Am I Evil? - A Closer Look at Supervillainy

Pictured above: Evil?

The perfect setting for supervillainy

This past week I've been in a small cabin on the shore of Lake Superior in northern Minnesota with my wife and kids.  It's a great week to relax and unwind as we watch summer wind down.  However, my wife's extended family also joins us in the neighboring cabins, bringing a wonderful kind of lunacy to the week as well.  I was playing (not necessarily voluntarily) with two of my wife's cousin's children - Teagan (8) and Jace (6) and the idea for this entry is, in part, thanks to them.

Teagan, being an inquisitive 8-year-old, was going from adult to adult asking, "What are you doing?"  Since I enjoy confusing children, I responded with "trying to take over the world."  This, in turn, led to Teagan and Jace spending the next half hour climbing all over me in an effort to thwart my evil plans.  At the end of our time, Teagan asked me, "Why don't you join the good side?"

My reply: "What makes you think I'm not the good side?"  This, of course, was met with a blank stare.

Now that I've shared my brief family anecdote, let me bring this into what you're here for: comic books.

The real stars of the blog

I recently read two graphic novels by Brian Azzarello: Luthor and Joker.  Each of these focuses on a villain from the DC Universe; the archenemies of Superman and Batman, respectively.  What struck me as I read these was the strikingly different portrayals of these two signature villains.

The most frightening man to ever
wear a purple suit.

In reading Joker, it's made clear that the title villain is clearly a sociopath.  There is no greater purpose behind his villainy other than personal gain.  Joker is evil for evil's sake.  Azzarello does a masterful job portraying the controlled chaos that the Joker personifies.  I especially enjoyed the more realistic, less campy version of the Joker that Azzarello brings into his depiction.  This Joker is similar to Heath Ledger's portrayal in The Dark Knight rather than Cesear Romero's slapstick version from the 1960's Batman television show.  Azzarello's Joker is a great character study of one of DC's most prolific and, arguably, most depraved villains that explores the basic nature of the character's evil.  Be forewarned, this novel is intended for more mature readers and does contain somewhat more brutal violence than typical Batman comics.

A study in biased pictures

As much as I enjoyed reading Joker and generally prefer Batman to Superman, Luthor and Azzarello's treatment of Superman's nemesis was, in my opinion, the superior graphic novel.  Lex Luthor is depicted as something more than just a force of evil.  Azzarello focuses on Luthor's intense distrust of the alien that has taken public opinion by storm.  The book is best summarized in Luthor's statement to Superman - "All men are created equal.  You are not a man."

Comics at their best:
Philosophy with pictures

Lex is shown in turns as generous, obsessive, loyal, protective, and evil.  His illegal union busting as he works to complete a construction project stands in stark contrast to his obtaining a scholarship to a prestigious school for a janitor's son.  The nuanced and complex portrayal of Luthor leaves the reader wondering, is Luthor really a villain?  Are his aims truly evil?

So, I'll turn the question to you, what makes a villain?  What draws the line that tells us that Lex Luthor is evil, while Superman is good?  Is there a definite line or, as recent comics and other media suggest, is the line blurring?

Bumping Off the Blind Superhero: A Review of Daredevil - End of Days

So, I promised that I'd do this and it's taken me longer than I had hoped, but here we go.  Marvel recently published an eight-part mini-series starring the man without fear, Daredevil.  However, I think it "starring" might be an overstatement.

Daredevil: End of Days is the most recent effort by Marvel to break from the on-going series canon (though writer Brian Bendis asserts that this is part of the continuity) and jump to the end of the line for a given character.  Marvel has been doing this type of thing since the late 90's for various characters.  Sometimes the story takes the mini-series format, as it has with Daredevil, and sometimes the story is confined to a one-shot (single issue).

While the concept isn't new, Brian Bendis and David Mack take this story further than most "the end" stories go. The length of the mini-series (8 issues) is longer than most of Marvel's similar works.  Honestly, the length of the story appealed to me.  As I've said before, I like Daredevil and think that he's underrated by many readers.  Bendis and Mack took time to develop a solid story.

The story itself follows a complex series of twists.  I mentioned earlier that it may be a stretch to say that Daredevil "stars" in this mini-series.  While his name is on the cover, he's also dead before the middle of the first issue.

Not what one might expect of a title character

Daredevil's death, rather than serving as the culmination of the series, is the catalyst of the events that follow. The real focal point of the series is Daily Bugle reporter Ben Urich, one of a very few people who actually knew that Matt Murdock was Daredevil.  While Urich has played a key role in several of Marvel's titles and interacts with a number of superheroes, he's not really what one might expect as the lead character of a series.

Marvel's least likely hero (possibly excluding Squirrel Girl)

Urich's goal over the course of the series is to track down the meaning of Daredevil's last word: "Mapone."  In his efforts to discover the secret behind who or what "Mapone" is, Urich interacts with a variety of characters from the Daredevil comics.  His interviews with key figures from the Marvel universe provide the forward progress for much of the story line.  Personally, I found his interview with the Punisher to be a highlight in the series.  The further Urich gets in his search, the more mysterious things get.  While I don't want to spoil the storyline for you, let me assure you that Daredevil is not the only character to die in the End of Days storyline - he's merely the first.  As Urich digs deeper and the body count climbs, a new Daredevil emerges as well - one who tracks Ben and seems to watch over him as something of a guardian angel (or guardian devil).

The noir feel that the story takes on worked for me.  I've always enjoyed the "street-level" heroes and the true-crime feel that their stories tend to take on.  The mystery in Daredevil: End of Days sells the story. While I won't reveal it here, the revelations at the end of the series in issues 7 and 8 worked well and resolved the story in a satisfying way.  End of Days received extremely positive reviews and I agree with those wholeheartedly.  This mini-series doesn't require much background knowledge from the reader and serves as a solid stand-alone story.

The original run of the mini-series started in October of 2012 and ended in June of 2013, so issues should still be fairly available in most comic shops.  The entire series was also released as a graphic novel this month and is readily available both in stores and on-line.

As always, feel free to post your thoughts, especially if you've had a chance to read End of Days or if you want to discuss part of the story.

Rise of the Reboots - DC's New 52 and Marvel Now!

Pictured Above: Average Comic Fan Response to Change

Avid comic fans know it. The hardest thing about being a dedicated comic reader is having to deal with comic publishers who make seemingly bone-headed decisions and alter their fictional universes on a whim, destroying years of continuity to make things fresh and draw new readers.  Often the backlash can be brutal (nothing rages like a pack of dedicated comic book geeks and yes, I speak from experience).

Number of Times Peter Parker Held a Gun to a Villain's Head: 0
Pictured Above: Not Peter Parker

Most recently, Marvel has seen criticism from their controversial questionable ill-advised downright stupid decision to turn The Amazing Spider-man on its head.  For those of you who aren't following Spider-man, Marvel decided to cut off The Amazing Spider-man at issue 700.  And they ended in spectacular fashion: by killing Peter Parker.  The icing on the cake is that now Dr. Octopus, one of Spider-man's signature villains, arguably second only to the Green Goblin, is now inhabiting Peter Parker's body and living his life as the Superior Spider-man.  Yes, Spider-man fans now get to watch one of his greatest villains - a character they've been trained to hate - play hero on a monthly basis.  This has been going on for about seven months.  I'm fairly certain the flow of death threats mailed/tweeted to Marvel's offices and/or writer Dan Slott has tapered off.

While The Superior Spider-man represents a reboot facing serious criticism, not every reboot is a bad idea. Both Marvel and DC Comics, two of the largest comic publishers in the US, launched large scale reboots of their publications within the last two years.  In 2011, DC launched the New 52 in a series of "waves" as they restarted numbering on all of their popular series at 1.  Marvel followed a similar path in 2012 with its Marvel Now line the restarted several popular storylines, though not every publication that they produce.

While everything has good and bad to it, I've personally found a fair amount to be happy with in both series of reboots.  One of the biggest positives (in my opinion) is the convenient jumping on point that these reboots provide for potential readers.  It's overwhelming to jump into a story that literally has decades of convoluted backstory.  The reboots offer friendly starts for people that don't have the detailed background of a die-hard fan.  And really, at the end of the day, writers and artists want their work to be accessible.  If potential readers are turned off by something, consideration should be made as to how to grow readership.  It can be done while maintaining the integrity of the underlying story.  DC, in my opinion, has done a great job of maintaining the integrity of their characters while going into the rebooted titles (this time around, at least).

Pictured Above: Not maintaining the Integrity of a Character

But now it's time to turn the question on you - what do you think of the concept of the reboot?  Is it acceptable to occasionally "reset" reality to avoid making work inaccessible?  Or does it cheapen the overall integrity of the art/story?

Coming soon: more discussion of specific titles in the New 52 and Marvel Now and that review of Daredevil: End of Days that I promised you about a week ago.  Really.  I promise.

Spider-man Sighting

And this is what happens when I learn something new and get to mess around with it.  Yes, there's no real point to this posting.  I was going to take it down, but I think I'll leave it for a while.

Scared of Clowns, Allergic to Rocks, and Other Heroic Flaws

Every hero has some type of flaw - a weakness that exists as a counterbalance to their superhuman powers.  Flawed heroes are common in literature.  The tradition dates back to ancient civilizations.  Achilles with his vulnerable heel is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others.  Why is it that, as humans, we seem to have an inherent need to attribute flaws to our heroes?

In considering the comics that I enjoy most, I find myself drawn to the most flawed figures.  At the risk of turning the comments for this post into a literal stream of flame, I'll admit that I've never really been a big fan of Superman.  It's really for a simple reason: he's too perfect.  Think about it.  Superman's invulnerable (except to an ultra-rare rock), can fly, can move at supersonic speeds, possesses inhuman strength, has heat vision and x-ray vision (I wonder how many times he scorched a wall learning to change between the two), and, my personal favorite on the ridiculous factor, has super-breath.  I contend that Superman is what you would get if you asked a 6 year old to design a superhero.

Unfortunately, he does not handle criticism well.

So, now that I've had my mini-rant, what do I prefer?  There are a lot of answers, but I'd like to focus on one that I've really developed more respect for recently: Daredevil.

Seen here on a lunch break

For those of you unfamiliar with Matt Murdock (Daredevil), he was blinded as a child when radioactive material fell from a truck involved in a near-accident (which Matt helped to prevent) .  He lost his sight, but all of his other senses reached superhuman levels.  Daredevil has the most obvious flaw of any comic hero, but I think it serves to make him all the more intriguing.  I wonder if his ability to triumph over his adversity makes him more inspiring and/or understandable as an authentic character.

If you've ever read Daredevil with any consistency, you are aware that for some reason he's essentially Marvel Comics' tragic figure.  He's had little more than a constant stream of tragedies make up his backstory.  His father, an amateur boxer, was killed for not throwing a fight.  Every love interest he has had ends up either dead or insane.  His "secret" identity is common knowledge.  The most recent storyline in the current volume of Daredevil has him being slowly driven insane by a complex plot orchestrated by a villain that was supposedly killed.  The highlight of Daredevil's life was probably being blinded.

This should not be part of the high point of your life.

It seems like Daredevil's entire purpose is to suffer.  Somehow, though, that just makes him more interesting. What do you think?  Is the flawed hero better than a perfected one?  Do we need our heroes to have weaknesses?

If you're interested in reading any Daredevil, I highly recommend Ed Brubaker's work on the series, which can be found in graphic novel form.  The current incarnation of the comic, written by Mark Waid, is also quite engaging and can serve as a good jumping on point for those unfamiliar with Daredevil's history.  Finally, Frank Miller's early work on the series, specifically the "Born Again" storyline is considered to be some of the best of the comic, offering a retelling of Daredevil's origins and the basis of his war with his primary villain, the Kingpin.  Lastly, I would recommend the recent mini-series from Marvel, Daredevil: End of Days, which tells the story of Daredevil's death.  I'll be posting a review of this mini-series soon.

Mr. Wilson Teaches Literature

Marvel Comics has made an effort recently to bring some works of literature into the comic and graphic novel format.  Their renditions of portions The Wizard of Oz series (illustrated by Skottie Young) are just one example.

This blog post will not be discussing these efforts.  Instead, I'd rather look at another approach that Marvel took to classic literature: killing it.

Pictured Here: Killing It

In his mini-series, Deadpool Killustrated writer Cullen Bunn takes Deadpool (aka Wade Wilson), the regenerating, wise-cracking, fourth-wall-breaking mercenary out of the traditional Marvel universe and into what he dubs the "Ideaverse."  The essential premise follows on the heels of 2012's Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe.  After coming to the realization that he is (gasp!) a fictional character, Deadpool sets off through a variety of alternate universes in an attempt to completely end his constant cycle of dying and being reborn.  Upon discovering the Ideaverse, Deadpool becomes convinced that each of the classic literary characters that he encounters there is an archetype for the heroes and villains that populate the various Marvel universes.

As he sets about his quest to destroy existence, a small group of notable literary figures led by Sherlock Holmes sets about preventing the end of all ideas.

What I found most interesting in reading the series was the larger question that it raised about the significance of a life where death is simply temporary.  Marvel has at least two major characters that showcase regenerative powers, often to the point that they seem immortal.  But Deadpool Killustrated and Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe have taken a more philosophical approach (yes, I see the apparent irony in using Deadpool and philosophical in the same sentence).

Sure, you can read this series and simply enjoy the comic carnage.  However, you could also use it as a jumping off point for some significant discussion on life and death.  I, personally, enjoy having the more thoughtful content present, if I want to engage it.  I understand the implications that Bunn is pointing out in Deadpool's existential crisis.  I would have to agree that without permanence of death, life does lose meaning.

What do you think?

Fair warning, this comic is definitely not geared for children.  I have to at least pretend to be a responsible adult.

What're you waiting for?
Go get the comic!

Up, Up, and Away

So, here we go.  First of all, thanks.  You've taken the time to explore my blog, which you didn't have to do, so thanks.

If you've looked through my "about me" section you know what I'm all about and what I'll be doing in my own little corner of the web.  If you're looking to talk comics (or comic-related things), you're in the right place.  I'll be dropping in my thoughts on comics and trying desperately to keep it current.

Enjoy!