expressed by Joe Q.) They have changed the mutant equation, and now they have turned the universe upside down. Even though I HATE JMS take on Iron Man /Stark and thought the Civil War was not executed well, my interest in the Marvel Universe has increased. I WANT to know where this is headed. And unlike the Death of Superman at DC, even if Rogers comes back, I really believe things will be different in ways that really matter.

I don't know what role PAD has in this change at Marvel. Obviously Joe as chief editor is the biggest factor. But I suspect PAD not only knows things, he had a hand in planning things. So for whatever role you have had, PAD, I congratulate you and Marvel on reviving the line. I may not like certain changes, but there is no question that it is far more interesting than 5 or 10 years ago.

Regarding FNS, it was great. It was the "middle" of the story, so no spectacular fights, etc. But you are picking up threads you have started and advancing them. I don't want to wait 40 issues to find out another crumb about the other time line Ben or what Arrow is up to. This story doesn't answer the questions, but it does fell like we have gone a step forward.

Iowa Jim

I didn't jump on board with the Death of Superman. I won't jump on board with this. At least today's comic buyers, and even the unwashed general public looking for a "magic investment," won't buy it into the millions of copies. They were too badly burned before.

It seems so utterly stupid and pointless, but in my samplings of Civil War books, this was probably inevitable. Without an organic, sensible ending, of course they had to pull off a synthetic big ending.

What surprises me is that nobody picked up on an unconscious need to kill Captain America. No matter who has drawn or written him over the decades, he's still a reminder of Jack Kirby. According to Gerard Jones, there was a lot of resentment of Kirby when he returned to Marvel after the "Fourth World" DC years. In his slowness or refusal to adopt to the modern world and its modern morality, Cap was a strong reminder of his creator's personality and beliefs. By killing Cap, is it possible that some people who resented living under the shadow of Kirby be trying to "kill" his influence?

I don't believe Kirby ever delivered an opinion on The Punisher as a character, but I suspect Kirby would be boiling mad if such a compromised, amoral character even touched Cap's mask. And that may be why it happened in the comic; to pull a switch on the old Irish joke, pouring a glass of fine Jewish wine on Kirby's grave, but only after passing it through the kidneys first.

Jack Gabriel wrote: " I found Red, White, and Black and interesting read, but felt it tainted Captain America. It made he seem unworthy of the title, because he was the result of many experiments. The storyline itself was racist. Why would it have been African-Americans the serum was tested on if they were going to make a Caucasian super-soldier?"

As others have said, the storyline echoed the Tuskegee syphilis study. I wrote a newspaper article on that miniseries at the time, and interviewed both Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso.

Quesada said the basic idea came two years previous when Marvel prepared to launch the "Ultimate" line. I quote from said article:
_______________

Quesada added that in discussions of an Ultimate series about Captain America, Marvel COO Bill Jemas asked why couldn’t the character be Black, especially given what African Americans went through in World War II.
“Would it make sense that the U.S. Military tried out this unknown experiment on a White, blond, blue-eyed boy?” Quesada asked. “Or would they have tried it out on an African American? The answer became very clear to us.”
Axel Alonso, editor of “The Truth”, added that the clear analogy in his mind was to the Tuskegee experiments.
Ultimately, however, Marvel realized it couldn’t change the specific character of Captain America because of the various licensing deals related to the character. Among other things, the licensed image of Captain America is of a White character.
So Marvel shelved the idea, but it wouldn’t go away. Then Quesada decided that rather than do a story of a Black Captain America in the Ultimate imprint, they would tell the story of African American characters experimented on before Steve Rogers.
_______________

During the interview, Quesda told me that response to the project ranged from curiosity, to strong support, to outrage.

For his part, Alonso didn't understand why some people seemed to feel the story would besmirch the character of Steve Rogers. Again, from the article:
______________

“I fail to see how it follows that Steve Rogers would be less virtuous based on events that preceded him.”
Alonso also said anybody who think this project is looking to build walls between people is incorrect.
“It’s about building bridges,” he said. “It is arguable that this Black Captain America is (metaphorically) both father and brother to Steve Rogers. That’s part of the point of our story.”
_________________

Did they succeed in building those bridges? I don't know. Except for the Captain America mini series, PAD's brief return to Hulk and a few issues of Amazing Spider-Man penned by J. Michael Straczynski, I don't regularly read Marvel books. So I don't know if the Black Captain America has ever been mentioned again.

But I believe that if Steve Rogers and Captain America existed in the real world, the government would have first experimented on Blacks (or Native Americans or any other non-White groups). That, however, doesn't reflect on Steve Rogers himself. After all, he wasn't aware that such actions were taking place.

As to Dr.Reinstein, it's been years since I've read the story, so I don't remember what role he played in it.

Rick

In Civil War: Initiative (also out this week) we are told - second hand, admittedly - he is alive and recuperating somewhere.

I don't think it was a mistake. Two key things are true about that interchange (as I recall). First, I believe it was said they were trying to keep him alive, so that does not mean they were successful. More importantly, this is what Ms Marvel had been told by Stark (presumably). The way he is being written, it would be consistent that he would "lie" for the greater good. It is also possible Ms Marvel lied, but unlikely since it would completely undermine her trying to persuade the person she was talking to.

Bottom line, I am sure he is dead -- for the moment. The way Marvel is currently being written, I don't think they will do the quick cheat that he didn't actually die. But we will see.

Iowa Jim

As someone working for Marvel, you have to realize that I knew this was coming months ago. And I know what's going to be happening over the next months.

So I can't say anything.

Intriguing...

OK, you're too much a professional to take any bait trying to get you to disclose stuff, but let me try with this sorta oblique question...

It the stuff that's going to be happen in the next few months in the wake of the Death of Captain America, better/more interesting/different from the stuff that happened with DC in the wake of the Death of Superman?

'Cuz I recall that some of the immediate stories that came out of the Death of Superman were kinda interesting--what does a world that's used to having Superman around do when it doesn't have one anymore?

Anything similar/different/better coming down the pike with Cap's death?

I think with Cap's 70th anniversary coming in 2010, that he will be back either shortly before that or right on the Anniversary. We already lost Thor, if we lose Cap then what hope do we have of the Avengers ever returning to a team book that people like? The Avengers under Busiek, and then Johns was great. It was one of the few books that continuity still mattered in. I, myself, believe that the big shakeups are not necessary, and that there are still many more original tales to tell in the Marvel continuity universe. How about we shake things up by pretending the old runs didn't end, and they pick up where they left off. I wouldn't mind at least seeing a what if? try to handle Tony Stark still dealing with his betrayal of the Avengers in the young Stark body, or the Wasp dealing with being an insect.

Is it just me or has not a single news story used the it-begs-to-be-used headline: CAP CAPPED?

It's too soon for me to laugh at that, but I can still smile faintly.

Then again, maybe I enjoy PAD's work more because we are close to the same age and I'm just not getting these youngsters (actually, I have no idea how old any of the other writers are but I hope it's very young).

Mark Millar b. 1969, Brian Michael Bendis b. 1967, Ed Brubaker b. 1966, Warren Ellis b. 1968, J. Michael Straczynski b. 1954, Paul Jenkins b. 1965, Joss Whedon b. 1964, Fabian Nicieza b.1961(although the only work he's doing for Marvel right now is Zemo: Born Better). I also searched for info on the Knauf brothers, Dwayne McDuffie, Michael_Oeming, and Greg Pak and found everything except their birthdays. (Btw I never wound up thanking you for the explanation you provided in the George Takei comments, Bill, so I'll thank you now.)

^signing agreement, all of the above statement^

Thanks. I presume this is the same cindercatz from comixfan.com. "Arrogantcur" here, man, nice ta see ya. ^_^

He has been one of my favorites for 20+ years. His death proves one thing, he is the only hero who is truly out of place. His death also proves patriotism is dead.

Do you mean that real patriots (as opposed to people who wave the flag real hard and brag about being American, but who forget what America is supposed to be about) are out of place in the present day? Or do you mean something else?

I would find it believable for Cap to look around at the world and say to himself "What has the world come to?" and shake his head sadly. I don't find it believable at all that Cap could live in the present long enough for a member of the Power Pack to age from a child into a teenager and be completely oblivious to the world around him. According to "Civil War: Frontline" and Paul Jenkins (speaking through Sally Floyd) we are to believe he is not only oblivious to pop culture, but also to what people these days are like, how they think.

I just don't buy that. Part of Cap's job, part of what kept him alive for so long, is being aware of what's going on around him. Jenkins' assertion that Cap has just been merrily skipping along all these years blissfully unaware that the world has changed since the '40s not only displays a profound level of ignorance about the character and all he has gone through since his return (seeing the ugly side of both the government and people on the street) but a profound lack of respect for the character. Portraying him as being that clueless is terrible and insulting, both to those who created and defined the character and to the fans. Following it up a couple weeks later with him being gunned down while he's helpless, instead of in the heat of battle or as a result of self-sacrifice (think Doug Ramsey), is just too much.

One more thought.

I'm not reading Captain America and don't plan to. However, when I become an evil overlord, one of my first decrees will be that if characters die in comics they stay dead.

Unless, of course said character is established as an immortal who "dies" for a few minutes before coming back to life.

Under my regime, comicbook companies will kill characters only if there's a logical, in-story reason to do so; and not for the sake of short term hype.

Obviously, you can't really kill Superman or Captain America because of the trademarks associated with those characters, as well as merchandising rights. So I would allow other characters to assume those identities, rather than permit the resurrection of Clark Kent or Steve Rogers.

What's more, you'd get better stories that way. When done right, Superman can be a great character, even inspirational. Imagine if DC had had the courage to keep him dead and let Superboy step into fill his shoes. He'd have one hell of a legacy to live up to- just like the successors of inspirational leaders in the real world.

I will, of course, allow the "if there's no body then he's not dead" rule to remain in effect. Also, it's o.k. for characters in a particular comicbook universe to believe someone's dead, but comicbook companies won't be allowed to try to convince the general public that so and so is dead if he ain't.

When I become an evil overlord, you'll lead miserable lives, but at least you'll have comicbook companies that don't hold occasional "death stunts." So remember to vote for me as your evil overlord; and vote early and vote often.

Rick

One more one more thought:

I liked the "Funeral for a Friend" and "Reign of the Supermen" storylines following the "death" of Kal-El. Several months went by as the characters in the DC Comics universe coped with their collective loss. They were good stories, but they'd have been even better if Kal-El had stayed dead.

Sorry, Supes. Nothing personal.

Rick

"I don't know...except for PAD and a very few other writers, the Marvel Universe seems to be losing a lot of what made it great. It's becoming an unpleasant mean place...with superheroes. Watchmen and Dark Knight were grim and dark but there was still that mythic quality. Too many writers seem to have no interest in even trying for that. Boy, will this stuff look dated in just a few years."

A lot of comic writers, editors and fans seem to be forgetting something that is causing a lot of the comic book industry to grow unappealing and bleak. Comic books are allowed to be fun.

I liked Dark Knight and Watchmen as much as the next comic geek. I loved Sandman and Hellblazer to the point of annoying my friends with them. But the thing I enjoyed the most was the escapism qualities in a lot of the other books.

Yeah, Spider-Man had his teen angst problems, the Hulk had lots of hang ups and the FF went through lots of "family" issues, but there was a long time where the writers of those books and other books actually allowed their characters to be written actually enjoying their powers.

No one I know/knew that ever talked about the wish fulfillment topics of what powers they would like to have or what hero they would want to be so that they could be THAT miserable or that angst ridden. You would like to think that you might actually be able to have fun, get some $$$$, get the girl, etc. You would like to think that your favorite heroes would be enjoying their fictional little lives a bit more.

Yeah, you've got to ground the stories in the real world to give them some connection to the reader and you don't want to make a hero's life so perfect that he/she is boring as hell. But you've also gotta give the reader something other then unrelenting angst, anger, depression, sorrow and pain.

I like flawed heroes and I do like multi-dimensional characters in my fiction, but I would like to see a little more "magic" and wish-fulfillment brought back into the comic book industry.

Random list of characters who are dead and shall undoubtedly remain so:

Gwen Stacy, Ned Leeds, Doug Ramsey, John Proudstar, Stan Carter, Ben Reilly, just about everybody killed by various Scourges of the Underworld, Colossus' parents, Bill Foster, Destiny, Stonewall, Super Sabre, the real Uncle Ben, the Porcupine, Heinrich Zemo, Charcoal (Marvel couldn't bring him back if they wanted to since they don't own the rights), Graydon Creed, Sen. Robert Kelly, Genosha's Genegineer, Bucky (oh wait, never mind).

"Random list of characters who are dead and shall undoubtedly remain so:"

Let us not forget that it turned out that Gwen Stacy had actually lived overseas with Norman Osborn making babies after her death...

What a disturbing image that is.

>Is it just me or has not a single news story used the it-begs-to-be-used headline: CAP CAPPED?

And if it were a big enough round, it might read CAP CAPPED, DECAPPED.

I don't see them having tried the super soldier formula on blacks in WW II for the simple reason that, if it DID work well, would you really want to give that power to the member of a race you'd been systematically treating like dirt? Just might come back to bite you.

What surprises me is that nobody picked up on an unconscious need to kill Captain America. No matter who has drawn or written him over the decades, he's still a reminder of Jack Kirby. According to Gerard Jones, there was a lot of resentment of Kirby when he returned to Marvel after the "Fourth World" DC years. In his slowness or refusal to adopt to the modern world and its modern morality, Cap was a strong reminder of his creator's personality and beliefs. By killing Cap, is it possible that some people who resented living under the shadow of Kirby be trying to "kill" his influence?

I'm not sure that Jack Kirby is a big enough influence at marvel anymore to make such a thing plausable. I don't think any of the current creators have any beef with the man or his legacy. But there's no point in arguing over what people might be doing subconsciously.

Rob, thanks for the birthdates. Apparently a lot of creators are just a tad younger than I am. Frankly, I'm surprised.

But I believe that if Steve Rogers and Captain America existed in the real world, the government would have first experimented on Blacks (or Native Americans or any other non-White groups).

I don't know, Rick, I've seen lots of footage of soldiers being deliberately exposed to nuclear radiation during above ground tests and there was nary a minority to be seen, at least on film.

I'm not overly bothered by the plotline since it brings attention to an important issue but it seems unlikely to me that they would be testing super soldier serums on discriminated members of society. The fact that the Tuskeegee study existed does not change that opinion; it isn't like there was any liklihood that the victims of that study would have benefited from it.

But I believe that if Steve Rogers and Captain America existed in the real world, the government would have first experimented on Blacks (or Native Americans or any other non-White groups).

I don't know, Rick, I've seen lots of footage of soldiers being deliberately exposed to nuclear radiation during above ground tests and there was nary a minority to be seen, at least on film.

I wouldn't take the comparison with deliberate radiation exposure to the wives the Tuskegee subjects went home to, or their children who no one told them were born with syphilis.

I wouldn't take the comparison with deliberate radiation exposure to the wives the Tuskegee subjects went home to, or their children who no one told them were born with syphilis.

Nor should you. The question was whether or not the government of that timne would expose non-minorities to dangerous,possibly deadly experimentation. They did.

Whether or not they would have exposed minorities to a fictional super soldier serum is, of course, unknowable, though a pretty good argument could be made that the last thing many in power at the time would have wanted would have been super powered Black men. But, as I said, it was good to get the issue out and quibbles about logic will only get you so far in any discussion of comics.

So I don't know if the Black Captain America has ever been mentioned again.

Yes, he has; he's not active himself these days (he's suffering from a condition similar to Alzheimer's), but his son Josiah was a character in the short-lived "The Crew," and his grandson is Patriot in "Young Avengers." His role in the Marvel Universe is as a semi-legendary figure in the African-American community who's not really known in the mainstream.

a pretty good argument could be made that the last thing many in power at the time would have wanted would have been super powered Black men.

Super-powered black soldiers, don't forget, who would presumably be more likely to follow the government line. (That was always a weak point in Luke Cage's origin-- testing the Super-Soldier Serum variant on convicts was a good idea why, exactly?) My memory is that it was also under fairly tightly-controlled conditions; when Isaiah Bradley was the only successful test subject (read: survivor), the government did its darnedest to keep him under wraps, not turn him loose to be a super-powered agitator.

(The existence of a human test subject before Steve Rogers is pretty likely if you read between the lines of his origin. The idea that the serum causes violent insanity wasn't original to "The Truth." Marvel long ago retconned the 1950's anti-Communist Cap by having him (and his Bucky, who later became the second Nomad) as subjects of a later version of the formula, and they later turned up, well, violently insane. Steve Rogers didn't suffer this effect because he was given radiation treatment to stabilize the formula--and why would anyone think to do this if he were the first human test subject, hmm?)

Captain America:

This is what I foresee happening. There will be four spin off books. In the first one Winter Soldier will put on a Cap costume and announce he is the new cap. Next the “cyborg” Deathlock will come back to the past to fill the void in the time line created when Cap died and will call himself Cap. Falcon with the help of Stark will put on a “steel’ suit of winged armor and change his name Eagle. Finally Hulk will return to earth when he hears of the death of his friend. He will call himself cap and no one will argue. Anyone who does will be “eradicated.”

This will go on for a few months until Cap returns from beyond the grave. The next thing that will happen however will be he gets split into three different caps Red State Cap, Blue State Cap and Independent Party Cap.

Killing Cap feels particularly cynical to me, because, yeah, it does feel a lot like "Death of Superman", doesn't it? Well, it is a business.

Killing major characters in mainstream comic books has become an empty cliche, because even for the few who do believe it, the story eventually loses its emotional punch because it's undone. Though, admittedly, the best stories still retain the emotion, even if the character is brought back later.

It just seems like a lazy tactic for a comic writer (or editor) to take. If you know a large portion of your fan base won't believe it, why not try to come up with something better?

I mean, I don't envy writers who have to make fresh stories for a character who has been around since, say, 1938, but give the major character death a rest! We know you're going to bring them back! Or to be fair to you, YOU may not bring them back, but some writer replacing you somewhere down the road WILL!

In fact, I don't mind the resurrections (I feel they're inevitable at this point) as much as I mind killing the characters in the first place BECAUSE of the inevitable resurrections!

I'd like to see a book where one or more major characters comes to the conclusion that nothing can kill them for good. (Though it may sure as hell hurt a lot.) Hell, Joss had Buffy realize this, more or less. In a fit of depression, Peter Parker cuts his wrists open. Then they suddenly heal by spontaneous mutation or by Beyonder (I dunno), or yet another Peter Parker shows up, looks at the body, and goes, yup, guess YOU were the clone. Worse, Doc Doom realizes this. "Do your worst, Richards! I'll be back, and you know it!" But then he gets depressed, because he realizes that Reed is indestructable too. Meanwhile, a minor forgettable character realizes that to become unkillable, he has to become a major player. So, he "kills" a major character or just really memorably wrecks their lives for awhile. Hmmmmm.....

"It bothered me that Cap was created to fight evil men and yet it was made to be that he was created by evil men."

I haven't read this story. I'd like to eventually. It seems to me the idea was to show the duality between the great ideals of the US and the dark side of racism that actually existed at the time of WWII in the US. It reflects a modern attitude that sees things in a less idealized way, being aware of the dark side of history too. Some go too far, ignoring the noble ideals too. But it is not necessary.

...a pretty good argument could be made that the last thing many in power at the time would have wanted would have been super powered Black men.

For any such argument to be plausible, you would have to believe that someone capable of carrying out the Tuskegee study would not respond to "but we won't be able to kill our first surviving black super-soldier" with "of course we can kill our first surviving black super-soldier" -- if for no other reason than to see how much damage a super-soldier could take. You'd have to believe someone capable of carrying out the Tuskegee study would refrain from sacrificing 20 -- or 200 -- successful black super-soldiers in this manner, and not reserve the first super-soldier photo-op for someone who'd hit the newsreels like Lindbergh in Paris, in an attempt to frame his place in History in the most positive light.

It bothered me that Cap was created to fight evil men and yet it was made to be that he was created by evil men.

It seems to me the idea was to show the duality between the great ideals of the US and the dark side of racism that actually existed at the time of WWII in the US. It reflects a modern attitude that sees things in a less idealized way, being aware of the dark side of history too.

The relationship between Captain America, the racism of his time, and the black Captain America fits a grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender triangle -- an idea not all that modern -- where the grail-champion fulfills the promise of, and redeems, the grail-king (A Jim-Crow-era America poised to intervene in WWII) by wedding the grail-king's sterile ideology to a naturalism that borders on vulgarity (the minorities racism frames as vulgar).

Hoping for a "clean" Captain America origin is like hoping for Lancelot to have settled down with Galahad's mother -- it's a hope when fulfilled that dilutes the impact of the character. I think a little dirt fits a character meant to embody the highest ideals of western civilization.

I continue to think there is a world of difference between letting men die from syphillus and giving them something that is designed to make them powerful--enough, at least, to cast doubt on the plausability of the plotline, though not enough to make the plotline unworthy.

Why not argue that an even more logical choice would be to have experimented on the Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the internment camps? It might seem foolish to empower people you are imprisoning but I guess you could always kill them later, right? Still seems unlikely to me.

But at any rate, this discussion is a bit pointless (even for comics fans) and, given everything else going on here, probably not worth pursuing.

Moon Man.
"Let us not forget that it turned out that Gwen Stacy had actually lived overseas with Norman Osborn making babies after her death..."

Actually, you must have forgotten the story or never read it. It turns out that BEFORE her death, Gwen Stacy was seduced by Norman Osborn and became pregnant by him. She even confronted him about the pregnancy, before having two children who would suffer from accelerated aging. Osborn killed Stacy after the children were born and raised them overseas.

Hi there Peter.My name is Jon.I´m writing from a little town called Vitoria (Isn´t Victoria,i havn´t win anything yet not even seven dollars haha) in Spain.
First of all sorry for my bad English cause is not my mother lenguage.Here we speak Basque.
Ican tell you that here you have a lot of fans like me,my father hummm my dog (eder) hummm i hve say my father?...It,s a joke
The last number of Spidey that I have read is FNSM 5 so you can imagine that we have a little diference between your edition and our.
I don´t know if these is the better place to talk you about these questions or not but I didn´t knew where to write you
By the way are you agree with the new powers of spidey?Aren´t they a bit...stranges?well it´s true that they give him a lot of posibilities(now he can do a pretty sweter with that things gets out of his hands)
I´m writer too.Now I´m working in a project called "The Branch".What? You didn´t heard anything about my project yet? You will,you will.
To finish,go on making the things as you make them ,cause for me your one of the greatest of the writers of the world
Nothing else just thank you for read me
Good bye (gero arte in my lenguage)

A local shop around my parts had a huge stack of Captain America #25 laying out on Thursday...

of series 3.

Trying to lure curious people who heard about the hot new issue on the news to buy something that came out, what 10 years ago?

Yeah, that's good for the business.

I just do not understand Marvel these days. They do stories like this, just so they can sell some more toys and more posters. I can not blame Joe Q, he works for the suits, and I think the suits wanted a story like this to drum up media interest, screw the loyal readers.

joe mac,
How do you know it is just to sell more toys and posters? Is it possible they sincerely felt it would be a good story? The news hit me like a ton of bricks on Wednesday. I had a reaction. So, obviously, have a lot of other people. People are talking about it and it is getting mainstream press attention. So obviously a lot of people have had strong reactions, which is what art is supposed to do in the forst place.

The business of comic books is to sell comic books. Is there a compelling story to be told? Perhaps. I know I’ll be peeking at CA for the next couple months to see what happens but at the end of the day from what I have seen the editorial choices that are ultimately made with a company like marvel will typically have less to do with the story and more to do with selling units.

“Back in Black” is a perfect example of this. Does Peter’s decision to put on a costume that has become synonymous in the public eye as the outfit of a murderous psychopathic monster make since to what the character would likely do? Or does it seem more plausible that Marvel wants to connect the comic book with the upcoming movie? Although come to think about it much like Britney Spears shaving her head this may simply be a cry for help from the web head. Damn it is just struck me the missed opportunity Marvel had. The black costume could have been Spideys reaction to Cap but he began putting it on prior to the shooting ah well. Just my two cents.

Why not argue that an even more logical choice would be to have experimented on the Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the internment camps? It might seem foolish to empower people you are imprisoning but I guess you could always kill them later, right? Still seems unlikely to me.

Japanese in America don't have the history of being silenced and intimidated comparable to blacks.

As victims of violent crimes are more likely to be attacked by someone who knows them rather than someone who doesn't, having someone capable of carrying out the Tuskegee study overlook as subjects an ethnicity he can count on silencing and intimidating for an ethnicity with which he has no such assurance doesn't seem logical at all.

But at any rate, this discussion is a bit pointless (even for comics fans) and, given everything else going on here, probably not worth pursuing.

Perhaps disinterest in the themes of marginalization and intimidation says more about the readership comics attracts than the inherent interest of those topics themselves.

My bad on the Gwen Stacy. I read it but didn't remember all the details. I was thankful those issues had great art in them (sometimes a rarity nowadays). I hope that Brubaker storylines in Cap continue after this. He is a great writer, and was bringing back stories I found myself just wanting more and more. I hope he keeps with using the rogues gallery in the Cap issues if he does. It was one of the few Marvel issues I look forward to.

Since they are killing off Cap, perhaps we could all make an appeal to Marvel to ignore the last like ten plus years of the Hulk, and let Peter take over like nothing else happened from where he left off on the original run. And if we're really good perhaps Angel Medina could do the art.

"But at any rate, this discussion is a bit pointless (even for comics fans) and, given everything else going on here, probably not worth pursuing.

Perhaps disinterest in the themes of marginalization and intimidation says more about the readership comics attracts than the inherent interest of those topics themselves."

Another theory could be that the post you quoted -- "everything else going on here" -- was refering to the subject of the next thread, which seem to trivialize our attempts on second guessing the writers of a certain comic book, at least at the point, even if the comic was refering to significant historical event. I personaly think there is worth in touching on such serious subjects even in comics. But right now discussing comics storylines seems out of place. Perhaps some other time.

perhaps we could all make an appeal to Marvel to ignore the last like ten plus years of the Hulk, and let Peter take over like nothing else happened from where he left off on the original run.

PAD is penning a World War Hulk prolouge one-shot that I'm very much looking forward too. And I've been digging "Planet Hulk" alot, so this is an "event" I really want to read. I hope he does a WWH tie-in with it w/ either Friendly or X-Factor, but looking at the list presented of all the tie-ins, I don't see any. Still, we are getting another PAD Hulk comic, so that'll be sweet.

Another theory could be that the post you quoted -- "everything else going on here" -- was refering to the subject of the next thread, which seem to trivialize our attempts on second guessing the writers of a certain comic book, at least at the point, even if the comic was refering to significant historical event. I personaly think there is worth in touching on such serious subjects even in comics. But right now discussing comics storylines seems out of place. Perhaps some other time.

My reply was appropriate for the first half of the sentence I quoted, and the "everything else going on here" part you refer to was not submitted as a qualifier for it.

As far as "second guessing writers" goes, if anyone disagrees red, white and black is meant as an allegory for the Tuskegee study, they are welcome provide an explanation on how that disagreement isn't obviously wrong.

I've been reading comic books long enough to know that the only people who stay dead are Bucky, Gwen Stacy, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben, an it seem the only ones who stayed dead (Gwen, and Uncle Ben) wouldn't come back if you paid them to. So when Bucky came back, I protested by no longer reading Cap. So if he's dead, i don't care death means nothing anymore. An since Peter unmasked I stopped reading any Marvel. Maybe that seems petty, but I'm tired of paying my hard earned money for cheap stunts, and general disrespect towards characters I've grown up enjoying.

I'm one of the people that believe it is only temporary. (Hell, Bucky just returned after being "dead" for almost 45 years. It might be a while but I expect Steve Rogers to return eventually.)

However, that being said - Captain America turns himself in at the end of Civil War to fight the registration act in the courts. In Cap's very next story, he is killed so the court battle can be swept under the rug. It's a huge cop-out.

cap wont stay dead and yes steve is cap i personaly found it funny that the return of magik was one of the house ads this week

"As far as "second guessing writers" goes, if anyone disagrees red, white and black is meant as an allegory for the Tuskegee study, they are welcome provide an explanation on how that disagreement isn't obviously wrong."

Red, White and Black was obviously inspired and refers to the Tuskegee Study. However, when we're discussing whether it is logical for a black man to have the Super Serum injected to him by american scientists during WWII, we are not discussing Tuskegee or any real historical events, but a fictional story written by writers. We can do what the writers did and look back to history for inspiration, while we're speculating the actions of fictional people in a fictional world. But ultematly we're just second guessing the writers' creative decisions, which may be entertaining, but pretty pointless. It felt a little strange to indulge in such creative speculation of fiction after the blog moved on to more serious and real subjects.

As for me -- if I were writing this story, and trying to place myself in the minds of fictional people whose attitudes resemble those of real racist scientists during the real time period -- I don't think the Super Serum scientists would have hesitated to inject a black man with the serum because they feared him as a potential enemy. They would have expected him to be compliant. They might have hesitated to give it to Japanese Americans, who were considered enemies as well as racially inferior. But with blacks, they would probably have hesitated because they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy (the way some objected to allowing blacks to be pilots). I can imagine a scene in which a scientist assures a politicial or officer that the 'real' super soldier will be white. But that's my speculation, which is, as was said, pointless.

As for me -- if I were writing this story, and trying to place myself in the minds of fictional people whose attitudes resemble those of real racist scientists during the real time period -- I don't think the Super Serum scientists would have hesitated to inject a black man with the serum because they feared him as a potential enemy. They would have expected him to be compliant. They might have hesitated to give it to Japanese Americans, who were considered enemies as well as racially inferior. But with blacks, they would probably have hesitated because they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy (the way some objected to allowing blacks to be pilots).

As a point of fact, with respect to Japanese Americans, there were people who argued against the camps. There were people who argued FOR using them in the Pacific theatre (there was a partial victory in that they were used in intelligence). There were people who argued FOR using them in Europe (and they obviously won out).

The mistake is in trying to treat the government as a monolithic block--there were obviously many factions and which faction came out on top varied from situation to situation. Saying that such and such an event COULDN'T have happened is just not credible.

"The mistake is in trying to treat the government as a monolithic block."

Roger, like I said, we are not engaging in a historical debate about the government's attitude during WWII or about a specific policy. I do not say what could or could not have happened. We are talking about a fictional story that finds inspiration in real history. The people who wrote the Comic Red, white and Black -- or arrogant people like myself who second guess their writing -- persumably tried to imagine the attitudes of imaginary racist american scientists during WWII. And in order to do that they or I try to look at real historical events and people in order to get insight into that way of thinking. But we are talking about fictional racist characters who are imagined. I imagine, trying to get into the mind of a racist american circa 1942, that in this fictional story, if one character were to suggest giving a Japanese American the Super Soldier serum, someone else probably would object that there is a risk that this power would be turned against the US. And in the case of a black person, I imagine the objection would be mostly that blacks are unworthy of this power. I'm not saying anything about other conscientous people who would have acted otherwise. In the real world, as you know, there were people who were willing to let blacks serve as pilots, and let Japanese Americans serve in the US army (in both cases heroically). In the real world there may have been Americans who objected in real time to the Tuskegee Study, I don't know. There were certainly people who would have spoken against it had they known. Perhaps someday somebody wil write a Captainn America comic that will deal with Japanese americans serving in the war, or with other incidents of racism in US history.

But with blacks, they would probably have hesitated because they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy (the way some objected to allowing blacks to be pilots).

The idea that the scientists who sent first a dog, then a chimpanzee into space -- and who provoked the ire of pilots by initially considering chimps to serve as astronauts exclusively -- considered them lifeforms equal to humans seems obviously wrong.

Mike, you're clearly a man with a chip on his shoulder. In fairness, however, I haven't lived your life. Perhaps if I had your experiences I too would be full of hate like you.

Regardless, we can't change our pasts. We are who we are, here and now. And you can't defeat one kind of hate with another. You are blinded by your own brand of hate, which is directed not at a specific ethnicity but at any individual you find personally threatening. And for whatever reason, you find just about everyone else threatening. As a result, when you interact with others you see not the individuals but instead projections of your own feelings.

That's just as pernicious as racially based hatred, which works by the same mechanism: rather than seeing the individual, racists see a construct of their own creation born of their own prejudice. Your own hatred is in no way more virtuous.

What comment by me are you referring to as hateful?

"The idea that the scientists who sent first a dog, then a chimpanzee into space -- and who provoked the ire of pilots by initially considering chimps to serve as astronauts exclusively -- considered them lifeforms equal to humans seems obviously wrong."

I have no idea what you're trying to say and in what way it has anything to do with what I said.

It is also a very strange discussion because we are speculating about the attitudes of imaginary people in an imaginary situation. Ordinarily this discussion would have probably involved two or more creators shooting the breeze, speculating what kind of behavior seems appropriate for a certain fictional character in a certain setting. It could be quite fun. But your responses are not of a kind you'd expect in this kind of creative endevor. It is almost as if you do not understand the difference between fiction and the reality that inspired it, or you are engaged in some private argument with somebody else (perhaps yourself), and you forgot to tell me about it. Strange. It also makes the discussion even more pointless, since we are apparently not participating in the same discussion.

But with blacks, they would probably have hesitated because they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy (the way some objected to allowing blacks to be pilots).

The idea that the scientists who sent first a dog, then a chimpanzee into space -- and who provoked the ire of pilots by initially considering chimps to serve as astronauts exclusively -- considered them lifeforms equal to humans seems obviously wrong.

I have no idea what you're trying to say and in what way it has anything to do with what I said.

When you say "they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy" you seem to be referring to an agenda to deny the prospect of glory from a subject deemed inferior. That seems obviously wrong.

If the agenda to deny the prospect of glory from a subject deemed inferior determined who or what was eligible for dangerous opportunities for glory, then the reluctance to allow a dog and a chimp to precede man into space would have been as severe as the supposed reluctance to experiment on minorities considered expendable.

Unless the scientists who shot the dog and chimp into space consider them lifeform equal to humans, the Soviet and US space program have done that which disregards your reasoning.

Roger, like I said, we are not engaging in a historical debate about the government's attitude during WWII or about a specific policy. I do not say what could or could not have happened. We are talking about a fictional story that finds inspiration in real history. The people who wrote the Comic Red, white and Black -- or arrogant people like myself who second guess their writing -- persumably tried to imagine the attitudes of imaginary racist american scientists during WWII. And in order to do that they or I try to look at real historical events and people in order to get insight into that way of thinking. But we are talking about fictional racist characters who are imagined. I imagine, trying to get into the mind of a racist american circa 1942, that in this fictional story, if one character were to suggest giving a Japanese American the Super Soldier serum, someone else probably would object that there is a risk that this power would be turned against the US. And in the case of a black person, I imagine the objection would be mostly that blacks are unworthy of this power. I'm not saying anything about other conscientous people who would have acted otherwise.

Sorry, I'm not just getting your point here.

In a fictional world, saying that this could not have happened seems to be an invalid reason when, in the real world, similar things DID happen. It still seems to me that you're arguing that a monolithic response would occur, when in all likelihood, there would be several factions within the government, with different responses, all with varying degrees of racism. And these factions would embody that racism in various ways, some of which would be advocating diametrically opposite things--like using a super soldier formula on blacks. Some would consider it a waste, some would consider it a proper step before use on a "real" soldier, some would oppose it because blacks would not be worthy.

What would eventually occur is that one faction would gain ascendancy through political maneuvers...but the particular faction who'd do that is not cast in stone from the outset...

"In a fictional world, saying that this could not have happened seems to be an invalid reason when, in the real world, similar things DID happen. It still seems to me that you're arguing that a monolithic response would occur, when in all likelihood, there would be several factions within the government, with different responses, all with varying degrees of racism. And these factions would embody that racism in various ways, some of which would be advocating diametrically opposite things--like using a super soldier formula on blacks. Some would consider it a waste, some would consider it a proper step before use on a "real" soldier, some would oppose it because blacks would not be worthy."

Roger we do not have a difference of opinion here, you simply think I'm saying something else than what I'm actually saying.

a. I'm not saying something could or could not have happened.

b. I'm not saying there would be a monolithic response inside the government, since I'm not talking about the government, but about attitudes that might exist among some of the imaginary people involved in the imaginary super serum soldier project.

In fact I am saying pretty much the same thing you're saying, that some of these hypothetical racist scientists or poiticians or officers involved in the project would object to giving the serum to a black man, because they would think him unworthy, while others, equally racist, would think it is justified in order to protect the lives of white soldiers, while a third perhaps would have calms about experimenting on a person without his concent. I am not making statements about a monolithic government, or that something could not happen. What we're doing is trying to imagine the response of certain imaginary characters based on our knowledge of attitudes at the real historical time, which, as you state correctly, were not monolithic.

My original point was that I don't think racist scientists around 1942 would hesitate to give the serum to a black person on the grounds that he might turn against them, since I think at that time the idea of blacks fighting for their rights was still underdeveloped. Althogh even here I'm not saying it couldn never have happened. If this comic's writers included a scene in which somebody hesitated for this reason I would have found it anachronistic but not completely ubsurd.

Mike, you are very strange person.

"When you say "they did not want to give super powers to somebody who they perceived to be inferior and therefore unworthy""

I did not say "they did not want" to do anything, since we are talking about imaginary people in an imaginary story. What I've said is that we could imagine that some of the racist characters in this story -- probably the officers or the politician -- would have reacted in a similar way to the idea of giving a black man the super soldier serum, as real American pilots and politicians reacted to the idea of allowing blacks to be pilots, or the idea of sending animals (or today robots) into space, because the role of pilot and astronauts carries with it prestige. At which point, like I said, the equally racist scientists would probably have assured them that the black test subject will not enjoy the prestige, and that it will be reserved to the final, real super soldier who will be white.

That's a scene I would have written if I were asked to write this comic. But I wasn't and didn't, so it is pointless. If you don't like my scene you can imagine one of your own.

We should also note that the animals sent into space did enjoy prestige at real time, so this analogy probably not perfect, but we can still find inspiration in this story as we Imagine ourselves rewriting imaginary characters in an imaginary story.

By the way, the phrase, 'we are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants' was originally used in the 12th century by the theologian Bernard of Chartres (if I remeber correctly). The idea is that 12 century Chritian theologian are dwarfs compared to the great ancient pagan philosphers, but, by virtue of combining their ancient knowledge with Christian belief, they can see farther than the ancient pagans.

What I've said is that we could imagine that some of the racist characters in this story -- probably the officers or the politician -- would have reacted in a similar way to the idea of giving a black man the super soldier serum, as real American pilots and politicians reacted to the idea of allowing blacks to be pilots, or the idea of sending animals (or today robots) into space, because the role of pilot and astronauts carries with it prestige. At which point, like I said, the equally racist scientists would probably have assured them that the black test subject will not enjoy the prestige, and that it will be reserved to the final, real super soldier who will be white.

Whatever the comment by yourself you are referring to, I posted the following first:

...a pretty good argument could be made that the last thing many in power at the time would have wanted would have been super powered Black men.

For any such argument to be plausible, you would have to believe that someone capable of carrying out the Tuskegee study would not respond to "but we won't be able to kill our first surviving black super-soldier" with "of course we can kill our first surviving black super-soldier" -- if for no other reason than to see how much damage a super-soldier could take. You'd have to believe someone capable of carrying out the Tuskegee study would refrain from sacrificing 20 -- or 200 -- successful black super-soldiers in this manner, and not reserve the first super-soldier photo-op for someone who'd hit the newsreels like Lindbergh in Paris, in an attempt to frame his place in History in the most positive light.

As far as "At which point, like I said, the equally racist scientists would probably have assured them that the black test subject will not enjoy the prestige, and that it will be reserved to the final, real super soldier who will be white" agrees with my point -- fine. Thank you.

By the way, the phrase, 'we are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants' was originally used in the 12th century by the theologian Bernard of Chartres (if I remeber correctly). The idea is that 12 century Chritian theologian are dwarfs compared to the great ancient pagan philosphers, but, by virtue of combining their ancient knowledge with Christian belief, they can see farther than the ancient pagans.

The the earliest known writings of the grail employed as Christian symbol are from the late 12th century. It seems natural that a Christian theologian would feel free to acknowledge a pagan influence at that time.

"Thank you."

You're welcome Mike. Althogh only you can make 'thank you' sound hostile.

In any case, Bill made the first comment, that our imaginary super serum scientists would have hesitated to give the serum to an oppressed black man, supposedly because they would have feared it would be turned against them. I can imagine someone in our hypothetical story voicing such concern, so the point is not invalid. But in general I don't think racist scientists at that time period would have considered a black man as a possible threat.

You said that there would not be a problem, because our imaginary scientists would be willing to kill a black super soldier if he prooved a threat. I can imagine a character in our co-written story saying something to that effect, that if he becomes dangerous, they could always kill him. But I don't think they would have set out on the experiement using someone who they would have considered a threat, with the prelimenary intention of killing him for that reason. Your idea that they would have killed him as part of a test of his vulnerabilty, is a good and credible idea from a storytelling point of view. If we were writing together, I think we would have included it. But we're not. I don't think they would have killed him in order to guarentee that the prestige will not go to him, but that's not important.

We are both in agreement that our imaginary racist scientists or politicians or officers would not have wanted a black man to have the prestige of being America's Super Soldier. So we would probably have included a scene giving voice to that concern. But if we agree, why does it seem like you are arguing with me? I'm not certain. But hostility and an argumentative attitude are not very conductive to a collaberative creative process, even a completely hypothetical one. It is also not very helpful to internet discussions in general.

"The the earliest known writings of the grail employed as Christian symbol are from the late 12th century. It seems natural that a Christian theologian would feel free to acknowledge a pagan influence at that time."

The pagan influence in this context is not of the grail story but that of writings by Greek and Roman writers like Plato and Cicero, some of which became available to Christian theologians in the 12th century.

The 12th century was a time of cultural renaissance in different and sometimes competing fields. One was academic culture. Another was chivalric culture and romances. A third was Christian mysticism. Another was the powers of the Church and of the State. The pagan motifs in chivalric romances and the influence of classical greek and roman pagans are two different things, although the product of the same society more or less. You might enjoy reading a book (fiction) called Baudolino by Umberto Eco, which is also about the grail. It is not great, but has some good things.

Posted by: Mike at March 12, 2007 10:13 PM

What comment by me are you referring to as hateful?

I am referring to your hostile attitude towards anyone with whom you disagree. Your past responses to people whose point-of-view differs from yours have included:
"What's your problem?"
"Finger, meet nerve; nerve, meet finger."
"Why write a check with your mouth that your butt can't cash?"

I am also referring to your penchant for unfairly and illogically inferring racist motivations for others' behavior. For example, late last year you repeatedly asserted that everyone who disagrees with you about the definition of a certain word is "sheltering a predatory agenda."

I am referring as well to your swipes at people's personal lives. You once asked if Bill Mulligan broke his ex-wife's heart because his "smug macho pretense was ultimately more important to [him] than she was." And you once so offended our host with a cruel remark about his family that he chose to delete the post and replace it with a stern warning. And yes, yes, I know you apologized to our host but you shouldn't need to be told not to do such awful things.

I am referring to your choice to argue into the ground an assertion about a super-hero comic-book, and your inability to understand why others might find that trivial at a time when our host and many of his posters were discussing very real and very personal difficulties in another active thread.

Mike, you have succeeded in doing what no troll has done: you have elicited my sincerest sympathy. Your inability to let down your defenses and interact with other human beings in a healthy way is clearly costing you dearly on many levels. If at any point you decide to move past your hate, you will find me willing to forget the past and welcome you into the present. If you wish to continue your hateful ways, you will find me unwilling to respond in kind as I have in the past. I can no longer feel anger towards you. Instead, for you I only feel great sadness.

Micha, I have no interest in discussing this with Mike, for all the obvious reasons, but since you've put some thought into this...

I would certainly argue with the idea that "I don't think racist scientists at that time period would have considered a black man as a possible threat." Looking at what actually happened around those times would put that into doubt. Look at the horror that many racists felt over a Black man winning the heavyweight boxing championship (arguably the closest thing to a real "super soldier".) The memory of Jack Johnson would probably have filled the hearts of of any super soldier serum bearing racists with cold sweaty terror!

(Admitedly, things had improved by the time Joe Louis dominated the ranks, though I'm sure many white racists would have loved to see him lose the title.).

More later.

Bill, I think racist considered black athletes as a threat, but not because they thought that they would use their strength to attack whites, but because it threatened their sense of superiority for a black athlete to beat a white one.

Perhaps this have been your intention all along, and if I misunderstood you I apologize.

In contrast, If we were to imagine a story in which a racist scientist were to revive the super soldier experiment in the 60's, he would probably be concerned that a superpowered black person would be influenced by black militant attitudes of the time and turn his power against white men.

It could also be claimed that American racism from its beginning included a deep seated fear of the blacks turning against whites, and that it was this fear that motivates them. This would have been something to take into consideration if we were writing a comic about racism in the US.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to imaginarily co-rewrite an imaginary comic book with Mike. I think I've avoided the pitfalls so far.

There is no doubt that fear, real or imagined, was a factor in racism against Blacks. Look at Birth of A Nation--the klan is portrayed as a noble insurgency against black reconstructionist soldiers who are raping and pillaging the defeated South. Idiotic to be sure but a bleief that was shared by many.

Although there are very few instances of Blacks succesfully fighting back against the lynch mobs prior to the 60s, such things did happen and they seemed to have left an impression on the minds of racists. Nat Turner and John Brown, while unsuccessful, never were far from the minds of the slaveholders (and with about 1/3 of the population slave they had good reason to fear what an uprising would be like).

In the 1921 Tulsa race riot over a dozen to 50 Whites were killed when they burned down a succesful Black district. Far more Blacks were killed but the lack of a one sided massacre seemed to discourage further lynchings. (the actual numbers of dead and wounded will never be known but according to Reason magazine the valiant defense that many Blacks put up left an indelible mark on the attitudes of those who survived). Other such events included one where a Black man used a handgun to defend his home; after he was aquitted Michigan passed a handgun law requiring a permit (I've heard gun rights advocates claim that many of the first gun laws were enacted for racial reasons. I don't know how accurate that is though).

Of course, one could argue that any "fear" that was claimed was purely a justification for oppression and not any genuine emotion.

"(I've heard gun rights advocates claim that many of the first gun laws were enacted for racial reasons. I don't know how accurate that is though)."

They're actually right, but only to a point. At a time when there were very few gun laws worth mentioning, the U.S. passed a law that made it a crime for blacks to own a gun (this was just after, if memory serves, the revolver was created) and to restrict when and where they could possess them.

Now, whether or not this was caused by fear, hate, concern or some other factor can be argued until the end of days. Besides, I'm sure, just as with laws passed now, that there were different groups of lawmakers who all had different reasons on why they thought such a law was a good idea. And this wasn't anything new by any means. This kind of law has been passed by one group onto another for as long as we've had weapons and it hasn't always been based on race.

In Civil War: Initiative (also out this week) we are told - second hand, admittedly - he is alive and recuperating somewhere.

I think we're supposed to question the accuracy of anything she says during that exchange with Jessica. She also flat-out tells her to come in from the cold and all will be forgiven, which Tony says it untrue, he'd like to arrest her for sedition. To me the message there is that if she's making promises that are completely made-up then everything else she's saying is in doubt as well.

That said, I also don't believe he'll be dead more than 18 issues.

I've only read issues 4, 5, and 7 of "Civil War." Everything I've read here and elsewhere indicates I'd have to buy one hell of a lot more comics than that in order to really understand what's going on. Not just multiple comics but multiple SERIES. I mean, there's "Civil War," "Civil War: Frontline," "Civil War: The Initiative," and all of the tie-ins in Marvel's ongoing series, right?

No thanks. Money's tight. Count me out. Even if this multi-title storyline looked appealing, I can't afford it. God bless those of you who can.

If the credits don't say "Peter David" or "John Romita Jr." I guess I'll be staying away from it.

I am referring to your choice to argue into the ground an assertion about a super-hero comic-book, and your inability to understand why others might find that trivial at a time when our host and many of his posters were discussing very real and very personal difficulties in another active thread.

As far as the above seems to be the only thing in this thread that could prompt you to intervene and refer to any incidents outside of it, I can only wonder why anyone who agrees to the pointlessness of the discussion would keep it alive by persisting in responding to what I say with disagreements.

I've only read issues 4, 5, and 7 of "Civil War." Everything I've read here and elsewhere indicates I'd have to buy one hell of a lot more comics than that in order to really understand what's going on. Not just multiple comics but multiple SERIES. I mean, there's "Civil War," "Civil War: Frontline," "Civil War: The Initiative," and all of the tie-ins in Marvel's ongoing series, right?

Someday you may be generous enough to explain how the above warrants mention at a time, as you say, of severe gravity.

Posted by: Mike at March 13, 2007 08:26 PM

Someday you may be generous enough to explain how the above warrants mention at a time, as you say, of severe gravity.

It's the difference between rancorously arguing tooth and nail over a comic-book... and merely making an observation about them in a blog run by a guy who makes his living in the field.

But if you have to ask, I doubt you'll understand the answer.

Have a good life, Mike. I sincerely hope you someday find the happiness that is so obviously eluding you now.

It's the difference between rancorously arguing tooth and nail over a comic-book...

Are you talking about one of my posts? What such post of mine exposes any teeth or the edge of any nail?

Bill Myers, I've come to believe that Mike has problems that can only be understood by someone with a professional understanding of human psychology. I don't know what it is. but with all the developmental and neorological syndroms diagnosed every day, perhaps this too has a name and description.

So you should talk to him with the calmness and understanding you would accord to a little child or someone from a very foreign culture. To criticize him for his behavior is like criticizing a blind man for his blindness, or a three year old for not remaining still. I doubt anything we do will affect his behavior for better or worse, but we should try to treat him kindly and even respectfully as much as possible and hope there is something somewhere that will help him.

"There is no doubt that fear, real or imagined, was a factor in racism against Blacks."

Agreed

"Of course, one could argue that any "fear" that was claimed was purely a justification for oppression and not any genuine emotion."

It is a chicken and egg kind of thing. They oppressed because they were afraid, they were afraid because they oppressed. The were genuinely afraid because they needed a justification for their oppression.

If there is a disagreement between us it is only in the degree in which we should consider fear of blacks as a motivating force in the psychology of our imaginative super serum scientists. This is really fine tuning for characters in a story we are not even writing. Fun but silly

"I've heard gun rights advocates claim that many of the first gun laws were enacted for racial reasons. I don't know how accurate that is though"

Even if true, this is a demagogic argument used by people who are unwilling to argue on the merits for or aganst gun control in the here and now.

You might enjoy reading a book (fiction) called Baudolino by Umberto Eco, which is also about the grail. It is not great, but has some good things.

Thank you.

Depending on your familiarity with the grail myth, and although it makes no explicit reference to the grail, you may have noticed the movie Searching for Bobby Fischer is a really good example of a grail quest. Ben Kingsley, the kid, and the homeless Lawrence Fishburne form the grail-king/grail-champion/pagan-grail-contender triangle.

Without an explicit reference, making much of the grail theme may seem arbitrary. But as far as the title refers to a quest and a "Fisher" king, patterns like Josh's preoccupation with the knight, and the use of the "wounded king" theme down to Josh needing help opening a can of coke, Zaillian seemed to be referring to this specific myth. Even withholding an explicit reference to the grail is consistant with the myth -- like the tao, the grail myth defies and challenges representation -- with Joe Montaigne saying what he thinks Ben Kingsley wants, and Kingsley giving an explanation consistant with a drive to find what the grail signifies.

...I've come to believe that Mike has problems that can only be understood by someone with a professional understanding of human psychology.

Well, if you're going to keep talking about me:

If you've read Oliver Sacks (portrayed by Robin Williams in Awakenings), you may have noticed how he refers to Tourettic tics as "enshrinements" of a word, of observed gestures and expressions, of any invasion of personal space. He wrote of a Tourettic surgeon who was obsessive beyond all compulsion, and when he was not distracted, his focus aided him in surgery. As far as distractions split this hyper-devotion (my phrasing, not Sack's) his inability to resolve his split attention devolved into Touretic tics.

Now I am not Tourettic, but I was thinking of Sack's analysis when I was reading some criticism of the new "Zodiac" movie. Someone said Jake Gyllanhaal merely insisting that discovering the identity of the killer, after he had stopped killing and finding him was no longer a priority, was not enough to make the character engaging.

I can't disagree with the criticism of the story's presentation, but Gyllanhaal's interest in discovering the identity of the killer still made sense to me in that he was not an indulgent personality, and he could not reconcile for himself a model of reality where someone like the zodiac still remained free. Where a Tourettic's inability to reconcile the overwhelming delights of sensestions that distract him, the Gyllanhaal character instead retained interest where no one else demonstrated as much difficulty in reconciling the killer's freedom with their model of reality.

I'm not calling anyone here a serial killer, but as far as I have difficulty reconciling the behavior of others with reason, no, no one else is displaying the same difficulty. As I responded in the "Victims of Mike" discussion -- I have the answers I was looking for and, as far as they reconcile my model of reality with what I observe, they work.

As far as Bill Myers meant "have a good life" he should be glad. As far as he burst in on the discussion with accusations of hate, referring to nothing I've said, I doubt my well-being would really please him.

As far as he has difficulty reconciling his own model of reality while my behavior hasn't summoned any anvils to fall from the sky on me -- well, it would be hypocritical of me to deny the sense in his own search for answers. As far as my reconciliation with my model of reality and behaviors I would otherwise find baffling still stands, I have to admit I understand Bill's drive to ambush me, and he should feel free to continue while I am here to do so without receiving any responses of a retaliatory nature -- as I have done in this thread.

I'm not a gun owner, have no interest in becoming one--which will come back to haunt me come the Zombie Nation--but I can sort of see where the argument could be that gun control is an attempt by the government to restrict the rights of people to defend themselves and to use any historical examples of that to support their arguments wiould be a fiar tactic.

I don't believe that this is the reason people are for gun control now but it's a fair argument, however incorrect.

I remember tossing off plot ideas with my buddies when we toiled in the Mile High Comics saltmines and one was that the government had been trying for YEARS to recreate the Hulk by exposing all kinds of folks to gamma radiation, the results of which were rotting in sanitariums and/or graveyards scattered about the place.

And sometimes we got dark. Of course, back in those innocent times we only thought of them as What If ideas, not as a general direction for the Marvel Universe. Civil War would have been a fine imaginary story (yeah, yeah, aren't they all) but I'm sorry it's fated to be part of "reality".

(Boy does all that sound silly when you say it out loud. Oh well, we're all fans here.)

Re: the grail myth

A few years ago I wrote a short seminar-like paper about the image of Camelot in film. I discovered thatt there is a large field of study of Arthuriana in general and about Arthurian films in particular. Very interesting.

I also read Chretien de Troyes Grail story (the first one from the 12th century). However I can hardly claim to be an expert on the story of the grail.

"grail-king/grail-champion/pagan-grail-contender"

I'm not familiar with these terms in the context you are using them. I googled grail contender and found nothing. Are these terms you came up with? Are they Jungian terms/archetypes? In any case, they are certaily the result of modern literary interpretation. These are not the terms Chretien de Troyes would have thought of when thinking ofhis story.

For my paper I did read a fun little book: Frank McConnell. Storytelling & Mythmaking: Images from Film and Literature. Oxford, 1979, which speaks of four-five archetypes that appear in different stories and that represent 5 kinds of stories -- the king, the knight, the detective, the fool, the messiah. This is less specific than the grail and includes the grail story as one of the most representative examples of these archetypes. When I was reading it I saw these archetypes everywhere, now less.

In any case, I'm not sure Searching for Bobby Fischer could be considered as Arthuriana, you may be just seeing the grater archetypes here. Especially since Bobby Fischer is a real person, so I'm not sure it could be considered a reference to the Fisher King (see also movie with Ribin Williams). There is movie with Robert Redford as a baseball player which is explicitly a grail story.

"I have the answers I was looking for and, as far as they reconcile my model of reality with what I observe, they work."
Or your perception might be impaired. Maybe you are mistaking Bill Mulligan, Bill Myers, myself, Bobb Alfred, Sean, Luigi, etc. for coat-hangers on which you hang your hangups. Maybe. (I should really read that book. I've been not reading it for years).

On a non related matter, I highly recommend a sci-fi book called Warchild (on it's sequals) by Karin Lowachee. Excellent, some of the best stuff I've read, and apparently ignored by sci-fi readers.

I can sort of see where the argument could be that gun control is an attempt by the government to restrict the rights of people to defend themselves"

Yes, I accept that this argument has on its own merits -- namely the idea that the right to bear arms is rooted in a concept of freedom from the government. But I think using the argument refering to black persecution should be considered 'inflamatory and prejudicial to the jury' as they say in lawyer TV shows. It evokes the image of racism needlessly in order to win an argument not on the issues. Who would do something like that?

It evokes the image of racism needlessly in order to win an argument not on the issues. Who would do something like that?

I love it when you're being ironic. :)

Although I haven't read them, I know Peter has written a number of grail-quest books, and it's past the time to mention them considering the discussion. Of course, I look forward to picking them up if I find them.

I'm not familiar with these terms in the context you are using them. I googled grail contender and found nothing. Are these terms you came up with?

The wording is mine.

In the Moyers interview, Joseph Campbell cited opposite to the grail king a pagan king contending for the grail, with the grail champion reconciling them to complete the quest. The triangle of interests always seems to be present, the pagan grail contender if only as the thing that needs to be reconciled with the grail king for the champion to complete the quest. Silence of the Lambs might arguably be described as the relationship between grail champion and pagan contender with the grail king little more than the desire to capture the killer.

Are they Jungian terms/archetypes?

The influence of the grail myth seems apparent in Freud's establishment of the model of the id, ego, and superego. And I think it was Jung's daughter who wrote a book on the grail myth -- as Freud was an atheist, I'm remembering it as Jung's daughter.

In any case, I'm not sure Searching for Bobby Fischer could be considered as Arthuriana... There is movie with Robert Redford as a baseball player which is explicitly a grail story.

Chivalry is not interchangeable with the grail myth.

For instance, Sir Gawain was the knightly standard of chivalry, and all the other knights considered him the most likely one to find the grail. The unlikelihood of Percival, if not Galahad, finding the grail was a strong theme of the myth.

I have the answers I was looking for and, as far as they reconcile my model of reality with what I observe, they work.

Or your perception might be impaired. Maybe you are mistaking Bill Mulligan, Bill Myers, myself, Bobb Alfred, Sean, Luigi, etc. for coat-hangers on which you hang your hangups. Maybe. (I should really read that book. I've been not reading it for years).

I was citing a form of fidelity among people that shelters behavior I found incomprehensible. Coat-hangers is your word. And as I don't remember Bobb or Luigi ever intervening to shelter such bevavior, I wasn't refer to them.

And as my paradigms reconcile the inconcistencies I've been citing, they remain unchallenged. As they say: in the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye is king.

It evokes the image of racism needlessly in order to win an argument not on the issues. Who would do something like that?

I love it when you're being ironic. :)

If this reference to arbitrarily introducing the topic of race refers to me, let me say my posts typically cite the passages they are referring to. If I'm introducing the topic of race in any of these discussions, you are free to cite an example.

I never EVER would've made a connection to Bobby Fischer and the Grail. On reading this, I can see where the arguement could be made. BUt, I have to wonder if this particular story form predates Arthur and the Grail. The Heroic Archetype certainly does, as does the Impossible Quest. Certainly, the legend of Arthur fits the bill quite well. But the story form itself, the Noble Quest, can be seen much earlier, the Argo and the Golden Fleece leap to mind.

As far as giving blacks the Super Soldier serum--I can see that happening. Blacks were considered inferior, just barely civilized. The conceit would've been, "Yes, he's really strong, but he won't be smart enough to DO anything with it without our help." (Sorry for the gross over-simplification, but I don't want to clog the internet with the long version. Al Gore would be miffed, and he might try to stick me with his power bill.) That's why people test on animals, see how it affects THEM before we try it on US.

Bill--don't worry. Just get yourself and extending tree pruner and an aluminum baseball bat. Or you could run from them screaming, "I'M NOT ROMERO!"

"But I think using the argument referring to black persecution should be considered 'inflammatory and prejudicial to the jury' as they say in lawyer TV shows. It evokes the image of racism needlessly in order to win an argument not on the issues. Who would do something like that?"

I feel that I should point out, since my only post on this thread for a long while has been to point out that there was a racial reason for some gun control laws once, that I don't subscribe to that as a modern reason for gun control laws or a legitimate modern era argument. I just find some of the historical reasons for some laws interesting and could verify the validity of another posters statement. I didn't really make that clear before.

I'm actually fairly moderate on gun issues. I have quite a few guns, like them very much and would like to snag a few more down the road, but even I think that the pro-gun lobby has lost its mind these days. Hunters don't need armor piercing rounds to take down a deer and home protection doesn't need a level of firepower that send a bullet through the intruder, through the dwelling's wall and out into the surrounding areas where it could find an unintended target that has nothing to do with the intruder that's having his insides ventilated. Some of the "Legislation Alert" mailings that the NRA sends out these days are laughable at best and scary at worst.

"Blacks were considered inferior, just barely civilized. The conceit would've been, "Yes, he's really strong, but he won't be smart enough to DO anything with it without our help.""

I don't know. The flip side of that is that the scientist would realize that they were testing on black SOLDIERS. Basically, your talking about a trained fighter/killers who has been taught how to use their skills to the best of their abilities. Most of the real world experiments that the government conducted would have ended with nothing at all happening or by creating effects that were detrimental to the person being experimented on. The Super Soldier tests could kill, could do nothing or could create a, duh, super soldier. If the outcome of the experiments could have been one to several trained black super soldiers, I think that they might have balked at that. I think they would have tested on white federal prison inmates under the mindset that "at least they could be rehabilitated" before they would have gone on to risk creating a black super soldiers.

"Bill--don't worry. Just get yourself and extending tree pruner and an aluminum baseball bat."

Actually, Home Depot has a sale this or next week on their Fiskers axes and hatchets. Pick up some shop rags and the ax and hatchet sharpener (made at a convenient carry size and for quick use) that they make and you've got a pretty good lightweight skull splitter and an ok cramped quarters tool along with all the tools needed to maintenance your weapons. And the hatchet is good for making large walking sticks with really sharp, pointed ends.

Guns would be useful in the early days of just the odd small group of roving zombies, but by the time we hit Monster Island levels of hordes they would just attract every zombie for miles around to your location. Never a good idea.

A crowbar may be the single best all around tool.

Quick, rush over to http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore.html?pg=1&topic=bemore&topic_set= which is an amazing article on the current quest for the super soldier. It even mentions some of the past abuses we have. Amazing.

With people like Bill Mulligan, Jerry, Sean, and Micha around, I never have to feel like the oddest person in the group.

Or the best looking.

Yeah, Myers.... You laugh now, but you'll be thankful, THANKFUL I SAY, to be able to draw on the vast knowledge of creepy creature killing that we have amassed the day that you wake up and find the world outside your window overrun with revenants or their modern offshoots. They laughed at everybody who knew better at the start of every horror film in existence, but look who lived until the end credits!!! And who died!!!! That's what they get for thinking that WE"RE the crazy ones!!!!!!

Bwah-ha-ha-haaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me, I have to go now. my wife says that I'm overdue for my daily meds.

This one investion mentoned in that article at Wired is pure genius--a contraption that fits over the hand and cools the blood as you exercise, allowng you to do far more than you ever could before. There is also the headslappingly obvious idea of giving the wounded a shot of estrogen to allow for greater survival rates from blood loss. The military applications of biology are potentially limitless.

"With people like Bill Mulligan, Jerry, Sean, and Micha around, I never have to feel like the oddest person in the group."

That's the nicest thing anyone has said about me all week. At least SOMEONE on the internet appreciates me.

Bill, only problem with that article, wouldn't a scientist smart enough to come up with something like that be able to call it something better than the glove? I mean, seriously. Also gives new meaning to that phrase from Aliens--stay frosty.

Sean, one of the things they mentioned was that they were trying to make their stuff sound friendly and non-threatening. Me, I'd call it The Mighty Fist Of Doom or The Cold Gauntlet of Icy Death , but that's me.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 14, 2007 01:47 PM

Or the best looking.

You are such a total bastard.

You are such a total bastard.

Hey, it's bad enough when my mom says that...

Bill, you know you'd call it the Zombie's Touch. Don't even TRY to make us think differently.

Or just make us think. Smoke detectors up the Eastern Seaboard'll be going off.

You are such a total bastard.

I hear you have to eat 14 bowls of Raisin Bastard to equal the nutrition of one bowl of Total Bastard.

Hot damn, that's actually pretty funny, Mike. :)

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 14, 2007 01:16 PM
With people like Bill Mulligan, Jerry, Sean, and Micha around, I never have to feel like the oddest person in the group

Damn. Now I know it's been too long since I've been able to post regularly.

-Rex Hondo-

"Damn. Now I know it's been too long since I've been able to post regularly."

And you're Rex...Who-ndo? Wait, it's ringing a bell. Or that just may be my ears...

I'm sure in a year or two, we'll find out that the person who was shot was a clone or a SHIELD LMD. In the meantime, I think the killing of Steve Rogers as a way of getting him out of the way for the next phase of the registration controversy is just plain stupid.

I have to say, as a fan, I do not have much good to say about Marvel these days, especially in regards to their treatment of Cap. For the past few years now, he's been increasingly portrayed as a weak leader, pushed aside from his traditional role by Iron Fascist (I mean, Iron Man).

At this point, I'm counting the days until Joe Q steps down as EIC.

Re: Joseph Campbell

Mike, thank you for turning my attention to this person's work. I looked him up, and I thik I probably heard of his ideas in passing somewhere, since they sounded familiar to me.

You should note that -- if understand his ideas correctly based just on a glimpse in wikipedia and britannica -- Campbell idea is that different mythes like the grail are based on more ancient archetypes that appear in myths from different eras and cultures. In other words, the grail is not an archetype in itself as much as a (very significant) example of an heroic archetype.

Re: Searching for Bobbie Fischer.

There are three questions:
1) Is this movie a conscious reference to the grail story?
I'm not sure, since the reference to a Bobbie Fischer is to be expected in the context of chess without assuming it is hinting to the Fisher King. (Another good ches movie is Fresh).

2) Is the movie influenced by the grail story while not refering to it in any way?
It is hard to tell precisely because the grail story is such a strong example of an archetype that appears in many other stories. It is possible that he similarities to the grail you find in that movie and others are the result of them sharing the same archetype as the grail story.On the other hand, there is no doubt that some movies and books are directly influenced by Arthurian themes (like Star Wars). You can do research and see if the movie's director or writer spoke of such influences.
Searching for Bobbie Fischer and Perivall seem to share the same archetype according to the system of Frank McConnell I mentioned above.

3) Are the grail archetypes propsed my Mike applicable to the movies he mentions, and are they useful to understanding the movie?
Honestly, they seem too specific to me, and sometimes a little forced. Maybe it needs more work, or to take a step back to recognize a greater archetype that includes the grail story. One of the things I liked about Frank McConnell's book was that after I read it I started seeing his archetypes everywhere. Maybe if I read joseph Campbell or Jung (no promises) I'll see their archetyoes everywhere?

re: "Freud was an atheist"
I'm not exactly sure how's that relevant. People studying the Illiad today do not believe in the greek Gods (the ignorant fools), but the story is still of great artistic value.

re: "The influence of the grail myth seems apparent in Freud's establishment of the model of the id, ego, and superego."

I think he was influenced by a similar division in Plato's Republic. In any case, establishing influences like that is tricky precisely because there are many shared cultural influences. I think that's the idea behind Jung's idea of the collective unconscious. But you know more about it than I. Also, dividing things into 3's is quite common.

Re: "For instance, Sir Gawain was the knightly standard of chivalry, and all the other knights considered him the most likely one to find the grail. The unlikelihood of Percival, if not Galahad, finding the grail was a strong theme of the myth."
You should note that the Arthurian concepts, stories and characters went through different transformations as they were passed on from one writer to the next, from some Welsh legends to Chretien de Troyes and all the way to Peter David. It is a long tradition. In a way it is like a very long running comic with changing creative teams each adding their own take on this long tradition, usually reflecting their own time, place and culture. As a result characters changed, disappeared, were merged together and so on. Gawain got a little shafted over the years as a character.

re: "Chivalry is not interchangeable with the grail myth."
The term Arthuriana refers to any art that refers to stories from the king Arthur tradition -- books, comics, pomes, Opera, paintings, movies, musicals etc. For example, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, or Robert Redford's baeball movie (the coach's name is fisher, the team are 'the knights'). Bill, did you know that George Romero made an Arthurian movie?

Mike, a word of advice. It is better not to rely to heavily on jargon and terminology that is specific to the work of one thinker, especially if you are the thinker. First explain things simply and introduce the terms, and only then start using them. Otherwise they do not add to the clarity of your statements, but the reverse. Also, I had a professor that used to get on our case for using phrase like 'obvious', 'apparent' and such. Things are no always apparent, and these phrases are more rhetorical devises than helpful in explaining things. This is not criticism, just some (hopefully helpful) advice.

re: "in the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye is king."
Are you sure you are the man with the one eye? People iften think they are, but their are usually wrong.
And if we are at parables, are you familiar with the one about the blind men who were trying to describe an elephant based on the sense of touch?

re: "I hear you have to eat 14 bowls of Raisin Bastard to equal the nutrition of one bowl of Total Bastard."

This is very funny.

"With people like Bill Mulligan, Jerry, Sean, and Micha around, I never have to feel like the oddest person in the group."
I'm sorry to tell you, but in a room full of crazies the normal one is the odd one.

Posted by: Micha at March 15, 2007 09:28 AM

I'm sorry to tell you, but in a room full of crazies the normal one is the odd one.

I have never... NEVER... been referred to as "the normal one" before. This is quite novel.

Bill, did you know that George Romero made an Arthurian movie?

does the Poe know about the Nicene Creed? KNIGHTRIDERS! Though I have to admit it hasn't aged as well as I'd hoped. Still, even second level Romero is better than first level most other directors.

"I hear you have to eat 14 bowls of Raisin Bastard to equal the nutrition of one bowl of Total Bastard."

Heh. That made me laugh.

I'm sorry to tell you, but in a room full of crazies the normal one is the odd one.

Ok then, Myers is safe.

At this point, I'm counting the days until Joe Q steps down as EIC.

The sad thing is, Den, he's sitting pretty--the book sold like crazy and the "death" has gotten Marvel more publicity than they could have ever bought. Some seriously brain damaged people are even bidding up copies of Cap 25 on ebay (Sell now! Before they realize what gullible dupes they are!). The "death" of Superman taught them nothing!

Bill M, shock always gets the publicity. Sadly, it worked for DC when they "killed" Superman and it worked again for Marvel, which makes it doubly frustrating as this gimmick is obviously not even original.

But the "death" of Cap is just the latest in a long series of misusages of the character. He went from being the guy everyone in the MU looked to for leadership to constantly being put in his place by Iron Man to being the reckless leader of an anti-government movement.

If this is how Marvel is going to treat one of their icons, then maybe he's better off staying dead. I realize I may be in the minority in this veiw. But, as I'm also in the minority of people who think Wolverine is just about the stupidest character in comics history, I'm used to it.

Thank you.

Micha,

I haven't read Freud, but his emphasis on the id does not seem platonic.

Keep in mind that Plato and the grail myth are exclusive of each other in that the importance of the pagan grail contender in the grail myth is a challenge to Plato's diefication of ideas. The foundations of Taoism and Buddhism also share this challenge to the diefication of ideas.

I had a professor that used to get on our case for using phrase like 'obvious', 'apparent' and such. Things are no always apparent, and these phrases are more rhetorical devises than helpful in explaining things. This is not criticism, just some (hopefully helpful) advice.

I can only cite Oliver Sacks, who cited Goethe: optical illusion is optical truth. We should not kid ourselves that our hands are in no way tied in employing language to communicate experience.

People [often] think they are [the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind], but [they] are usually wrong. And if we are at parables, are you familiar with the one about the blind men who were trying to describe an elephant based on the sense of touch?

I can again only refer to Goethe: optical illusion is optical truth.

"have never... NEVER... been referred to as "the normal one" before. This is quite novel."

Bill, don't get too full of yourself, look at your competition.

We should make a reality TV show: america's most normal person.

[I was going to suggest America's Oddest Person, but I'm afraid this idea could be taken seriously by some TV executives.]

------
"Keep in mind that Plato and the grail myth are exclusive of each other in that the importance of the pagan grail contender in the grail myth is a challenge to Plato's diefication of ideas. The foundations of Taoism and Buddhism also share this challenge to the diefication of ideas."

Mike, are you familiar enough with Plato to say that?
I've studied Plato, and I don't feel confident enough to agree or disagree with your statement, although it doesn't sound right to me. But I know even less of Freud, Budhism, and Taoism, and I'm still not clear who the grail contender is.

In any case, in the Republic Plato presents a model of the mind that is divided into three parts which, I think, are similar in part to the one Freud uses. I think Plato and Budhism share a rejection of the material/sensory world. But I don't know enough.

Posted by: Den at March 15, 2007 10:06 AM

I realize I may be in the minority in this veiw. But, as I'm also in the minority of people who think Wolverine is just about the stupidest character in comics history, I'm used to it.

In an interview with the Comics Journal some years ago, Kurt Busiek opined that Marvel's raging success in the 1960s had to do with tapping into that era's zeitgeist. He suggested that the zeitgeist of today is much different, and wondered if the super-heroes created in the '60s had the same relevance to the youth of today.

It may well be that "Civil War" taps into today's zeitgeist. It's tough to say. Comparing today's sales figures with those from Marvel's heyday isn't necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison; back in the '60s printed entertainment didn't have to compete with Cable T.V., DVDs, GameBoys, the Internet, etc. Also, it's tough to know how much of Marvel's sales is being fueled by idiot speculators that didn't learn their lessons from the bubble-bursts of the 80s or the 90s. Or how many "Marvel Zombies" are buying the stuff because they feel they "have to" but are gritting their teeth as they do.

Hell, I don't even know if it's actually kids buying the stuff! I rarely see kids at my local comics shop! It's usually people my age or older.

Still, I'm forced to wonder if maybe the stuff loved by old farts like me just isn't right for the zeitgeist of the here and now.

It's pretty well documented that the average comics fan is getting older because kids have so many other things competing for their attention and their allowance money. With the price per book going up and the increasing emphasis on 6-12 issue epics as the norm, it's not surprising that kids aren't getting into the hobby any more. Manga sells well with kids, though, and I suspect that's because each manga book is a self-contained story or at least enough of one to give them enough entertainment for their money.

I often here the argument made that superheroes like Superman and Captain America aren't "relevant" in today's culture because they're too much of a black-and-white morality. But then again, isn't that how Bush views the world? Or maybe that isn't the case, given that Bush's approval ratings are down at Nixonian levels.

On the other hand, isn't it then ironic, given how unpopular Bush is today, that the side in Civil War that prevailed was the side that kowtowed to the president and was lead by a former member of Bush's cabinet?

Anyway, maybe I am old-fashioned in a sense. I want my superheroes to be heroic. And I see nothing heroic about a character who routinely slices up people, including several of his supposed friends, and carves an American flag (despite being Canadian) on the face of a captured soldier.

Mike, are you familiar enough with Plato to say that? I've studied Plato, and I don't feel confident enough to agree or disagree with your statement, although it doesn't sound right to me.

I am going on memories of a class reviewing Plato's model of the material world as "shadows cast" from an ideal plane: Nature is subordinate to the Ideal.

At the foundation of Buddhism, the foundation of Taoism, and as far as Christianity observes the grail myth, the Ideal is subordinate to Nature.

...I'm still not clear who the [pagan] grail contender is.

I am going by the Joseph Campbell reference, and how his casual reference resonates in all of the lasting religions.

The grail myth is interesting because something like it seems present in every religion and even Freudian psychology. To give you an example of the challenge to find major themes in common with every major religion:

Alan Watts was fond of saying how Hinduism was founded on the idea of the material world as a theater for a divine audience, and how if Jesus emerge in India and preached he was the son of god, the Hindus would have welcomed him with "Well, aren't we all?"

In Buddhism, you are the Buddha, as Ben Stein is fond of addressing people with "I bow to your Buddha."

In Christianity, Jesus Christ was the only man who was divine, Christians taking the practice from Christ's persecutors of denying the inherent divinity of man.

"We should make a reality TV show: america's most normal person."

Oh, admit Micha. You just don't wanna see that because A) you couldn't enter, and B) you wouldn't wanna see my ugly mug on TV winning something like that.

Den--while I know a lot of people who think Wolvie is the ultimate mutant, I myself have always been more partial to Cyclops and Colossus. Seriously, I always thought of Wolvie as more a supporting character. He's sort of the mutant Fonzie, a background character who became the most popular. I don't see any problem with heroes being heroic. It's also one of the problems I had with Iron Man once Tony Stark started overdrinking. I like the characters to be realistic, have realistic problems, but for a while the book just seemed to be about THAT. I don't know.

It may well be that "Civil War" taps into today's zeitgeist.

To me it's like watching a building being imploded; it isn't that I prefer the ruins but there is something fascinating in destruction.

It's what kept What If and all those "imaginary stories" at DC interesting. Now it seems like too many writers just smash things up and leave it to someone else to deal with the mess.

I don't think anyone can say that PAD left a book in worse shape than he found it. Well, Byrne might.

Seriously, I always thought of Wolvie as more a supporting character. He's sort of the mutant Fonzie, a background character who became the most popular.

That's a really good analogy. I like Logan more than Den does but I agree that it's a bit creepy how he is celebrated for what were once his flaws. The classic Claremont/Byrne issues portrayed the other X-Men as clearly dismayed by his bloodthirstyness. The last time I glanced through one of the non-PAD X-books it seemed like most of the characters made the Spartans look like Quakers.

Of course, now I'm sounding exactly like those golden and silver age old timers who used to bitch about how things were better in the old days when the X-Men wore yellow and black and kids had a little thing called discipline!

Mike:

Re: Plato

I'm not sure you understand Plato correctly. I don't want to burden this thread, so here's a link to Plato's theory of form's from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
You are smart enough to read it yourself and reach your own conclusions. I think you wil lnotice at a glance certain similarities to Budhism.

Two interesting points. First, when we use the word 'ideal' in english today we are influenced by the term 'idea' coined by Plato. But, as you'll see, the term does not have exactly the same meaning in his philosophy as it does today in our language. Secondly, 'shadows cast' is a metaphor used by Plato in the parable of the cave. But it is only a mataphor. Another parable in the same book is the one of the one eyed man being king of the blind. A third interesting parable is the one of Liges's (?) Ring, which makes you invisible. The point of this parable is that if people could get away with it by being invisible, they would become corrupt. I wonder if Tolkin took his idea for Lord of the Ring's from this story.

"The grail myth is interesting because something like it seems present in every religion."
If I understand Campbell correctly, the idea is that the archetype which exists in the grail myth also exists in the myths of other cultures.

"as far as Christianity observes the grail myth"

That's tricky. From a historical point of view the grail myth is an example of a way in which Christian clerics took a story from the secular culture of chivalry and gave it a religious context. This is a common theme in Church history. The Arthurian story was like TV today back then: it competed with the church for their attention. There's a story for an abbot whose monks were dosing during a sermon, so he started talking about king Arthur and they all woke up.
I suppose from an anthropological/comparative religion point of view the archetype of the grail myth that existed in Christian or pagan culture became the grail myth at a cettain point in the history of christianity.

"In Christianity, Jesus Christ was the only man who was divine, Christians taking the practice from Christ's persecutors of denying the inherent divinity of man."

Religions have many different aspects, and go through changes over time, space, different social groups etc. You can find in them different and sometimes contradictory ideas and interpretations. Also I think all religions shift back and forth along the spectrum of seeing man as divine and as insignificant, and seeing god as very close or as very distant. It depends on the circumstances. So you cannot really sum any of them up in one sentence. You should also note that phrases like that are usually metaphorical. They do not describe the things they explained in an analytical way, and are usually coined by people who have so much knowledge, they can get away with using some catchy metaphorical phrase to sum up their ideas.

Since you like quotes, there's a phrase in Judaism: the Torah has 70 faces. Another one is: Find yourself your own Rabbi. (But here, as always, if you look you can find in this same religions phrases that as narrow minded as these are pluralistic).

By the way, maybe you should look up the grail myth in Joseph Campbell's books to get a better understanding of his ideas about it. I really should read this stuff myself, if I can muster the discipline. My mom is doing work on biographies of the Prophet Muhammad, but hasn't used him so far. If she uses his work maybe it will give me the push to check it out myself -- or maybe I'll just watch some TV.

"I like Logan more than Den does but I agree that it's a bit creepy how he is celebrated for what were once his flaws."

That's definitly a reflection of our time, or maybe even of earlier time, and part of a gradual process. Today we have Jack Bauer (24), but his forefather was Clint Eastwood.

I'm not sure you understand Plato correctly. I don't want to burden this thread, so here's a link to Plato's theory of form's from Wikipedia.

Micha, review the opening text of the article you cited:

The Theory of Forms typically refers to Plato's belief that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only a shadow of the real world. Plato spoke of forms (sometimes capitalized in translations: The Forms) in formulating his solution to the problem of universals. The forms, according to Plato, are roughly speaking archetypes or abstract representations of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things we see all around us.

Plato portrayed Forms as independant of Nature. As far as the grail-myth, Taoism, and Buddhism portray Nature as independant of Ideas, they are incompatible with Plato.

Re: Searching for Bobbie Fischer. There are three questions:

1. Is this movie a conscious reference to the grail story?
   I'm not sure, since the reference to a Bobbie Fischer is to be expected in the context of chess without assuming it is hinting to the Fisher King. (Another good ches movie is Fresh).
2. Is the movie influenced by the grail story while not refering to it in any way?
   It is hard to tell precisely because the grail story is such a strong example of an archetype that appears in many other stories. It is possible that he similarities to the grail you find in that movie and others are the result of them sharing the same archetype as the grail story.On the other hand, there is no doubt that some movies and books are directly influenced by Arthurian themes (like Star Wars). You can do research and see if the movie's director or writer spoke of such influences.
   Searching for Bobbie Fischer and Perivall seem to share the same archetype according to the system of Frank McConnell I mentioned above.
3. Are the grail archetypes propsed my Mike applicable to the movies he mentions, and are they useful to understanding the movie?
   Honestly, they seem too specific to me, and sometimes a little forced. Maybe it needs more work, or to take a step back to recognize a greater archetype that includes the grail story. One of the things I liked about Frank McConnell's book was that after I read it I started seeing his archetypes everywhere. Maybe if I read joseph Campbell or Jung (no promises) I'll see their archetyoes everywhere?

***

1. What is the following if not the lament of the grail king?

You have no idea what I want. What is chess, do you think? Those who play for fun or not at all dismiss it as a game. The ones who devote their lives to it for the most part insist that it's a science. It's neither. Bobby Fischer got underneath it like no one before and found at its center, art. I spent my life trying to play like him. Most of these guys have. But we're like forgers. We're competent fakes. His successor wasn't here tonight. He wasn't here. He is asleep in his room in your house. Your son creates like Fischer. He sees like him, inside.... You want to know what I want. I'll tell you what I want. I want back what Bobby Fischer took with him when he disappeared.

My understanding is that those who know the real-life Pandolfini consider Kingsley's portrayal a complete fabrication, so it isn't as if he was a real-life wounded-king. And as far as he had a line in the movie, he consented to the unflattering, fictionalized portrayal.

2. Zaillian made no explicit reference to the grail.

Maybe Zaillian is completely unaware how the movie fits this pattern, but I wouldn't be surprised if Zaillian knows but hasn't introduced the topic in interviews. If he did, he'd be someone more like me, sitting here posting about it not knowing how to make an impact with what I know.

Consider Quentin Tarantino, who can't stop talking about the millions of influences of his films. It's all typical guy-fair, but still no one gives a shit.

3. Consider the grail-triangle as applied to The Matrix. As the grail-king, Morpheus starved his crew, and as the pagan contender, Cypher betrayed the crew to indulge his senses. And when Neo is losing at the end, he recovers because he indulges in a kiss.

For framing the drive to pit characters against each other and resolving the outcome of a story, you tell me how effective the grail-model is.

"Plato portrayed Forms as independant of Nature."

No. Nature is dependant on the forms. The forms are nature.

"For framing the drive to pit characters against each other and resolving the outcome of a story, you tell me how effective the grail-model is."

Sorry, I'm not convinced. It feels too forced to me.

Do what McConnell does in his book. First describe in anstract the characteristics of your different archetypes and the ways they interact, and then show the examples of how they manifest in different ways these characteristics. Right now it just seems as if you are just finding them everywhere. Also, they are very specific. McConel speaks of abstaract archetypes of the king, the knight, the detective, the fool/massiah, the shadow of the kinb, and (if I remeber correctly) the shadow of the knight. So if you watch a movie you can recognize pretty easily that a certain character exhibits king-like characteristics (as they are described by McConnell), and another fool-like characteristics. But you are talking about the grail-king, the grail-champion, the pagan-grail contender. That's more specific, and seems to assume a direct relation to the grail story (if I understand correctly).

Now, I'm not rejecting your system completely, ot rying to force on you another system. I just think you need to work on it more for it to work as well as you want it to.

At present I share Sean's opinion that the grail aspects you find in certain movies are the result of them sharing an archetype and not them directly refering to the grail myth.

It actually works pretty nicely with Searching for Bobbie Fischer and McConnell's system. See, in his system the king is an epic guy, very harsh, who sets out the ideals and laws of civilization, thus creating civilization out of chaotic nature (like Moses)[note how I explain the concept as I go along]. A fool/messiah is a person who is an outsider, lives in the civilized world created by the king, but one in which the laws became stagnated and the ideals were lost as a result. The fool/massiah is an outsider to this civilization. He is a fool because he doesn't understand or doesn't accept those rules. By this he challenges the old rules, topples the old civilization, and finds again the basic ideals on which it was founded, becoming in a way a king himself. The fool/massiah often dies (Jesus is one example). Now, in the grail story you have the Fisher King who is sick, and you have Percival, who is an outsider, a guy who lived in nature and doesn't know how to behave. In Searching for Bobbie Fischer you have Ben Kingsley as an obvious legislator-king and Josh as an outsider challenging the old-king's rules only to find again the essence of chess.
Matrix, needless to say, has heavy messianic symbolism, but in the first movie it actually seems to me to fit a different pattern -- that of the knight, who is a man is a follower and defender of the civilization and laws created by the king, who defends it from the chaos that still exists outside, by learning from the king his laws and ideals. The knight learns from the king, but he is less harsh and more civilized than him, which enables him also to pursue romance, something the king usually can't. In Matrix Neo seems o be the knight to Morpheus's king in the first movie, but Morpheus is the knigh to Neo's Massiah in the third. Similarly, Lancelot is the knight to Arthur (which is why he get Guenevere); but Arthur is the knight to Merlin.

As you can see, this system gives you pretty nice insight into the stracture of different stories.

The third archetype, the detective, is a guy who lives in the civilized world of the king but where the king is very distant or absent. In the stories of the detective, chaos is found inside civilization. What he detective does is find it and contain it, thus saving civilization. But in order to do that, he has to have a certain chaos/darkness in him. That's why the detective (sometimes a scientist, doctor, reporter etc.) in these stories is often sociallu awkward, like Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Gil Grissom, Greg House, Han Solo, Jack Bauer etc. Silence of the Lambs seems to fit this pattern.

Nature is dependant on the forms.

And in what circumstance would a Buddhist agree with this statement?

Right now it just seems as if you are just finding them everywhere....

At present I share Sean's opinion that the grail aspects you find in certain movies are the result of them sharing an archetype and not them directly refering to the grail myth.

1. The archetypes in the movies I've cited are consistant with the grail myth. You haven't said how that isn't the case, so I don't know what cause you have to disagree with anything I've said.

2. I've only cited one movie as perhaps deliberately employing the grail myth without explicitly referring to it.

3. The grail champion completes his quest by deviating from all convention. The idea of following as detailed a formula as you've transcribed to complete a grail quest completely disregards the meaning of the myth.

In Christianity, Jesus Christ was the only man who was divine, Christians taking the practice from Christ's persecutors of denying the inherent divinity of man."

You should also note that phrases like that are usually metaphorical.

My understanding is that if you do not accept Christ as the Messiah, you are not Christian.

As far as Christ is the Messiah, and we are not, Christianity does not homogenize existence as the other religions and philosophies I've cited for comparison do.

By the way, maybe you should look up the grail myth in Joseph Campbell's books to get a better understanding of his ideas about it. I really should read this stuff myself...

Anyone who's read the book he made his breakthough with, Hero with a Thousand Faces, knows he said about as much about the grail there as he said in the Moyers interview. I don't doubt he's said more, it's just in a book I haven't been exposed to yet.

As far as Christ is the Messiah, and we are not, Christianity does not homogenize existence as the other religions and philosophies I've cited for comparison do.

But is it accurate to say that Buddhists truly believe in the homogeniety of existance? Thousands are flocking to see the supposed "Buddha Boy" who is said to have lived without food or water for months at a time and is called by some the reincarnation of Buddha.

Or is it that anyone canbe called a reincarnation of Buddha and what is special about this boy (if the stories are true) is that he has reached a greater degfree of potential than the rest of us? Osme of the accounts satate that he is being worshipped, which seems different from the philosophy you describe. Of course there are the possibilities that A-the press has it all wrong or B-not all Buddhists follow the religion the same way. Or any combinations of teh above.

Regarding Joseph Campbell in general, I highly recommend anyone interested in him and his contribution to the study of mythology read The Hero With a Thousand Faces, The Transformation of Myths Through Time, and his four volume series, The Masks of God. They are subtitled Primative Mythology, Oriental Mythology, Occidental Mythology and Creative Mytology.

I also recommend the PBS series Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth with Bill Moyers, which is available on DVD, as well as a fascinating (at least to me) biography of Campbell called A Fire in the Mind.

Rick

On the other hand, isn't it then ironic, given how unpopular Bush is today, that the side in Civil War that prevailed was the side that kowtowed to the president and was lead by a former member of Bush's cabinet?

On the contrary. The pro-registration side, despite Stark's and Richards'... ummm... questionable methods, was the side that acceded to the will of the American people.

Also, somebody more intimately familiar with the law can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but vigilantism is not a Constiturional right. I believe it is, in fact, illegal. It had been tolerated, by and large, for as long as it had because, as Johnny Storm put it, who else is going to save the world from Galactus?

Without getting into the debate of whether Cap was written "correctly" or not, he chose the wrong side for dubious reasons, and realized it at the end. Sadly, if he had followed orders from the start, he probably could have at least partially reined in Stark, Richards and Pym.

On another note, count me as another who has always been less than impressed with Wolverine. Probably my favorite recent treatment of the character is Joss Whedon's in Astonishing X-Men.

-Rex Hondo-

"Anyone who's read the book he made his breakthough with, Hero with a Thousand Faces, knows he said about as much about the grail there as he said in the Moyers interview."

I believe the Masks of God is the work that will place the grai myth in a comparative antropological context.

------------------------------

"Nature is dependant on the forms.
And in what circumstance would a Buddhist agree with this statement?"

OK, quick glance about buddhism in wikipedia, and I think I understand where you're coming from. Although if you've explained things yourself it more elaboratly it might have helped. After reading this I really don't feel comfortable talking about this religion without much more study. Again, a religion with many faces. Here are a bunch of relevant quotes. I hope I understood them correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

"There are different views of reality in Buddhism. Some teachers (e.g., the mahasiddha Tilopa) even discouraged any intellectual activity, including philosophy. See also Buddha Shakyamuni's position on some philosophical questions and his famous arrow parable.

Some views of reality in Buddhism are relevant to the issue of dependent origination and some to teachings beyond cause and effect. Examples are discussed below.

Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing and not truly accurate. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma, part of the process of impermanence, similar to the Hindu concept of Maya.
Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]".[1] In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations.
Different schools and traditions in Tibetan Buddhism give different explanations of the mechanism producing the illusion usually called "reality".[2][3]"

The first teaching mentioned above, is the one I think you're thinking of. while the second reminds me of Plato's ideas. Especially this:

"Contrasting with some forms of Buddhism, the Buddha's teaching on 'reality' in the Tathagatagarbha Mahayana scriptures - which the Buddha states constitute the ultimate manifestation of the Mahayana Dharma - insists that there truly is a sphere or realm of ultimate truth - not just a repetitious cycle of interconnected elements, each dependent on the others. That suffering-filled cycle of x-generating-y-and-y-generating-z-and-z-generating-a, etc., is Samsara, the prison-house of the reincarnating non-self; whereas liberation from dependency, enforced rebirth and bondage is nirvana or reality / spiritual essence (tattva / dharmata). This sphere also bears the name Tathagatagarbha (Matrix of the Buddha). It is the deathless realm where dependent origination holds no sway, where non-self is supplanted by the everlasting, sovereign (aishvarya) self (atman) (as a trans-historical, unconditioned, ultimate, liberating, supra-worldly yet boundless and immanent awakened mind). Of this real truth, called nirvana - which, while salvationally infused into samsara, is not bound or imprisoned in it - the Buddha states in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

"What is the Real (tattva)? Knowledge of the true attributes of Nirvana; the Tathagata, the Dharma, the Sangha, and the attributes of space ... is the Real. What is knowledge of the attributes of Nirvana? The attributes of Nirvana are eightfold. What are these eight? Cessation [of ignorance and suffering]; loveliness/ wholesomeness; Truth; Reality; Eternity, Bliss, the Self [atman], and complete Purity: that is Nirvana."

He further comments: " ... that which is endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and Purity is stated to be the meaning of 'Real Truth' ... Moreover, the Real is the Tathagata [i.e., the Buddha]; the Tathagata is the Real ... The Tathagata is not conditioned and not tainted, but utterly blissful: this is the Real ...".

Thus, in such doctrines, a very positive goal is envisioned, which is said to lie beyond the grasp of the five senses and the ordinary, restless mind, and only attainable through direct meditative perception and when all inner pollutants (twisted modes of view, and all moral contaminants) are purged, and the inherently deathless, spotless, radiantly shining mind of Buddha stands revealed. This is the realm of the Buddha-dhatu (popularly known as buddha nature) - inconceivable, beginning-less, endless, omniscient truth, the Dharmakaya (quintessential body-and-mind) of the Buddha. This reality is empty of all falsehood, impermanence, ignorance, afflictions, and pain, but filled with enduring happiness, purity, knowingness (jnana), and omni-radiant loving-kindness (maitri)."

Which seems to me a little like this:
"Plato's Theory of Forms indicates that the sensory world that is the reality which we as human beings experience, is only a shadow of a higher realm. In this higher realm, Plato assures us that there exist the Forms that embody the true nature of the pale shadows. What we know as sweet is only an afterimage of the Form of Sweetness. The luminous brightness of the sun is only a corporeal display of the Form of Brightness.

The Forms should be understood as a unity amidst disparate things. The disparate things are the things of the sense world, the forms are our intellectual apprehension of the true meaning of those things; and even the lifeblood of the empirical things themselves. The Forms are static, perfect and unchanging: necessary characteristics if they are going to be used to make sense of the empirical world. Following this logic, then, Plato infers a unity to the forms themselves that could be considered the Ultimate Form, or the Form of Form. This is one quality which all Forms share. This is the Form of the Good. Later Christian thinkers influenced by Neo-Platonists would identify this Ultimate Form with God; though certainly famous pagan Neo-Platonists such as Plotinus would do the same."

And this:
"When used in a generic sense, a buddha is generally considered to be a person who discovers the true nature of reality through lifetimes of spiritual cultivation."

Is a little like this:
""the domain where truth and reality shine resplendent" is none other than Plato's world of forms--illuminated by the highest of the forms, that of the Good. Since true being resides in the world of the forms, we must direct our intellect there to have knowledge; otherwise, we are stuck with mere opinion of what may be likened to passing shadows."

-----------------------------------
"In Christianity, Jesus Christ was the only man who was divine, Christians taking the practice from Christ's persecutors of denying the inherent divinity of man.

My understanding is that if you do not accept Christ as the Messiah, you are not Christian.

As far as Christ is the Messiah, and we are not, Christianity does not homogenize existence as the other religions and philosophies I've cited for comparison do."

It seems to me (I could be wrong) that you are doing what medieval christians did, who tried to think of Muhammad in their terms -- namely that they believed in Muhammad like Christiand believe in Jesus. You are looking on the messiah and expect to find something like Buddha, and you are critical when it doesn't fit.

Now in Buddhism, buddha is any human being who acheived a state of enlightenment. 'The Buddha' is a guy who acheived this state and passed on his teachings. so not everyone is Buddha, but (I think) every man can be one if he tries (this is probably an oversimplification). Also, Buddhism doesn't have a god in the sense that Christianity does, so is Buddha divine? Perhaps in a different sense -- I'm not sure.

In Christianity you have a teacher who is god himself, which is not an attainable state for mere humans. However, Christianity has a lot of mystical writing (probably influenced by Neo-Platonism) of man acheiving spiritual union with Jesus, the soul returning to Jesus, the soul as the bride of Jesus and so on. So to say that Christianity denies the divinity of man is misleading.

A point about Messiah: Christians believe that Jesus is god and/or the son of god incarnate as man. They also think he is the messiah the Jews were (and stil are) waiting for. In Hebrew Messiah means annoyted, and originally refered to any of the annoyted human Jewish kings of the line of David. But, as I understand it, 'the Messiah' the Jews are waiting for is more than just a king. However, he is human, not a son of god or a god himself. the greek word for annoyted is Christos.

-----------------------

"The archetypes in the movies I've cited are consistant with the grail myth. You haven't said how that isn't the case, so I don't know what cause you have to disagree with anything I've said."

When you watch a movie like Searching for Bobbie Fischer or Matrix or Silence of the Lambs, or Captain America, and you find in them a king-like character, you tend to assume that he is the grail-King. And if you find a hero in the story, you tend to assume he is the grail champion. And if he is searching for something you assume it's the grail. But, since heroes and kings and searching appear in many different stories, then without establishing that these movies are directly influenced or refering to the grail story, it seems safer to assume that all you have in these movies are just kings and heroes, not grail-kings and grail-heroes, and that the grail aspects you find in these movies are the result of them sharing a more basic archetype, unless you can establish more strongly that these stories are grail stories (which in some cases is quite possible).
Furthermore, because in your system the hero is always defined by the archetype of the grail champion, this archetype, in my humble opinion, at present (pending further development) is not helpful enough in distinguishing between a hero like Josh (in Bobbie Fischer), Neo (Matrix), and Clarice (Silence of the Lambs), nor their relationship to the story and to other characters.

"The grail champion completes his quest by deviating from all convention. The idea of following as detailed a formula as you've transcribed to complete a grail quest completely disregards the meaning of the myth."

It would have been helpful if you have added to this sentence a sentence describing what is the meaning of the grail myth in your opinion. It might have strengthened your point, and clarified what you mean.
I did not describe a detailed formula that needs to be followed in order to complete the grail quest. I didn't say anything about a grail quest. what I did say about the archetype of the fool/messiah is similar to what you are saying about the grail champion -- deviating from convention. The thing with McConnell's system as opposed to yours is that deviating from convention is not just a characteristic of the grail champion, it is also a characteristic of other fool/messiahs, like Borat, for example.

"Also, somebody more intimately familiar with the law can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but vigilantism is not a Constiturional right. I believe it is, in fact, illegal. "

In or own world or in the Marvel universe?

I think we would be less tolerant of the idea of super heroes acting on their own in our own real world. But the idea that people with special abilities are to be conscripted and work for the government is somewhat problematic too.

"Without getting into the debate of whether Cap was written "correctly" or not, he chose the wrong side for dubious reasons, and realized it at the end."
I haven't read the end yet, but what I've seen left me feeling the Cap may not have been wrong on the principle, but he was wrong on the method. In a democratic society if you don't agree with a law you can campaign against it or practice civiil disobedience before you go underground and start fighting. a man of Cap's public profile could campaign against this law quite easily.

I think we would be less tolerant of the idea of super heroes acting on their own in our own real world. But the idea that people with special abilities are to be conscripted and work for the government is somewhat problematic too.

I think this is one of the points that didn't get addressed properly in the series (which, even if it had tried to present both sides as equally as it claimed, failed to take into account that on paper, when their own lives aren't affected, people tend to sympathize with freedom over security--at least, that's the side popular fiction tends to come down on).

The problem is that it wasn't clear at first whether the act affected people who were active as superheroes, or anyone with superhuman powers. If it's the former, then it comes off as a great deal more reasonable--it's a body that makes laws determining who's allowed to enforce them. (In fact, if one sees the series as being an analogy for the US in Iraq, Captain America's side could easily have been presented as the heavies rather than Iron Man's; they're the ones who believe that might makes right and doesn't have to be answerable to duly-constituted authority. The fact that the Punisher was on Cap's side gives some indication of where this can lead; if Marvel had a character along the lines of Hooded Justice from Watchmen, it would have been even clearer.)

That's not the direction the series took, however, which made it a great deal harder to see both sides' views as equally valid. The imbalance was increased because Iron Man's side was taken closer to the logical extreme of their position, while Cap's wasn't--the position of Cap's side is the sort that gets labelled as "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" depending in part on who writes the history books.

On the contrary. The pro-registration side, despite Stark's and Richards'... ummm... questionable methods, was the side that acceded to the will of the American people.

Perhaps. Another way of looking at it is that the administration took advantage of a tragedy to push through a controversial measure. Not that such a thing could ever happen in the real world. (cough, cough)

Also, somebody more intimately familiar with the law can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but vigilantism is not a Constiturional right.

Yes and no. It's not in the Constitution, but there is the common law doctrine of citizen's arrest. Not to mention self-defense or defense of another. In practice, there are all kinds of problems such as preserving evidence.

It had been tolerated, by and large, for as long as it had because, as Johnny Storm put it, who else is going to save the world from Galactus?

It's not illegal to save people from being murdered. Plus, in the MU, both the FF and the Avengers have traditionally enjoyed government endorsement. The Avengers, despite several members have criminal records, have also enjoyed high level security clearance and even exemption from things like air traffic control laws.

Without getting into the debate of whether Cap was written "correctly" or not, he chose the wrong side for dubious reasons, and realized it at the end.

I talk for hours about what was wrong with Civil War. Suffice it to say that I think it was idiotic that the anti-registration hero was the one for whom a secret ID was never a big deal while the pro-registration hero was the one who has in the past gone to extreme measures to protect his.

Sadly, if he had followed orders from the start, he probably could have at least partially reined in Stark, Richards and Pym.

And we would have been spared Richards whistling while comparing himself to von Braun. But then, we likely would have never had a Civil War had both Cap and Iron Fascist supported registration. This entire event was contrived from the beginning as primarily a Cap vs. Tony.

On another note, count me as another who has always been less than impressed with Wolverine. Probably my favorite recent treatment of the character is Joss Whedon's in Astonishing X-Men.

I admit I got a chuckle out of seeing him turned into a wuss until he drank a beer. What is he, Popeye now?

It's also one of the problems I had with Iron Man once Tony Stark started overdrinking. I like the characters to be realistic, have realistic problems, but for a while the book just seemed to be about THAT. I don't know.

While it may have been overplayed at times, at least Tony's alcoholism was about a hero struggling to overcome his flaws. Wolverine stopped being about that decades ago. Now, the character is all about revelling in his flaws. It doesn't help that his major "flaw" is being a homicidal maniac.

But is it accurate to say that Buddhists truly believe in the homogeniety of existance? Thousands are flocking to see the supposed "Buddha Boy" who is said to have lived without food or water for months at a time and is called by some the reincarnation of Buddha.

Or is it that anyone can be called a reincarnation of Buddha and what is special about this boy (if the stories are true) is that he has reached a greater degfree of potential than the rest of us? [Some] of the accounts [state] that he is being worshipped, which seems different from the philosophy you describe. Of course there are the possibilities that A-the press has it all wrong or B-not all Buddhists follow the religion the same way. Or any combinations of teh above.

There's a heavy Taoist influence on much of Buddhism, and as the Tao is everywhere, like water, I think it's fair to say (admittedly as a non-Buddhist) that Buddhists see reality as homogenized. Consider this Alan Watts anecdote:

A westerner visiting a Buddhist temple in Japan, I even think he said it was someone he knew, observered the priests praying to the Buddha. He asks one of them what the deal is with all of these Buddhists priests -- whose Nirvana comes from the Sanskrit word for nothing, and the consequence of whose lives result in the same void as none-believers -- bowing to anything. "I'd just as soon spit on the Buddha as bow to him."

The priest replied, "You spits, I bows."

The Buddhist accepts his or her helplessness, and addresses it through prayer to the Buddha. It seems analogous to the "Either/Or" angst of the Christian Kierkegaard over the omnipresence of uncertainty, in joy and in despair.

There are Buddhists who practice the fundamentalism all religions are vulnerable to, but as far as I know there is no inherent inconsistency in bowing to the Buddha boy as a reincarnation of the Buddha.

I believe the Masks of God is the work that will place the grai myth in a comparative antropological context.

That's 4 volumes I have to hunt down and review for the grail references, but ok.

Now in Buddhism, buddha is any human being who acheived a state of enlightenment. 'The Buddha' is a guy who acheived this state and passed on his teachings.

What do you mean by enlightment? Two Zen priests arguing over whether the wind moved the flag or the flag moved the wind were said to be enlightened by a third priest saying it was their minds that moved.

When you watch a movie like Searching for Bobbie Fischer or Matrix or Silence of the Lambs, or Captain America, and you find in them a king-like character, you tend to assume that he is the grail-King.

I cited no one adopting the role of the grail king in Silence of the Lambs. And Captain America is a grail champion, not a grail king -- what grail-king-like flaw prevented him from acheiving anything?

It would have been helpful if you have added to this sentence a sentence describing what is the meaning of the grail myth in your opinion.

This thread is full of my hot air on the issue:

The relationship between Captain America, the racism of his time, and the black Captain America fits a grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender triangle -- an idea not all that modern -- where the grail-champion fulfills the promise of, and redeems, the grail-king (A Jim-Crow-era America poised to intervene in WWII) by wedding the grail-king's sterile ideology to a naturalism that borders on vulgarity (the minorities racism frames as vulgar).

And so on and so forth.

"I talk for hours about what was wrong with Civil War. Suffice it to say that I think it was idiotic that the anti-registration hero was the one for whom a secret ID was never a big deal while the pro-registration hero was the one who has in the past gone to extreme measures to protect his."

I'm not that familiar with Captain America. Isn't it appropriate for him to gight for a principle he has no personal stake in?

I only read Avengers during this whole Civil War event. But in it Captain America presented a view of super heroes as an independant force that acts as a kind of checks and balances. He was afraid of the idea of the government controlling the power of super heroes. I thought it was an interesting idea which is unique to a world in which super heroes exist.
There's a certain similarity between Captaín America's views and some of the arguments against gun control.

"That's 4 volumes I have to hunt down and review for the grail references, but ok."

That's what the index is for. It would probably be in the book about occidental mythology. Of course, you don't have to read it. I'm not giving you homework. Ít's your hobby.

"What do you mean by enlightment?"
What I mean is irrelevant. What Buddhist mean by enlightment is the relevant question.

"This thread is full of my hot air on the issue"
Don't be too hard on yourself. Your thoughts are quite interesting. But if you want your ideas to be understood you have to present them more clearly, if for no other reason than because not everybody is familiar with the details of the grail story, and you have to establish your terminology before you can use it.

Now in Buddhism, buddha is any human being who acheived a state of enlightenment. 'The Buddha' is a guy who acheived this state and passed on his teachings.

What do you mean by [enlightenment]?

What I mean is irrelevant. What Buddhist mean by enlightment is the relevant question.

It isn't irrelevant as far as you refer to the word.

This thread is full of my hot air on the issue

Don't be too hard on yourself. Your thoughts are quite interesting.

As the grail myth challenges the dependence of Nature on Forms, the first line of the Tao Te Ching says that the Tao (way) that can be spoken is not the true Tao -- and then it goes on to speak of the Tao for 81 section.

In effect, opening by saying the way that can be spoken is not the true way, the Tao Te Ching is opening by saying what it has to say is a lot of hot air.

But if you want your ideas to be understood you have to present them more clearly, if for no other reason than because not everybody is familiar with the details of the grail story, and you have to establish your terminology before you can use it.

I can't read your mind. What is there to clarify that you don't cite as confusing?

Notes on various points: 1)Luke Cage wasn't created to test a super-soldier serum--it was simply an experiment in making people more resistant to disease. A sadistic guard tried tinkering to kill Cage and instead made him the man of steel-hard skin he is today.
2)Back in CHAMPIONS, a scientist did try replicating the super-soldier formula in the seventies. He used inmates in his mental hospital as guinea pigs.
3)The grail isn't as much a Christian legend as a Christian literary creation--it originated in the works of Chretien, and it appears he pretty much created it.
4)I agree with what Doug said about the ridiculousness of Civil War and take it several degrees further. This plotline suffered from the same assumption as several similar ones, the assumption that super-hero means the same thing in the MU or DCU as it does here.
As near as I can figure it out, people with no powers (Shang Chi) were affected by the act, and so were people who did have powers but weren't actively superheroing. Unless they're using a Bush-style "enemy combatant is whoever the president designates" approach, there's no way it would hold up in court. Even a simple sign ordinance needs two or three pages of definitions to be legally defensible.
As for Cap, I'm not surprised they ducked the idea of passive resistance--which would have made much more sense if he'd done it from the start (I think having Cap go to jail in defiance would rally 10 times more opposition to the law than anything else). In the Marvel Universe, it's not even an option: While we know nonviolent protest got results in the real world, the Xmen prefer passivity ("If we sit at that no-mutants lunch counter, we'll only inflame their hatred! We have to wait until someday, humans realize we're no different and invite us to their lunch counters!") or Magneto's approach (launch the diner into outer space).
5)I agree the Red Skull would never let Cap die without knowing who'd done him in. But I also think in any story where there's a Cosmic Cube in play, the idea of permanent death is a joke.

"What do you mean by [enlightenment]?

What I mean is irrelevant. What Buddhist mean by enlightment is the relevant question.

It isn't irrelevant as far as you refer to the word."

I see you're a fan of word games. Fortunatly, so am I. You are also a fan of using terminology of famous thinkers, so you'll enjoy this. In this case we have what philosopher Hilary Putnam calls Division of Linguistic Labor. [And now I'll explain] when I'm using the word 'enlightment' in this context it is synonymous with: 'the term used by Buhddists and translated by English speaking experts of Buddihsdm as enlightenment.' Whereas if I were talking about 'the age of enlightenment' the word would be synonymous with: 'the term historians of ideas use in order to refer to the intellectual developments of a certain age era in European history circa the 18th century. Since we are talking about Buddhism, and not my own ideas about enlightenment, and since I'm neither a Buddhist nor an expert on it, I must rely on the experts for the meaning of the definition enlightenment. [I'll further explain] Putnam uses Division of Linguistic Labor to explain how, although a lay person may not be able to distinguish between say an oak tree and a beech tree, he means different things when he uses each word, because he is refering to the expertise of others. Enlightment is not like a tree, so here the context (Buhdism or 18th century Eurpe) is also significant.

----------------------------

"I can't read your mind."

When you write for others to read you have to do a little mind reading in order to anticipate whether or not your ideas are clear to them. It's very frustrating sometimes, especially if you're writing a paper and a professor puts a red question mark next to a sentence you thought was perfectly clear. But that's life. If he didn't understand it, others probably won't too. You can't satisfy everybody always, but striving for clarity is a good idea. Unless you are a very big shot academic, and you want to seem obscure, or a mystic, and you want to seem mysterious, or a writer/poet and you're trying to acheive a feeling of confusion.

"What is there to clarify that you don't cite as confusing?"

I'll give you two examples:
1)"As the grail myth challenges the dependence of Nature on Forms."

- Why do you say that the grail myth challenges the dependence on the nature of forms?
- What aspect of the myth constitutes a challenge (keeping in mind that we don't have instant recollection of the myth)? You also have to define the what you consider the basic essentials of the myth so we won't be confused between all the different writers who developed it).
- How does the myth challenge the dependence on the nature of forms?

2) "The relationship between Captain America, the racism of his time, and the black Captain America fits a grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender triangle."

- Who are the grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender?
- What are their characteristic?
- In what way do different characters/aspects in Red White and Black display these characteristics?

I'm not that familiar with Captain America. Isn't it appropriate for him to gight for a principle he has no personal stake in?

Sure it is. I just didn't buy the arguments he put forth for he reasons for being against registration.

There's a certain similarity between Captaín America's views and some of the arguments against gun control.

Sure. On the other hand, most states require private detectives (probably the best real world analogy to a superhero) to be licensed, so it's not inconceivable that a government would require licensing of superheroes.

2)Back in CHAMPIONS, a scientist did try replicating the super-soldier formula in the seventies. He used inmates in his mental hospital as guinea pigs.

There were a number of attempts over the decades to replicate the super-soldier serum. At least one attempt produced one of the stand-in Captain Americas and Buckys from the 1950s, driving them insane. That particular Bucky later became Nomad. Another resulting in the creation of the Man-Thing.

3)The grail isn't as much a Christian legend as a Christian literary creation--it originated in the works of Chretien, and it appears he pretty much created it.

Actually, a lot of what Chretien wrote was heavily borrowed from Celtic mythology, which has a number of tales of cups or cauldrons with healing properties, the ability to raise the dead, or create food. The Mabinogian contains an incomplete grail story featuring Peredur. Both the author of that tale and Chretien de Troyes probably drew their stories from an earlier and now lost common source.

As for Cap, I'm not surprised they ducked the idea of passive resistance--which would have made much more sense if he'd done it from the start (I think having Cap go to jail in defiance would rally 10 times more opposition to the law than anything else). In the Marvel Universe, it's not even an option: While we know nonviolent protest got results in the real world, the Xmen prefer passivity ("If we sit at that no-mutants lunch counter, we'll only inflame their hatred! We have to wait until someday, humans realize we're no different and invite us to their lunch counters!") or Magneto's approach (launch the diner into outer space).

They would probably say that passive resistance would not sell in a visual, action-oriented medium like comics. I, on the other hand, would have found it a much better story if Captain America would have gone to jail while some one a little more militant (Too bad Thor is dead) would lead the violent rebellion. The battle would end with Cap being let out to appeal to both sides to end the fighting.

I, on the other hand, would have found it a much better story if Captain America would have gone to jail while some one a little more militant (Too bad Thor is dead) would lead the violent rebellion

Well, this might be your wish, albiet a little late for the main storyline:

http://www.newsarama.com/movies/Hellboy/Iron/889new_storyimage3793928_full.jpg

Please, just pluck out my eyes now.

Oh, yes, I know. As soon as news about Cap broke, speculation began on who would replace Rogers as Captain America.

Pretty quickly, that image above sprang to mind in the minds of many. And, just like us, those same people wanted to claw their eyes out.

1)Luke Cage wasn't created to test a super-soldier serum--it was simply an experiment in making people more resistant to disease. A sadistic guard tried tinkering to kill Cage and instead made him the man of steel-hard skin he is today.

Fair enough; I had the impression that it had been retconned to be a Super-Soldier variant, and Wikipedia seemed to back that up, but information's only as good as your sources... (If it has been retconned, then the problem's with the retcon, not the original story, then.)

As you cite the confusing sentences, I will attempt to address them

As the grail myth challenges the dependence of Nature on Forms.

- Why do you say that the grail myth challenges the dependence on the nature of forms?
- What aspect of the myth constitutes a challenge (keeping in mind that we don't have instant recollection of the myth)? You also have to define the what you consider the basic essentials of the myth so we won't be confused between all the different writers who developed it).
- How does the myth challenge the dependence on the nature of forms?

It's the grail-king's diefication of intellect, abstraction, Form, that causes him to lose the grail.

To behold the grail and indulge in its glory is to be unworthy of it. The grail tolerates no fixation to Form.

That's how a movie making no explicit reference the the grail is truer to the grail myth than "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."

It isn't unlike the commandment objecting to idolatry. It also isn't unlike the Islamic portrayal of Satan, who disobeyed the order to bow to man and was cast into hell -- not because he considered himself in no way inferior to man as he's portrayed in Christianity -- but because of his refusal to slacken his single-minded devotion to god.

The relationship between Captain America, the racism of his time, and the black Captain America fits a grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender triangle -- an idea not all that modern -- where the grail-champion fulfills the promise of, and redeems, the grail-king (A Jim-Crow-era America poised to intervene in WWII) by wedding the grail-king's sterile ideology to a naturalism that borders on vulgarity (the minorities racism frames as vulgar).

- Who are the grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender?
- What are their characteristic?
- In what way do different characters/aspects in Red White and Black display these characteristics?

I was not referring to behavior, but roles. Your question makes as much sense as asking "Who are the child and the father and mother?"

"Well, Mr Spock, Sarek, and Amanda fit the child/father/mother triangle where in Mr Spock is joined genetic material from Sarek and Amanda."

To this statement would you then ask who the child/father/mother are? What their characteristics are? In the ways different characters/aspects in star trek display these characteristics?

The grail isn't as much a Christian legend as a Christian literary creation--it originated in the works of Chretien, and it appears he pretty much created it.

As Den said, the foundation of the grail is not Christian. It's meaning was applied to Adam as the grail king, and Jesus as the champion who redeems Adam.

With no obvious pagan contender, it's not surprising you keep asking what the hell I'm talking about. Christianity doesn't fill the role of the pagan grail contender so you keep asking me about it as if its absence is my fault. All that's left are a few casual references by Campbell that complete the meaning like the pain of a phantom limb.

But without a pagan grail contender, you've arbitrarily removed your solution to recovering the grail. Where then is the sense of leaving his role out of the model?

Disclaimer, that last quote was not by Micha.

"It's the grail-king's diefication of intellect, abstraction, Form, that causes him to lose the grail.

To behold the grail and indulge in its glory is to be unworthy of it. The grail tolerates no fixation to Form."

What's the basis of these two statements? Usually you're very careful when it comes to citation and quotation.

"That's how a movie making no explicit reference the the grail is truer to the grail myth than "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.""

That's rather convenient.

"I was not referring to behavior, but roles. Your question makes as much sense as asking "Who are the child and the father and mother?"

"Well, Mr Spock, Sarek, and Amanda fit the child/father/mother triangle where in Mr Spock is joined genetic material from Sarek and Amanda."

To this statement would you then ask who the child/father/mother are? What their characteristics are? In the ways different characters/aspects in star trek display these characteristics?"

I don't think this is a good analogy. You wish to apply the grail relationships metaphorically to the Captain America story. If you say for example that Captain america is the metaphorical father of the Avenger's family, you have to demonstrate that. This is even more true in the case of the grail relationship/roles, since they are not as self-evident as familial relationships/roles, especially since they depend on a specific story.
King, Knight, Detective, Fool/messiah are relatively more evident roles, yet they still require an explanation before you can use them to explain stories.

"As Den said, the foundation of the grail is not Christian. It's meaning was applied to Adam as the grail king, and Jesus as the champion who redeems Adam."

What's the origin of the application to Adam?

Den was refering to the story of the grail written by Chretien having influences that some scholars trace to Celtic legends. Although he should also have mentioned that scholars don't agree as to the level of that influence.

"Christianity doesn't fill the role of the pagan grail contender so you keep asking me about it as if its absence is my fault."
It's your terminology and your theory so you have to take responsibility to its historical and literary basis, how well it works, and when it doesn't completely work you have to explain why.

"But without a pagan grail contender, you've arbitrarily removed your solution to recovering the grail. Where then is the sense of leaving his role out of the model?"

It's your model, and I stil don't understand how it works. You have to define the roles of the components, and (if you are not using them simply as metaphors) you have to give them a historical-literary basis.

- Why do you say that the grail myth challenges the dependence on the nature of forms? - What aspect of the myth constitutes a challenge (keeping in mind that we don't have instant recollection of the myth)? You also have to define the what you consider the basic essentials of the myth so we won't be confused between all the different writers who developed it). - How does the myth challenge the dependence on the nature of forms?

It's the grail-king's diefication of intellect, abstraction, Form, that causes him to lose the grail.

To behold the grail and indulge in its glory is to be unworthy of it. The grail tolerates no fixation to Form.

What's the basis of these two statements? Usually you're very careful when it comes to citation and quotation.

I answered your question.

Maybe I picked this image up from the Penguin classics edition of the grail quest I read 12 years ago. Maybe I picked this up from the Hero with a thousand Faces. Maybe I picked this up from the Moyers interview. Maybe I picked this up from the Robin Williams movie. Maybe some combination of the above, with or without overlap. It fits all of them, and all the other examples I cited.

If I'm usually very careful when it comes to citation and quotation, why are you questioning everything that comes from my keyboard?

The relationship between Captain America, the racism of his time, and the black Captain America fits a grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender triangle -- an idea not all that modern -- where the grail-champion fulfills the promise of, and redeems, the grail-king (A Jim-Crow-era America poised to intervene in WWII) by wedding the grail-king's sterile ideology to a naturalism that borders on vulgarity (the minorities racism frames as vulgar).

- Who are the grail-champion/grail-king/pagan-grail-contender?
- What are their characteristic?
- In what way do different characters/aspects in Red White and Black display these characteristics?

I was not referring to behavior, but roles. Your question makes as much sense as asking "Who are the child and the father and mother?"

"Well, Mr Spock, Sarek, and Amanda fit the child/father/mother triangle where in Mr Spock is joined genetic material from Sarek and Amanda."

To this statement would you then ask who the child/father/mother are? What their characteristics are? In the ways different characters/aspects in star trek display these characteristics?

I don't think this is a good analogy. You wish to apply the grail relationships metaphorically to the Captain America story. If you say for example that Captain america is the metaphorical father of the Avenger's family, you have to demonstrate that.

I didn't say Captain america is the metaphorical father of the Avengers.

If you have a question that can be answered, I will try to answer it.

This is even more true in the case of the grail relationship/roles, since they are not as self-evident as familial relationships/roles, especially since they depend on a specific story. King, Knight, Detective, Fool/messiah are relatively more evident roles, yet they still require an explanation before you can use them to explain stories.

Micha, in your Borat-style consent-form replies to my posts, you keep citing detectives, fools, and messiahs. What detective did Percival or Galahad encounter? What fool? What Son of God?

It's your model, and I still don't understand how it works. You have to define the roles of the components, and (if you are not using them simply as metaphors) you have to give them a historical-literary basis.

1. It isn't my model -- nothing I've said is original to me.

2. What part of non-Christian contender to the grail is unfathomable? Am I not using English words?

The Holy Grail? No, thanks. I've already got one.

Can we come up and have a look?

Of course not, you are Bloggish types!

Well, what are you, then?

Actually, I think Frank Castle as Captain America could work.

No, hear me out!

If I were the guy in charge, I'd go the opposite direction of what the "Is this the new Captain America?" picture would lead us to fear. Instead of going the Azrael or Eradicator route, I would make it a redemption story, with Castle struggling to become a better man in order to live up to the legacy he's inherited, probably stumbling along the way, but ultimately becoming worthy of the shield, probably just in time to hand it back to Rogers when he comes back from the dead to promote the new movie.

-Rex Hondo-

Mike, until recently I belonged to the academic world. It this world scrutinizing and criticizing even the ideas, interpretation, and the method of presentation of ideas is the norm, even itr is the ideas of esteemed scholars. In this world you cannot present a broad overarching interpretation of a complex text as indisputable fact and expect people to accept it without question simply because you said it fits. You have to establish and demonstrate in a methodical way what you say, and still people will question it. But of course, if you find this kind of scrutiny distressing, you are free to ignore it. This is only a blog, you can say whatever you want. And anyway, I don't have any stake in this. You also don't have to concern yourself that I am somehow offended by your burst of anger. I understand that this is difficult for you to see your ideas and your presentation of these ideas scrutinized in this way.

I must say that if I were you I would be more hesitant to present an interpretation of a myth and several movies constructed soley by myself as indisputable fact based only on a Classics book read years ago, a passing remark in a documentry, and a movie, and all this without presenting the interpretation in a methodical way. But that's me.

"you keep citing detectives, fools, and messiahs. What detective did Percival or Galahad encounter? What fool? What Son of God?"

It would seem that in your haste to present your ideas you ignores some of the things I wrote. Or maybe I did not present them clearly enough for you, in which case I'll be happy to clarify. I mentioned and briefly described the interpretational methodology developed by a man named Frank McConnel, who like you is a literary interpreter -- in my opinion much more skilled than you in his craft. I thought you'd be interested in a different approach to interpreting texts and movies, but perhaps you feel your interpretation needs no other. In any case, fools, detectives etc. are archetypical characters in his interpretational system. In his pretty good book he demonstrates how these archetypes appear in a variety of different stories, and this helps to understand the nature of these stories better. Unlike you, he feels the need to actually demonstrate his archetypes in detail, and does not present it as indisputable fact. I personaly found his approach very illuminating, and his interpretations sounded very convincing to me, while yours do not. I don't know if this is because of a difference in your systems or just a diffeence in the way you present your concepts.

You also seemed to have missed the post in which I explained that messiah is not synonymous with son of god. But that's not important.

Since it seems this discussion upsets you to the point of rudeness, I think we should stop it so as not to distress you further.

"It isn't my model -- nothing I've said is original to me."
Based on your words it seems to be yours since you do not attribute it to anybody else. You say you were influenced by a passing statement spoken by Joseph Campbell in an interview, and a book you read 12 years ago + the movie Fisher King. Combining all this and applying it movies like Searching for Bobie Fischer is your work, don't deny yourself the credit.

We're Irish, why do you think we have these outRAGEous accents?

(C'mon, it's St. Paddy's Day! Allow a LITTLE interpretation!).

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 16, 2007 10:35 PM

Instead of going the Azrael or Eradicator route, I would make it a redemption story, with Castle struggling to become a better man in order to live up to the legacy he's inherited, probably stumbling along the way, but ultimately becoming worthy of the shield, probably just in time to hand it back to Rogers when he comes back from the dead to promote the new movie.

That's pretty much the story of John Walker, Super-Patriot turned Captain America turned USAgent, from Mark Gruenwald's run as writer of Captain America. Ironically, however, just as Walker began growing into the role of being Cap his parents were murdered, causing him to become unhinged and go all "Punisher" on their murderers' asses.

Plato portrayed Forms as [independent] of Nature.

No. Nature is [dependent] on the forms.

Micha,

As far as you are denying statements by me with replies that in no way disprove what I am saying, the aggression is yours.

Mike, if the mere word No, and not accepting a statement you make, is perceived by you as aggression, I will certainly not offend you by daring to discuss with you in a serious manner any statement you make, no matter how strange I find it. Our focus should be first your calmness of spirit and only secondly understanding of philosophical ideas. Although, others might not be aware of your sensitivity the way I do and might challenge your proclamations, so maybe you should be more careful about making such statements or at least offere a warning that you do not seek to discuss them seriously.

Micha... seriously, it's time to walk away from this.

Yes, that's what I'm doing. It was interesting for a while. Now that it isn't I'd rather discuss civil war and captain america.

Are you suggesting that shields migrate?

Plato portrayed Forms as [independent] of Nature.

No. Nature is [dependent] on the forms.

Micha,

As far as you are denying statements by me with replies that in no way disprove what I am saying, the aggression is yours.

Mike, if the mere word No, and not accepting a statement you make, is perceived by you as aggression, I will certainly not offend you by daring to discuss with you in a serious manner any statement you make, no matter how strange I find it.

You denied "Plato portrayed Forms as [independent] of Nature" and "Nature is [dependent] on the forms" are compatible statements, and you referred to aggression in my replies. Now you've demonstrated your persistence in portraying compatible statements as mutually exclusive of each other.

As this non-sensical denial epitomizes every challenge to what I say you issue, it used to baffle me. I've issued a paradigm to reconcile the behavior that baffles me with my ability to form a model of reality.

As it would be hypocritical of me to offended by Bill Myer's drive to ambush me, responding to no particular post here with:

• "Perhaps if I had your experiences I too would be full of hate like you."
• "...you can't defeat one kind of hate with another. You are blinded by your own brand of hate, which is directed not at a specific ethnicity but at any individual you find personally threatening. And for whatever reason, you find just about everyone else threatening."
• "Your own hatred is in no way more virtuous."

to reconcile for himself my behavior that baffles him and his ability to form a cogent model of reality, it would be hypocritical of me to be offended by your aggression. As such, if you have a question for me that can be answered, I will try to answer it.

I said I wouldn't retaliate against his ambushes, and I have no intention of retaliating against your aggression. But I haven't waived the privilege of calling aggression what it is.

It's your model, and I still don't understand how it works. You have to define the roles of the components, and (if you are not using them simply as metaphors) you have to give them a historical-literary basis.

It isn't my model -- nothing I've said is original to me.

Combining all this and applying it movies like Searching for Bobie Fischer is your work, don't deny yourself the credit.

As the menu is not the dinner, the model is not my application of it.

Micha, don't fall into the trap of Platonism, starving yourself by eating the dollar bills.

Are you suggesting that shields migrate?

Not at all. They could be carried. A swallow could grip it by the strap.

"But I haven't waived the privilege of calling aggression what it is."

And you call me counselor? bwahahahahaha. I doubt I've ever used the phrase "waived the privilege" before, and I'm pretty sure I should at some point.

Perhaps the swallows could rig the shield up on a piece of twine?

It's not a question of where they grip it, it's a question of air speed velocity. A swallow has to beat it's wings 53 times per minute to stay aloft, am I right?

An African or European swallow?

And you call me counselor? bwahahahahaha. I doubt I've ever used the phrase "waived the privilege" before, and I'm pretty sure I should at some point.

I'm pretty sure your girlfriend would agree.

Perhaps the swallows could rig the shield up on a piece of twine?

Held under the dorsal guidance feathers?