The Comics Professor

Batman Incorporates the Outsiders (again)

2011-02-03T08:00:00.000-08:00

Check out some Batman and the Outsiders news at The (new) Comics Professor!

Superman discovers the need for moral judgment

2011-02-01T11:24:00.000-08:00

Another recent post at the new Comics Professor blog, titled "Superman discovers the need for moral judgment," looks at the moral dilemma Big Blue faces while "grounded" in Superman #707.

(And please update your bookmarks and blogrolls to follow the blog at its new location - you can also follow me on Twitter, where I tweet all my new blog posts from the Comics Professor as well as Economics and Ethics.)

Should superheroes take political positions?

2011-01-31T13:09:00.000-08:00

For some reason, Google is having a hard time finding some of my recent posts to the new Comics Professor blog (now at http://www.comicsprofessor.com/). So from time to time, I will highlight new blog posts here.

For instance, please see "Should superheroes take political positions?", which was inspired by Vaneta Rogers' recent article at Newsarama discussing social commentary in comic books, including Denny O'Neil, Greg Rucka, and Judd Winick. In it, I discuss my own views on politics in comics, including where it's appropriate to mention superheroes' political orientation, and the two cases in which is definitely is not.

The Comics Professor moving (updated)

2010-10-08T06:29:00.000-07:00

The Comics Professor is moving to Typepad (http://economicsandethics.typepad.com/comicsprof/), and I hope to update it much more often afterwards. As you may know, my academic blog, Economics and Ethics, is on Typepad, and I'm constantly on that, so it makes sense from a practical point of view to port The Comics Professor over there too. (I've had no problem with Blogger.com, honestly.)

The first post at the new site: the call for abstracts for Superman and Philosophy!

Iron Man and Philosophy podcast

2010-05-14T10:40:00.000-07:00

My new friend Chad Wells just posted a podcast of the phone interview we did several weeks back at his site, A Welcome Invasion of Privacy. In it, we discuss the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series, how Iron Man compares the topics of my previous books (Batman and Watchmen), and various issues in the book, movie, and current comic storylines. Chad did a fantastic job--be sure to check it out!

Iron Man 2: Tony Stark's womanizing and character

2010-05-07T03:46:00.000-07:00

I have a comics-related post at my Psychology Today blog dealing wth Tony Stark's womanizing ways (which are much more prominent in the films than in the comics) and what it says about his character and his decision-making asa superhero. Check it out here, and then check out Iron Man and Philosophy: Facing the Stark Reality for more philosophical discussion inspired by the Armored Avengers.

Well, I didn't see that coming (Spoilers for JL: Cry for Justice #7)

2010-03-03T13:27:00.000-08:00

SPOILER WARNING for Justice League: Cry for Justice #7 below...

Ready?

Last chance...

OK, here goes.

I think everyone had a feeling that Ollie would kill Prometheus at the end. But I didn't predict the death of Lian, Roy Harper's daughter with the assassin/villain Cheshire.

While I am very sad to see her go--I thought she really humanized Roy, as well as providing a much needed comic foil in so many books--I am just as glad that DC chose not to show her dead body, instead displaying Ollie, from behind, holding her in his arms, with just her leg visible with some blood on her pants. It was a very tasteful way to show the death of a true innocent, and I personally thank DC for their discretion. (At the same time, I had no problem with the Sentry's ripping Ares in half in Siege - I agree with Bendis' reasoning that they needed to show how horrific this act was.)

I wonder if this tragedy is going to being Donna and Roy closer, now that they both have lost children. I didn't like their pairing before (during the first run of Titans), but now there seems more motivation to it.

Aquaman's back (?)

2010-02-11T14:40:00.000-08:00

Today, from DC's The Source, comes the cover for Brightest Day #2:

Fantastic - now let's see what they do with him...

The Birds of Prey are back!

2010-01-13T06:23:00.000-08:00

Thanks to DC's The Source, good news for your Wednesday morning - Gail Simone and Ed Benes are bringing back Birds of Prey this year!

This was a title that should never have been cancelled (or that Simone should never have left), and I could not be happy that it's coming back.

New Black Widow ongoing series!

2010-01-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

Acccording to Marvel, Natasha Romanova (please get the last name right, Marvel), the Black Widow, is getting her first-ever ongoing series starting in April. This is fantastic news, not just for fans of the character, but for fans of solo books starring female heroes (especially after Ms. Marvel ends with #50). And Daniel Acuna on art doesn't hurt either!

Acording to writer Marjorie Liu

I want to establish Black Widow as her own character, not as someone's girlfriend or the member of a team. Which isn't to say that Black Widow's relationships won't be explored, but she's a cunning, ruthless woman whose physical prowess would be nothing without her staggering intelligence. She's a force to be reckoned with, in every possible way.

I appreciate both sides of this, for while Natasha definitely deserved an independent focus, one of the interesting things about the character is her relationships with so many big players in the 616--including Iron Man, Daredevil, Nick Fury, Wolverine, and both Captain Americas (or is that Captains America?)--and I wouldn't want that aspect to be ignored completely. (I've really liked her interaction with Maria Hill in the current Invincible Iron Man arc--maybe they could be featured together.)

I just hope the book is good enough to continue long after the movie hype dies down (though we can always hope for a spinoff movie as well!).

(And since you asked, yes, Black Widow does get some time in Iron Man and Philosophy: Facing the Stark Reality, out in March.)

New Iron Man armor

2010-01-08T06:58:00.000-08:00

Today Marvel Comics released an image of Tony Stark's latest, set to debut in April's Invincible Iron Man #25:

I have to admit, I liked the Extremis-era armor - very imposing - and this new armor is much more streamlined. Also, the lit parts of the new armor remind me of all the highlights on the Heroes Return armor, which I was not a fan of. But we'll see how it looks "in action."

Any thoughts?

Peter Singer and Batman, revisited

2010-01-06T04:44:00.000-08:00

Over at Ivy's Vine, Ivy Reisner has chimed in on Mahesh Ananth and Ben Dixon's chapter, "Should Bruce Wayne Have Become Batman?" in Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. Ananth and Dixon argue that Peter Singer 's strict utilitarianism would condemn Wayne's decision, but Reisner disagrees, concluding:

If everyone, or even most people, did as Singer proposed, there would be ample resources to help the starving poor, even absent the Wayne fortune. Therefore Wayne if helping the otherwise unaided population of Gotham by becoming Batman and is therefore doing more good than would have been possible by simply donating the Wayne fortune.

Singer seeks to bring a world where charitable organizations are fully supported by routine small donations from the majority of the world’s affluent population (defining affluent as people with disposable income for even small luxuries, like DVDs and philosophy books). Batman seeks to bring a world where Gotham is no longer corrupt and crime can be kept under control by normal law enforcement efforts, such as the police and judicial system.

I would argue their intents are in alignment, and that Singer, rather than decrying Wayne’s becoming Batman, would laud him for his Herculean efforts “to prevent something very bad from happening”.

Very nice contributon on the part of Ms. Reisner.

Iron Man and Philosophy video

2010-01-03T13:14:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of andphilosophy.com, Wiley's fantastic website for the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture series, here's the promotional video for Iron Man and Philosophy: Facing the Stark Reality - enjoy!

A Look at Iron Man and Philosophy from And Philosophy on Vimeo.

Low blow, Frank Cho!

2010-01-02T04:00:00.000-08:00

In Frank Cho's great comic strip Liberty Meadows, the current thread has the evil cow returning to terrorize Ralph with some very advanced technology--but from whom is he getting it? Guess who...

(Shameless plug: there are several chapters that discuss Tony Stark's alcoholism in Iron Man and Philosophy: Facing the Stark Reality, out in March.)

Sherlock Holmes and Batman

2010-01-01T13:02:00.000-08:00

Over at Psychablog, my friend Robin Rosenberg (editor of The Psychology of Superheroes), ruminates on the recent Sherlock Holmes film, at one point comparing director Guy Ritchie's version to Batman:

While watching the film, I kept thinking about Bruce Wayne—and an appropriate 1-sentence movie summary could be: "Bruce Wayne placed in Victorian England and played by Iron Man actor; Alfred the Butler morphs into Watson and Catwoman becomes Irene Adler."

For more on this point and others, check out her post, linked above.

Tony Stark/Iron Man's atonement (Origins of Siege)

2009-12-30T13:22:00.000-08:00

In today's Origins of Siege, there is a series of one-page origins of the key players, including Iron Man. Fred van Lente and Salvador Larroca do a fine job recapping Tony's story, and one phrase stuck out to me: after he disavows weapons production following his time in the Middle East, "Tony still felt he had much to atone for."

As it happens, one of the chapters in my upcoming edited book, Iron Man and Philosophy: Facing the Stark Reality (Wiley), is titled "Can Iron Man Atone for Tony Stark's Wrongs?", written by Christopher Robichaud. It begins:

As a genius superhero, a wealthy industrialist, a high-ranking government official—and, lest we forget, a man of considerable talent in having a good time—Tony Stark is seen as a paragon of American achievement and excellence. But there’s a private side to him, too, and it betrays a haunted man. On closer examination, Stark’s party-boy lifestyle reveals dispositions that border dangerously on self-destruction. His techno-geek savvy finds him much better at, and much more interested in, building gadgets than personal relationships—just ask Pepper Potts (among others). And his career in and out of his high-tech armor is a checkered one, at best. Whether it’s following the trail of shady arms deals done by Stark Industries, controlling the damage caused when Iron Man technology falls into the hands of villains, or confronting the national crisis of Captain America being assassinated under his watch, Tony Stark often finds himself trying to right the wrongs that he, inadvertently or not, helped bring about. Indeed, his ongoing campaign to address both the circumstances and the guilt stemming from his perceived failings is arguably the main motivation behind Stark’s exploits as the invincible Iron Man. No doubt, this is what makes him such a fascinating character in the Marvel Universe. So, are personal atonement and public redress achievable? Or are they outside the grasp of the invincible Iron Man?

Robichaud focuses on moral responsibility, blame, and forgiveness in this chapter, one of the best in a book that turned out even better than I'd dreamed.

Terrific anaysis of Rucka and Williams III's Batwoman

2009-12-29T10:44:00.000-08:00

I highly recommend this fantastic breakdown/analysis by Kelly Thompson of Greg Rucka and J.H. Williams III's Batwoman run in Detective Comics, written from both a general and feminist perspective - very enlightening and thorough.

New focus on Green Arrow and Red Arr--I mean, Arsenal

2009-12-11T06:37:00.000-08:00

New this morning from DC's The Source - big shake-ups regarding Green Arrow and Roy Harper, who will apparently go back to the codename Arsenal after adopting the name Red Arrow in Brad Meltzer's JLA relaunch (and in deference to Kingdom Come).

I always liked Roy (theTiger Woods of the DCU - help me out, Google!), and I thought his "grown-up" identity of Arsenal was great (even though I agree with the internet poster who objected to the word "arse" being part of any superhero's name). I hope he recovers from his recent flesh wound in Justice League: Cry for Justice, and I'm looking forward to the renewed emphasis of him. (Check out Devin Grayson's Arsenal mini from 1998 for an earlier treatment.)

Was "he" supposed to be in Iron Man #20?

2009-12-09T12:39:00.000-08:00

I don't want to give anything away, but was Iron Man #20 (out today) the first appearance of a certain person of interest outside of his own venue?

SPOILERS BELOW in invisi-text (though context will probably give it away anyway):

The person of interest, of course, is Steve Rogers, the original Captain America, who shows up, with little fanfare, to help Pepper, Rhodey, Maria Hill, Black Widow, Bucky, and Thor revive Tony.

This reminds me of when Hal Jordan started showing up in various DC books, such as the Countdown to Infinite Crisis one-shot (and, IIRC, an issue of Blue Beetle featuring the Justice League) before Green Lantern: Rebirth was finished. (Barry Allen's a little different, since he officially came back during Final Crisis and only then had his very own Rebirth mini-series.)

So Jessica Jones is not Josie Maran after all?

2009-12-09T10:06:00.000-08:00

I've loved the cover of New Avengers Annual #3 that has been online for months (and which appears here), since Jessica Jones (back in costume) distinctly (to my eyes, at least) has the face of model Josie Maran.

But when I picked up my copy today, the face had been changed to a much plainer one. (Apologies to whomever that image may have been based on.)

Might Moran's people have caught wind of this? Like my comic book guy said when I pointed it out this morning, "Is Tommy Lee Jones next?"

Bruce Wayne is back!

2009-12-09T06:44:00.001-08:00

We knew it was coming, but finally here's the official announcement of The Return of Bruce Wayne (courtesy of USA Today and DC's The Source). It's a fantastic interview, and it sounds like Grant is going to do right by the Batman legend.

Red Robin thoughts and spoilers - and Booster Gold?!

2009-06-11T05:35:00.000-07:00

Red Robin #1 did something important - it finally revealed (somewhat) why Tim Drake/Wayne (a distinction that was actually emphasized in this issue) is no longer Robin. That part made some sense - given that Damian wasn't going anywhere (why exactly isn't clear), Dick felt he had to watch him at all times, and the only way he could do that was to make him Robin.

Tim's rationales for his behavior didn't wash as well, though, either for his adoption of the Red Robin persona, or his pursuit of Bruce. He said he chose the Red Robin identity so none of his actions would reflect on Dick or Bruce (but rather on Jason--as if anyone on New Earth remembers his short stint as RR on his wacky travels through the multiverse in That Weekly Series That Shall Not Be Named). Uh, Tim - if you wanted to distance your actions from your brother and father, why not pick a completely different name? "Oh, he's Red Robin - for a minute I thought he had something to do with Robin from 'Batman and Robin' - silly me." Please. Hell, become the new Ravager (piss Deathstroke off!).

Sadly, his reasoning for Bruce's being alive was even weaker (though more emotional): he has no one left, so he has to believe Bruce is still alive. OK, I get that, very tragic and sweet at the same time. (Psst, Tim - Bart's back! And so is Conner! Check your Twitter, dude.) I would rather he believed--as Morrison emphasized so well in "R.I.P."--that Bruce is ready for anything, and if anyone can cheat death/Omega Sanction/Oprah, it's Bruce.

One minor quibble about the art - please decide what body size Tim has, because he looks like a 25-year-old in costume and a 15-year-old out of it. Otherwise, the art was very good, stylistic enough to give the book a unique look.

BONUS: Booster Gold #21 gets points for being the first appearance of Dick/Batman is a non-Bat-title, and very well done too - the costume was accurate to Quitely's redesign, and Jurgens even drew Dick's face and body movements so as to leave no doubt who was beneath the cowl. I wish more had been shown of Dick's reaction to finding out that Booster had gotten his ass kicked over and over trying to save Barbara from getting shot--I think that was underplayed, but maybe Dick's trying to adopt Brucian stoicism already (especially after trying to play tough with Booster initially). (And there was even a nice mention of Blue Beetle, to link the main feature with the back-up - which was great, BTW.)

Winick's new Batman - now this is more like it!

2009-06-10T09:26:00.000-07:00

I just finished Batman #687, Judd Winick's first issue with Dick Grayson as Batman, and it was absolutely magnificent (includng Ed Benes' pencils, which captured the mood of the characters perfectly). I'll probably have more to say later, maybe after I read this week's Red Robin #1 and later Dini's Batman: Streets of Gotham, and if Winick is planning on continuing to explore Dick's inner conflict throughout his run as he did so well in this issue, then I don't mind Morrison's book so much--that will provide the straightforward Batman and Robin adventures (with the Morrison twist, of course), and Winick will give us the emotional story underneath (which I'm more interested in).

One more thing: if you don't feel a tear starting at Alfred's response to Superman's asking him "are you alright?", then you ain't human. Damn.

Dini's Batman: Streets of Gotham #1 looks great!

2009-06-09T07:14:00.000-07:00

Now this looks good: just like before Final Crisis and Battle for the Cowl, it looks like Paul Dini will be a nice counterpoint to Morrison when it comes to writing the new Batman and Robin. Rather than creating a entirely new Bat-verse in which they can operate, Dini is putting them in the Gotham we know and love, and seeing how Gordon and the rest react to them. This I can get excited about.

Now let's see what Winick brings to the table...

Thoughts on Batman and Robin #1

2009-06-05T09:26:00.000-07:00

OK, the adulation for Morrison & Quitely's Batman and Robin #1 is getting a little much (this is just one example), so I'll put two cents in... It was OK. I was a little disappointed the first time I read it, and my impression improved on the second reading a couple days later. But I still thought it was just OK.

Here's one issue I had: What was the point all of the "Dick, you're turning into him" that we saw in the run-up to "R.I.P." and Battle for the Cowl? Apparently, the way Grant's planning to write him (based on numerous interviews), Dick is going to be a kinder, gentler Batman (like we were supposed to get from Bruce after Final Crisis and the 52-week cruise) as opposed to the grim and gritty new Robin. But what happened to the darker, more determined Dick we saw up until through Battle for the Cowl? Maybe facing an over-the-edge Jason Todd for the umpteenth time at the end of that series showed him the error of that way--let's hope Judd Winick fleshes some of that out. (I may be the only person who's looking forward more to his stories about Dick/Batman than Grant's--Judd always had Dick's voice, whether in Batman or Outsiders. Now, about his plotting...)

Don't get me wrong--I didn't like when Dick was turning into Bruce, although it made sense given the context. Dick is decidedly not Bruce, a persistent theme through Nightwing's tales over the last 10 years. But it was appropriate that, as his fate as the next Batman became more solidified, he became more like Bruce. That would have made for an interesting story--and who knows, maybe that's the story Judd Winick is planning to tell. Perhaps he'll show the darker side of the new Batman, perhaps a side he purposefully hides from Damian--I guess we'll see soon.

No matter if Dick becomes more like Bruce, or keeps his traditional lighter personality, I hope the next year of stories shows him (and the readers) that he will never be Batman, no matter how hard he tries. He won't be willing to go to the same extremes, and therefore he won't inspire the same fear and awe. And he shouldn't expect to be Batman--he is doing this out of duty, after all, not because he wanted to--because only Bruce is Batman. It's not about the cape, the cowl, or the name--it's the man underneath it all. (I thought this was the point Grant was making in "R.I.P.," and I could have sworn he reiterated this in a recent interview with respect to the current run, but I can't be certain.) Anybody with willpower can be a Green Lantern; anyone who can tap into the speed force can be a Flash. But wearing pointy ears doth not a Batman make--that takes living the life and making the choices that only Bruce Wayne has. There's only one Bruce Wayne--the Multiverse aside--and therefore only one Batman.

I think this is depicted beautifully when artists show Bruce Wayne casting a shadow in the shape of Batman--he is Batman, whether in or out of costume. It's part of who Bruce Wayne is, as demonstrated by the number of stories in which he struggled with "who is the real me--Bruce or Batman?" We don't have to choose--they are the same person. (Frankly, in general I think this applies to Steve Rogers/Captain America too--sorry, Bucky--but that will have to wait for another day.)

Let me sum up by saying that I'm looking forward to this year without Bruce (though I wouldn't have chosen it). I hope good stories will be told, but I also hope that the end result is Dick realizing who he is--and is not--and Bruce coming back in a way that reaffirms who the only real Batman is.

Reborn - gee, I wonder...

2009-04-21T12:40:00.000-07:00

Marvel has a five-issue mini-series solicited for July with the simple title Reborn, written by Ed Brubaker and drawn by Bryan Hitch. No details given...

It's pretty obvious who will be "reborn," right? I just wonder how they're going to do it - with Brubaker writing it, though, I'm sure it will be good...

Spider-Man and Philosophy - call for abstracts

2009-04-21T06:31:00.000-07:00

I'm not editing it, but here's another comics-related book announcement:

Call for Abstracts
Spider-Man and Philosophy

Edited by Jonathan J. Sanford

The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series

Please circulate and post widely.

To propose ideas for future volumes in the Blackwell series please contact the Series Editor,
William Irwin, at wtirwin@kings.edu.

Abstracts and subsequent essays should be philosophically substantial but accessible, written to engage the intelligent lay reader. Contributors of accepted essays will receive an honorarium.

Possible themes and topics might include, but are not limited to, the following:
Is Peter Parker a philosopher?; Is there room for God in the universe of Spider-Man?; Peter Parker, Spider-Man, and the problem of personal identity; Does Peter Parker, post spider-bite, become something other than human?; The Amazing Spider-Man and genetic therapy; Peter Parker, Ben Reilly, and the Clone Wars: flesh of my flesh?; Just how does Spidey-sense work?; Does Peter really have a choice?; Aunt May and moral wisdom; Do Peter’s book smarts have anything to do with moral wisdom?; The scope of responsibility: should Peter feel guilt over the death of Uncle Ben?; Great power, responsibility, and the foundations of obligation; Is Peter virtuous, or just continent?; Is Mary Jane morally superior to Peter?; Doctor Octopus and the passions; Peter Parker, adolescence, and moral maturity: why is Peter so insecure?; What makes a hero?; Is Spider-Man a deontologist, a virtue ethicist, or neither?; Character and responsibility for one’s character: the case of Harry Osborn; Character and moral transformation: the case of Harry Osborn; The Spider-Man villains and consequentialism; Pride and the anti-hero; Spider-Man and the problem of evil: where does the Venom Symbiote really come from?; Spider-Man, the Venom Symbiote, and moral purification; Spider-Man, Sandman, and forgiveness; Is Mary Jane a feminist?; Peter Parker, equality, and friendship: can a superhero have non-superhero friends?; Gwen Stacy: superheroes and death; J. Jonah Jameson and obsession; The Daily Bugle, media, and manipulation; Uncle Ben, Aunt May, and what makes a family; Fathers and sons: what happened to the Osborns?; Superheroes and the limits of community; Superheroes, exceptional types, and the common good: the Green Goblin vs. Spiderman; and the unmasking of Spider-Man; Peter Parker and life as narrative.

Submission Guidelines:
1. Submission deadline for abstracts (100-500 words) and CV(s): June 1, 2009
2. Submission deadline for first drafts of accepted papers: September 1,2009.
3. Submission deadline for finals drafts accepted papers: November 2, 2009
Kindly submit by e-mail (with or without Word attachment) to:
J.J. Sanford: jsanford@gwia.franciscan.edu

Green Lantern and Philosophy - call for abstracts

2009-04-21T06:11:00.001-07:00

Here's the announcement for my latest project:

Call for Abstracts

Green Lantern and Philosophy

Edited by Jane Dryden and Mark D. White

The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series

Please circulate and post widely.

To propose ideas for future volumes in the Blackwell series please contact the Series Editor,
William Irwin, at wtirwin@kings.edu.

Abstracts and subsequent essays should be philosophically substantial but accessible, written to engage the intelligent lay reader. Contributors of accepted essays will receive an honorarium.

Possible themes and topics might include, but are not limited to, the following:

Willpower and the emotional spectrum: what’s the relationship?; The Yellow Impurity: The nature of fear; Parallax and moral responsibility; Sympathy for Sinestro: Can good be accomplished through fear?; Green Lantern, Space Cop: What is Green Lantern’s authority on Earth?; Hal Jordan or Guy Gardner: The role of moral luck; Helping orange skins and purple skins, but not black skins? Noble Lies: Telling the truth about the Book of Oa; Green Lanterns and social responsibility; John Stewart and the philosophy of architecture; “Snowbirds Don’t Fly”: Anti-drug messages in comics; The responsibility of gods: Ion and absolute power; Terry Berg and the treatment of hate crimes; Guardians and Zamarons: Gender and Emotion; Magic versus Science: Alan Scott and the Starheart; Was Jade really a Green Lantern—or was she more?; Green Lantern and Green Arrow: Superheroes and friendships; Go, Mogo, Go: Can a planet be alive?; Rebel with a Cause: Hal Jordan and authority; “Women in Refrigerators”: The portrayal of female victimhood in comics; Green boxing gloves: Does Green Lantern use his power in the best way?; Hal Jordan, the Spectre: Green Lanterns, the Guardians, and God; Alpha Lanterns: Do Green Lanterns need “internal affairs”?; Do Heroes Kill? Green Lanterns and the Use of Lethal Force; Love among the Lanterns: Right or Wrong?; Soranik Natu: Can a doctor be a Green Lantern?; The Mosaic, xenophobia, and integrationism; Power relations between Green Lanterns and Guardians; Ring of Gyges, ring of Green Lantern: The temptations of power; Kingdom of Ends: What constitutes a moral community like the Green Lantern Corps across species?; Using the ring for universal law, not particular goods: is this principle always worth upholding?; “I’m still the pretty one”: The meaning of Green Lantern costumes; Living up to legacy: The role of Alan Scott; Rewriting the Book of Oa: The role of tradition and law; Green Lanterns behaving badly: Do heroes need to be morally unblemished?; The chaos of life and the order of death: Guardians, Lanterns and Manhunters; The role of myth in Green Lantern identity

Submission Guidelines:

1. Submission deadline for abstracts (100-500 words) and CV(s): June 15, 2009

2. Submission deadline for first drafts of accepted papers: September 8,2009.

3. Submission deadline for finals drafts accepted papers: November 15, 2009

Kindly submit abstract (with or without Word attachment) and CV by email to:

Jane Dryden (janedryden@gmail.com)

Justice League of America #31 - a thought...

2009-03-27T11:02:00.000-07:00

Did anyone else think that Justice League of America #31 is what JLA would be like if Bendis wrote it?

Andy Diggle interview (re: Daredevil)

2009-03-24T12:09:00.001-07:00

Good interview with Andy Diggle at Newsarama - he seems to have a good handle on Daredevil, and I like that he takes Matt's Catholicism to be a defining aspect of the character.

New cover for Watchmen and Philosophy

2009-03-13T11:10:00.001-07:00

The second printing of Watchmen and Philosophy will sport this new cover - nice, isn't it?

Watchmen documentary at CBR

2009-03-12T07:03:00.000-07:00

Some of the footage I shot in January for Watchmen DVD extras showed up on CBR:

http://comicbookresources.com/?page=video&show_id=68172.

Watchmen op-ed and Reuters article

2009-03-05T03:23:00.000-08:00

Big day today - my Watchmen op-ed was published in the Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), and a Reuters article about Watchmen and Philosophy (and the Blackwell series in general) was published by Reuters (and available at MSNBC.com, Forbes.com, and elsewhere).

Long live the King(pin)!

2009-03-04T13:53:00.001-08:00

Make sure you read Daredevil #116, out today - it starts the "Return of the King" storyline, starring Wilson Fisk (the Kingpin), and it is a wonderful and, actually, very touching tale.

Special kudos to David Aja, who channels JH Williams III on some pages (but with his own unique twist) - I love Michael Lark, but anytime Aja wants to fill in, he's welcome.

Fantastic interview with Alan Moore at Wired

2009-02-24T12:04:00.000-08:00

There's a fantastic interview with Alan Moore at Wired - check it out!

DiDio, Bendis, and - me?

2009-02-22T10:22:00.000-08:00

I have a nice quote at the end of this New York Daily News article (by Ethan Sacks) about the recession within the fictional world of comics - affecting the characters themselves, rather than the fans or creators in the real world.

Bale IS the "goddamn Batman"

2009-02-03T09:55:00.001-08:00

It appears Christian Bale may be preparing to play Frank Miller's "goddamn Batman" from All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder for the sequel to The Dark Knight - he's certainly got the dialogue down (with asterisks playing the role of the infamous not-so-black bars):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28984085/

Watchmen and Philosophy interview

2009-02-03T07:11:00.000-08:00

Check out my interview for Watchmen and Philosophy at WatchmenComicMovie.com - I had a fantastic time taking with Glenn, who runs the site, and the interview came out wonderfully.

Preview of "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader"

2009-02-03T06:20:00.000-08:00

There's a four-page preview (plus two covers) of next week's Batman #686, part 1 of "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" by Neil Gaiman and Andy Kubert at MySpace Comic Books - this looks fantastic!

Dark/Mighty Avengers thoughts (spoilers)

2009-01-22T05:59:00.001-08:00

Batman gets a break this week (while Heath gets recognition), and several flavors of Avengers step up. (Hey, if we can have a rainbow of Lantern Corps, why not 31 flavors of Earth's Mightiest Heroes? Remember the United Nations of Justice Leagues several Crises ago?)

I hate to admit it, but I enjoyed the hell out of Dark Avengers #1 - I intended not to buy any 32-page books for $3.99 (#1 may have been longer), but if Bendis and Deodato keep it up, I may have to make an exception. SPOILER ALERT: Osborn certainly has stones to outright replace Ms. Marvel, Wolverine, Spider-Man, and Hawkeye for his new Avengers team. Love him or hate him, you have to admire the gumption. Typical snappy banter from BMB - loved the brief exchange between Ares and Moonst--sorry, I mean Ms. Marvel. And the art was beautiful - highly recommended book, even if the higher price point grates. (UPDATE: Excellent interview with Bendis at Newsarama.)

Mighty Avengers #21 was 180 degrees different in tone, as you would expect from a Slott book - this looks to be the BWA-HA-HA Avengers. The final line-up is about as absurd as you're going to get, with - SPOILER ALERT - a little old (Scarlet Witch, Pym/Wasp, Jarvis), some updates (Vision), some legacies (Stature), and some oddballs (Amadeus Cho and USAgent), plus a few more. I'm not sure if I'll stick with this after the first three-issue arc, despite the $2.99 price, but I think I'll enjoy while it while I stick with it.

Batman and Final Crisis #6 (SPOILERS)

2009-01-14T11:41:00.000-08:00

There are spoilers right from the get-go, so be warned...

This was just weird, for so many reasons, such as:

Batman using a gun (and with an extremely weak rationale) - didn't we just go through this at the end of Infinite Crisis with Alex Luthor?
He shot Darkseid in the shoulder? Oh yeah, he's dead all right - no doubt about it. (Geez Louise...)
Darkseid calls the Omega Sanction "the death that is life" - so by "killing" Batman, he's giving him life? (Maybe he'll be reborn in Damian's body like Ra's wanted to do.)
This is how Batman's going to die? Really? I don't buy it... Jonathan Kent went in a much nobler fashion.
Remember, Grant has been telling us for - well, forever now - that Batman is the most prepared mother------ on the planet. Don't count him out.

Several guesses/predictions:

Maybe Darkseid absorbed Batman's life essence through the omega beams to save his own life, and Batman will be restored in Final Crisis #7.
Miracle Machine - hel-lo?
Superman (or the Flashes - Flashi?) will go back in time (maybe with the help of Brainiac 5) to alter time so none of this happens. (And maybe take that awful Raven mini-series with it - and Superman/Supergirl: Maelstrom while you're at it.)
If we're loading up the cosmic U-Haul and moving to an alternate Earth, it may be one with its own Batman. (And, with any luck, no Raven or Superman/Supergirl mini-series.)

That's what I've got - any thoughts?

UPDATE: Wizard has a fantastic interview with Grant Morrison here. (Ignore the "Final Crisis #7 available now" at the bottom of the page.)

Batman #683 (SPOILER ALERT)

2008-12-24T11:21:00.000-08:00

Well, didn't those pieces fall nicely into place? Wow...

SPOILERS AHEAD...

I loved how Bruce just reaappears in the Batcave, lamenting to Alfred over the loss of his dad's bat-costume that Hurt was wearing, and never even explaining how he survived the helicopter explosion - of course, Alfred's the last person who should be surprised by that.

It was so nonchalant - I can just imagine Grant saying "of course he didn't die in the helicopter explosion - who seriously thought he did? I just spent all of #681 emphasizing that he's prepared for anything, and you expect a little boom-boom to take him out? Please..."

So I gather that, since he appears in Final Crisis after the explosion (as shown in this issue), everyone knows he didn't die then, and his real disappearance will take place in Final Crisis #6 (next month). Let's see...

Mark Waid chat at CBR - fantastic!

2008-12-14T03:41:00.000-08:00

You must read the chat with Mark Waid at Comic Book Resources - it is fantastic. His comments on the Legion re-boot and the "Lightning Saga" alone are worth the price of admission.

Comprehensive Batman history at CBR

2008-12-12T06:18:00.001-08:00

Comic Book Resources just wrapped a three-part history of Batman (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) - well worth looking at. It discusses the various pop culture incarnations of Batman, as well as the changing tone of the comics over the years.

Thoughts on Secret Invasion/Dark Reign (SPOILERS)

2008-12-05T05:59:00.000-08:00

I have very mixed feelings about the "resolution" of Secret Invasion and the transition into Dark Reign. BEWARE - SPOILERS FOLLOW.

First, why did Janet have to die? Did there have to be a "big death"? Couldn't they take Hank? Or when he came off the Skrull ship, couldn't they just throw him back? I may not be a Marvel zombie, but even I realize how important the Wasp is to the heart of the Marvel Universe. You already took Steve, you ripped Peter and MJ apart - enough already. (At least Reed and Sue's kids survived - can't be so sure about Luke and Jessica's, though - really liked the latest New Avengers, by the way.)

Second, I think it seems a bit drastic to pile everything that happened on Tony. The Skrull plot was in place for years before Civil War. And even if the Civil War did open the door for the invasion, it is by no means obvious that he is to blame for the war, much less everything that occured afterwards. (This is actually part of the topic of my planned chapter for Iron Man and Philosophy.)

But even if people do blame Tony, fine, get rid of him. But... Norman? Just because he shot the big bad? Hello?

All that said, I'm somewhat curious about some of the contents in the Dark Reign preview - though I'm very reluctant to buy Dark Avengers at $3.99 for 32 pages. (I may buy the first two issues, leading up to New Avengers #50 and the apparent big throwdown between New and Dark, but it's probably trades after that.)

In general, I'm really not looking forward to months/years of darkness in the Big Two comics universes. Evil won in DC, darkness reigns at Marvel. It's enough to make a guy read Donald Duck.

Batman #682 (SPOILER ALERT)

2008-12-04T11:29:00.000-08:00

Wow, it's Batman weekly, at least for two weeks. (Wouldn't it have been great if "R.I.P." had appeared weekly?)

This frankly blew my mind (again). It definitely raises a lot of new questions about what's been going on with Bruce Wayne - in both Batman and Final Crisis - as well as what will happen with him in the near future. But the most fascinating part of it was the historical survey of Batman - we saw his early persona (with the wider ears), his early days with Robin, his cartoonish days (incorporating elements from the Adam West TV series), Alfred's temporary death, up to his move out of Wayne Manor and into Gotham City proper. It covers his original experience with Doctor Hurt, as well as the always-shifting persona of the Joker.

Best of all (or worst of all, depending on how you look at it), it introduces an old flame into current continuity - I won't spoil that. You must read this.

Thoughts on Batman #681 (R.I.P. conclusion) - SPOILERS!!!

2008-11-26T09:52:00.000-08:00

Just read Batman #681, the much-anticipated conclusion to Grant Morrison's "Batman R.I.P." storyline (and his entire run on Batman to this point). And I thought it was very good - it confirmed some suspicions, tied up a few loose ends, but at the same time left enough dangling threads to be picked up later, and definitely gives readers some things to think about (which is high praise for any comic).

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!

Probably my greatest relief is that Batman does not "die" from getting beaten down by the Black Glove. He escapes from live burial (with some particularly inspiring, and seriously bad-ass, internal dialogue), and, with the help of Nightwing, Robin, and the Club of Heroes, fairly easily defeats the Black Glove (including Jezebel Jet - big surprise there). (Oh, and Damian may have killed the Joker with the Batmobile - almost forgot.) Batman's apparent death occurs while pursuing Hurt, after Hurt messes with Bruce's mind a bit, claiming to be Thomas Wayne (which I don't buy for a minute - it is a brilliant ruse, though villains have tried to soil his memory of the senior Waynes before). Add to that some additional insight into his experience at Nanda Parbat, and this issue was an extremely enjoyable and intriguing read.

(Great art too - Daniels seemed to be channeling Neal Adams at points - though some of the surprises could have been better placed, such as Nightwing's escape from lobotomy, placed in the last panel of a page instead of a splash panel on the next. (Now let's see how he writes "Battle for the Cowl"...)

So... is he dead? Come on - no body, no death, simple as that. They almost made it too easy to bring him back, since we have to believe Batman can escape something as simple as an exploding helicopter. (Bringing back Steve Rogers, now that'll be more of a challenge, and it better not involve Mephisto or a cosmic cube.) The point with Batman is not when they'll bring him back, but how, and the stories they'll tell in the meantime.

Let's just hope they're good ones.

Action Comics #870 (no spoilers)

2008-10-08T12:20:00.000-07:00

Wow.

I may just be a old softie, but my eyes certainly welled up at the end of Action Comics #870, and I already knew what was going to happen ("thanks" to the spoilers at the New York Daily News).

Geoff Johns and Gary Frank - wow, just wow.

Even if you're not a Superman fan, even if you haven't been following the current "Brainiac" storyline in Action Comics, do yourself a favor and pick up this issue. Grab some Kleenex while you're at it - if you're human, you'll need it.

UPDATE: I just re-read it, and the tears came back. Incredible.

Final Crisis - remember that?

2008-09-26T08:37:00.000-07:00

I think it's safe to say that Final Crisis has lost its momentum. Only one FC-related title was released in September (Requiem), and the next issue of FC proper won't be out until October 22 (according to the current schedule). The last issue came out when, 2006? Seems like it.

The decision by DC to minimize the FC tie-ins within its ongoing titles (instead confining them to dedicated miniseries such as Requiem, Rogues' Revenge, etc.) certainly seemed like an admirable goal at the time (to the readers, as well as to the DC brass). But in actuality, it contributed to the current stalled feeling. If you aren't reading any of the official FC books (and ignored the house ads), you would have no idea that evil has won. At least in the good ol' days of Crisis on Infinite Earths, you had the infamous "red skies" in the ubitiquitous crossover books. The books may not have had much to do with COIE, but you couldn't miss the fact that some major sh*t was going down.

On the other hand, Secret Invasion seems to be striking the balance perfectly (not to mention that the main SI title ships very regularly). The main story is contained in SI, with backstory given in New Avengers and Mighty Avengers, and several tie-in miniseries (SI: X-Men, SI: Fantastic Four, etc., plus Front Line) emphasize the pervasiveness of the Skrull threat. And there is a scattered SI presence in other books as well, such as Ms. Marvel and (very recently) Iron Man Director of SHIELD. A few books are completely immune, such as the rest of the X-Men books, Captain America, Daredevil, and The Immortal Iron Fist, but overall it's hard to ignore or forget that the Skrulls are definitely here (and they're... uh... green).

Hopefully, Final Crisis will pick up again in October, when approximately 207 FC-related books are released (and that's just on October 15). But in trying to have a relatively self-contained event, which at the same time doesn't ship regularly (or even have a FC title released every week, or at least every other week), I think DC has minimized the feeling of a multiverse-wide threat that FC was presumably meant to have.

Metallica's Death Magnetic impressions (off-topic)

2008-09-16T13:08:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to share my impressions of the new Metallica album, Death Magnetic, which was released last Friday, and to which I finally had a chance to listen today. (Besides comics, I'm a huge metal and jazz fan, so I may occasionally comment on these things as well.)

I have seriously mixed feelings about this album.

First off, it is Loads better than the last three albums. It is definitely metal, and some of it is even thrash (more on that later).

The CD is recorded wonderfully - drums sound great, guitars sound great, bass was almost there, even James gets his old sneer back once in a while.

But it just doesn't sound like Metallica to me. The first and last tracks are definitely the best, and reminded me of the old Metallica, especially the last track. Songs #2 and #8 were also very good (I wasn't paying attention to the songtitles while in the car). So the album starts and ends well, and it goes a bit off in the middle.

I tried to imagine this being the follow-up to the "Black Album" instead of Load. I think people would have been disappointed, but not betrayed as with Load. I think it would have given the impression of a tired band, which ironically may have eased the way for Load, in the spirit of trying something new. But as it is, it is definitely a step in the right direction - after I heard the last song, I thought they should have scrapped the first nine songs, and wrote nine new ones in the spirit of #10 (pretending, of course, that the songs were written and recorded in the running order).

It's actually very similar to the recent "return to form" albums by Megadeth (The World Needs a Hero) and Slayer (Christ Illusion), neither of which were great, but assured metal fans that the bands were back, and would (hopefully) get better. Megadeth did with The System Has Failed and United Abominations, and Slayer has yet to record a follow-up. But both of these albums were more consistently close to the respective bands' classic styles, while Death Magnetic is up and down in that respect.

Hawkman R.I.P. Update

2008-08-25T13:34:00.000-07:00

This past weekend at the Toronto Fan Expo, Dan Didio had this to say about the recent Hawkman special:

The executive editor also said the recent “Hawkman” Special by Jim Starlin was an effort to test the waters for the character. “It was to create an air of mystery around the character and to create questions around the character. With the chance that people might get interested and discuss the character and want to read about him further down the line.”

So it seems there may already be a retcon, or just a plain old "oh, that story? We forgot about that one" in the works.

Or maybe the Demiurge was just messin' with 'im... come on, he quoted Plato...

Podcast on Batman and Philosophy

2008-08-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

The folks at Psychjourney Podcast were nice enough to invite me to talk about Batman and philosophy - you can find my interview in particular here.

While you're there, check out some of the other podcasts - they've interviewed some fascinating people (plus me).

Hawkman R.I.P. (Spoilers - no, not in the title!)

2008-08-11T05:46:00.000-07:00

They broke my Hawkman. The Hawkman that became one of my favorite characters after he was brought back in JSA and began his own series. The Hawkman that has lived for centuries, literally has lifetimes of experience and perspective, and is old-fashioned when it comes to music, movies, and the ladies; the Hawkman that pulls no punches in battle, and is fiercely loyal to his comrades. The Hawkman with ancestral ties to Hawkgirl, Black Adam, the Marvels, and Dr. Fate (whoever he or she may be). The Hawkman that forms the fourth cornerstone of the JSA (along with Uncles Jay, Alan, and Ted). My Hawkman. Carter Hall. R.I.P.

I'm curious - how is Geoff Johns (who was partly responsible for Hawkman's "rebirth") going to do deal with this in JSA? Are we going to see Kendra react to it in JLA? What's Ollie going to say? Or Ray Palmer?

Don't get me wrong - I grew up with the Katar Hol Hawkman in the pre-COIE days - I have nothing against him. But there wasn't much to him. On the other hand, I thought that the reincarnated-Hall-with-elements-of-Hol was perfect. He could operate on Earth, from the alleys of St. Roch to the pyramids of Egypt, or in space with Adam Strange and the Spacebuddies. Was his backstory convoluted? Sure. But did it have endless possibility for great stories? Absolutely!

Raise a glass for Carter Hall, my friends. At least we have the JSA and Hawkman trades to remember him by.

Batman R.I.P. reviews (spoilers)

2008-08-08T06:07:00.000-07:00

No issue of Batman this week, true, but we did get three comics bearing the "Batman R.I.P." logo, some closer to Morrison's tale, some less. But all were great books, and serve to make me more anxious for next week's installment of the main title.

Robin #176 was the closest tie-in, as Tim struggles with the possibility that Batman--his father, since Face the Face--may be going insane, and that he may have to bring him down. The conclusion to the two-parter begun in the last issue, this story has shown the effects of whatever Bruce is going through on his closest associate (well, other than Alfred, maybe - maybe we need an Alfred one-shot). Spoiler plays an important role in this issue, making me raise my expectations for her resurrection. Fabian Nicieza continues to show that he is set to be one of the great Batman-family writers, hinted at in his Nightwing issue that tied into the Ra's al Ghul crossover, as well as his recent Trinity contribution with Dick, Tim, and Babs. And apparently, this story leads right into next week's Batman - let's hope this pays off.

Nightwing #147 had virtually nothing to do with R.I.P., but it didn't need to, as this title has been excellent since Peter Tomasi took it over a storyline ago. Along with Don Kramer's incredible pencils, Dick is portrayed as smart, strong, and capable - the imagery of him heading into the windshield of the kidnapper's car was inspired. Sure, he's not looking too good at the end, but he's human - at least he didn't fall down until he saved the day.

Detective Comics #847 is tangentially tied into R.I.P., if only because Hush wants to be the one to make that title real, and the Black Hand is referenced several times. Not so much Batman here - not because he's M.I.A., R.I.P., or S.O.L. - but to make room for fleshing out Hush's backstory. Dini is performing much needed service here, as I loved the character of Hush from day one, but was never given much background (other than childhood friend who handled the death of a parent a little differently than Bruce did - another play on the Wrath theme, but who's counting). As a result, I can't wait for more details on Tommy's past.

That may be the main purpose of this arc, but the emphasis of the female characters in the Bat-universe in recent issues of Detective has also been fantastic - in this issue it's Catwoman (as Selina) confronting Zatanna on the street, asking her about her relationship with Bruce, getting catty about Jezebel Jet, and sharing some romantic grief. Terrific with a capital T - it's not often we see the women in Batman's life interacting like this - maybe they should form a support group (with Bruce in secret attendance, like Matt Murdock in Decalogue).

Next week - Batman #679!

P.S. Cool Batman moment of the week - sneaking up on Wally West in Trinity #10 - classic...

Two-Face drives the trolley... (Spoilers for Joker's Asylum)

2008-08-01T11:30:00.000-07:00

SPOILER ALERT!!!

This week's Joker's Asylum: Two-Face (#1 is just redundant) had Two-Face setting up a trolley situation for his would-be counselor (the therapeutic kind, not the legal kind), with several interesting twists. Very nicely done, I thought.

Aside from the philosophical touch, I was impressed by the whole Joker's Asylum mini-series - of course, abysmally low expectations didn't hurt. After the lackluster first issue featuring the Clown Prince himself, the rest were quite good.

Boston Globe: "Should Batman kill the Joker?"

2008-07-25T07:17:00.001-07:00

Just wanted to point out an op-ed in the Boston Globe by me and Rob - let me know what you think!

Say it isn't so - Secret Invasion #3 (SPOILERS)

2008-06-05T06:11:00.001-07:00

Just one comment on Secret Invasion #3 (SPOILERS AHEAD): Bendis did a fantastic job with the Spider-Woman/Iron Man scene, as far as leaving it open whether Tony is or is not a Skrull.

Let me throw in my two cents - please, PLEASE don't reveal "our" Tony Stark to have been a Skrull all this time. Since Civil War, the character of Iron Man has acquired tremendous depth (in addition to what he already had). I realize many longtime Shellhead fans want the "classic" Tony Stark back, but I am of the opinion that his recent actions are well in line with his overall character and motivation. To reverse all of his growth and development at this stage would be tragic - and far too easy an "out" for the creators involved.

Please don't pull a Brand New Day on Tony!

(See here for a great scene-by-scene breakdown of Secret Invasion #3 with Bendis.)

News and reviews (Detective #845, Trinity #1 - SPOILERS)

2008-06-04T17:07:00.000-07:00

It seems all I've done with this blog lately is post news about my edited books - nothing wrong about that - but that's really not how I wanted it to end up. I barely have time to read my comics nowadays, much less write about them, but I'm going to try...

(By the way, Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul comes out soon - make sure to check it out, and let me know what you think!)

I did want to mention two releases this week (SPOILER ALERT):

Detective Comics #845 - Another great entry from Paul Dini, but this one was special for several reasons. First and foremost, there was some much-needed catching up between Bruce and Selina (both in costume), with Selina commenting on the other women in Bruce's life, namely Jezebel Jet (from Batman) and Zatanna (from Detective). (Frankly, I was really pulling for Bruce to spend more time with Zee - he needs to date outside his inner circle or Gotham socialites.) Second, it showed Batman relying on an amateur detective chat room to generate ideas about a murder case - a nice way to tap into the collective knowledge of his community - open source crime-solving, if you will. (And it was even cooler to have some familiar faces among the other chatters.) Third, Dustin Nguyen fits this title more each month, and his varying styles to show flashbacks is fantastic. I wasn't crazy about his Superman/Batman arc, and was skeptical about his Detective run - but I have been proven wrong, and happily so.

Trinity #1 - Now this is how a weekly should be done! (I don't see why this even has to be limited to 52 issues - 52 and Countdown both had reasons to be a year long, but unless there's something we don't know, Trinity has the potential to be ongoing.) In contrast to the Big Three's conference in an other-dimensional cubbyhole in the JLA HQ in the last issue of Justice Leage of America, here they simply meet for coffee on a pier, and the way they order drinks from the waitress tells us as much about their personalities as anything has to this point. Kurt Busiek nails their voices perfectly (and Wally West, to boot), and the issue sets up the nature of the threat very well. Mark Bagley's fairly new to me, not having read Ultimate Spider-Man, but he does a great job - if he can keep this up for the next 51 weeks, I'll be more than happy.

But that's only half the issue - the second half, written by Fabian Nicieza with Busiek, didn't thrill me as much, consisting of the introduction of several baddies (one new, one generic) with way too much exposition. Scott Daniel's pencils looked fine, but he needed more to do (check out his old issues of Nightwing, recent Green Arrow, or the short-lived Richard Dragon series, to see what he can do). The "back-up," for lack of a better term ("parallel storyline"?) didn't get off to as rousing a start as the main story, but I'm sure it will pick up with time.

Iron Man and Philosophy: Call for Abstracts

2008-06-03T08:56:00.000-07:00

Call for Abstracts

Iron Man and Philosophy

Edited by Robert Arp and Mark D. White

The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series

Please circulate and post widely.
Apologies for Cross-posting.

To propose ideas for future volumes in the Blackwell series please contact the Series Editor,
William Irwin, at wtirwin@kings.edu.

Abstracts and subsequent essays should be philosophically substantial but accessible, written to engage the intelligent lay reader. Contributors of accepted essays will receive an honorarium.

Possible themes and topics might include, but are not limited to, the following:
Virtue ethics, Iron Man, and the superhero as moral inspiration; Communism vs. capitalism in Iron Man stories; S.H.I.E.L.D. and the justification of counter-terrorist rights infringement; Iron Man’s revelation of his identities, contractual agreements, and contractual loopholes; The Illuminati, paternalism, and liberalism; The Superhuman Registration Act and the limits of privacy; Iron Man, Plato’s Philosopher King, and the Noble Lie; Genius, invention, and creativity; Role/responsibility of a futurist; If science can do it, should science do it? Weapons of mass destruction and the ethics of technology; Vengeance on my kidnappers: Is revenge ever justified?; Time travel in Iron Man stories, the Butterfly Effect, and determinism; God is dead: Iron Man as the replacement god; Human suffering, the Problem of Evil, and Iron Man as savior; Merging the two Starks (Pocket and Marvel universes) and the question of what counts as personal identity; Iron Man’s “living armor” and the possibility of artificial intelligence; Depictions of Masculinity: Iron Man and Iron John; Robotics, Heidegger, and technology; Capturing consciousness in computer: Mind as computer (Hypervelocity); Iron Man and Captain America: The pragmatist and the idealist; Stark’s alcoholism and the possibility of freedom for the addict; Social pressure and self-deception in Iron Man stories; Civil War: Are (bad) decisions judged by their intentions or consequences?

Submission Guidelines:
1. Submission deadline for abstracts (100-500 words) and CV(s): August 15, 2008.
2. Submission deadline for first drafts of accepted papers: February 1, 2009.

Kindly submit by e-mail (with or without Word attachment) to:
Robert Arp: rarp@buffalo.edu

Watchmen and Philosophy: Call for Abstracts

2008-01-15T07:10:00.000-08:00

Call for Abstracts
Watchmen and Philosophy

Edited by Mark D. White

The Blackwell Philosophy and PopCulture Series

Please circulate and post widely.
Apologies for Cross-posting.

To propose ideas for future volumes in the Blackwell series please contact the Series Editor, William Irwin at wtirwin@kings.edu .

Abstracts and subsequent essays should be philosophically substantial but accessible, written to engage the intelligent lay reader. Contributors of accepted essays will receive an honorarium.

Possible themes and topics might include, but are not limited to, the following:
How Watchmen Revolutionized Comics; The Graphic Novel as Serious Literature; Superheroes and the State: The Keene Act and the legal suppression of superheroes; The Amorality of the Comedian; A Man without a Face: Rorschach and Identity; Superheroes and Warfare: Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian in Vietnam; The Comedian and “Protecting People from Themselves”: Should We Cede Responsibility to Authority?; Superheroes and Capitalism: The Branding of Ozymandias; The Silk Spectre: Woman as Sexualized and Peripheralized in the Hero Narrative; Legacy Heroes and Identity: Will the Real Silk Spectre Please Step Forward?; Homosexuality and Superheroes: Should Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis Have Been Out?; Is There a God?: Is the world really “a clock without a craftsman?”; Determinism and Dr. Manhattan’s Knowledge of the Future; Kitty Genovese and Good Samaritan laws; Dr. Manhattan and the Philosophy of Time Travel; Responsibility for Character: Rorschach’s childhood; Watchmen and Deconstruction of the Superhero; Rorschach and the Ethics of Vigilantism; The Ring of Gyges and the Responsible Use of Superpowers; Rorschach and Rand: Objectivism, Individualism and Sacrifice; Veidt and the Will to Power; Dr. Manhattan, Veidt, and the Übermensch; Camus, Dr. Manhattan and the Absurd; “Existence is random, has no pattern”: So what’s the meaning of life? Tales of the Black Freighter: Metafiction in the Watchmen

Submission guidelines:

1. Submission deadline for abstracts (100-500 words) and cvs: March 31, 2008
2. Submission deadline for first drafts of accepted papers: June 16, 2008
3. Submission deadline for final papers August 11, 2008

Kindly submit by e-mail (with or without Word attachment) to:
Mark D. White profmdwhite@hotmail.com

The Ethics of the Phantom Zone (slight Supergirl #16 spoilers)

2007-04-04T17:38:00.000-07:00

The Phantom Zone, discovered by Superman’s father Jor-El, has usually been portrayed as an enlightened alternative to capital punishment for Krypton’s worst criminals, but last week's Supergirl #16 had Kara’s father Zor-El presenting an alternative view:

Jor-El and I had endless debates on the ethics of his "Phantom Zone." I found
the moral implications of his ‘compassionate punishment’ distasteful.
People weigh heavily the cost of condemning a man to death… but a "living death" in an "endless void?" How easy would it become to simply erase our "undesirables" with the press of a button, freed from consequences?”

The story goes on to reveal a hidden danger emanating from the Zone, but I want to focus more on Zor-El’s comments, because I think they offer an interesting argument on punishment and personhood itself. (I will ignore the fact that the physics of the Phantom Zone make no sense—it is said that time stands still, and that criminals have eternity to reflect on their crimes. But any action or thought takes place in time, which therefore cannot stand still--what they really mean is that the Zone criminals do not age. Of course, the dimension that the four Crisis on Infinite Earth survivors were in until Infinite Crisis had the same problem.)

Zor-El is really making several arguments here: one is that exile to the Phantom Zone will make punishment too easy for the Kryptonian authorities, and they will be too quick to use it if they are under the impression that there are no drawbacks to its use. This is more of a political argument about the possible abuse of state power, and is a perfectly valid issue.

But I find his second argument more interesting—is eternal imprisonment in an “endless void” truly more ethical than execution? Those who feel that execution is always wrong may believe so simply by default, but they have to show that Zone exile is less wrong. One such argument could be that however horrible it may be, prisoners can be released from the Zone, making the sentence partially reversible. (This is an especially cogent argument in light of recent reversals of death penalties as newly discovered evidence of innocence comes to light, which provides an argument against capital punishment even for those who believe that murderers deserve to be executed.)

This relates to the justification of punishment itself: do we punish to deter future crime, or to hold criminals accountable for (past) crimes? In other words, do we punish because it's good (through deterrence), or because it's right (by retribution)? If Phantom Zone imprisonment is indeed "cruel and unusual," then this raises more of an issue for its being right than being good - after all, cruel punishment is likely to be more deterrent, unless such a practice is so abhorrent that it incites rebellion against the government which practices it. (This is the standard utilitarian argument against punishing the innocent.)

But the more essential issue is not even a legal or jurisprudential one - it is one of personhood. What does it mean to be a Phantom Zone inhabitant? What is the nature of this "void"? Is individual identity, agency, or rationality preserved? This was Zor-El's more humanitarian concern - what are doing to these people? Even strong retributivists like Kant forbade torture because it violates the dignity of persons (even those committed of heinous crimes), while they often recommended capital punishment.

Is Phantom Zone imprisonment akin to torture? Is it a more humane alternative to execution, or is perpetual exile from anything we think of as reality even worse? This are important questions, and an unexplored facet of the Phantom Zone (at least as far as I know.)

Superheroes and Politics - Where's the Line?

2007-03-23T09:29:00.000-07:00

Taking a break from grading, I read JLA: Superpower, a Prestige one-shot from 1999 written by John Arcudi that I picked up cheap the other day. Without revealing many details - it's worth looking for, IMHO - it deals with a very eager young hero, Mark Antaeus, who is invited to join the JLA after demonstrating his abilities and devotion. But while he does help the JLA in fighting supervillains and helping victims of natural disasters, he desperately wants to intervene in a political situation involving a murderous (ostensibly fictional) Middle East dictator. The rest of the JLA, while repulsed by the actions of this man, refuse to participate in an assassination attempt, but Mark says he does not plan to kill him, only remove him from power. Nonetheless, the JLA refuses to interfere in "affairs of state," after which Mark quits the JLA and takes matters into his hands. (Read the book for the rest.)

This raises a very interesting point: where does this prohibition on interfering with state affairs come from, and does it strictly rule out interventions to prevent eggregious human rights violations? (I assume the prohibition is based on the U.N., which I believe has a similar provision, chiefly against interfering in civil wars.)

One way to look at the JLA's position is that they respect sovereign nations' laws and policies, whatever their moral status. This reflects the jurisprudential doctrine of legal positivism, that the validity of laws stems (at least primarily) from their source or pedigree, not any independent moral evaluation. But critics of legal positivism - and Mark Antaeus, apparently - believe that there is a higher standard by which to judge governments' laws, a position generally known as natural law. Different natural law thinkers would claim different standards, but all would agree that whatever standard they hold should be used to evaluate even sovereign nations' laws and actions. For instance, human rights groups regularly criticize national governments for violating what they feel are essential human rights, regardless of their legality within each country.

We see this same theme played out in recent issues of Green Lantern, in which Hal Jordan regularly violates the Freedom of Powers Act, a law passed by a group of countries (not including the US) that prohibits the activities of superheroes within their borders. GL's argument is that the whole of space sector 2814 is his jurisdiction - he serves the Guardians of the Universe, not any one Earth nation-state. Just as the early natural law theorists, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, believed that God's law supercedes human laws, Green Lanterns enforce the Guardians' "law" over the laws of any one planet.

And finally, the philosophical battle in Marvel's Civil War can be stated in terms of this debate. Heroes on the Pro-Reg side may have chosen that side because they believed in the intent and prupose of the Superhero Registration Act, or perhaps because they believed that "the law is the law," provided it was instituted through proper legal channels ("primary rules," to use legal positivist H.L.A. Hart's term). (Strangely, Daredevil, who has always espoused a respect for law as law, was Anti-Reg, but maybe the choice was Danny's, not Matt's.) The Anti-Reg forces were opposed to the law because they felt it was wrong, that there were higher ideals threatened by its passage, however legitimate and democratic the process may have been. (This has shades of John Stuart Mill's concept of "tyranny of the majority" - Mill wrote that there are some rights that should be protected even against majoritarian democratic processes, such as those included in the Bill or Rights.) In this light, Captain America's surrender at the end of Civil War #7 can be seen as a concession to legal positivism, that the registration law passed "by the people" should truly be considered to be "for the people," and if his side wants to fight it, they should do so through the proper channels. (There are strong arguments for civil disobedience, of course, but they usually do not include destroying a city in the process, as the final battle in CW #7 was doing before Cap called it off.)

All of this can be summarized in the question: what is justice? Is it defined by governmental laws, or by a higher, "natural" law? Since superheroes are usually understood to be fighting for justice, one cannot avoid these issues, especially in today's more politicized (and philosophical) comics world.

Why is messing with Daredevil's mind so popular?

2007-03-20T13:01:00.002-07:00

Just a thought - as I mentioned in my profile, I got into Daredevil last year after I read Brubaker and Lark's first TPB (featuring Matt Murdock in prison). Since then, in addition to keeping up with the monthlies, I read the last TPB by Bendis and Maleev (which tells how Matt went to prison), and then started reading the classic DD, starting with the three collected volumes of Frank Miller's work plus his "Born Again" and "The Man without Fear" origin story, Loeb and Sale's fantastic "Yellow," then "The Fall of the Kingpin," and "Fall from Grace" (featuring the hideous armored costume), plus assorted loose issues. (If anyone wants to start reading DD, this Amazon list is a great place to start.)

So then I started reading the current run, specifically Kevin Smith's 8-issue arc, which I just finished. I'm a huge Kevin Smith fan, mainly of his movies (snoochy-boochies!), but also his Green Arrow run, which is what pulled me back into comics several years ago. His DD story was just as good, and the art (by current Marvel EIC Joe Quesada) was incredible too - I highly recommend the TPB to any DD fan (warning: some knowledge of past DD lore is recommended as well).

So, after reading all this DD, I have to ask: is there any hero whose mind gets messed with as much as poor Matt Murdock? Never mind all the tragedy is his life - blinded as a youth, most every woman he loves dies (Kyle Rayner has the same problem over at DC, of course), etc. But most of best story arcs involve breaking the guy DOWN. Examples:

SPOILERS AHEAD: In "Born Again," Wilson Fisk (Kingpin) discovers DD's secret identity (through one of DD's lady loves) and then meticulously dismantles his life piece by piece. (DD returns the favor in "Fall of the Kingpin.") In the recent books, Fisk's wife gets him thrown in jail (with the help of a corrupt FBI agent), engineers Foggy's death, teases him with a woman that smells like one of DD's dead lovers, and then offers to make everything right if he gets her husband out of prison, the last thing he wants to do. In numerous stories since Frank Miller introduced her, Elektra dies and comes back, dies and comes back, dies and... you get the idea. (Seems it might happen again in a few months, based on Marvel soliciations.) And in Smith's arc, Mysterio - you know, Spidey's dome-headed foe - makes DD think an infant thrust into his care is of Biblical importance, everyone who doubts him is part of a grand conspiracy, and, to cap things off in true DD fashion, Bullseye, who Mysterio sent to fetch the babe, kills one of Matt's loves. END OF SPOILERS.

My question is: why is DD such an easy mark for these head games? Is he widely known to be that unstable? Is it the fact that he has a life to destroy, or that he actually commits to women? Sure, Batman gets messed with a bit - the whole Knightfall event, the death of Jason Todd, being framed for murder, the resurrection of Jason Todd - but I haven't read a Batman tale where he is completely broken down psychologically like DD routinely is. But Bruce Wayne is widely regarded as a mere ruse, and he rarely commits to a woman for more than one writer's tenure (with the exception of Selina Kyle).

Maybe it's a Marvel thing - their heroes have traditionally been more "damaged" (Daredevil - not simply the blindness, but having been deserted by his mother and then losing his father), misfits and outcasts (X-Men, Spiderman), flawed (Iron Man), or just jerks (the new Ant-Man) - ostensibly to make them more appealing to the all-too-human readers. (This fits in with the death of Captain America, who may have been all too perfect for the Marvel Universe.) But I can't be sure, because I haven't read enough Marvel (though I know Spidey's certainly faced his share of tragedy - the deaths of Uncle Ben of course, Gwen Stacey, and Aunt May several times over).

I'm anxious to see where Brubaker's headed with the next story arc, but please - go easy on Matt, at least for a couple issues. (After all, you got to kill Cap, and you have Iron Fist to mess with now.)

Call for papers: Batman and Philosophy (edited book)

2007-03-19T06:58:00.000-07:00

Since this has come up in the comments, I'll just mention this here:

Call for Abstracts

Please circulate and post widely.

Apologies for Cross-posting.

Batman and Philosophy

Edited by Mark D. White and Robert Arp

The Blackwell Philosophy and PopCulture Series
William Irwin, Series Editor (wtirwin@kings.edu)

To propose ideas for future volumes in the Blackwell series please contact William Irwin (wtirwin@kings.edu).

Abstracts and subsequent essays should be philosophically substantial but accessible, written to engage the intelligent lay reader. Contributors of accepted essays will receive an honorarium.

Possible themes and topics might include, but are not limited to, the following:

The dynamic duo and dualism
The aesthetics of the Batman universe
The flip of a coin: Two-Face and determinism
Batman and the ethics of collateral damage
Batman and the ethics of vigilantism
Batman or Bruce Wayne: which is his 'true' identity?
“What’s it like to be a Batman?”: subjectivity and the mind/body problem
Appearance, reality, and the importance of masquerade
Gotham City, political corruption, and the need for heroes
Bruce Wayne and Batman, the morning star and the evening star: sense, reference, and the problem of naming
Batman and the ethics of child care
Batman and the recurring Messiah complex
Knowing Bruce Wayne and knowing Batman: propositional attitudes and substance dualism
Batman and the use/abuse of technology
Bats, confronting fears, and moral courage as a motivator for action
Heroes and obligatory vs. supererogatory acts
Batman’s deontological respect for Robin vs. a villain’s objectification of his/her henchmen
The death of god and the birth of god-like heroes in Western societies
Batman and paranoia: what kind of hero builds a satellite to spy on his friends?
Batman and Superman: Different means to the same end, or different ends altogether?
Batman and identification: can there truly be another Batman
Batman and dealing with the recurrence of death (parents, Jason Todd, Stephanie Brown)
Playing well with others: Batman and other heroes/teams

Contributor guidelines:
1. Abstract of paper (100-500 words).
2. CV or resume for each author and co-author.
3. Submission deadline for abstracts: April 27, 2007
4. Submission deadline for first drafts of accepted papers (tentative): August 31, 2007
5. Abstracts should be submitted by e-mail, with or without Word attachment.

Send by e-mail to: Mark D. White (profmdwhite@hotmail.com)

Mini-review: Wonder Woman #5 (no spoilers)

2007-03-15T11:56:00.000-07:00

This one will be brief - this should have been Wonder Woman #1, or maybe even #0. I'm not ashamed to say my eyes teared up a bit near the end. A great story, done in one, and makes you believe in Wonder Woman again.

This is what Wonder Woman is about. This is who Wonder Woman is. (See my last post on character to see why that's a controversial statement.) Will Pfeifer set the bar pretty high for his successor, Jodi Picoult - let's hope she can meet the challenge.

Of course, this does raise a philosophical issue - how to balance all the good Wonder Woman has done with her murder of Max Lord? Of course, if you feel Lord's death was justified, there's no issue - next comic, please! But if you have a problem with Wonder Woman's actions, that's a true dilemma, considering all the good she's done, and will presumably continue to do.

One more thing - Heinberg who? Frankly, I don't care if his "Who Is Wonder Woman?" story never gets resolved. I think this issue settled the question once and for all.

Do Superheroes Lack Character?

2007-03-15T09:15:00.000-07:00

One of the most interesting books I've read recently is Lack of Character by John Doris, which sets out to debunk a conception of human nature that is part of our everyday ideas about people, and is also popular with many philosophers.

Most of us believe that individuals have character--that they possess inherent personality traits, such as honesty, trustworthiness, or avarice, that play a large part in determining what actions they will take in various circumstances. A generally helpful person will do generous things for other more often than a less helpful person; a generally honest person lies less than a less honest person; and so on.

But Doris argues that there is no evidence that general personality traits such as these exist, and that our actions are actually determined almost entirely by the circumstances at hand. He cites voluminous amounts of psychological research to bolster his claim, including experiments demonstrating that people are much likely to help a stranger after they find a dime in a phone booth than if they find no dime. Studies such as these would suggest that seemly irrelevant factors (including seeing a pretty face, smelling a pleasant smell, etc.) are more determinant of our behavior than personality traits, supporting the case for situationalism. (Many philosophers have written responses to and critiques of Doris' work - a quick search on Google or the Philosopher's Index will find many.)

Besides the relevance this has for my academic work on the will and economic choice (including my chapter in Economics and the Mind), I think this is very interesting for the behavior of superheroes and our opinions of them. I'll pick two in particular: Batgirl (Cassandra Cain) and Iron Man.

Let's take Iron Man first - I'm no Marvel expert, I didn't read Civil War (except the last issue), but I've followed the events and reaction to them online since the beginning. The common feelings amongst fans is that Tony Stark is a - well, let's say schmuck. But his schmuckiness apparently varied within the series and the 734 tie-in issues, and I don't think yesterday's Civil War: The Confession cleared much up (no spoilers - see here if you want to know what happened).

But what I hear a lot is "Tony wouldn't do that," or "this isn't the Iron Man I know," or "now which Iron Man will be see in this issue?" Readers believe that there is one character named Tony Stark aka Iron Man, and that (fictional) person will behave certain ways in certain situations because of who he is. John Doris would disagree, saying that Stark's actions were all responses to the matters at hand in any given situation, implying that the character of Iron Man (or any hero/villain/bystander) actually has no character that transcends specific temporary circumstances.

Broadening our focus, many fans have argued that some Pro-Reg heroes really should have been Anti-Reg, or vice versa. (There was even a Newsarama thread about which sides the various DC heroes would have taken if there were a Civil War in the DCU.) So though they may not all agree, fans have very definite ideas about the personalities and character traits of their favorite superheroes, based of course of how writers have portrayed these characters over the years.

That brings us to Cassandra Cain, the latest Batgirl. Her fans went nuts when she reappeared OYL as a villain, leading the League of Assassins, framing Robin for her death, apparently trying to kill Supergirl, and then joining Deathstroke's Titans East team. "This is not Cassie!" came the collective cry, and websites sprouted out of the cybersoil to plead for - well, her character.

A little background - Cassie was spawned by the unholy union of two assassins, David Cain and Lady Shiva, to be the perfect assassin. Shiva disappeared, and Cain raised Cassie from birth, teaching her not to communicate in verbal language but instead in body language, eventually being able to anticipate an opponent's every move. Her first "job" was as a small girl, and after she recoiled at the reaction of her target's face as she ripped his throat out, she fled Cain's home and wound up in Gotham City, becoming an information scout for Oracle (aka Barbara Gordon, ex-Batgirl) during "No Man's Land" (post-earthquake Gotham City). After proving her skills and heroism (character trait!) by saving James Gordon's life, Batman and Oracle agree to make her the new Batgirl (giving her the costume ever so briefly adopted by the Huntress in the spirit of "striking fear into the hearts of evildoers").

Throughout the No Man's Land event, assorted appearances in the various Batman titles, and her own series (which lasted 73 issues), she was consistently portrayed as unfailingly heroic and absolutely resistant to killing, the latter as a reaction to her upbringing by David Cain and her single experience as an assassin. But after Infinite Crisis and the "One Year Later" jump, Cassandra Cain reappears in the pages of Robin, leading the League of Assassins and apparently having gotten over the whole "aversion to killing" thing.

Fans have either denounced this turn of events as a betrayal of her character, or have tried to reconcile this change with events at the end of her title's run: her home city of Bludhaven was destroyed by the Soceity during the Infinite Crisis, she did kill her mother, Shiva--but hung her over a Lazarus Pit, practically ensuring her resurrection--and Cassie taking a dip in said Lazarus Pit herself, which has been known to make people cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. In fact, her justification for killing Shiva was Shiva's promise that if allowed to live, she would kill again. Plus, Cass was exasperated over the senseless slaughter of the residents of Bludhaven, and the villains in the Society who simply kill and kill again. But that would justify her turning into a Punisher-like vigilante, not a villain--nothing seems to explain that.

None of this matters, Doris would say. Circumstances for Cassie simply changed, and that is enough to explain her behavior. And as it turns out, one circumstance in particular actually seems to have explained it all, though certainly not to everyone's satisfaction: Deathstroke drugged her. That's it. Problem solved. (Apparently, we'll see exactly when and how this happened in one of the World War III issues coming out the same week as 52 Week 50.) (By the way, SPOILERS for Teen Titans #44: Robin administered an antidote to Deathstroke's drug, so now Cassie is "cured": except she still wants to kill Deathstroke. (Gotta tweak that formula a bit, Tim.) END SPOILERS)

So it seems that along with our natural aversion to dropping the idea of personality or character traits for real-world people, we also don't want to abandon the idea that superheroes have character as well. We feel we know these "people," that we can understand and to some extent predict their actions. We don't like to think of anyone as just as automaton with buttons to be pushed to elicit certain types of behavior - well, Paris Hilton maybe, but not most people. ("Press button 1 to say THAT'S HOT, press button 2 for drunken dancing.")

We want to regard people, especially heroes, as steadfast against the pull of temporary circumstance. The concept of a hero is meaningless without a concept of character. Stand up, don't back down, don't give in, unless you consciously and deliberately decide to. Sure, Captain America surrendered in Civil War #7, but he also gave his life to save a US marshall from sniper fire when he died in Captain America #25.

If that doesn't restore your faith in character, then nothing will.

2007-03-13T17:17:00.000-07:00

Welcome to The Comics Professor, my first foray into the blogosphere!

I'm here to discuss one of my favorite topics - comic books - with an occasional philosophical spin. Whenever I get a chance - which, despite the common belief about lazy college professors, will probably not be often - I plan to review a few new books, discuss some favorite old ones, and sometimes just go off on current developments in the comics world.

I was a comics devotee from childhood until sometime in high school (the last comics I bought before I quit were The Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns), for reasons long forgotten (though my first guitar may have had something to do with it). But I rediscovered comics a couple years ago when I walked into a newly-opened local comics shop, and I felt like I'd reconnected with a long lost friend (with a mask and a cape). I've always been loyal to DC (my favorite since I was a kid buying 40-cent books off the spinner rack at the local soda shop), but the last few months I have been buying a few Marvel books, especially Daredevil (Ed Brubaker hooked me, and Frank Miller sealed the deal).

My philosophical interests lie primarily in moral/ethical philosophy, which of course is at the forefront of most major story arcs these days, such as Tony Stark's actions in "Civil War," Wonder Woman killing Max Lord in "Sacrifice," and - I have to assume - whatever Black Adam's going to do in "World War III." (It can't be good.) Rest assured that my reviews won't all be philosophical - if a book is just good fun, like Brave and the Bold or The Spirit, that's fine too! But I hope that some philosophical touches here and there will set this blog apart from the thousands of other comic book review blogs you could be reading.

So enjoy, and let me know what you think!