Random Thoughts

A new comic age?

2007-02-11T13:07:00.000-08:00

Someone over at Newsarama posted a question on if we have entered a new comic age with DC's mega-super-jumbo events that have lead from Identity Crisis, to Countdown to Infinite Crisis to 52 and to whatever 52 leads into. http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=101016

I was just wondering where others consider the Ages to begin and end and if there can ever be a consensus. The original thread was also only factoring in DC which I don't think you can do. I also think it's impossible to name an age without the benefit of being able to look back. The retrospective aspect is important I believe and some time should be given. it's not like people were saying "We're in the silver age of comics!" in the 1960's.

Overstreet lists the first age as the Victorian Age, then the Platinum Age, then the Golden Age... but things get murky after that.

Victorian Age - 1828-1883

Platinum Age - 1883-1938

Golden Age - 1938-1945 (first Superman to the decline of superhero comics)

Atomic Age - 1945-1955 (The radiation era and the fall of superheroes and rise of horror/romance etc.)

Silver Age - 1955-? This is where it gets muddy. Some count the first Silver Age comic as Detective #255 with Martian Manhunter or Showcase #4 with Barry Allen's Flash or 1961 with the introduction of the Fantastic Four. The usual date of acceptance for the start of a new age was Conan #1 in 1970 but some consider the Spider-Man drug issues or Giant Size X-Men in 1975 to be the start or the influx of horror books like Tomb of Dracula in the early 1970's.

Bronze Age - ????-???? Many people consider the bronze age over and a new age started with the formation of Image Comics in the early 1990's, while others think Watchmen/Dark Knight Returns/Daredevil ushered in a new "grim and gritty" age.

The present? Who knows?
Have we exited the Image/Grim and Gritty Age already? Would the most recent age be defined by massive sales stunts (foil and variant covers) and mega-event crossovers?

When did the new one start or did it yet? Are we in between ages now?

It all depends on when something ends and something new begins... but that ending and new beginning must have HUGE significance to justify its place and that's where the problems lie. What is more important? The return of Superheroes in Detective #255? The first appearance of a new character based on an old one? Or the complete overhaul on how comics were written with FF#1?

Decisions... and I don't think that anyone anytime soon will agree on a consensus... so I hope Overstreet does something and gets it in writing.

Just some random thoughts.

Twelve Days Revolution 1956: How the Hungarians tried to topple their Soviet Masters

2007-01-21T22:37:00.000-08:00

Victor Sebestyen
Orion Publishing
Hard cover $39.95

The surprising Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was an unplanned, spontaneous nationwide revolt against the Communist government of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies by a people desperate for change. Lasting just 12 days from October 23 until November 10, 1956, it began as a student demonstration, which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building. A student delegation entered the radio building in an attempt to broadcast their demands and were detained. When the delegation’s release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired at by the State Security Police from within the building, which sowed the seeds for the coming violence. The news of the detention and gun fire spread quickly, and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital and then engulfed the entire country.

Victor Sebestyen, a journalist (whose own family was forced to flee from Hungary after the fighting) takes us back to Hungary during that time and places us with the rebels as the revolt spread quickly, and surprisingly, felled the government. Sebestyen discusses how thousands of peasants yearning to get out from under Soviet-style oppression organized into militias, battled the State Security Police and Soviet troops, and reacted as a large Soviet force thundered back into Budapest on November 4, killing thousands of civilians and essentially stopping the revolt in its tracks. Organized resistance ceased by November 10, and the mass arrests began in earnest.

An estimated 200,000 Hungarians fled as refugees knowing it meant life in prison or death if captured. By January 1957, the new Soviet-installed government had suppressed all public opposition and the communist hold was absolute. These Soviet actions alienated many Western Marxists, yet strengthened the overall control the Soviet Union had over Central Europe, cultivating the perception that Communism was irreversible, monolithic and unstoppable.

Public discussion about the revolution has been suppressed in Hungary for over 30 years, but as the Cold War thawed in the 1980s and the collapse of Communism occurred in the early ‘90s, it has been a subject of both intense study and fierce debate. It is in this atmosphere and released to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Revolution, Sebestyen gives us a totally fresh account of that uprising, incorporating a vast array of newly released official Hungarian and Soviet documents from their archives, his family’s diaries, and eyewitness testimony.

Sebestyen expertly traces one of the defining, yet grossly unstudied moments of the Cold War, that led to the rebellion, while telling the story of these brutal 12 days with page-turning intimacy and veracity. Sebestyen’s sequence of events moves from the tumultuous streets of Budapest to the inner sanctums of the Russian Kremlin and the White House, where the reader is part of the conversations between the men and women who planned and took part in the uprising and of those who helped crush it, some actively, others through blatant inaction. Sebestyen’s political leanings are not hard to decipher but for the most part he keeps his narrative even.

Sebestyen shows how Western anti-Communist rhetoric fired up and encouraged the ill-prepared and grossly outmatched rebels, misleadingly convincing them they had a chance at defeating the Soviets and would receive help in some form. Sebestyen takes the reader to the streets of Budapest during those thrilling first days when, armed with a few rifles, small bombs, plenty of courage and dumb luck, the people of Budapest rose up against their Soviet oppressors and nearly succeeded in routing the Russian forces. For a few exciting days, as the Western world watched in stunned amazement, it looked as though the Hungarians would defeat, oust and humble the mighty Soviet Union as the Russian troops quickly withdrew. But not for long.

The Soviets returned with a thunderous vengeance and, as Sebestyen vividly recounts, showed they would resort to fast-acting and brutal lengths to maintain a stranglehold on their vast Communist empire and the West was prepared to let them. Sebestyen explains how the West did nothing to aid the Hungarians as the Soviets rumbled into Budapest and the free world looked on in sympathy and horror as the Hungarians suffered a crushing defeat, remaining under Soviet occupation for another three decades. The front of the book has several maps; Eastern Europe, Hungary and Budapest and a glossary of the major players in the book giving each person a mini-biography. Sebestyen also includes two series of pictures showing many of the political leaders involved, scenes of the uprising, jubilant protestors, angry Soviet troops and the bloody aftermath as bodies lay on the ground and hung from trees.

Fast-paced, vivid, and authoritative, Twelve Days adds immeasurably to our understanding of one of the most important battles of the Cold War and its overall effects on Hungary. Sebestyen reminds us of the extraordinary courage and sacrifice the Hungarian people demonstrated in the unquenchable human desire for freedom against one of the most powerful militaries the world has ever seen.

The Frozen Ship: The Histories and Tales of Polar Exploration

2006-12-19T22:02:00.000-08:00

Sarah Moss
BlueBridge Books
Hardcover, $24.95

Anyone with a budding interest in Arctic or Antarctic polar exploration will find Sarah Moss’s The Frozen Ship a fascinating read, cover to cover. Even those who are moderately or well versed on the subject should appreciate the book as it examines the non-fiction accounts of polar exploration, its effects in literature, women explorers and most interestingly, the insanity, isolation and, oftentimes, cannibalism, that comes with it.

The poles are desolate places where only the very skilled or, more realistically, very lucky can survive. Even knowing this, there was an almost frenzied rush of polar expeditions between 1700 and 1950, most of them undertaken by ill-prepared Englishmen while a few were launched by Americans and Norsemen. Whether or not the expedition survived was immaterial because the main goal was fame and fortune, though the fame often realized was likely not what the men had hoped for. Nearly all the sailors who could write kept detailed journals that described their trials and tribulations and their descriptions of dangerous and desolate landscapes sometimes right up until the hour of death. Those descriptions became a beacon for future exploration, a triumph of the human spirit and an endless source for literature and mythology about the men who dared explore the vast wastelands of the frigid poles.

Exceptionally well-researched, Moss has organized The Frozen Ship thematically rather than chronologically, with sections on colonies, extended voyages (more often than not they were accidental extensions), failed voyages, polar expeditions in literature and even women in polar exploration. The most morbidly fascinating chapters detail the ordeals of explorers who died on the poles. Moss’s greatest strength is that she lets the explorers tell their stories in their own words through diaries and hastily scrawled notes on scraps of paper, which add poignant reminders that many of these men knew it wasn’t a matter of if they died, but when.

Perhaps the main fault of the book is that Moss often falls into the trap of applying our present day ideas and mentality to Victorian-era situations. For example, she chastises Sir William Edward Parry for giving “no thought that the men themselves might be allowed to write their own accounts of the Arctic voyage” when most of the men, who were sailors in the British Navy, were probably all illiterate and couldn’t write either.

It’s hard for people living in modern times to even remotely contemplate that attempting to reach the North Pole in a hot air balloon with minimal food, inadequate clothing and no experience, is a good idea. Salomon August Andree, a Swede, tried to do just that in 1897 when he attempted to avoid the potential hazards of ice flows and having to walk over dangerous ground.
Unfortunately, he mistakenly left the balloon’s steering apparatus on the launch pad and sealed his fate. Stranded in the Arctic Circle and out of food, Andree and his partner were forced to eat their sealskin gloves and shoes to survive. Neither man was seen alive again, and it wasn’t until 1930 when their bodies were accidentally discovered on an island. Andree was found lying on his back in his tent while his partner’s chewed on bones was strewn around their campsite by animals.

The Frozen Ship covers a lot of ground: 500 years in a mere 235 pages. That’s a vast amount of history for so few pages, but it doesn’t just skim the surface as Moss manages a comprehensive account. A short introduction outlining the history of polar exploration does a fine job of giving readers their bearings and prevents the book’s immense scope from becoming too overwhelming. From there Moss captures you with the words of the explorers and holds you until the end.
Moss talks at length about several archaeological expeditions to retrace explorers’ steps, find out what went wrong and, in several cases, exhume bodies. The Frozen Ship references several books about polar exploration, such as Frozen in Time, the fascinating account of the discovery and exhumation of the body of John Torrington, and serves as a great guide for the whole genre in general.
Moss doesn’t devote too many pages to more widely known explorers like Ernest Shackleton or John Franklin who already have volumes of material covering almost every facet of their lives. This allows Moss to introduce lesser known explorers such as Letitia Hargrave and give the spotlight to these less-documented contributions to polar exploration.

The book may be small in size but the content is richly satisfying. The Frozen Ship puts readers right beside explorers trekking across ice-flows and awaiting a rescue that never comes as they lay dying or contemplate the necessity of eating another person’s flesh. It’s a great read on a long cold night or better yet, perhaps on a hot vacation.

The Rolling Stones LIVE in Regina - A Concert Review

2006-10-12T21:16:00.000-07:00

The Rolling Stones LIVE in Regina, SK - October 8, 2006

By Erin Harde, October 10, 2006

There was an electrical phenomenon in the air Sunday night, but the weather had nothing to do with it. Within seconds of their entrance, the Rolling Stones took command of the skies and 45,000 people, igniting them both. Although the odd raindrop threatened the performance, it was the Stones who would storm the stage and incite an explosive audience to thunderous applause with "Paint it Black," the first song of their second Regina performance; yet, it could have been the obscurest of B tracks and still been met with pure adoration from a crowd ready to burst from the anticipation and excitement.

"You’re too kind," Mick Jagger said after the third song "It’s Only Rock and Roll (But I Like It)," his breath visible as the temperature hovered around zero, but he didn’t complain. He thanked out of town fans, carefully enunciating Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, but playfully scorned the crowd who booed at the mention of Winnipeg. "Even if they’re from Winnipeg, they’re welcome," he said.

Meanwhile Keith Richards, Ron Wood and Charlie Watts remained background fixtures, occasionally looking up to grin, but it was Jagger who commanded the spotlight. He careened around the stage with an amazing vigour and enthusiasm as though performing the classics for the first time. But while Jagger flailed his limbs wildly, his hips were finely tuned, shaking, thrusting and swivelling with the zest and energy of a frat boy.

He preened and posed, and went through several costume changes, most of them three-quarter length coats so luxurious in fabric and colour most women would have traded their parkas for them. But even as the star athlete in a two-hour marathon of dancing, running, skipping and swaggering, Jagger exposed little skin, instead showing off everything from silk coats in slick red and quilted silver to a Sergeant Pepper-like red leather jacket. Richards went from a jacket to full length coat while Wood, stylish in black jeans, white studded belt and purple scarf, sported Ug boots to stay warm.

Incredibly, their fingers didn’t fumble in the cold though Jagger joked about joining the "frozen finger brigade," on "Rain Fall Down" from A Bigger Bang, which prevented him from bouncing around to keep his skinny frame heated, instead relegated to one spot while he played guitar. Following "All Down the Line" from Exile On Main Street, Jagger teased the crowd that he wouldn’t make jokes about what the city rhymes with. "I hope that doesn’t make me sound like too much of a pussy," he mused, before announcing the Temptations’ "Too Proud To Beg," which may have surprised those not expecting to hear the wrinkled foursome play a cover song when their own catalogue extends back over 40 years.

But while Jagger’s face betrays his age, he has the stamina of a teenager. Other than to toss away a jacket or grab a guitar, he only paused if the song demanded stability; Jagger briefly stood still for "Angie," but eagerly kicked it up again for "Tumbling Dice," also the first time Richards began to look alive. Jagger handed over the mic to Richards for "You’ve Got the Silver," a competent vocal delivery, which might have caught some of the audience off guard. He carried on at the helm for "Little T and A," from Some Girls. Maybe it worked 25 years ago, but after hearing those lyrics out of Richards’ gnarled old face today, the song should be vaulted.

Happily, Jagger returned to the stage to deliver "Under My Thumb," but it was the stage itself that captured the audience’s attention. Centre-field suddenly got a lot hotter as a small stage floated the band to frenzied fans climbing onto the seats to worship the Stones. And all through the transition, Jagger didn’t miss a beat, bounding around the stage as they played "Rough Justice," "Start Me up" and "Honky Tonk Women," songs that were played toward the end of an 19-song show but for the back half of the field may have felt like the beginning of a new show just for them.

Back on the main stage, a giant inflatable tongue and lips greeted the Stones’ return but quickly deflated as the first notes of "Sympathy for the Devil" began. After trading shrill ‘ooh oohs’ with the crowd, Jagger ascended to a balcony above the band. There, with his monstrously large image on the screen behind him, he became a Mick-tator, if you will, orating to his devout legions of supporters.

After "Jumpin’ Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar," Jagger thanked the "brilliant audience" and the Stones disappeared backstage. They didn’t hold out for long and returned to give the still boisterous crowd "You Can’t Always Get What You Want," and "(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction," the perfect finish. As fireworks blasted off behind them, the Stones took their final bows and went out with a bang.

1. Paint it Black
2. You Got Me Rocking
3. It’s Only Rock ‘N’ Roll
4. All Down the Line
5. Ain’t Too Proud to Beg
6. Angie
7. Rain Fall Down
8. Tumbling Dice
9. You’ve Got the Silver
10. Little T and A
11. Under My Thumb
12. Rough Justice
13. Start Me Up
14. Honky Tonk Women
15. Sympathy for the Devil
16. Jumpin’ Jack Flash
17. Brown Sugar
Encore
18. You Can’t Always Get What You Want
19. (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction

In Search of the Knights Templar

2006-10-03T21:59:00.000-07:00

Simon Brighton
Hardcover $40.00
Weidenfeld & Nicholson Publishing

Their fanatical courage and bravery struck terror and respect in their enemies. Their fabulous wealth, along with the introduction of modern banking, made them the most powerful men in the world. Their secret rites inspired rumours of heresy and witchcraft. In the Crusades, these ferocious sword-wielding monks were charged with saving the Kingdom of Jerusalem and protecting pilgrims. In defeat, they were burned at the stake. They were originally known as The Order of Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon. Today, we simply call them the Knights Templar.

The success of Dan Brown’s best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code thrust the defunct ancient order of the Knights Templar into the spotlight. But where do the facts end and the tales of fancy begin and how do you separate them now? As the saying goes, history is written by the victors and the history of the Templar is one of contradiction, clearly written by those who successfully destroyed the order.

Indisputable is the fact the Knights Templar was a military and religious order that dominated medieval Europe from Britain to Jerusalem; they did so for nearly 200 years until the Templar was suppressed in the early 1300s as their influence began to threaten France’s Phillip IV and the French papacy itself. The warrior monks were rounded up as Philip the Fair searched for both their treasure and source of wealth. Philip found nothing and it is here that the knights disappear from history and enter into myth, their true nature blurred if not wiped away entirely and woven into fantasy. Yet, they still left a rich and very real legacy throughout the British Isles, from London’s Temple Church to Rossyln Chapel in Scotland.

In Search of the Knights Templar author Simon Brighton was brought up in Lincolnshire, in the shadow of Temple Bruer, one of the most important Templar sites in all of Great Britain. He became fascinated by the Knights at an early age and has pursued that fascination ever since. Brighton, who admits he isn’t a true historian, researched and visited every site and took all the pictures in the book. The traces the knights left behind are real, and many can still be seen and visited today. Brighton explains what there is to be seen, along with the history and mythology behind it; he even includes directions on how to get there.

With a combination of stunning photography, historical imagery and detailed descriptions, In Search of the Knights Templar provides not only a basic history of the Templar but also a comprehensive guide of all the Templar sites in Britain, making it perfect for a backpacking excursion.

Many history books are written in too scholarly a tone, which can make for a tedious and sometimes complicated read. In Search of the Knights Templar starts off with a bare bones history of the Templar, beginning with the accepted facts before getting to the various sites across Great Britain. Perhaps most importantly, Brighton doesn’t take any personal viewpoint on the fanciful stories or myths and just focusses on the facts about the sites themselves so there are no tales of the Holy Grail or mythic bloodlines found within.

Another strength of this work is its layout. Slightly larger than a standard hard cover book, it allows for the more than 180 colour and black and white photographs. Along with the photographs, diagrams, ancient texts, colour images of armour, and illuminated manuscripts, order seals are also included to give a very clear idea of everyday Templar life. The illustrations add to our understanding of what life and culture were like at the time and help tell the story of almost every significant British site of Templar activity.

Backed by authoritative text that reveals the history and notable architectural details of each site from the choices of pagan symbols in Christian churches to many of the arcane symbols on tombstones and effigies, the history is easy to understand, well-explained and well-detailed despite Brighton’s lack of formal training. There is already an abundance of information on places such as Rossyln Chapel, but Brighton offers interesting pieces of information on lesser known places such as the accidental re-discovery of the ruins of a Templar chapel in Dover during the Napoleonic Wars.

The various sites are broken up into regions for easy reading. London, Wales, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, the Southwest, Midlands, Scotland and more are shown on a map of Great Britain with a general description on each area.

This essential book for amateur exploration of legendary Knights Templar sites vividly brings alive the warrior monks’ historic impact on Great Britain, and sets the reader on their own path of discovery.

Playback: By Raymond Chandler adapted by Ted Benoit and Francois Ayroles

2006-09-11T21:55:00.000-07:00

Arcade Publishing
Hardcover Graphic Novel $27.95

Mystery and crime novelist Raymond Chandler was once approached about writing a newspaper comic strip. "I wouldn’t know how to do it, and if I did I wouldn’t want to," the cantankerously crusty crime novelist retorted. Graphic novel Playback adapts Chandler’s never-produced screenplay of the same name, a murder mystery set in Vancouver shortly after World War II; it shows Chandler perhaps missed a calling when he rejected the offer.

Chandler’s original 1948 screenplay for the movie Playback was presumed lost until its rediscovery in Universal Studios’ archives in 1985. Playback already exists as a novel. Chandler took the script for Playback and adapted it into his last, and least popular, book in the Philip Marlowe series. In 2005, Ted Benoit and Francois Ayroles took the original movie script for Playback and adapted it into a graphic novel. The graphic novel is now available in English for the first time.

The script for Playback is classic Chandler, exposing the highs and lows of the human heart in the raw light of a hard-boiled crime story. There are plenty of trench coats, butts, murders alongside old-fashioned pulp-style nastiness, but what is missing is a narrator. In Chandler’s Marlowe novels, Marlowe moves through the criminal world and social elite taking the reader with him on his journey, but Playback the screenplay (and graphic novel) isn’t a Marlowe story (he’s not in the graphic novel at all) and it lacks the direction of one. By the third act, the plot is bogged down by its own dejected heroine; Betty Mayfield’s permanent air of dour defeat proves more tiring than tragic. After hanging around her for a while she’d be one dame no one would rush to help out of a jam.

Mayfield, the story’s femme fatale (or is she?) tries to outrun her troubles at home in the United States by sneaking away at night and trekking up to Vancouver. On her way there she meets gigolo and boozehound Larry Mitchell, who tries to seduce her while offering to get her a room at the Grand Hotel because she doesn’t have much dough. It is at the hotel we meet the motley crew of inhabitants and miscreants roaming the halls in Chandler’s trademark style.

The sudden discovery of a stiff’s plugged body on Betty’s balcony is reminiscent to how her husband was knocked off (and the reason for her flight after getting out of the hoosegow), and is enough to get a grim war hero-turned-lawman, the monocle-wearing, Inspector Killaine involved to sort out the truth. Several plot points seem quite forced: Killaine’s unexplained and sudden love for Betty, and Betty’s personality; we have a hard time believing the glum and humourless woman is the irresistible looker she’s meant to be.

Artist Ayroles employs a stiff, angular block-like style that keeps the tone ice-cold and Chandler’s meandering plot moving swiftly enough to hold your interest. North American comic fans who mainly read comics from DC Comics or Marvel Comics may have a hard time with the art because it is not as realistic or detailed as Neal Adams or Bryan Hitch would produce, nor is it as kinetic as Norm Breyfogle or Alan Davis. Fans of independent publishers will appreciate the art because of its unique lines and lack of colour.

The artwork is reminiscent of the Sin City graphic novel by Frank Miller. Like Sin City, the entire book is stark black and white with no shades of grey, but Ayroles lacks Miller’s storytelling techniques and artistic ability to make each person look distinct. Where Miller really shines in the black and white arena is his ability to show movement. Each Miller novel could be followed without dialogue by the progression of panels. The static poses in Playback’s panels don’t give the book any sense of movement. It ends up being a satisfyingly dark work that fits the sinister nature of Chandler’s tale.

Playback somewhat relies on the characters’ reflections on the past. Their playbacks, so to speak, are a narrative device which, though commonplace today, fit in well with the pulp style of crime noir writing. Unfortunately the playbacks aren’t used enough to fill in the blanks. For the most part, Chandler chose to tell the tale in chronological order.

Obviously a labour of love from Ayroles and Benoit, Playback isn’t Chandler’s best work; it probably wouldn’t have languished in movie production hell and then disappeared for 40 years had it been one of his best. The characters are all interesting and the whodunit aspect is solid all the way through as the clues are slowly pieced together throughout the book. Playback is an interesting look at what might have been had Chandler decided to take up a career as a comic strip writer.

Sea of Gray: The Around-the-World Odyssey of the Confederate Raider Shenandoah

2006-08-26T17:21:00.000-07:00

"Just as war will have its heroes and its tragedies, so, inevitably, will it have its ironies," writes Tom Chaffin in Sea of Gray: The Around-the-World Odyssey of the Confederate Raider Shenandoah. The story of the Shenandoah is replete with adventure, sadness and irony and Chaffin tells all in this remarkable tale of the Confederate ship.

In Sea of Gray, Chaffin presents a complete history of the C.S.S. Shenandoah, the last of the Confederate commerce raiders and her 58,000-mile voyage around the world both during and after the Civil War. During this time, it sunk 32 Yankee merchant and whaling ships heavily laden with cargo, including brandy, rum, and whiskey effectively crippling the Union trade and thus its finances.

Over two months after General Robert E. Lee, commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia, surrendered his men to Ulysses Grant, general-in-chief of all United States in 1865, the Shenandoah was still making war on the Union merchant marine with great success.

The biggerst irony is that the Shenandoah’s greatest conquests happened after the war had ended, and the cause dear to her sailors’ hearts simply did not exist even though they continued to fight for the confederacy. Her main target was specifically New England’s lucrative Arctic whaling fleet, and she ultimately became the only Confederate vessel to circumnavigate the globe.

Whereas many histories of ships begin with dry discussions of the ships in dry dock and their shipbuilders, Sea of Gray begins with intrigue as a cloak-and-dagger story. Southern agent James Bulloch and U.S. Consul Thomas H. Dudley looked for a way to get around the labyrinth of legal obstacles involved in getting a British-built ship to sea and fitted for war.

What then follows is a nautical adventure led by James Waddell, Shenandoah’s eccentric captain. Chaffin examines the conflicts between Waddell and his senior officers over orders and the best ways to succeed. He also chronicles the constant struggle to recruit sailors for a ship plagued by low morale on a dangerous mission for a rogue nation whose survival seemed inevitably doomed. What is perhaps most interesting is Chaffin’s ability to reveal the minutia of the Civil War era sailor’s trials, troubles and tribulations onboard the ship. In short, it is a very thorough work.

The illustrations include the layout and the sail plan of the Shenandoah along with maps of the Arctic voyage and the entire 13-month cruise. Also included are pictures of several of the senior officers and the Shenandoah’s Captain Waddell. Chaffin has included numerous notes, an extensive bibliography, a catalogue of Shenandoah’s prizes, and even information as minute as the breakdown of the watch schedule. What Sea of Gray lacks that accompanies most naval histories is a glossary; however, one really isn’t needed as Chaffin doesn’t rely on naval speak to tell his story.

Further irony occurred when the crew of the Shenandoah raided a British merchant ship only to discover the newspapers she carried, which proved that the Confederacy was no more. Captain Waddell and his crew had to finally accept that their upstart nation had been defeated, which was bad enough, but also that for the four months previous, their raids could be looked upon as nothing more than piracy, a crime punishable by death.

When the ship finally reached Britain, Waddell and his crew hoped the papers were mistaken and asked: "What news from the war in America?" The dismal answer from the dockworker must have hammered home the message, "It has been over so long people have got through talking about it." And with that the ship’s quest ended, but not her legacy or legend.

Sea of Gray would make a great movie. It makes history exciting through character studies, naval battles, survival, enchanted islands, pirate raids, exotic women, little known Civil War information, international intrigue, lessons in leadership, raging storms and nautical commerce. It seems like something out of a Patrick O’Brian novel featuring Captain Jack Aubrey, but Chaffin proves history can be as fascinating as any movie.

Chaffin drew on hundreds of original documents and maps including crew memoirs, journals and contemporary newspaper accounts in researching this rivetting narrative of one very minor episode of the Civil War, but the end result is not something the layperson might appreciate. Chaffin has limited his audience to Civil War buffs alone, perhaps even narrowing it further to those with a specific interest in naval adventures. That may not matter to Chaffin or those Civil War buffs as the chronicles of the Shenandoah makes for a fascinating read.

Guidebook to the Historic Sites of the War of 1812 - A Book Review

2006-08-07T11:46:00.000-07:00

For various reasons, the War of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain to lay claim over Canada is sometimes referred to as a forgotten war. There was no well known American president involved such as George Washington, nor was there a popular general involved such as Ulysses S. Grant to capture the imaginations of the American people. Many Canadians feel military accomplishments have never been a focal point in our national conscience, but the War of 1812 was the bloodiest conflict fought on Canadian soil and was an essential event in forming the foundation of the Canadian identity.

The war between Great Britain and France was more vital, especially on a global scale, mainly because Canada was just a small British colony with a few hundred thousand inhabitants. But for those living here, the War of 1812 was a pivotal moment in history. The War of 1812 provided Canadians with a woman who became a national icon, and whose name would become synonymous with chocolate – Laura Secord; the war would also produce Canada’s first war hero, General Isaac Brock, whose victories and death inspired a nation.

Amateur historian and Ottawa native Gilbert Collins visited many of the sites of the War of 1812 without the intention of writing a book but, as he says in the preface, there was no adequate guides for those like him with an interest in the War of 1812, so Collins took it upon himself to rectify the situation.

In detailing these attractions, Collins has included more than 380 historic sites and markers, 28 maps and dozens of illustrations. The book also includes a chronology of the war, and is a handy tool for both the traveller and the historian. This guide is a welcome addition to the collections of both the serious scholar of the war and the amateur historian.

The many sites are listed according to region, and to Collins’ credit, the book ventures beyond Canada’s involvement in the war. More depth is given to sites in Canada, but American sites are also well covered. In order to locate sites in their present locations, a map and symbols are given for each region, which indicate what a visitor might expect to find from a small plaque commemorating a battle, a large statue honouring a person or the remains of a long gone fort. Collins also uses photographs to show the locations as they are today and, for an added touch, even includes sketches by another amateur historian Benson Lossing, who, like Collins, visited the War of 1812 sites back in 1860 without the benefit of a guidebook.

A brief summary of events and participants is included for each site. Some entries are longer than others but are always informative. The real detail is in the lesser known events and people because Collins assumes his readers will know the major players, and in places, he skims them a bit in favour of the smaller things such as the Hoople’s Creek skirmish in Ontario. The current status and modifications to many of the sites are also indicated and show how the places are being preserved when possible but also that many are lost forever with nothing but a small marker to indicate the significance. Another bonus in the updates is the inclusion of modern day finds such as the accidental discovery of the ship General Hunter. The General Hunter was captured by the Americans at the Battle of Lake Erie in 1813 and its wreck ended up buried on a beach in Southampton, Ontario until it was discovered in 2001.

Brock’s service in the Battle of Queenston Heights gave Canadians their first true war hero. When Brock was alive, he was a hero to the Canadian people and his soldiers, and when he was killed defending Canada, he became a legend. There are countless streets and parks named after him and he is even the namesake of a city: Brockville, Ontario. There is ample coverage of both Brock and The Battle of Queenston Heights along with information on what a visitor will find at the site today including a walking tour of the battleground with markers containing relevant facts. Also placed high atop Queenston Heights is Brock’s grave and monument.

Brock’s monument is visible from kilometres away, including the American side of the river. The plume of Brock’s hat is 185 feet above the ground, making it taller than any of the columns raised to honour Horatio Nelson or Napoleon.

This book is definitely for the historian out for a road trip or someone looking for some general information on the battles, people and places of the War of 1812. It is not detailed enough to be used as an academic resource but it was never intended to be. If you’re a Pierre Burton wannabe and have any interest in a War of 1812 driving tour of Eastern Canada or the United States, this comprehensive book is a must.

All Star Superman #4 - A BRIEF Review

2006-06-26T00:25:00.000-07:00

I finally read the issue last night and wasn't impressed.

SO I re-read it this morning (thinking maybe fresh eyes and a (semi) bright mind might help... it didn't.

The art I found to be the weakest of the 4 issues... especially the pics of Superman. The picture of Superman on the page (can't remember which) where they discover the Black Kryptonite (he's in the lower laft panel) is HORRIBLE. Worst. Superman. Ever.

I don't know if Quitley is modelling Supes after Jay Leno... but it sure looks like it.

Also, considering how late the book has been I would have hoped for more backgrounds then we ended up with. Quitley's good, but his art isn't spectacular enough to warrant the lateness of the book, coupled with the fact 1/2 of it has no backgrounds. The colourist, Jamie Grant, really saves the book.

As for the rest of the stuff I liked parts of it... Jimmy in drag was great as was Jimmy as Doomsday. Morrison really nailed a day in the life of Jimmy with this one. I also LOVE that everything is self contained with no mega crossover events or 12 part stories.

I didn't like the complete Silver Age feel I got... I've read this stuff before... I don't want to spend $4.00 CDN to read it again. It's fun, but a fast read.

To recap: Hated #1... liked 2... loved 3 (best issue thus far IMO) and was ho-hum for issue 4.

Book of the week: Civil War #2

2006-06-15T09:59:00.000-07:00

Civil War #2

Creative Team
Writer: Mark Millar
Penciler: Steve McNiven
Inker: Dexter Vines

Synopsis: Spider-Man says it is time for heroes to go legitimate and earn back a little public trust. That Captain America advocates people with powers being completely unchecked. Spider-Man then unmasks and says “My name is Peter Parker, and I’ve been Spider-Man since I was fifteen years old.”

Art Rating: 5 out of 5.
Story Rating: 4.5 out of 5.
Overall Rating: 4.75 out of 5.

This is the book EVERYONE's been talking about and it all boils down to the final four pages. That's not to say nothing else happens, a lot does, but those final four pages even made headlines in the New York Post!

Agent Hill (whom I'm liking more and more) opens the book with SHIELD agents gathering up some captured super villains in a dark and dank basement by the "rogue" Captain America and his non-registering group. Hill is in for a huge fight and she knows it.

The very next scene showing heroes in favor of registration is the exact opposite as Iron Man’s team works out in the open and gets wild cheers by the general populace. Iron Man's comment "Hear that? That's the sound of people starting to believe in super-heroes again" is perfect and, I think, helps further his belief he's doing the right thing. His next comment "The only thing that's changing is that the kids, the amateurs, and the sociopaths are getting weeded out" but Tigra, who's apparently pro-registration, calls him on that when she says "What category does Captain America fall into Iron Man?"

The scenes with Reed and Sue Richards are well done as well. Reed's obvious entheusiasm for registration may be putting some strain on Sue as she's obviously not militant in her support. I think we see the beginning of an eventual rift between Sue and Reed over this issue. We also get teased with this project “42” that is so secret that Reed can’t even tell Sue about it. Sue’s reaction was perfect and you could really tell that she was hurt by this secrecy. I almost wanted her to smack Reed upside the head.

Despite the cheers and public support Tony is still questioning if registration is a good thing or not and his turmoil on the subject is very well rendered, especially as the big screen in Times Square proclaims :REGISTRATION BECOMES LAW" at midnight. Millar is doing a nice job showing Tony’s constantly questioning thoughts.

The scences with the Young Avengers getting arrested by SHIELD show just how far SHIELD is willing to go to enforce the law. The devastation done by SHIELD, despite Patriot doing the simple task of stopping a mugging, should frighten any hero and McNiven's art is breathtaking here as he shows the desperate Patriot trying to get away.

Once again, Captain America looks like a total badass when he punches the SHIELD agent through transport door and into the highway full of traffic after listening to the idiot ramble. Millar writes one of the best renditions of Captain America ever (watch and learn how great Captain America can be Bendis!!!). The inclusion of Fury on Cap's side wasn't a total shocker, but it's always nice to see Fury.

And then we get to the big moment. The final scene with Spider-Man at the press conference! Will he or won't he? If you've been reading Amazing Spider-Man you know he's talked about it with Mary Jane and Aunt May, but his final decision was left undefined. Well, here it is! It was very well done and quite a moment when... he unmasked himself on live television!!! I never ever thought I would see Spider-Man publicly reveal himself. And the reaction of J. Jonah Jameson passing out was hilarious!

The creative team is amazing here. Millar and McNiven are obviously in synch and the restlts are showing. Millar's pacing, dialogue and characterizations are all spot on. The man could write any Marvel book and be great at it. Particularly great is how he's portraying Iron Man and Captain America. Tony KNOWS he's doing what's right, but is constantly questioning himself while Cap KNOWS he's doing the right thing by opposing registration. Cap's a total badass now along the lines of how Ed Brubaker is writing him. The steady build up to issue #3, which is going to showcase a big battle and the death of a character, is perfect.

Steve McNiven's art is simply breathtaking. I have followed his art since he was at CrossGen on Meridian and he's just getting better and better. All of his renditions are fantastic and he conveys the emotions of the characters so well really strengthening the impact of Millar’s story. There's not much more to be said. McNiven is the perfect artist for this series. Everything just leaps off the page and you can't ask for more than that.

I only have one complaint. I do not believe that Peter Parker would ever unmask himself publicly. It is simply unbelievable and totally contradicts the Spider-Man that I have known and read since the early 1980’s. After reading the Amazing Spider-Man issues leading up to Cival War I knew Tony had been manipulating Peter, but I thought after his talk with May and Mary Jane that he would not do it.

Spidey has always been a loner, a street level hero who is hunted by villains and police alike, not a government registered hero that is public. What's really noticable is many of the illegal heroes on Captain America’s team are the heroes that Spider-Man has always associated with such as Daredevil, Luke Cage, Cloak and Dagger.

Marvel has done a good job of fostering Peter's friendship with Tony in both the Spider-Man titles and in New Avengers, so the decision by Peter to reveal himself and his support for Tony is less sudden. Peter's relationship and loyalty to Tony Stark is an important element in his life now and Tony has assumed an almost father-like role to Peter. But it's really hard to to get me to disregard over 30 years of one of the the central themes of Spider-Man. He's a loner and rabidly guards his secret identity to protect his loved ones.

Overall probably one of the best comics I've read in 2006. It sure beats House of M and Infinite Crisis.

But, as they say, the story is not over and there's plenty more to come in both the main mini series and the tie in's. Millar and McNiven have me hooked along for the ride.

I want to be a fly on the wall at the Bugle when Peter goes to work and encounters Jameson!! Imagine the fireworks!

Creativity in comics: Today vs. Yesteryear

2006-04-30T10:06:00.000-07:00

Are comics today better than they weer during the height of the Silver Age???

What about the creativity?

I don't think there will be another time when so much happened in such a short span of time. From the creation of the entire Marvel Universe by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the other greats at Marvel... and also at DC who also experienced a rebirth when Flash was reintroduced in 1955. The ideas were flowing out at a crazy pace... setting the foundations for the next 40+ years.

I think the QUALITY of storytelling in both the writing and art have vastly improved over the decades to the high point we are at now. The cheesy inner monologues, the awkward art and bad dialogue (especially early on when the characters were finding their voice) was just plain bad, though it helped the reader get into the characters head... espcially solo guys like Spider-Man.

But what made the Silver Age (and the Golden before it) so special was the vast influx of NEW characters, new worlds, new stories... and the changing of the status quo.

But since about the mid-1970's there has been a real halt to the massive influx of new characters or character evolution.

But who's fault is this?

This is our fault. Yours, mine... 99% of comic fans are to blame!

People don't want evolution of the characters. They want the Spider-Man they grew up with. Whenever a character is replaced there's always complaints... look at HEAT and Hal Jordan... or all the houpla with the New Blue Beetle and new Atom.

It's also the fault of the creators. Look at Alex Ross... he won't do a story with Kyle Rayner because he's not Hal Jordan! Not the "real" Green Lantern... or, in other words, not the one HE grew up with.The mentality is to stick with what's familiar and safe... whenever there's a change to the status quo people FREAK.

Hell, at Newsarama Joe Quesada is saying Peter's marrage to Mary Jane ruined some potential of the character... but that was 19 YEARS AGO NOW! Cummon... move on... but people just can't let go. So we get the rehashes over and over again.

Quesada's attitude is quite silly in my opinion because as I write this there is an Ultimate Spider-Man that's single and in highschool, there's a Marvel Adventures Spider-Man who loves Mary Jane (but is still young and not married) and then there's a huge availability of reprint material of the single Spidey in the (horrible) Essentials and the (beautiful) Masterworks.

All that being said, I don't think you can fairly compare the creativity of the 1960's to today. When the 60's boom hit there was almost nothing in the way of superheroes... so for an entire generation it was brand spanking NEW and FRESH. For us it's 40+ years and counting of continuous publication, convoluted continuity and long histories.

Whereas superheroes went from 1938 until 1950-ish before they went on hiates for almost a decade when the only options and where Horror, Romance, Sci-Fi and Western comics were the only real options (I'm generalizing of course... but you get the idea... NO superheroes).

Today's comic industry is also a different beast than the 60's with corporate $$$ with things like movies and merchandising that wasn't an option or issue in the early 60's. It's beneficial to the companies to keep the characters the same with the ILLUSION of change... but no real change actually occuring. That's why you get so many "versions" of Spidey... but it's all still the same.

What was my point in all of this? I think I lost it somewhere... but regardless of my near-mad rantings I think comics are in great shape, and in my 22 years of collecting I can't think of a better time to enjoy great stories.

The death of Batman's rogues... Good or Bad?

2006-04-27T18:12:00.000-07:00

I'm REALLY enjoying the One Year Later story by James Robinson that's currently running through Batman and Detective Comics... but I'm torn at the deathz of some of Batman's rogues.

Batman has some of the richest villains in comics... and probably the best gallery of bad guys. Even second and third teir villains have potential as Geoff Johns showed in The Flash.

The recent death of Magpie got a resounding... meh... from me as she wasn't even a Q-lister having appeared in one... maybe two stories since she was introduced in the 80's.

But then the KGBeast was offed. Now granted he's been a joke for a long time... but his introductory story was awesome and, while it may not be among the best Batman stories, it also introduced the NKVDemon (where Batman had to go to Russia!) which was a fun story. He's been relegated to 3rd rate hired thug for the last decade... and the collapse of the Soviet Union sure didn't help... but there was always underlying potential.

THEN Scarface/Ventriloquist was killed in Batman 652. Now that's a decided step up in the villain chain from KGBeast and a huge leap up from Magpie. And I know that Orca is possibly next... and she's another Magpie... but I think DC is making a mistake.

As I said, Johns proved ANY villain (Magpie excluded :p ) could become a legitimate threat and taking out 4 villains, one of the calibre of Scarface will, in the end, hurt the Bat rogues.... add to the fact Two-Face is "cured" you're down 4 villains. One of them is a BIGGIE, another is a dummy (literally! :D ) while two others aren't as big, but have/had potential!

The problem with death is that it eliminates a character from a lexicon that will not ever end. Since we all know Batman will be Bruce Wayne forever (maybe with the odd exception for a story purpose) the character will not age and cannot die.

BUT if that's the case, after 60+ YEARS of stories you start running out of good villains and stop someone else from potentially enjoying a good story. If they had kept the Joker dead the very first time they killed him, waaaaaaay back in Batman #1 he wouldn't have become the iconic villain he is today, would never have been on the TV show or in the movie and his death would have stopped all those cool Joker stories (read The Laughing Fish!) over the years.

If villains truely great were easy to create then there would be a bunch of Magneto's, Dr Dooms, Jokers... but in fact there aren't... because a good villain is (I believe) harder to create than a good hero.Those second and thrid string villains give the big ones a needed break now and then.

Normally I don't mind death in comics... Marvel used Scourge to kill a bunch of lameass villains in the mid-80's... and it appears DC is doing something similar now... but Batman is known for his villains... and DC is eliminating them one by one.

What about everyone else? Is this bothersome? Yay! Nay!! Go away Shadow? LOL
Comments??

The Jesus Dynasty - A book review

2006-04-19T21:08:00.000-07:00

The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity
By Dr. James D. Tabor

Almost daily, religious scholars and historians propose a new way of understanding the life and impact of Jesus Christ. In his new book The Jesus Dynasty, Dr. James Tabor is the latest author to add his ideas to this hotly contested topic.

Given the dominance of Western culture, no single person has had as much impact on world history as Jesus Christ. Fantastic acts of kindness have been carried out in his name; miracles have been attributed to Him, as have wars and genocide. To many, He’s the son of God, sent to die for Christians so their sins will be forgiven, while to others he’s just a mortal prophet.

Tabor offers an alternative version of Christian origins, one that takes the reader closer than ever to the historical Jesus, His immediate family and His early followers. The story is surprising and controversial, but also a fascinating look into the lives of the people living during this tumultuous time in history.

Jesus, as most know, was the son of the virgin Mary, a young woman who became pregnant before her marriage to a man named Joseph. The Gospels tell us that Jesus had four brothers and two sisters, all of whom were probably the legitimate children of Joseph and Mary. That revelation goes against established Catholic beliefs as Tabor points out: "Catholic dogma holds that Mary remained a perpetual virgin her entire life." Tabor also delves into the possibility Jesus actually had a human father and it was only after Jesus’ death that the Holy Spirit and virgin birth were added to the story, thus ensuring Jesus’ divinity.

Tabor suggests Jesus’ brother James, John the Baptist and Jesus himself likely viewed themselves as faithful Jews. None of them believed that their movement was the start of a new religion. It was the apostle Paul, who, through his ministry, transformed both Jesus and his message, breaking with James and the other followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. Most interesting is how Paul’s message, based on his own revelations, defined what would eventually become Christianity while Jesus became a figure whose humanity was obscured; John became merely a forerunner of Jesus; and James along with the rest of Jesus’ extended family were all but forgotten.

Tabor sheds light on what it was like living during the first Century A.D. and the time of Jesus. From the Roman occupation of the region to life in places such as Nazareth and Galilee, Tabor immerses the reader in history, settings and the people. The most interesting information is offered on the historical Jesus himself. The book delves methodically into the life of Jesus from his birth to his death by throughly examining the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but also other unedited sources from the same time period. Tabor examines The Dead Sea Scrolls, which remained hidden until 1947, the Gnostic Gospels such as that of Thomas, which were edited out of the New Testament because they depicted a Jesus who was not divine.

Tabor delves into Jesus’ bloodline, his connection to King David and his legitimate claim to the throne of Israel. Tabor quotes the book of Samuel: "Shortly before David’s death God promised him that his throne would last forever and that only those of his seed could occupy it as rulers over the nation of Israel." Tabor then breaks down the traditional lineage on Joseph’s side. But if Jesus was not biologically related to Joseph and was in fact a step-son, how could he lay claim to the throne through his bloodline? Tabor answers this mystifying question by showing Jesus’ lineage from an unorthodox perspective, while offering a plausible theory on the scandal of Mary being pregnant before her marriage to Joseph.

And it’s with regard to Jesus’ family that Tabor levels his most controversial claim. Jesus had a father, a biological human father. Tabor even offers a potential name for the father of Jesus. Jesus is sometimes called ‘bar Pantera,’ or son of Pantera. There’s even documentation to back up Tabor’s radical claim in the form of an early Greek text by a philosopher named Kelsus. He says that Jesus was the son of a man named Pantera, who either was, or became, a Roman soldier.

In addition to Tabor’s claims that Jesus had an earthly father, his book also argues it was Jesus’ intention to build a dynasty on earth. Tabor says that it was Jesus’ half-brother James who was to inherit the title role of dynastical king after the prophesied crucifixion, though that’s mostly speculation on Tabor’s part.

The Jesus Dynasty is bound to raise many more questions than it answers while sparking furious debates among Christians and non-Christians alike. The conclusions Tabor offers are shocking, interesting and offer a fascinating glimpse into the past.

With Biblical archeology a popular conversation topic of late thanks to the discovery and subsequent publication of the Gospel of Judas after more than 1,700 years, more and more people are looking into the veracity of the canonical Gospels and searching for the historical Jesus. The argument about the historical Jesus will continue for now, without a definitive answer coming anytime soon, but Tabor’s book offers an interesting and fascinating new approach to the subject.

Pull Dan Slott's THING! NOW!

2006-03-31T20:39:00.000-08:00

These quotes are taken from Newsarama.

Newsarama: So Dan, let’s just right in this and not mince words…Hard, cold world-wise, The Thing isn't lighting up the charts.
Dan Slott: Nope. We are in a very scary place, numbers-wise.

NRAMA: Any thoughts on why people aren't jumping on? After all, it seems that you hear lots of people saying they want more traditional, fun comics, and this is surely that.
Dan Slott: Tell me about it! People are reading the book and having a fun time. The response is great. The reviews are great. The problem isn’t the sales, it’s the orders. We’ve got fan interest. What we need is retailer confidence.

NRAMA: So how do you, as the writer, take the bull by the horns to get the fans to help out?
Dan Slott: One word, sir: Bribery. Scratch that. I meant to say: a content!

NRAMA: So how does this “contest” work?
Dan Slott: There’s one grand prize, the whole kit-and-kaboodle, and it’s going to the best pitchman on the message boards! We need people pounding the virtual-beat, getting the word out about our pull list campaign, and letting people know what they like about the title. I’ll be scouring all the boards and declaring a winner by the end of June.What I’m looking for is the person who’s doing the best job promoting “Pull My Thing and Win a Prize” - but without being pushy or derailing any threads. And you gotta bring the love [laughs].

NRAMA: For our readers who may not know what a “pull list” is, it’s something you can set up with the owner of your Local Comic Shop - a list where you reserve copies that you will definitely buy. When they come out, your LCS owner will put them aside for you, and that way you’re guaranteed to get your books even when the store sells out.
Dan Slott: Exactly! For any one title, most LCS owners order a set number of copies for the store. And they usually up their orders for that title by the number of customers that have it on their pull list.
So here’s the deal - it’s too late for a grassroots letter writing campaign. We need a grassroots pull list campaign! If you like this book, put it on your pull list. If you don’t have a pull list, start one - even if it’s just for The Thing.
If you’ve heard good things about the book, but you’re a wait-for-the-trade-person? Please understand, you are not hurting us - but if you step up now, you can help save us!
Seriously, if we do not start getting some back-to-press level numbers right away, this is all going to be moot.

________________________________________________

Now for my personal pitch!

I have a lot of comics. Roughly 22,000 and counting in fact and I have been collecting (bagging, boarding, filing and generally trying to take care of them) for 22 years now... and I was reading and trading them away for 5 years before that. That's a total of 27 of my 31 years!

Now, having read each and every one of those 22,000 comics I can honestly say that I have some favorites... and some that I think are utter trash (but I keep for completion sake).

I had never heard (or at least I don't remember hearing) the name Dan Slott before his first volume of She-Hulk was released. I was totally hooked! The man can WRITE! She-Hulk has a fantastic blend of comedy, action and continuity. When She-Hulk was canned I was pissed, but it was quickly announced that a follow up series would launch. I was in of course... but then it happened.

I read somewhere 4 words that made my week! DAN SLOTT on Thing! I couldn't believe my eyes. I have a near complete run of the first Thing series from the mid-80's and while it was alright it never did justice to Ben Grimm or Yancy Street. But Dan, with his blend of dialogue, action, comedy and of course continuity... well... I knew I was in! But then I saw the numbers... and they were scary! The Thing is my second favorite Marvel title (after Captain America) having actually ecliped She-Hulk in the "Favorite comics written by Dan Slott" category!

The art is awesome, and though Andrea DiVito is leaving, the first 5 issues are out and are beautiful. The stories are fun... the first issues deal with Ben's sudden wealth... he's a Bazillionaire now... and feature some long lost favorites like Nighthawk and Constrictor. oh, and Arcade makes an appearance as does about 20 different versions of the Incredible Hulk!

Now I emplore all of you who may read this... PULL DAN SLOTT's THING!

Add it to your pull list... you son't be disappointed!

Now back to Dan on why he likes Ben... and who he thinks is the quintessential Marvel character!

________________________________________________

NRAMA: What aspect of Ben do you find the most appealing? What specifically about him really strikes to your core and resonates?
Dan Slott: He is the Ultimate blend of Stan and Jack. He’s equal parts cosmic and down-to-earth, raw power and raw emotion, tragic and comic, flawed and heroic. Without a doubt, he is the quintessential Marvel character.

NRAMA: What's the most important thing in the world to Ben?
Dan Slott: His spirit. He’s the guy that you just can’t break! You could hit ‘em with everything you got - and, I don’t care if you’re the Incredible Hulk - he’s not going down!
That’s his greatest super power. You have characters like Batman or Captain America - and their shtick is that they always “find a way”. Well, Ben might not have the smarts to figure that stuff out, but you know what? It don’t matter! He’s gonna come through for ya! He’s gonna get up offa that mat, he’s gonna hold that line, and he’s gonna get the dang job done!

Why I don't try more Indy comics

2006-03-05T10:28:00.000-08:00

For me there are a few reasons:

Budget: I only have $X amont of dollars to spend on comics and I have a decent collection of books I like that I already get. all but 2 are Marvel and DC.

My LCS: Assuming I COULD spend more my LCS doesn't carry much beyond pull lists, so anything on the racks is from DC or Marvel, with a bit of Image and Dark Horse.

Exposure: I like reading what I am familiar with... and I'm more familiar with Batman or Spider-Man than any Indy book.

I have tried indy's in the past... I got into Jinx, Powers and recently Invincible through word of mouth and am currently reading Red Sonja (love Mel Rubi's art!). I must admit that I don't like that a lot of indies are basically dramatic pieces/slice-of-life kind of stuff but I like comics primarily for superhero stuff!

The thing it comes down to most is MONEY. Not enough to go around and the prices just keep going up which actually causes me to DROP Marvel and DC books.

Why DEAD should mean DEAD!

2006-02-14T00:03:00.000-08:00

I am a firm believer in the "dead is dead" policy Marvel had a few years back. I really wish they hadn't gone back on it.

I believe death in comics should be permanent for several reasons:

When you are trying to recapture the past, like the recent return of Hal Jordan, I think you are simply catering to the desperate fans who can't or won't move on. I am a big proponent of books moving on, so going back to the past for nostalgia is just recycling old ideas with a slightly fresh twist. In my opinion it usually fails, as shown in the recent Green Lantern. Hal is now officially the most boing character in the DCU again... and it only took 7 issues!

Death in comics becomes trivial if everyone (or almost) comes back. It looses its effectiveness as a storytelling tool because there's no permanence. Why get pissed because So-and-so's dead when they're eventually going to be back?

Bucky's death was a retcon itself... so all Ed did was alter that. Jason Todd's death had relevance to Batman and his entire cast. The return of such a pivotal death takes away from the "realism" of Batman (he's more realistic than Spidey!) and adds nothing to the mythos. Batman's GREATEST failure was his inability to protect and save Jason. Now it's undone... so what lesson was learned? Why should Batman worry about his helpers when they can just come back?

Sometimes they are handled well (Bucky) and other times not (Green Lantern, Green Arrow and Jason Todd... all DC books... Hmmmmmm...)... but overall I think death in comics should be a LAST resort for the writers... and have SOME permanence to it.

Otherwise it's a temporary gimmick. At best.

A List characters.... B Listers... where do they fit?

2006-02-06T21:03:00.000-08:00

The ICONS are characters that ANY non-comic book fans (like your grandmother) have no problem recognizing.
Examples (and there are only four): Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman, Spiderman.

There are some up and coming icons... Wolverine, Hulk, and Robin the Boy Wonder.

A Characters
These are characters non-comic book fans would recognize but might have some trouble identifying. They can sustain a solo series.

Examples: Fantastic Four, Captain America, Catwoman, Daredevil, Lex Luthor, the Joker, Green Goblin, Supergirl.

B Characters
These are characters that roughly 90% of people buying comics would recognize. They might or might not be able to sustain a solo series.

Examples: Maritan Manhunter, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Flash, Punisher, Thor, Batgirl, Nightwing, Dr. Doom, Green Arrow, Hawkman, Captain Marvel (Shazam) and Iron Man

C Characters
These are characters that might be hard for the casual comic book fan to identify or are currently very popular. Some might be able to sustain a solo series (most have had one or even several).

Examples: Black Canary, the Atom, Elektra, Spider-Girl, Jean Grey, Spectre, Deadpool, Nick Fury, Sgt Rock, Namor, Venom, Emma Frost, Hawkeye, Cyclops, Ms Marvel, Storm, She-Hulk, Silver Surfer, Superboy, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Spider Woman, Moon Knight, Cable, Black Panther, Steel, Sub-Mariner.

D Characters
Decent characters that are primarily used as "extra's" in books (especially team books) and who cannot sustain a solo series.

Examples: Blue Beetle, Susnspot, Artemis, Deadman, Booster Gold, Warpath, Kitty Pride, Nightcrawler, Wasp, Hank Pym, Shanna, Wildcat, Hercules, Hourman, Quicksilver, Psylocke, Beast, Kid Flash, Diamondback, Cyborg, Beast Boy, Firestorm, Vision, Union Jack, Captain Britain, Plastic Man, Elongated Man.

E Characters
These are the bottom of the barrel. Used as cannon fodder when companies want to show death still means something in comics.

Examples: Kole, the Spot, D-Man, Black Lightning, Sersi, Gilgamesh and pretty much everyone else not named.

I've tried to only list heroes unless the villain warrants special attention like The Joker or Lex Luthor.

Agree? Disagree?

Artists and their PERFECT run

2006-01-29T18:53:00.000-08:00

All of the artists below have had great runs on many titles... some guys like George Perez and John Byrne have been at it for 25 years and are still going strong.

But some artists are almost defined by a particular run on a titles (Simonson's Thor), much like the characters become defined by the artists (Batman by Adams).

Neal Adams - Batman, X-Men, Spectre & Green Lantern
Adams is the ultimate artist. His stuff revolutionized the comics medium and he took Batman from camp to cool. He put the dark in the Dark Knight. His socially relevant stories with Denny O'Neil in Green Lantern-Green Arrow still hold up today.

John Byrne - Fantastic Four & X-Men
Byrne's Fantastic Four run is second only to Stan Lee and Jack kirby's for both length and originality. You never knew what you were going to get each month and the art was just beautiful. His X-Men with Claremont is legendary. 'Nuff said.

Jim Aparo - Batman, Aquaman
Aparo is the artist I most equate with Batman. He drew it for so long and so well that I have a hard time picturing anyone else's Batman.

Walt Simonson - Thor
Simonson made Thor both interesting and cool. his Thunder god is still the pinnacle of the original series and that's including Kirby's stuff.

Frank Miller - Daredevil
Without Miller the gritty noir style book Bendis writes would not exist. Miller drew the book to suit his stories resulting in the quinticential Daredevil.

Norm Breyfogle - Batman (Detective Comics)
Along with Aparo Breyfogle defined Batman in the 1990's. His dynamic art wow'd you each and every month.

George Perez - Avengers, Teen Titans
Perez was one of the first artists I intentionally bought comics because of. Even ones I didn't collect that he drew I would buy because of his ultra detail and action. Each character had a different face, expressions and Perez was consistent. He always delivered.

Mike Kaluta - The Shadow
Who doesn't think of Kaluta when you mention the Shadow? He defined the character and though there were many artists before Kaluta that drew him none captured the mood.

Mike Grell - Warlord & Green Arrow
Grell IS Warlord. Grell IS Green Arrow. Grell's Green Arrow was and is the picture perfect way to draw (and in his case write) the character. Grell drew Ollie at street level, dark and moody. It was a perfect blend of art and story.

Jack Kirby - Everything!
He's not called the King for nuthin!
New Gods, FF, Avengers, Captain America, Demon etc. Everything he drew was gold.

Trades over monthlies? NO WAY!

2006-01-11T11:11:00.000-08:00

I believe that JUST buying trades hurts the industry... it means fewer new issues are sold and as a result the cover prices go up causing more readers to drop more books which iin turn causes marginal books like She-Hulk or Runaways to get canned because people HAVE to have their X books.

The cost of the trade is usually the same as the single issues anyway.

Then there's the addition aspect. The actual act of reading through a varied number of comics on Wednesday IS my actual fix... what I'm addicted to. I also like the fun of the comic shop every wednesday! It's like Christmas once a week!!!

And LASTLY (and IMO the most important reason...) THE FUN!!!! Take a book like Batman the Long Halloween... the very foundation and concept of the book hinged on readers GUESSING who Holiday was... there was rampant speculation, rumours, Wizard did an odds on favorite to be Holiday... and it was FUN to guess... because you had to wait the TORTUREOUS 30ish days for the next issue and see if that month gave any new hints to the identity of Holiday. Now imagine you get the whole thing, flip to the end and know who the killer is. Even if you don't the suspense is GONE. (Insert Identity Crisis here or any such book.)

You lose the fun... not to mention the difficulty of trying to avoid spoilers on a message board as you wait several months for the book to come out in trade... where's the fun in that????

There are several instances where I will buy trades. If it's an older series that would be hard or annoying to track down. I got all of Sin City in trade, all of Preacher and all of Sandman because I really missed the boat on them (ESPECIALLY Preacher!) and it would have been cost prohibitive to get the monthlies.

Speaking of cost... Trades or the Archive/Masterworks are also the only way I'll EVER get Amazing Fantasy 15 and all the early Spidey's and Fantastic Four's and so on, so I'll get them in that format. Otherwise it's all new monthlies for me!

Why I dislike the current state of the Batman comics

2006-01-08T10:09:00.000-08:00

Judd Winick: I read his Batman and all my entheusiasm goes away and I'm usually left bored and wanting another writer.

The lack of new characters vs return of dead ones: Every great character started SOMEWHERE and wasn't instantly over with the fans. And you can overuse the classics like Joker and Two-Face and Ivy to the point where no one wants to see them... and then what? You're stuck with nothing because no new characters were brought in to keep things fresh. Returning characters from the dead isn't always the answer either... because you're just recycling instead of inventing.

Current state of the Bat-books: Gotham Knights is a train wreck... Nightwing is sinking faster than the Titanic... and my feelings on Winick on Batman are stated above... Tec #815 helped though.

I've read Batman a loooooong time... 22 years now and I've collected back past that... my lowest Batman issue is #38... and I've seen pinnacle's of greatness like the O'Neil-Adams run, or Rucka's run or the Englehart-Rogers-Austin run or Miller's Year one and so on... and it pisses me off that DC would dedicate an entire series to Hush (Gotham Knights) and Red Hood (Batman) and basicilly tell the same story over and over and over again without ANY resolution.

I like a sequential story that has sub-plots and mysteries and plot points that are picked up in subsequent issues. Claremont is great at it. But Winnick is not.

Tell me if you've heard this story before: Red Hood terrorizes Black Mask and kills a bunch of bad guys. Red Hood is confronted by Batman but manages to escape. I've just described the last year of Batman stories.

Here's another one. Hush terrorizes and plots against Batman. After a brief confrontation where Hush calls Batman Bruce and Batman calls Hush Tommy Hush manages a get away. Wash, rinse, repeat.

How many times can Batman act like an idiot and allow his two most constant tormentors to get away... again and again?

THAT is why I'm pissed at the current state of Batman books. No forward progression. At all. Batman looks like anidiot instead of the worlds greatest detective and there's no attempt to create any new rogues for Batman to get out of the Hush-Red Hood cycle.

Art or story? Which is more important??

2006-01-05T09:00:00.000-08:00

I am going to take the easy way out and say I think the Story and Art have to go hand in hand... because comics is a visual medium as well as a written one.

Jim Aparo art can tell a story on its own. In fact IIRC it did in Batman in the 430's... during The Many Deaths of the Batman part 1... there were no words or captions... everything had to be conveyed through the art.

Another reason why art may be JUST as important as story is no matter HOW good the story is if the artist does a series of splash pages and doesn't know how to tell a sequential story through art... the best written story would be lost.

I don't want to bash Rob Liefeld... but put Alan Moore on a book with Rob Liefeld and you would get a totally different story than if you put Alan on the SAME book with Gene Ha. Gene knows how to tella fantastic sequential story while Rob is more in your face action... but Gene could get all the nuances of Moore's story while I think Rob might fail at that.

Favorite Comic based movies

2005-12-20T16:24:00.000-08:00

AVP: Alien Vs. Predator (2004) - It was alright. Better than Predetor 2... but pails in comparrison to the first two Alien movies!

Barb Wire (1996) - Guilty pleasure movie. Bad on all fronts... but DANM did Pam look good!

Batman (1989) - Should have been called the joker. While I liked it (it's better than nothing!) I was one of the few that was truely disappointed in it.

Batman Returns (1992) - BETTER than the first! Michelle Pfieffer is just SO HOT!

Batman Forever (1995) - Val was an alright Batman... played it looser than Keaton.

Batman & Robin (1997) - wow. So bad on so many levels. Uma looked great though!

Batman Begins (2005) - The best Batman movie yet. Nuff said.

Blade (1998) - Loved it. Snipes was perfect and Traci Lords has a cameo. What's not to like?

Blade II (2002) - Relied more heavily on special effects but still fun.

Blade: Trinity (2004) - I liked this one too. not as good as the first but the story was really enjoyable and HHH is in it!

Casper (1995) - I'll be honest. I loved the movie. OK? Happy?

Catwoman (2004) - Next.

Constantine (2005) - Better than I thought it was going to be. Reeves played it fairly straight and after a while you forgot he was suppose to be blonde and British.

The Crow (1994) - Awesome. RIP Brandon. IMO one of the best comic to film adaptations ever. If you haven't seen it rent it.

Daredevil (2003) - I liked it. Garner was awesome (and looked great) as Elektra and I thought Ben did a good job as well.

Elektra (2005) - Not bad. Again, Garner looked awesome. Is a little thin on plot though.

Fantastic Four (2005) - Colour me surprised! The trailors looks good and Alba is incredibly hot... but the movie was fun! Better than I thought it would be. Can't wait for the sequel.

From Hell (2001) - Hmmmmmm... a bit long, played too loose with the Ripper facts (Abberline dies at the end? Is it a metaphorical death?) but well acted by Depp and Heather Graham.

Hellboy (2004) - I wasn't too familiar with the comics other than a couple of crossovers with Batman... but I liked the movie enough to grab the graphic novel the movie was based on. Great effects too.

Howard the Duck (1986) - I bet Lea Thompson wishes should could go back in time and NOT sign the contract.

Hulk (2003) - Jennifer Connelly is one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. Even she couldn't save this dud. It took over an hour before we saw the Hulk... and it looked fake.

Josie and the Pussycats (2001) - This is another guilty pleasure movie. The songs are catchy and the girls are cute.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) - Not as good as the comics, but if you haven't read them it's a good action/adventure flick. And it has Sean Connery in it kicking serious ass!

Men in Black (1997) - When I first saw this I didn't know it was based on a comic. It's lot of fun, especially Smith and Jones' banter.

Men in Black II (2002) - See above.

Mystery Men (1999) - A fun if really stupid movie that Ben Stiller steals whenever he gets FURIOUS!

The Phantom (1996) - A truely underappreciated comic adaptation. Zane is PERFECT as the Phantom and the Indiana Jones feel of the 1930's makes it a fun flick worth seeing.

The Punisher (2003) - Hammered by critics (are they even comic fans?) The Punisher is a slightly tweaked movie (Frank's not a Nam vet anymore) that is only slightly knocked down by the addition of Travolta as a bad guy.

The Rocketeer (1991) - EASILY one of my favorite comic movies. Jen Connelly steals the show as Betty (as in Page) and like the Phantom, the 1930's pulp feel is great taking you back to a simpler time in movies.

The Shadow (1994) - I didn't mind this one, but it's on the lower end of the comic adaptations.

Sin City (2005) - An almost panel for panel translation of Frank Liller's comics. Easily one of the best comic adaptations ever. It sticks to the story and doesn't tweak anything for a gentler rating. See it. Now.

Spider-Man (2002) - $800 million in box office reciepts can't be wrong. And they're not. A blast of a movie. Only the armour Goblin hinders it.

Spider-Man 2 (2004) - Better than the first and arguably the best comic adaptation yet!

Supergirl (1984) - Good at 13 (when I had a crush on Supergirl) bad at 30 (despite still having the crush)

Superman (1978) - Along with the Crow this is my personal favorite comic movie. Simply awesome. I still get goosebumps when Superman shows up for the first time.

Superman II (1980) - A direct sequel to the first and arguably better (despite the kiss/memory crap).

Superman III (1983) - Hitting that well a bit too often. It's still fun to see Reeve up there.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) - The well is dry. Go home people... nothing to see here.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) - I really wanted to hate this... but the "Wayne Gretzky" comment won me over and I still watch this whenever it plays on TV.

X-Men (2000) - I never thought they could do it... but MAN was this awesome.

X2 (2003) - Battles Spider-Man 2 as the best comic movie of all time. New villains, new heroes and the death of Jean Grey!

I'm looking forward to the new Superman movie, the upcoming Wonder Woman (by Joss Whedon!), Sin City 2 and Fantastic Four 2.

The JLA jobbed for Deathstroke in Identity Crisis

2005-12-20T16:15:00.000-08:00

In one of the worst moments in a horrible mini series Deathstroke took on the JLA and knocked many of them around like they were rank amateurs.

How did Slade KNOW who to plan his fight against? You'd plan differently for Superman or Hal Jordan than you would Hawkman or Green Arrow... so how did he know who to plan for?

And this is the JL freakin A! NOT the Teen Titans. These guys (and especially Hawkman that has CENTURIES of experience to call on) shouldn't have been beat by one guy.

The way Deathstroke took out Flash and Green Lantern was BEYOND ridiculous. Slade somehow calculated when and where Flash was going to attack him and pulls out his knife and puts it the perfect position to stab Flash (yes STAB the FLASH!!!!!). Deathstroke has only got enhanced human reflexes and while he may be smarter than the average guy the Flash has speed of light reflexes. Flash could be on top of Deathstroke and punched him in the head so often Slade would wake up and not know what happened... all this before Slade could even pull his knife out.

Then Green Lantern for some absurd reason flies over to Deathstroke and tries to punch him. WHY??? When it would have made much more sense to simply enclose Deathstroke in an energy construct. That would have ended the fight instantly. ( I know the comics can't end THAT quickly but at least have him ATTEMPT it... it's like Meltzer read Green Lantern 50-60 and still thinks Kyle is a rookie.)

In just those 2 instances Deathstroke does something he really shouldn't have been able to do, while Green Lantern arcts like a rookie again and not someone who has some experience under his belt by doing something incredibly dumb and play into Deathstroke's plan.
Why didn't Zatanna get out of range of Slade? One spell and he's down.

So many wrongs... not made right.

All Star Superman... OVER RATED!

2005-12-20T08:31:00.000-08:00

All-Star Superman is one of the most over-praised comic book in recent memory.

I didn't hate but it was only... okay. I'm basing my opinions on having a collection of over 20,000 books and as someone who started reading Superman with regularity in 1983... so I have over 22 years of reading along with a substancial collection of Superman comics.

There were other Superman stories this year that were better and it doesn't go near the best of the Superman stories like Byrne's reboot or Moore's What Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. Maybe my expectations were too high (as in not reachable) but it seemed.... pedestrian. A lot happened but when it was over it felt like nothing did and I was hard pressed to remember SOMETHING that blew me away... or even made me say "wow that was awesome..." or ANYTHING. It felt like a bottle of beer that is half empty... when you want a full one.

I also go the "been there, done that" feel when I was reading it. From Superman revealing his identity to Lois to squaring off against Lex Luthor... Been there. Morrison is working with an icon and can't stray TOO far from what makes Superman super... but it just didn't awe or wow me like I was expecting.

The art wasn't too shabby... in fact I think it's Quitley's best work. But now I'm wondering about him keeping a regular schedule... and I don't think he can do it.

I find Morrison is best when he's working on something TOTALLY different and original (WE3) or something so unusual he makes it his own (Doom Patrol). I thought the potential was there for it to be GREAT, but with all great fiction you have to CARE for the star or the book (comic, novel or whatever) and though Superman was diagnosed with radiation poisoning I didn't care.

That Luthor was "serious" now about killing Superman didn't seem to threatening because we only have his word that he's tried before Granted it IS only 1 issue in, I think they should have had flashbacks inserted to fill in somne back story... so in that regard I feel the execution was off slightly. We were thrown in the middle of a story with no idea HOW we got to that pooint or why. I think a story like that can be done, and quite well, but it should have been done AFTER we got to know the characters first.

I was hoping for some serious ORIGINALITY from Morrison. This is a chance to do RADICAL and off the wall things with Superman (while still maintaing the CORE of the character) without offending the purists. Instead we got Superman bating a bad guy, revealing his identity to Lois, Lex threatening to beat Superman... all done before.

Morrison's Doom Patrol (using 40 year old characters) was a TOTAL change from the original concept. Really the only simplarities were the names and the BASIC core of the character. The stories were fantastic and (again) ORIGINAL.

Random Thoughts

2005-12-20T08:28:00.000-08:00

This blog is just a place of my random thoughts.

Most will be on comic books, movies, books or music.

Please feel free to comment!