So, I've noticed that there is a trend amongst some people that I see around around the Comic shops and the graphic novel section of my bookstore to look down there noses at any comic that isn't trying hard enough to be serious art. Scott McCleod pointed this out in "Making Comics". We value fine art for the very bizarre reason that it serves no purpose. In fact, the reason that it is fine art is because it serves no purpose. As soon as the art is being created to make money it becomes commercial art or worse yet, illustration.

I am not a fan of fine art. I like to make money and I think it would be brilliant if I could make money doing things that I like, writing, and drawing spring to mind almost immediately. I personally have a hard time wrapping my head around people who seem to think that inaccessibility or unpopularity are proof of quality.

Every time I have found quality it has been noticed by other people as well. It's hard to hide quality, because people talk about quality. Look at the slow, but truly dramatic rise of Jeff Smith's Bone. It started off as a humble little self-published black and white comic, which image picked up temporarily and Alex Ross, Charles Vess and Frank Miller did covers for because they liked it so much, got turned into a color comic and is currently one of the most popular comics amongst young comics readers that our book store has ever seen.  In other words, quality gets noticed.

The assumption that popularity is proof that something lacks quality indicates that the speaker assumes that the rest of us are not as discriminating or a cultured or as cool or as perceptive as they are.

I have a problem with that.

Now with that said, I do readily accept that large corporations can pump out absolute dreck (I'm looking right at Joe Quesada and his tampering with Spider-Man at this moment) on a regular basis. I think that this is not the fault of the general readers however. Corporations like risk about as much as the rest of us do- which is to say, not at all. If something sold well once, it will probably sell well again. And if the corporation can keep enough publicity on their product and squeeze out the competition through sheer marketing clout, then people will often not realize that better stuff is out there.

I understand that. I get that argument.

But it doesn't account for Bone.

It doesn't account for Usagi Yojimbo. It doesn't account for Mage: The Hero Discovered.It doesn't account for Blankets, or Maus. It doesn't account for the fact that if you ask most comic readers to name a favorite comic creator, the vast majority name Alan Moore. Heck, it doesn't account for how a guy like Sergio Aragonés has flourished in an industry that is supposedly made up entirely of super-heroes.

Yes, Marvel needs to (borrowing the brilliant words of Neil Gaiman) stop flogging that greasy stain where a dead horse once lay. That does not justify us in dismissing everything that has ever come out of mainstream comics, and start praising self-important work that simply isn't enjoyable to read. Neil Gaiman's Sandman was published by DC Comics if you remember. They also rescued Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta" and managed to get Alan Moore and David Lloyd to finish it- for which we should all be grateful. "Astro City" and "Invincible" are both published by Image Comics- and let's not forget that Image comics did more for creator's right than anyone else in the industry and helped out Jack Kirby near the end of his life. At least part of "Usagi Yojimbo" was published by Dark Horse comics, who also publish 'Hell Boy".

My point is this. Yes, there is a lot of dreck in popular culture, but there is a lot of great stuff in popular culture as well- that's why a lot of it is popular.

I've been thinking about the idea of the Graphic Novel lately. Mostly I've been thinking about what constitutes a graphic novel and wondering why the definition seems to be so muddled.

Wikipedia describes the graphic novel like this: "A graphic novel is a type of comic book, usually with a lengthy and complex storyline similar to those of novels, and often aimed at mature audiences. The term also encompasses comic short story anthologies, and in some cases bound collections of previously published comic-book series."

It goes on to add later in the article that "The evolving term graphic novel is not strictly defined, and is sometimes used, controversially, to imply subjective distinctions in artistic quality...  ...[but] the term is sometimes extended to material that would not be considered a novel if produced in another medium. Collections of comic books that do not form a continuous story, anthologies or collections of loosely related pieces, and even non-fiction are stocked by libraries and bookstores as "graphic novels" (similar to the manner in which dramatic stories are included in "comic" books). It is also sometimes used to create a distinction between works created as stand-alone stories, in contrast to collections of a story arc from a comic book series published in book form."

I think that this explains the heart of the problem. We have allowed multiple definitions of 'Graphic Novel' to exist simultaneously. Looking at the traditional novel, we have a pretty clear view of what is required for something to be a novel. A Novel is a story, told through the written word. It is fiction, and generally has a beginning, a middle and an ending. The novel needs to be a minimum of 50,000 words for most publishers to consider it a novel, rather than labeling it as a novella or novelette or some other form of short fiction. This gives the publishing industry and the population at large a very clear idea of what a novel is and what it is not.

A biography is not a novel. It is not fiction. Likewise a book like "The God Delusion" or "The Selfish Gene" are also not novels for the same reason. Mystery series are novels because each book is a discrete unit having within it a beginning a middle and an end. For this reason J.R.R. Tolkien's work "The Lord of the Ring" is often considered a single novel despite being generally published as three books. A collection of short stories is an anthology not a novel, being a collection of shorter stories none of which is reaches the required 50,000 word point that would render that one story a novel.

Applying a similarly strict definition of graphic novel and adding similar definitions for other graphic works might be helpful. A collection of Spider-Man stories that is not a self-contained work of fiction or a collection of short dramatic comics like Flight, could be classified as 'Graphic Anthologies". While biographical works such as "Maus" or "Blankets" could be classified as "Graphical biography" or something a little more elegant sounding. Informational comics that are non-fiction, such as "Understanding Comics" or the instructional Manga that give explanations of hobbies or history could be called "Graphic Non-Fiction". Such labels would serve a dual purpose.

First, they would give some sense of the diversity that the graphic comic medium has achieved over the years. Showing people not likely to browse such books that they are more than men in tights and funny books. If a person went into the library looking for a book on the history of buddhism and the librarian told him that Osamu Tezuka's biography of the Buddha was available in Graphic Biography, this might strike a non-comic reader as more respectable than if the librarian told him to check the comic about the Buddha over in the Manga section. Second, it would prevent publishers from abusing the term graphic novel for their own promotional purposes. the Comic field is possibly the only field of publishing where the publishers still treat their medium and its level of respect as an open sewer for them to defecate on. If the term Graphic Novel is to have and deserve any respect- it needs a strict and measurable definition- much like the definition that a standard novel has today. In turn this means that we in the comics/sequential arts field need to define the other avenues of sequential art that we have begin to explore- so that they can be differentiated from the graphic novel, and so that they can be seen and given their due from those outside the field itself.

Like television or Movies or Fine Art or the Written Word alone- Sequential Art is a medium and a medium does no imply content. I can use television to make a program about the history of Rome, or to produce a vapid soap opera (as opposed to a topical and intelligently written soap opera). I could even use television to produce the home Shopping Network or Fox News. Nothing in the medium prescribes a level or quality or a type of creative output.

Sequential Art could be used to adapt classic novels (as it is today for children), or ancient mythology (again as it is already for children). Nothing in the medium however, requires that such endeavors be juvenile or simplistic. Sequential Art has the ability to explain great nuance in a glance at the page, Books like "Buddha", "Persepolis", "The History of the American Empire", "Bone", "V for Vendetta", and "30 days of Night", show us how versatile the medium is. "30 Days of Night" evokes mood with its atmospheric art that could never be achieved in another medium. "V for Vendetta" and "The History of the American Empire" are able to make strong political points- and both show strong use of mixed media. "V for Vendetta", and "Watchmen" (both by Alan Moore) are masterful political fables, and "The History of the American Empire" is an honest work of non-fiction. "Buddha" and "Persepolis" are masterpieces of Graphic Biography, one with a modern political relevance, the other a strong historical piece.

These are comics, but Sequential Art is not limited to what was done in the past- the medium is open, and if we want it to grow, we must further define what we have already achieved- so that people who have never explored the medium can find their way around, and even see what is available.

I like Grant Morrison. I think that his stories are impressively original and willing to walk into difficult territory. His run on "New X-Men", was ground breaking, as was his Batman story "Arkham Asylum".

Wikipedia describes him this way: "Grant Morrison (born January 31, 1960) is a Scottish comic book writer and artist. He is best-known for his nonlinear narratives and counter-cultural leanings."

Nonlinear is putting it lightly. Arkham Asylum makes me feel as though I am going insane whenever I read it. Seven Soldiers of Victory features a super-team who never actually work with each other. New X-Men takes pride is twisting assumptions and disrupting tradition while still making it feel like X-Men- Morrison's writing tends to make the reader feel as though the ground is moving underfoot.

Grant Morrison's writing style could best be thought of as a computer-generated photo-mosaic. Morrison drops snap shots down in small moments showing the reader pieces that seem self-contained and unrelated to each other, but as more of these snapshots start to fall into place the reader starts to see the big picture that they form.

In his Animal Man run- Deus Ex Machina, the picture Morrison draws is a commentary of the state of the medium itself. Slowly Animal Man is shown and starts to realize that he is a comic character. Through the stories Animal Man begins to make use of this, stepping outside of the panels to hide and attack villains or to move more freely. Later Animal Man ends up in the limbo where out of print comic characters go, and finally ends up meeting Morrison for a face to face talk. The story ends up being about Morrison and his struggles as a writer, rather than being about Animal Man. Animal Man is revealed to be nothing more than a construct that Morrison has given life to, much as God mad Adam from dust. We, as readers, can empathize with Animal Man and be glad when Morrison- in his capacity as the 'God' of this world- revives Animal Man's slain family, but the real story is with Morrison: the only character revealed to have free will.

Although I enjoy the story, I feel that it fails as a Super-Hero comic. Obviously Morrison was trying to transcend the genre, but I think that something about his approach didn't fit- it felt unfair to me as a reader. I think that I would label Deus Ex Machina as a noble failure for this reason.

Morrison seems to have learned a lot since then however, as he uses much of the same nonlinear story-telling in his current run on Batman. His stories jump around in subject and in time (even jumping ahead to a time when Batman's young son has taken over the mantle). Discussing this with my friend, he was optimistic but confused. He had deeply enjoyed Morrison's run on New X-Men, but had no idea how Morrison could tie the strands of this Batman arc together. My friend had never read the Animal Man run, but my memory of it had me worried- would Morrison break the fourth wall again with his wanderings and force us to confront the lack of reality of our stories again? I hoped not, it was enlightening- but uncomfortable- the first time, a second time would simply be disappointing.

Happily, enough of the pieces have fallen into place on this story now that readers can see a little bit about where it's going, and it is not about breaking the fourth wall. The apparent pushing against the fourth wall that Morrison was doing was clearly revealed to be Batman's struggle with sanity.

Comparing both of these stories with each other I have come to a conclusion about Morrison's storytelling style. Most comic writers favor a quest or adventure story format. The idea with these stories is that a goal is presented and the hero pursues it. In a quest, the hero is changed by the pursuit, in an adventure the hero is not. Star Wars was a quest, Raiders of the Lost Ark was an adventure.

Grant Morrison doesn't use these common story formats, but rather uses the format of the riddle. Rather than present the hero with a goal, he presents the reader with a puzzle and uses the hero's struggle to solve a quest or adventure (although usually a quest) as a means of revealing the clues to the puzzle and eventually the answer tot he riddle itself. Think of it as a compound story format, one format riding upon the other for added depth. This type of story format requires an extra commitment from the reader, because the purpose of the story is not immediately clear, and the reader- like my friend- must have faith in the writer.

With Morrison however, this faith is well founded. He started this style with Animal Man, which was unsettling, but well done. He improved it with New X-Men, which was satisfying and surprising. And he seems to have perfected it with his current run on Batman which is unfolding like Batman's cape into something dark and brilliant.

If you aren't reading Grant Morrison's Batman, you should be.

I had meant to post this last night, but last night I saw the Iron Man movie again. this statement will tell you how much I enjoyed the movie. Of course, as a result of seeing Iron Man again I won a bet and my good friend now owes me a bottle of Saki. For your edification the bet was regarding the quality of the final teaser scene after the credits. I argued that it was a better final scene than the after credit teaser in X-Men 3, and my friend felt that I was probably full of it. So we bet a bottle of Saki.

I was right, and I now have a happy bottle of Saki floating my way. He did however point out something that I missed in the movie. There is a reference to the Mandarin in the movie and they may be setting this up for the sequel.

A Brand New Day?

Moving along and keeping up with what I said I would talk about, I am going to talk about Spider-Man and the transition from the previous Spider-Man story arcs into One More Day and then into Brand New Day. There has been a lot of negative attention from fans regarding this story change and the retcon that went with it. There has been a lot of bad mouthing of Joe Quesada as a direct result, since he has basically taken all credit/blame.

Because of all the bad mouthing that Joe Quesada has received from fans, I'm going to start by saying that he is a brilliant artist, and that nothing he could do will ever take that away from him. With Marvel's editor-in-chief properly complimented I will start my impressions of One More Day and Brand New Day with a letter that I wrote and tried unsuccessfully (The server kept returning it) to send to Joe Quesada through his fan comment section of his web-page.

The Letter

I want to start this little rant by saying that Spider-man was the first comic character that I ever remember caring about. I watched the cartoon as a child, before I read the comics. When I say that, I mean the cartoon narrated by Stan Lee that reused so much animation even a six year old like me could tell it was cheap. I still loved it. I loved the Spider-man comics for years. I read in shock as Harry followed in his dad's footsteps and become the second Green Goblin. I read Maximum Carnage as it hit the shelves and loved it and the development that Venom got during this time. I may have been one of the few readers to actually enjoy the Clone Saga and miss poor Ben Reilly. I read Slingers, and was sad when it ended- although it ended pretty well.

I was loyal through the whole 'Resurrect Norman Obsorn' fiasco. I was loyal when you mind wiped Eddie Brock back to a one-dimensional character. I was loyal when you brought back Aunt May and then retconned Spidey back to hiding his identity from Mary Jane. That's a lot of really bad writing. I've been faithful and loyal through some of the worst retcons and plot twists that the comics world has ever known- because let's face it- Spidey gets retconned worse that any character in history.

But this fiasco with 'One More Day' is the final straw. It is the worst of the worst. I know Marvel is terrified of plot development and character growth. I know it compulsively hits the reset button whenever any flagship character shows even a hint of change. But this was good change! You should have let Aunt May die- she's done it once already! You should have let Peter kill the Kingpin and walk that dark road, it's a road he needs to walk in order to grow up!

Civil War rocked the comics community off its hinges. People sat up and took notice. I was impressed. I read Fantastic Four for the first time in years- and I was truly impressed with the quality of the writing! Heck, I read Thunderbolts and was reasonably pleased! Spider-man was amazing in Civil War. The changes to all the flagship characters were truly important and actually interesting- character development, what a strange concept to actually see from a lethargic giant like Marvel. I told a friend of mine near the end of the Civil War, that this would be what makes Marvel great again as long as they don't hit a reset button on the whole thing.

It looks like Professor X, may have to step aside because I seem to have nailed that one pretty square on the head. Grant Morrison knew what he was doing when he said that he wouldn't be bringing characters back from the dead. Straczynski knew that good writing meant development when he wrote that amazing confrontation between Peter and Aunt May after she learns he's Spidey. But Marvel didn't notice and cheapened Colossus's sacrifice by bringing him back. Whedon even makes jokes about how long X-Men stay dead- the jokes would be funny if the situation wasn't so pathetic. And now you've reset Spidey's world- color me so unimpressed.

If you want a pathetic, poorly written Spider-man that keeps the grade schoolers happy- use Ultimate Spider-man, that's the reason you made that lame horse of a comic series. So I am officially giving up on my oldest favorite comic character. I will not be reading Spider-Man, and may not even be reading New Avengers (which I love) for fear that the blight of Spider-writing will cripple that amazing comic as well. I will not be reading Spider-man ever again unless I get some real sense that the comic is actually being written and not simply work-shopped by a cowardly group of sales analysts afraid of change. Personally I don't think anyone has actually written Spidey in years except Straczynski, and let's face it- you've abused his loyalty in 'One More Day' as well. I think it's more likely that you have a program that spits out combinations of old Spidey plots in different combinations and the sit around hoping nobody will notice.

We noticed, you lost us- we don't read Spider-man anymore. If you want us back we have only one request. Stop hitting the reset button and let change take its course. That's it, that's all. The reset button is the most embarrassing and most infantile of all plot devices. Show some guts, write some real stories and let the characters develop. Good stories get readers. Writing like this and relying on big (and silly) crossovers is what caused the comics crash of the nineties.

Your readers are smarter than you seem to think. Good comics do not involve a rolling stasis field where nothing changes- they involve stories. Stories grow, they change, they end- and they are never the same at the end as they were at the beginning. Good stories are why certain comics get readers, not foil covers or crossovers with stupid names. You tried that before and almost killed the whole industry. Don't make us live through that again.

Please.

Looking Back

I wrote this letter when Brand New Day first started. I haven't bought any of the Amazinf Spider-Man comics, but despite my stance in the letter, I have tried to read each new issue of Amazing Spider-Man as it hit the shelves. I do work at a books store after all. I've never managed to get through a complete issue. I'd like to say that's because I got angry and disgusted at the story direction or something similar. That would at least be a strong visceral reaction, that would at least mean that the comic is demanding me to make some emotional investment in it. But the truth is that I haven't finished an issue because the Brand New Day stories are dull, and fell like I'm reading Spider-Man comics from the seventies with ipods and email thrown in for good measure. I'm almost thirty years old, and I've been reading Spider-Man for the majority of my life. I've collected and read the stories that came before my time. I'm not looking to read the same stories again. So it was the betrayal of the reader's trust and the lack of respect for the characters and for character development and continuity in general that made me give up Spider-Man, but it's simple lack of interest that is keeping me away. They threw away twenty years of continuity and history in order to be able to write dull stories. it's a sad state of affairs. I'm going to throw in a literary quote here, because I think it sums up the situation perfectly.

                This is the way the world ends
                Not with a bang but a whimper.

                —T.S. Eliot, "The Hollow Men" (1925)

The Reaction

From my conversations with Comic Shop owners it doesn't seem as though the change has hurt sales much, but I haven't talked to that many and so my small sample size could skew the results of this informal survey. The fact that they have had  Wolverine guest starring in Amazing Spider-Man lately suggests that either sales are slipping or that they are hedging against slippage- because any long-time Marvel reader will tell you that Wolverine is used like penicillin on whatever comic isn't selling well enough. He's on every X-men team and if he somehow isn't on the team, he turns up. He's a Secret Avenger, he has his own comics, he just pulled an appearance in Deadpool, and now he's showing up in Amazing Spider-Man. I swear Wolverine must have the mutant ability to create multiple bodies, but maybe its just the mutant ability to boost sales. So basically, because I don't have an insider's view of the comics industry I can't say with any certainty how Brand New Day is doing from a sales perspective, I have evidence to suggest that it's doing both well and not so well.

On the other hand, the fan reaction has been heavily negative. The Marvel forums on their website have threatened expulsion to anybody who bad mouths Joe Quesada. They have allowed only one Brand New Day Posting thread and added heavy rules to it, and despite that the post thread, which is huge is largely negative with the occasional defender of the new direction appearing to try and stem the unhappy tide. I don't consider myself overly paranoid, only moderately (or is it acceptably) paranoid, but I have noticed that the defenders of the new Spider-Man story line on the Marvel forums tend to parrot the same phrases over and over. They don't tend to argue much, so much as they respond to the majority's complaints by repeating the same tired phrases. Things like this seem be these people's bread and butter: "This new direction isn't so dark and boring", "It's classic story telling", "The stories are better without Mary-Jane".

I am going to take a moment, and only a moment, to rebut these arguments. First, calling it a new direction is like calling leftovers from Thanksgiving dinner a new meal. These stories were good in seventies when they were first written, when we first read them- reheating them thirty years later doesn't mean that they are new and doesn't mean they taste as good as they did then. I would agree that this story direction isn't so dark, but I would heavily disagree with the argument that the story is less boring. The fact that it is boring is precisely the problem, every plot twist seems familiar, all of the changes to Spider-Man's world feel like a vaudeville cane yanking the story world backward. Joe Quesada basically said that this was the point, so claiming that doing  the same thing that Spidey's been doing since 1962 is not boring must mean that these people have a higher tolerance for repetition than I do. Maybe they use the stale warm familiarity of unoriginal stories to ignore the problems in the real world.

I think this also addresses the argument that the new direction is 'classic' story telling. Telling the same story somebody else did isn't classic. The original story is a classic. Being true to the dedication to excellence that made the old stories so good is essence of classic storytelling today. Dragging out a dead horse and beating it into a bloody smear is not classic storytelling. Success Guru John Maxwell said that a basic rule of life is "that when the horse is dead, dismount".

The final point, that the stories are better without Mary-Jane is obviously a matter of preference. Despite this, I would argue that there were good ways to end their marriage and bad ways to end their marriage. Had the writers let Aunt May die, and had Peter tell Mary-Jane that he was leaving her to protect her from the world that he had created, this would have been a good way to end the marriage. I say this because ending the marriage like this would have kept continuity and thus respected the reader's emotional investment in the previous twenty years of character development. It also would have been believable based upon the who the characters themselves are. It would have allowed the character development to continue forward. The method used- a literal deal with the devil- is not believable for the characters involved (even Howard Stern realized that), does not respect the reader's emotional investment in the last twenty years of continuity, and rather than allow the characters to continue to develop it rewinds character development arbitrarily and forces the reader to sit through the same character development again.

I suppose that it is possible that this will bring in new readers, and maybe bring back a few old readers who long for the 'good old days' and prefer easy listening radio. I don't have time to read a comic this deliberately disrespectful of its readers and this deliberately mediocre.

To be honest, I doubt I will ever read Spider-Man again.

Final Verdict

If you were asking me for advice, I would tell you to drop Spider-Man like a hot potato. I would take that money are start looking into Astro City or the Authority. I would recommend collecting the trade paperback collections. The Authority is a Super-hero comic not afraid of consequences, and Astro City really is the Classic Storytelling that the apologists keep claiming Brand New Day is (watch for Jack-in-the-Box, he's Astro city's Spider Man).

What I'm Reading

I just finished reading Matt Wagner's "Mage: The Hero Discovered". It's a very good and very satisfying modern fantasy, that is apparently partially based upon Wagner's own life. Sam Keith of "The Maxx" inked most of the comic, starting at issue number six. Wagner is best known for his creation: The spear/fork wielding assassin Grendel. It's an enjoyable read with a very refreshing minimalism to the art and a strong sense of color. the story follows the classic hero's journey and brings new elements to the story while paying respect to classic stories at the same time (current writers for Amazing Spider-Man could learn a thing or two from this story)

I'm back!... Shouldn't there be some sort of triumphant music or at least a cymbal crash?

...

Hollywood has ruined life without a soundtrack for me. So, at the behest of the last three people that I have talked comics to, I am changing the direction of my blog from a "This is my directionless life" sort of blog to a focused review of comics and things comics related. I'm an addict and more than a little obsessed, what can I say?

Warning Plot Spoilers of All Kinds Ahead!


Iron Man Movie

Iron Man in the Marvel universe is currently one of the most controversial figures. He was the most hated character in Marvel during Civil War, and even though he was instrumental in making The Winter Soldier become the new Captain America, and even though Hank Pym (aka Giant Man when he's a good guy, and Yellow Jacket whenever he's teetering on the brink again... guess which he is right now in the Initiative?) is currently the one playing morally questionable scientist, and even though he just stopped Ultron (who has somehow become a d-cup wielding brunette) and Doctor Doom (who has somehow managed to start banging head boards with Morgan Le Fay, go Victor!) most fans still see poor Tony Stark as somewhat equivalent to Rat Poison. 

As a case in point, last year Iron Man was nominated for- but didn't win- the Eagle Award for best Villain. Read that sentence again. Yes, Iron Man, got nominated by one of the oldest still running comic awards groups for BEST VILLAIN! 

I was both impressed and appalled, because Iron Man was one of my all-time favorite Super-Heroes as a child. Him, Spider-man (more on him in a moment), and Green Lantern. Later I became a rabid fan of Daredevil and Batman and other underpowered Super-Heroes, but in the beginning Shell Head, Spidey and the Hal Jordan had my loyalty. 

Which is why Civil War was interesting for me. I as impressed by Tony's logic, appalled by his methods, and disagreed, but could understand his motivations. But at the same time, I really missed the days of Armor Wars, or the Dragon Seed Saga or other stories where Iron Man (although doing contraversial things) got to clearly be the hero.

Which brings my little rant back to the movie. First the five word review. Iron Man absolutely kicked butt! I personally consider it to be the second best movie made based on a Marvel property. I rate X-Men 2: X-Men United as the best Marvel Movie, I rate X-Men (the first one) as the third best, I consider the Director's Cut (and only the director's cut, if you haven't seen it- see it!) of Dardevil as fourth, X-Men 3 as fifth, and Spider-Man (the first one ONLY) as sixth. Ghost Rider I suppose makes seventh, which was a decent plotless popcorn flick. Both Fantastic Four movies and the other Spider-Man movies disgusted and appalled me and don't make the list as anything other than torture devices- this also applies to the non-director's cut of Daredevil (the Director's Cut is half an hour longer! the Producer cut a whole sub-plot out that connects the different strands and makes numerous events actually make sense in order to 'make time'). But coming back to my point, Iron Man is the second best Marvel movie I have ever seen. It is also the best movie I have seen in the last six months or so. I saw "Shoot 'Em Up" in theatres which was brilliant cheese or the time span would have been longer.

They have of course changed the plot from the canon Marvel comic. Tony is now injured in Afghanistan rather than Vietnam, which only makes sense in my mind. They added the touch that his injury comes from one of his own weapons that the insurgents managed to get a hold of somehow- I won't spoil the how.

Mrs. Arbogast is missing as his secretary, but that also makes sense since the movie has him working mostly from home. They instead cast an impressively frumpy Gwyneth Paltrow (I'm sure I miss-spelled her name) as a sort of girl friday named 'Pepper' Potts- and sporting a head of dusty red hair. She clearly has a crush on her boss, but is too professional to let it slip through, and he relies on her and cares for her without realising he's doing it. Paltrow also gets one of the best lines in the movie when verbally sparing with a blonde buxom reporter that Tony has just bedded and left behind the next morning. The reporter has commented about how Pepper is still picking up after Tony. Pepper replies that she does whatever Mr. Stark requires including "occasionally taking out the trash."

Ooh, Snap!

The story starts with a bang going straight to the attack that injures Tony, and then snapping back 36 hours to let us see what brought him to that point. Tony's love of alcohol is touched on repeatedly, but this movie at least was not "Demon in a Bottle". Tony is presented as one part irresponsible child, one part wonderkid, one part workaholic. Likable, but irritating. It's easy to see why his friends stand by him, and just as easy to see why he drives them nuts anyway.

The story draws as much from the Ultimate Iron Man stories by Orson Scott Card as it does from the original series. They kept, as mentioned above, the traditional Marvel Origin (albeit with a temporal update), they added Obadiah Stane from the Ultimates (Pepper may be from there too, or I may have simply forgotten her from the traditional series- I suspect she may be drawn from Tony's red-headed chief of Security, but I'm not sure), they have James Rhodes already be Tony's friend before the origin accident, and they include the Ultimate story about Tony's father Howard Stark (may as well be obvious about the fact that Tony was inspired by Howard Hughes eh?). The villain of the story seems to draw heavily upon the Armor Wars storyline from the traditional comic, and a reference is made to War Machine- but nothing is purely from the comic. And that is a good thing, the people behind this movie took the comic and used it to make a really good movie. They didn't try and make a comic, they tried to a make a movie based upon a comics property and remembered the difference between the mediums. Thank goodness. I loved SIn City, but some parts simply didn't work as well on screen as they did on paper.

The special effects were excellent, with only two points in the movie where my brain said- that looks like it was digital. Even though I knew that most of it had to be digital effects, my brain only remembered that fact twice. So I'm pleased with that. 

For the most part the acting was good. Gwyneth Paltrow played her part very well. Robert Downey Jr. was born and bred to play this role, I swear he didn't need to act, just recount his own experiences half of the time. The actor who played Rhodes did an excellent job. Of the main cast members, only Jeff Bridges was hit and miss. He did a really good job for the first half of the movie, and then at a certain turning point his acting got a little cliche. you'll spot the point when you watch the movie. 

The action scenes were really nice, and it was nice to see that the film makers didn't have a problem banging their lead character up- mostly by bouncing him off of immovable decidedly non-bouncy objects. The effect this had was to remind us that this is not easy, that Tony is not a natural born hero. It also added drama or relieved tension depending on when it was used.

The final action scene was very satisfying, and the movie wrapped its storyline up well while still leaving an opening for a sequel (and a tie-in movie!) big enough that you could drive a Monster Tuck through. Speaking of which, if you haven't heard yet, make certain that you stay until the end of the credits- it is definitely worth the wait. I personally am going to see the movie again tonight (I saw it yesterday), and have bet my friend a bottle of Saki that the after credits scene I am refering to is more impressive than the after credits scene in X-Men 3. I say that it's no contest, but we'll see and so should you. 

Well, that's it for Iron Man. Later today, probably this evening, I'll post my thoughts on Spider-Man's Brand New Day arc. Just a little preview- I am NOT a fan of this retconn.

Ciao!

I haven't posted in a while. I've been busy and although that sounds good, it's no excuse. I've written a short story that I am sending to the Rifter. We'll see how it does.

I'm working on some promotional material for Academie Duello.

I'm also working at Chapters now. I enjoy it. I get to talk about books all day- but its hard on the feet. Ahh the joys of retail.

My computer is here. I'm going to try to hook it up to my wireless network today- we'll see how that goes.

I'm on facebook now as well. The internet world is sucking me deeper into it. Buck Godot- the online web comic is getting really good lately. And Gunnerkrigg Court is amazing.

I'm currently reading the 4-hour work week, and we'll see how that goes.

I'm working out again, mostly anaerobic stuff, but aerobic and flexibility training will be added as well in the future. I'm using my facebook friends to keep me honest. Seems to be working.

Okay, that's it for today. I'll post later.

One of my favorite author's of all time is Daniel Quinn, author of 'Ishmael', 'The Story of B', and 'My Ishmael'- as well as the non-fiction work 'If they Give you Lined Paper, Write Sideways'. Quinn writes for the express purpose of disseminating a message, bringing information to us that he has noted that we generally seem to lack. Millions of people have read his books and agree that his message is one that most of us have not received and need to receive. However, I have noticed that people tend to take Quinn's very simple message and tack on their own ideas, generally impair or work entirely counter to, or even appear to invalidate Quinn's message.

In fact, people tend to read Quinn's message, which includes amongst other things the fact that we incorrectly believe that humans are innately flawed creatures, and somehow still retain the  view that humans are innately flawed, even after reading and agreeing with Quinn's message and arguments, and yet somehow still think they are acting in agreement with what Quinn said.

The people will literally read the book, and then attempt support the book with their own views, which the author of the book just spent an entire book trying to disprove. It would be something akin to an Christian reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, being utterly convinced by the arguments in the book and then telling people that we should all be atheists because god meant us to be atheists. The reader is unable to change their core beliefs, but still finds the idea convincing and so, in an effort not to admit to past error or a change in understanding, the reader attempts to support the new revelation with their old beliefs- even though their new understanding disproves them.

I think this is a trait of our culture, which is flawed by the way- not all of humanity- merely one culture. I think that part of our culture's unique ideology, which includes the central tenet that man was meant to rule the earth, also includes a prohibition against admitting error- since a ruler is never wrong. School lowers our grades and marks us negatively for being wrong.  People judge us as less intelligent if we are wrong. The Church considers wrong to mean an eternity of suffering, and considers choice- with its possibility of being wrong- the greatest crime of religion. Choice in Ancient Greek is called heresy. We are tried from day one to not admit our error unless we are forced to, unless we are beaten. To admit error it to have lost the battle.

We are not trying to grow or learn, but conquer and colonize. Conversation is a battle of ideology and opinion. Debate is a war of ideas- who's idea will have the day. Even our justice system is designed to fight, as though having a contest to prove who has the better lawyer will prove actual guilt or innocence. And even if it did, the current justice system assumes that doling out revenge against the (apparently) guilty party will repair the damage done and do good for the victims and the community in some way.

Our leaders our determined by war. In days past this meant a literal battle. These days it is a ceremonial war, fought with scraps of paper, but it is still a war. Our sports are generally battle field facsimiles. Our movies and games are  wars writ small, but large across our sub-conscious.

Into this culture, how could we ever permit ourselves the possibility of changing our views and our understanding, since this would require that we admit our error, admit that we were wrong?

The answer is by not actually changing our views. When society could no longer stomach the Christianity espoused in the Bible, it simply began to call different morals, laws and beliefs Christianity and kept the old ceremonial wrapping- but only the parts that didn't bore or offend them. If we compare what we currently call Christian values (as frightening as they can be in southern United States), with the actual commandments of the old testament and the pronouncements of Jesus, we would find a frightening difference in ideology. The views have changed, and rather than change with them by admitting error and abandoning an idea that has been proven to be unpalatable, Christians have chosen to simply ignore the actual text of their holy book and call whatever values they now believe to be Christian values. I'm picking on Christians here (mostly because I was one, which makes it easier), but this applies to Jews, as well a Muslims as well as most older religions. This applies to political parties. This applies to family conflicts. This applies to teacher's curriculum. This is how we deal with things.

rather than 'Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil," We now have Hear No Incongruity, See No Problem, Admit No Error."

It allows politicians to talk about Green politics and Sustainable agendas without actually doing anything, because they are simply doing what they've always done and called it green. It allows religious intolerance to flourish, because rather than pointing out the fact that we now have ample proof to disprove most individual religious gods, we choose not to and simply alter these religions to fit the facts (and frequently alter the presentation of the facts so they appear to match the religion). They allow parents and teachers to crush free thought and debate while calling it constructive or positive or pro-active or some other curernt buzz word.

When I was in high school I was smart. But as smart as I was, I remained an arrogant snot-nosed punk and time has proven to me how foolish and how wrong I was and numerous subjects. I was smart and more learned in College, but time has crumbled the high horses that I rode in College and has taught me the irritating fact that simply because I can out argue somebody does not mean that I am correct. I now exist in a state where I simply accept that I am going to be proven wrong, and shown to be arrogant and short sighted repeatedly and that accepting these moments and admitting to them is the only way to move beyond them. I think perhaps this would be an excellent first step for society to make.

But I could be wrong about this....

So I am back online. This is do to a complete lack of help from Telus Tech Support. I would like to point out to any Telus Techie's reading this, that this is not your fault. I never actually got through to you guys and simply decided to continue working to fix my own problem. I was able to get the problem resolved and connect my new wireless connection before I ever got to talk to a live person. I think the thing that spurred me the most was the music that they had on the hold line.

I am now waiting for my new gift computer, one that will hopefully run nicely- as opposed the antiuque that I am currently working on- as much as I love it. This sucker is still using Windows ME. Ironically. I have gotten used to that old beast and actually am comfortable using this antique operating system. I know that none of you believe it, but hey, it's the truth.

Now it's 2:31am and I have work tomorrow, so I shall say good night.

I have moved. Ironically I moved back into an apartment that I lived in roughly one year ago. They had renovated and enjoyed having me as a tenant and were happy to offer me the suite again.

I was struck when I moved in, by the power of context. The apartment was decent before, and the location and price were excellent, but now the appearance was exemplary and a huge improvement over both the apartment I had been living in and what this suite had looked like when I last lived there.

I bring this up because of how good it feels to walk around a home that feels neat and clean and well cared for. No matter what I did at the apartment I lived at preceding this location, it never looked good. If my roommate and I really cleaned our hearts out, it would look decent. The rest of the time, the structural problems with the location overwhelmed any cleaning and organizing that we might do.

I remember a statistic, that children who live in dysfunctional homes in good neighborhoods have a better chance at succeeding in life than do children who live in supportive homes in run down crime ridden neighborhoods. I remember a statistic that says that people are more likely to gain weight if their friends are overweight, and vice-versa. Context is incredibly important to human beings it seems. Put people in a good environment and they are more likely succeed.

I thus find is interesting that most self-help books focus on internal content rather than context, that is these books are more concerned with what people should be doing and thinking. The problem with this strategy is that what we are capable of doing or thinking is based heavily upon our environment- what is going on around us- our context.

Many people feel that this is inaccurate- or defeatist. So let me ask you one question. Can you dribble a basketball? Not well, not even while moving, can you simply bounce that ball up and down?

Can you do it in the dark?

Can you do it on sand? Or ice?

Context is everything- it is the great leveler. Our internal capacities are important, but unless we use our capabilities to alter our context, our context will end up modifying what are capabilities are in that situation.

I moved to Vancouver about three years ago. I started out bunking at my best friend's house while I looked for an apartment of my own (nobody can afford to buy a home in Vancouver). Next to his apartment was a big hole- a big construction hole- as in a big, let's start building a building right here kind of hole. Okay that was cool, I always enjoy the wierd sensation I get when I look down those holes and realise that humans can change the landscape on that scale.

Over the course of the three years that I've been here, I've watched as the foundation was poured, the supports were raised and heavy construction slowly transformed a hole into what is now a nearly finished building. My girl friend is a civil technologist, for those who don't know it means she designs stuff like this (althought usually roads in her case), and says that it can take a year or more for such a building to go from conception to planning to plan approval, and this is all before the hole is dug. I then started to wonder how long it took to write the business plan, assemble the business team and bring in investors to make the projest start moving at all. I would imagine that another year is reasonable.  So all told its taken at least five years to take a building from an itch in somebodies brain to 'almost' finished.

I once watched a comedienne who said she liked to date younger men because they still had their enthusiasm. She then burst ot laughing and yelled "Tell me again about your five year plan honey!"

I have come to the conclusion that success is achieved by few people because few people have the dedication and determination to plan great ideas out in detail from start to finish and then take the time and make the sacrifices to follow them through to the end. 

I have also noticed that the people who resent success tend to think that the government should provide success to everyone in equal amounts. The government is supposed to do this by taking it from those people who have achieved it on their own and then passing it around to people who spent their five year plan doing drugs instead of planning. I wasted a lot of my time trying to take short cuts, but I spent it trying to do something. I want success and I want it bad, but I do not want somebody to give my the stolen success of others and tell me that I have some right to the hard work that another person spent years planning and accomplishing while I sat here on my butt doing nothing. 

My epiphany is that most people were complaining that it couldn't be done while the Wright brothers were busy building a plane- and that nothing has changed since then.

Okay, so I got bored with the old look of my blog page and over hauled it. I wanted a really kick ass japanese castle layout, but I'm too cheap to pay for my account right now- so no Japanese castle for me. 

Instead I picked this layout which is kind of Star Trek meets superhero layout, but its bright and energetic and well laid out in my opinion, so this is my new look. Yeah- i like it.

My last post talked about mindfulness. I've been working on the root of the causes behind the lack of mindfulness since then- thinking about what starts this rot in people's lives. I think that a lack of mindfulness, a lack of focus, stems from the same problem that causes a living plant to rot in the soil.

A plant needs water to survive, but if the soil becomes too saturated with water most land-based plants will become waterlogged, rot and die. The problem that the plant is suffering from is too much a good thing. People needs stimulation and variety in order to grow mentally- too much stimulation too quickly can cause a lack of focus. Through the massive communication network that our technologies have allowed us to create, we have access to a host of information. This is a good thing. However the method that this information is brought to us is, all too frequently, a highly stimulating fast moving form that doesn't require mental digestion. The information is laid out in a quick, abrupt and flashy manner that is 'sweet' to taste- and incredibly easy to 'digest'. There is no though process required to receive a large amount of the information available today.

Having switched to a digestion metaphor, I will run with that metaphor. Carbohydrates are the fuel that powers a human body. Simple carbohydrates such as fruit sugars or refined sugar is so simple that it can be converted to energy and burnt through activity very quickly. However it is healthier for us to eat complex carbohydrates that take longer to be broken down into energy. This extra work in digestion improves the body's function and allows the energy to be released at an even pace throughout the day.

To be sure that our minds are getting the complex information it needs to help it grow (the same way complex carbohydrates help the digestion), we need to make an effort to take in information in a manner that is slower or more difficult to understand. The effort that a person invests in attempting to understand something a little behind their reach is energy spent improving the brain- improving though process, improving attention span, improving mental focus.

I also recommend spending time allowing information to digest, just as its important to let food digest before engaging in physically strenuous activity. Take some time to let the mind wander, to ponder things, to go over things mentally. Spend time just letting the mind be. This is time well spent, it helps stress and clears the head.

I further recommend developing physical organizational technologies. That is physical things that help keep us organized. A day timer, if used is a wonderful device. A dry erase calendar is equally useful. having a clearly labeled and well organized storage system that is easy to access is an amazing stress reliever. If we allow technology and other hard systems to take over some of our thinking for us, it takes some of the load we are carrying in the form stress with it. The less stress we feel, the more easily we can focus.

Stress is the feeling of threat, our instincts as former saber-tooth tiger chow are telling us that a big kitty with bigger teeth is stalking us and we'd better run. The problem is that the feeling is no longer caused by a saber toothed cat, but a deadline or a misplaced set of car keys. hard systems that help keep our lives organized can help us focus on the real issues we face.

My mind wanders, a lot. I find that I can't keep myself focused and have to multi-task incessantly, not because I have too many things to do- although that frequently seems like the case, but simply because I lose focus on individual tasks too quickly.

I carry a note book in my back pocket to keep track of what I need to do, and stray thoughts that I don't want to lose. I like this, but am vaguely bothered by my need for this measure, no matter how useful it might be to me.

I almost opened a second tab to check on one of the web-comics that I regularly read- 'The Order of the Stick' just now. I didn't because I want to focus on what I am doing, but the point remains that I barely wrote two paragraphs, two extremely short paragraphs, without being distracted.
I don't like this state of affairs, and so I am taking action. I will be cutting out television from my home life- meaning I will not watch television at home (I don't already so this is easy). I will not watch movies at home or bring home videos from the library (Much harder, but virtually anything I need to know is also available in print). I will not play video games at home (equally difficult at the moment, but I feel that my addiction to classic Nintendo 64 games is something that I can stand to lose).

My second measure is that I will use only one window or tab at a time when surfing the Internet, unless the project I am working on absolutely requires multiple tabs to be open simultaneously.

My third measure is that I will meditate every Tuesday through Thursday, for fifteen minutes. I don't want to over estimate of what I am capable, and so will refrain from setting more impressive goals until after I have maintained that regime for one month without fail.

I almost stopped to thumb through the newspaper to my left just now, but stopped myself at the last minute. I stopped the annoying flash advertisement to my right for Adventure Quest. I actually already have a membership, but I don't intend to use it anymore.

I also haven't added any links in article on purpose. I don't want to go tabbing into infinite again. I may add links to my future entries, but not this one. This time I need to focus. I stopped just now, to talk to a friend who walked by my desk. I'm obviously a work in progress.

So to recap,  I plan to:

• stop watching Television, Movies, documentaries, or playing video games in my home.
• not open more than one program, tab or window on a computer unless it is entirely necessary in order for me to accomplish my planned goal.
• meditate every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday for 15 minutes.

In order to accomplish these I will do the following:

• To stop watching television I will ask my parents to store my televisions, VCR, DVD player, and N64. This will give me increased space in my apartment. To further aid in this goal I will attempt to read a book a week and write a report on each book that I read.
  
• I will remind myself not to use tabs by keeping a record of all my mindfulness exercises here with my usual writing.
  
• I will remind myself to meditate through the use of this same record I will keep on my live journal. I will thus update this journal every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
• If I feel like I should play a flash game or otherwise go off task I will resolve to reward myself with recreational reading after I have finished the task, rather than use a distraction as a reward.
• I will carry a book on me at all times, and if I feel a need to read the vapid musings of local free newspapers, I will read that book.

That is the rough draft. I may change it later. I just had an urge to go check the Nodwick web comic and read the journal of its writer Aaron Williams, even though I've already done so today. Nonetheless I am pleased with the resolutions and expect that I can meet the challenge that they represent. I expect that I will have problems, particularly in the beginning, but that is allowed and to be expected. I have seen this lack of focus in the children I once counseled at summer camp. I can get through this. I need, want and intend to have the mental control that this will require. All that is necessary to gain it is hard work and patience. So I will have it. I will likely stumble many times, but I will get there.

Be warned, this post may construed as negative, mopey or 'emo'. I hope that it won't fall that far, but you have been warned.

First of all, the bad news as it applies to you- I've had problems keeping the update rate on the comic where I'd like it- that is to say on schedule with the required updates. I have no excuse. I shall be endeavoring to bring things back up to speed by the end of next week. I will not insult your intelligence by making any grander claims than that.

Second, I've come to realize that I've been doing the people around me a disservice. I have been living without purpose and without a vision of tomorrow. I have made the prime mistake of dreamers. I have dreamed of the end goal and not the intermediary steps. That is unacceptable to me. I have allowed my arrogance and my distaste for certain jobs and certain requisite activities get in the way of getting to my goals. Consequently I am behind on those goals.

I don't find this situation acceptable. Furthermore, rather than using this problem as a rally point, I have -up till now- used it as a point of sorrow and become an emotional vampire on those around me. This too is unacceptable. I cannot live in the way I have been living.

What is worse than all of this, is the fact that I have said much of this before. I have had this revelation about myself before and attempted, quite unsuccessfully, to turn things around previously. As a result, I have very little credibility to my friends and family on this subject. My girlfriend says that I've lost my passion. My best friend has told me gently to get my life back on track. He's also done so none too gently. They all still like me, but I am afraid that I have become one of those embarrassment friends that people talk about and cluck their tongues about in sad contempt.

If I say I will change, they nod and don't listen- this is nothing new. If I embark upon a new project, they watch for the bricks to begin falling. I'm good at sophistry and storytelling. I weave a good tale. As a result, I make a very good first impression. I am afraid that this never lasts.

So my current goal is to learn how to retain passion, and find passion in the first place. I don't think that what I do qualifies as living a life. Instead I think I'm merely existing and acting as a weight upon those around me. To those of you who know me personally, I do not ask that anyone believe my claims. My actions have taken that expectation from me long ago. I know that you would have no reason to believe me. I refuse to give up however- I refuse to stop trying to live. I don't ask you to believe me. I don't even ask you to wait for me. I just want you to know that I haven't given up yet.

Okay, so with Chapter one ending on Wednesday, the first page of Chapter two should be up on Friday.

I have also considered adding comedy comics to the site, and am thinking of how best to approach this. I am also hoping to find some time to add a list of comics that I like and enjoy, as well as talking a little bit about the philosophy that underpins my writing and specifically this comic. So expect to see an expanded comic home page in the next month or so- hopefully.

On a completely different note, check out this Sinfest comic. I love this idea. Oh, and if you aren't reading PS238.... you should be. Don't be as cheap as me though- buy the real version.

The first chapter of my comic is almost finished. The second chapter is inked, and some of it is scanned. I need to scan the rest and photoshop them into shape. I should be ready on time so that there is no interrupt between the chapters, and my posting schedule should continue uninterrupted.

So Spider-man 3 is out and I content to say that I haven't watched it. I couldn't stand the second movie and am less than optimistic about this one. Spidey's return to the black costume in the mainstream marvel universe also strikes me as ridiculous. That costume means venom to Spider-man in the comics, and it terrifies Mary-Jane. Only an idiot would put Peter back into the black- so I guess that's more proof of Marvel's idiocy. Comics should be about storytelling, not about performing a pop-cultural recycling service.

Civil War was a decent idea. Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men was groundbreaking. Supreme Power (only the initial run, not the name titles) was extraordinary. Sandman was epochal. The reason these were so good was consequences. The reset button, of children's cartoons and sitcoms (meaning that everything goes back to reset at the end of each story arc) is a killer for quality storytelling. The only cartoon from my childhood that people still talk about on a regular basis is Transformers. The reason is because the movie had the guts to kill off a huge number of the main characters in dramatic and horrific fashion. I was six when I saw Optimus Prime die on life support, and it's still with me. The fact that this was done as a marketing ploy to get ready for a new line of toys is irrelevant. The change to the status quo was what made the series the icon it is today. 

So, if consequences and changes to the status quo are so good for storytelling, why are they used so rarely today in comics, movie series, and television? They terrify investors and CEOs. Ask these people to choose between $1000, and a 50/50 chance at $10,000, and their past actions indicate that they will almost always choose the smaller amount. Good stories generate income, and make people lots of money, good stories are risky and harder to predict. The problem is that the audience response to good stories is also hard to predict. The reason that there are so many subgenres, is because we all like different stories. It's a little bit of work making a great story that a lot of people will like and pay money for. I personally think that its worth it, but hey, I'm not a studio executive or editor-in-chief of a major comic company.

Personally though.

I would keep Magneto dead.
I would not have brought back Jason Todd (although I was impressed by how he was introduced back into the story)
I would not have 'killed' Captain America

I would start developing new villains for  the X-men - and decent  iconic ones. Magento works because of who he is as much as what he does. He is Xavier's opposite in power and in approach and in ideology. This makes him a good villain. To replace him (because as I said, I would not have brought him back- any of the times that they killed him) I would for somebody who can fill his role as grand moral antagonist, without being a carbon copy of him. This would likely not be easy, but I think it would be worth the effort it took to build a credible new villain.

I would pull a 'Flash'. Flash and Green Lantern are two heroes who are actually not heroes at all, but generational or occupational roles. By changing the guard for these roles every so often, DC has made the character fresh while keeping the character. Personally, I would like to see Batman die and have one of his sidekicks take over. I would love to see Dick have to deal with Mantle of the Bat. Tony Stark, a.k.a Iron Man is another easy kill- because the suit makes the man- so to speak. Of course Tony is both an arrogant prick and a genius and finding somebody to fill his shoes might be hard, but that's actually one of the benefits to this method, that problem is actually good for the story. Both Thunderstrike (the brief replacement for Thor) and Wally West/Flash worked hard to fill their predecessor's shoes and many people didn't think that they were up to the challenge, including themselves.

I would pull a Daredevil/Born Again. Comics get really crowded really fast, because nobody ever dies. People need to die, things grow and things die. We need both and we need to keep stories moving, and the amount of baggage that sits around in most comic universes is criminal. Infinite Crisis did not clean house anywhere near as much as it should have done.  We need to strip away the fat and find the muscle that drives the story. This is my recommendation for X-Men.  Destroy the mansion or have the government seize it. Put the X-Men on the run. Kill off established characters who haven't grown in years. Kill off the young ones that are going nowhere. Kill Chris Claremont for god's sakes the man is disgrace- hasn't written a new story in over a decade. Find the core of the X-Men and make them find to defend that. Beat them down lower than they've ever gone and find out what they are at their core.

I would end series. I would actually end successful series. For instance when Spider-Man finished its main series after the return of Aunt May and the Fall (again) of Norman Osborn, with Peter burning his Spider-Man suit, I was amazed and impressed. Although I knew it wouldn't last, and when it immediately all started back up, I lost my faith as stopped reading Spider-Man. I would end series and if we felt there was still a market for that character I would restart the character in a dramatically new way. I might tell the story from the beginning in a different way. I might pull an 'Age of Apocalypse' and give readers the same character in a radically different environment. Something to make the stories new and original. Good stories end. AKira Toriyama knew this and Tried to end Dragonball Z (the Manga, don't talk to me about the Anime) from the Freeza saga onwards. Good stories end, otherwise they wither.

I would find different metaphors. Superheroes as Gods is good, but we've done it. Superheroes as dark vigilantes against the law has been explored to death. Noble Causes is getting good mileage out of the Super-Hero as Celebrity idea. Super-Hero as Messiah was explored in Rising Stars. Super-Heroes as government agents of coercion and control has been done since Watchmen. X-Men has played its race card so long and so hard that virtually nobody cared until the movie came out. These larger themes are good, but either find a new one, or find a new way to address an old one. Don't bring stale cookies to the party.

I would make our Super Heroes relevant. Astro City's Winged Victory runs a series of Shelters/Schools for abused women, where they can learn how to get back on their feet, defend themselves, assert themselves, and live as people. Winged Victory also has to deal with the fallout when people call her a pagan cult leader. Wonder WOman had to deal with similar when she wrote her memoirs. She also had to deal with US pressure for military secrets when she was the Ambassador for her people. The Authority could stop alien invasions with impunity, but had to deal with huge political fallout when they removed a third world dictator from power (letting his starving citizens kill him in fact). This is what we need more of in comics.

I could go on and on, but I think I'll end here- this has gotten preachy enough.

So, I've been really busy and have neglected my journal as a result. However I think that the results are well worth it.

I'm almost done the second chapter of my comic, Gasoline Mythologies, and thus it should be ready to update in time for there to be no lag between chapters. I think the second chapter looks significantly better than the first and it actually turns the first chapter into part of a cohesive story- at least that's the intent.

Second. I've been working with a group of friends and associates and have helped them bring their book to fruition and it is now for sale on my website. They personally aren't very computer savy, and not that I'm a master hacker, but I can manage an online lulu.com account and give them the help they need to be published authors, so check it out.

Third, my Elfwood gallery is now updated. I still only have a single mod's choice award, but I'm working on that.

At my day job things have been likewise busy. We have summer youth camps coming up that I need to advertise for and set up demos to promote. All of this have made me a very busy person. The youth camps have been run last summer and during this previous spring break, and they went over great. In fact, If you live in the Seattle or Lower Mainland area, or even in Souther BC in general, I encourage you to check out our site and discover why your child would love this camp (blatant plug).