PeterDavid.net

LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I can't say anything."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where were you when Captain America #25 was spoiled?

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

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

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

Dave

Has anyone else heard this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You read it here first, folks.

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

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

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

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

But he won't be Captain America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Parker is Your Friendly Neighborhood Captain America.

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

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

Brian Douglas -

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

First let me "Accentuate the Positive"

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

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

now to "Relate to the Negative'*

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

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

Hang on to the Affirmative

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

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

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

Mike "shaggy" g**

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

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

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

So he gets shot in Captain America #25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[smirk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's with me?

@Jack Gabriel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^signing agreement, all of the above statement^

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iowa Jim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick

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

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

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

Iowa Jim

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

So I can't say anything.

Intriguing...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^signing agreement, all of the above statement^

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

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

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

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

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

One more thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick

One more one more thought:

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

Sorry, Supes. Nothing personal.

Rick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a disturbing image that is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain America:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of series 3.

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

Yeah, that's good for the business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What comment by me are you referring to as hateful?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike, you are very strange person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Thank you."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What comment by me are you referring to as hateful?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not calling anyone here a serial killer, but as far as I have difficulty reconciling the behavior of others with reason, no, no one else is displaying the same difficulty. As I responded in the "Victims of Mike" discussion -- I have the answers I was looking fo