What we've looked at so far...

We've looked at 25 books which are bona fide contenders for a place on our 10 Best Stories Ever list. As a quick reminder, here are the books we've talked about:

1. Planetary ~ (complete series)
2. Kingdom Come ~ (complete series)
3. Starman Vol. 2 ~ (complete series)
4. Kick Ass ~ (complete series)
5. Preacher ~ (complete series)
6. The Authority ~ (#1 - 12: The Circle, Shiftships & The Outer Dark)
7. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns ~ (complete series)
8. Sandman ~ (#21 - 28: Season Of Mists)
9. Watchmen ~ (complete series)
10. V For Vendetta ~ (complete series) 
11. Griffin ~ (complete series)
12. Barry Allen: The Life Story Of The Flash ~ (graphic novel)
13. Crimson ~ (complete series) 
14. John Byrne's Next Men/2112 ~ (complete series & graphic novel)
15 .Marvels ~ (complete series) 
16. Mutant X ~ (complete series) 
17. Arrowsmith ~ (complete series)
18. Avengers Forever ~ (complete series)  
19. Uncanny X-Men ~ (#141 - 142: Days Of Future Past)
20. Action Comics ~ (#858 - 863: Superman & The Legion Of Super-Heroes) 
21. JLA ~ (#1 - 4: New World Order)
22. Astro City ~ (#4 - 9: Confession) 
23. The Incredible Hulk: Future Imperfect ~ (complete series)
24. Marvel 1602 ~ (complete series)
25. Negation ~ (complete series)

I've done an initial judging of them based around the criteria I mentioned below, plus allowing for the inclusion of a score for climactic moments. The big moment in a story or series where you just sit back and say....'holy crap!' The first draft left me with some very tight scoring, so I'm going to expand the scale to 1 - 10 and re-score, with perhaps the inclusion of 'character impact' as a category that reflects longterm influence over the character as a result of the story.

But for those of you wondering......the first draft yielded a slightly unexpected winner:

Kingdom Come.

I need some feedback...

I need to grade the twenty five stories that are currently floating around in the great debate for Best Story Ever, and while I recognize that it's going to be completely subjective and entirely MY opinion......I'd still like some input from people on what criteria I might use.

Here are some early/easy ones that I'm leaning towards including:

Originality: I know that themes are rehashed constantly and very little is truly original, but when I look at great stories I find things that make them unique. I think I should include some measuring of how creative and different the story is from all the similar ones that have been done. In my mind a book like Sandman would have had this in spades, as it basically redefined/spawned an entire genre for comics, while a book like Kingdom Come would lack some in this area because many of its key aspects had been done before.

Impact: I'm thinking about its impact as a book, and the influence it had over other writers and other series and most importantly readers. Did it change what we look for in comic books, or was it just another nice story? Batman: The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen would score very highly for this.

Scope: The mirror of Impact, but this time internally. Did the events in this story change the character, the environment or the universe (books beyond this one) in a real and lasting way. Even in self-contained stories (Kick-Ass) we can extrapolate on this. On big brand characters we have to wonder.....will the changes stick? No way to know for sure, but sometimes the indicators are there. Uncanny X-Men #141-142 would score high in this. The scope of that story continues to influence events at Marvel today.

Fun: Right. I said it. Sometimes books aren't awesome in any particular way, but something about reading them is just.....fun. For me, I find Griffin to be a story very much like this. Nothing about it is incredibly original, and it didn't make any real impact on the industry, but the FUN factor has always been there. I just like to read it, and share it with friends.

Synergy: Did the art sync well and add to the story? Sometimes it distracts, and other times it enhances. Starman might represent this better than any other title. The artwork conveys the story on a level almost equivalent to the prose.

So.....what might I be missing? Do I consider the climax? Do great stories simply have to have a WOW moment? That's one idea I'm batting around. Please share. I'd like to define what I'll use and then start looking at those 25 and figure out where everyone stands so I can move on to explore more stories!

More from The Atomic Brain Aneurysm...

Well it didn't take long for me to find more blog worthy commentary as I cruised through a single thread on The Atomic Think Tank. These guys who play Mutants & Masterminds are really setting the bar for those who will one day come to play in their little corner of geekdom (for the record....I play Harn.....which is waaaaay cooler!)

King Snarf (seriously, that's his handle - and he chose it himself! It wasn't a punishment by his mom for living in her basement past the age of 25) at least shows some smarts when he points out that Marvel uses the reset button as well, although his example isn't the strongest one out there.

He's quickly forgotten though, as we see somebody take up NughtHunter's argument.

Re; NightHunter support

"For instance, with Professor X, during the time that he's been able to walk and no longer able, etc., he has developed as a character. He's gone from the idealistic academic to taking a more active role in events (as a member of the Illuminati), to kinda of a manipulative jerk. Now, he's dealing with the consequences of his actions as Summers has assumed command of the X-Men.

A particularly egregious example from DC would be The Flash. Barry Allen died, then Wally was The Flash. He grew up, had a family then Bart took over. Bart died then Wally came back. Now Barry is back, Wally has sort of been shunted to the sidelines, and Bart is back as Kid Flash. Everything has been reset to an artificial status quo from, what, 20 years ago?

As another example, Bruce Wayne has been gone. Dick stepped into the cowl, and it appeared things would develop. Now, Bruce is coming back to be the Batman.

Marvel did something similar with the death of Steve Rodgers. However, Bucky is going to remain Captain America, and Steve is adopting a whole new role in the Marvel U.

Marvel's characters have a tendency to develop in ways that DCs characters have a tendency to not. Now, there are exceptions: Marvel's "Brand New Day" reset Spider-Man, and DC's Booster Gold has gone from an attention-seeking goofball to protector of the timeline. However, overall, Marvel tends to allow for more development and appears on the surface to be less concerned with enforcing an arbitrary status quo."

~ Mungdaal                                            

Reaction: 

Laughter. Laughter was my reaction. I just read somebody's own description of the massive and ongoing growth of the Flash lineage, while they were supporting the suggestion that no growth and development takes place with DC characters. Wally West was kid flash. When Barry died, he assumed his mentor's mantle, grew into the role and eventually surpassed his uncle in understanding the Speed Force. He grew up, got married and had kids, before leaving the role to Bart Allen. When Bart died, Wally came back to resume the role, but in Final Crisis Barry Allen returned from the Speed Force freeing Wally to focus on being a father. The story continues of course, and given that they are a clan of speedsters with their own bag of time travel headaches to sort through, it gets convoluted fairly often. BUT....to suggest that the characters haven't grown and evolved is a show of pure ignorance.

The comment about Dick's time as Batman is equally shallow. Are we suggesting that characterization cannot develop and grow unless Bruce never comes back? That what this time has meant to Dick (or Bruce) won't change them?

Yes, for the time being Marvel has opted to allow Bucky to remain as the "official" Cap. But only a neophyte comic reader would believe that it will stay that way. Steve Rogers is Captain America, and while this current editorial tact is allowing for Bucky to retain the role as Steve assumes Fury's old position, that will all change back to the way it was in time. Will that then erase Mungdaal's support of Marvel? 

Another opinion based around a terribly one-sided understanding of what these two companies do as a whole.

King Snarf jumped back in after that post and quickly pointed out how often Hulk's been reset and bounced around over the last 25 years. Keen observation for a guy stuck on a board full of Spider-Man fans.

The best comment of them all though might have come from Der Schatten, who also dismisses the ridiculousness of Mungdaal and Nighthunter's comments, and then presents some valid observations of the state of both companies.

Re: Smartest comment on this thread

"I don't mind the resets. They let other writers give us their take on iconic stories. And new blood just might surprise us with great stories."

In the end, isn't that the point?

  

  

Stealing topics from somebody else's geeks

Something to really.....REALLY.....enjoy:


The Dark Knight meets Superman
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1884973

Did you watch it? Classic.

Now let's move on.

I may never have time to spend time thinking about what I'd like to blog about again. I have a new strategy; I'm going to read other forums and comic blogs and allow the terribly stupid and the incredibly insightful commentary that I find there fuel me.

Seriously.

Today I was thinking about the parallels between this year's theme at both Marvel and DC and I ran a Google search to see who else was reflecting as I was. One of the sites where the issue had come up was The Atomic Think Tank (a bulletin board site based on Mutants & Masterminds) which provided me with the following comments, all of which elicited a reaction I felt was blog-worthy.

Re: The Heroic Age

"What especially gets me about the announcement is the feeling that optimism and heroism are somehow a bold new thing that nobody's ever done. You can't take away my chocolate for ten years and then act like you invented a new flavor when you hand out the cocoa."

~ Overdrive                                      

Reaction:  

If what Overdrive posted was true, and that was how Marvel was marketing The Heroic Age, I think he would have my full support it condemning them for their arrogance. In that scenario, everything he stated would be spot on accurate. It wasn't my impression when I saw The Heroic Age's promotional material though, nor did it feel that way to me when I started reading The Heroic Age books. To me it felt not so much like the idea was being put forth that they were achieving optimism for the first time, but that they were moving out of an age of darkness and back to a brighter time that they had forgotten.

The question that should be being asked is who had the idea first? DC or Marvel.

Re: Character growth and development

"One of the biggest complaints with serialised story-telling is that no major changes ever happen to the characters. It's the reason I've never been a huge DC fan. Constant resets mean that any time I get invested, the character just returns to who they were at the beginning of any writer's run.

The Marvel Universe has gone from a standard superhero universe, to one with political and ideological ramifications for its characters. It has gone through some darkness (starting with Disassembled and ending at Heroic Age). The heroes have suffered defeats, and have had little time to revel in their triumphs.

Taken as a unified whole, the Marvel Universe has grown and changed in a lot of amazing, innovative and interesting ways. I'm not a blind fan-boy. I had my own backlashes (damn you Quesada! Bring back my Spider-Marriage!) but at the same time, I'm still enjoying the stories that are being told.

Overall, I'm glad that the Marvel Universe doesn't undo its history every couple of years to entice new readers. It just lets people know what the current status quo is. I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Also, last time I checked, Superheroes were still punching villains, kissing lovers and dealing with soap operatic tragedies. What's different between now and the pouch lovin' 90s?"

~ Nighthunter                                               

Reaction: 

I'm pretty sure I could write about Nighthunter's post for days without running out of contempt for the flippant inaccuracy of his summation, and the fact that his obvious preference for Marvel has, in fact, qualified him as the very definition of "blind fan-boy" that he assures us he's not. Anyone who's biggest decrying of Marvel "reset" buttons is the dissolution of the Spider-Marriage can't be taken for very much of an authority on any topic. Plus.....you know.....Spider-Man fan.

First of all, his complaint against serialized story telling can be deconstructed with some very basic examples from both universes. Northstar is homosexual. I'm fairly certain that anyone and everyone (including the character's creator) would consider that a major change that took place in the character's development and is maintained to this day. Superman revealed his identity to Lois Lane, and then married her. Contrary to the argument brought forward, that was not the longstanding canon for Superman books, and was actually a very modern development (although it had been done in one-off fashion here and there before, but never truly blended into continuity) that has been maintained, marked a clear and important change in the character's life and relationships and has survived multiple crisis resets.

Second of all, by singling out DC for constant resets, this blind Marvel fan-boy has discredited himself. Marvel has an equally repetitive history of pressing the reset button as a way of allowing incoming creative teams to refresh and redevelop a series from its "base" canon. From a quick, and admittedly gap filled, reflection I would summarize the differences not in either company's propensity for using the reset button, but in the scope of that button. DC has made a bigger event out of company-wide resets, while Marvel's have tended to be book or title-group specific. But that does not mean that there have been significantly less of them (although some books have, perhaps escaped with less.)

Need examples? How many times has Squadron Supreme been redone, re-envisioned or re-interpreted? The entire Ultimates line is a giant reset button that has allowed Marvel to do what they wanted to do, while doubling their revenue stream from readers (Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man now both get purchased!) Brand New Day? Guardians Of The Galaxy. Magneto and his agenda. Any number of time travel related stories with Kang, Immortus and the Fantastic Four have been 'reset' using the explanation that they didn't/won't happen in this reality because of time travel.

Thirdly, is he (she?) really suggesting that Marvel is the only company to introduce political and ideological ramifications for its characters? Based on what? The abortion that was Civil War (which while not erased with a reset button might as well have been given how little I've seen of its far-reaching impact on inter-personal relationships amongst the heroes - I'm still annoyed that Rogers and Stark have made peace so easily!) The power Osborne achieved in Dark Reign? Been there, done that: Luthor was President. JLA members conspired to rob Batman of his memories.

The point, I think, isn't that Nighthunter is wrong in his assessment of one company or the other, but rather that he's wrong about both of them. Each is guilty of using resets, though perhaps in different ways, and each has found opportunity and purpose to develop and enhance their characters and their universe in ways that have survived those resets. Painting either one with a singular brush would be an enormous mistake and a sure sign that the pool from which you're drawing your information isn't nearly deep enough.

But he's a Spider-Man fan.....so what else should I expect?

Alright....there's more from the same thread.....but we'll leave it until next time.  I thought I might get it all into one blog.....but there's a lot of stupid (and a little smart) that needs to be pointed out. 

  

 

 

Yes, I read a Spider-Man book!

Ultimate Spider-Man Volume 2: Learning Curve

It was one of those $1 specials at the convention last August, and given my desperate need for a shipment of books, I have been reduced to reading it.

But I've got a surprise for you: it wasn't terrible.

Don't get me wrong. Spider-Man still sucks, but this rendition of him, carefully crafted by Bendis in the Ultimate Universe, was well done. The story didn't bring me anything special, but I did find the characterization of Aunt May much more engaging than the one to which I am accustomed. Her implied lecturing of J. Johan Jameson was good for a heartfelt laugh, and the situation at the end of the book in which she makes Peter squirm while she asks him if he knows about the birds and the bees was classic.

The way Bendis writes her, I could read a whole book about the wily elder, and her interactions with the people of the Marvel U.

The story had a couple of other points I thought were smart.

The first? Peter tells MJ he's Spider-Man. Smart move. I've always found it completely idiotic that heroes lie to people they love. Sometimes, maybe. But not every one of them all the time. So this change in approach worked for me. And her reaction suits a teenager who just found out the boy she's crushing on is a super-hero.

The second? Bendis underscores the point that Peter has fallen into a dangerous trap when he's in costume. He's relying on his new powers and acting like a moron. Peter realizes this and finishes the book using his prodigious brain much more effectively. It's a lesson that most heroes could use, but which is especially important for people like Tony Stark, Peter Parker and Barry Allen (all are incredibly smart) who have been written for too long without regard for that primary asset of their character.

The story itself is fine. Nothing special. It still doesn't explain why a Spider would be blue and red, but it does do a good job of entertaining with the inter-personal dynamics of the characters.

Overall? I won't actively seek out Volume 3, but I did find myself entertained.

Omni Mind And Community thoughts...

I just reread the six issue The OMAC Project series from right before Infinite Crisis (and immediately following the more than once referenced here Countdown To Infinite Crisis!) and it got me thinking about a couple of things.

1. Members of the Justice League took a hard line stance when Dr. Light raped Sue Dibney, and decided to erase Light's memory so that he would no longer know her identity, or any of the other secrets he could use to strike at hero's personal lives. Erasing somebody's memories is effectively acting not only as a vigilante, but as judge and jury as well, and when Batman walked in on them doing it, they made a dangerous choice; they took his memory of the incident. Batman being Batman, he ultimately figured out what had happened (World's Greatest Detective right....shouldn't these idiots have known that?) and in order to prevent such abuse in the future he created Brother Eye, who was later subverted by Maxwell Lord, Checkmate's rogue Black King. Lord used Brother Eye to create the OMAC protocol which ultimately threatened every meta on Earth.

It's an interesting story, but it left me wondering very strongly.....why was Batman viewed as the 'bad guy' by Superman for creating the Brother Eye? His reaction to vigilante criminal conduct within the JLA was not only appropriate, but might have been too restrained! Superman's reaction should have been....."Good thinking....but next time don't lose control of it!"

2. Wonder Woman executed the enormously dangerous Maxwell Lord, and Brother Eye broadcast it to the entire world. Diana was immediately cast in the role of 'fallen hero.

' Ummmm.........why?

Maxwell Lord subverted the will of Superman, and was prepared to use him to further his agenda of metahuman murder. I repeat: Superman. Under Lord's control! Diana did what was required, and while the action was repugnant, it was very, very necessary. Should the world have been shocked.....or relieved? You all know that I like my heroes to be HEROIC, and that means that you use any and every means possible to resolve situations without violence (which is why the Punisher is a murderous thug) but there is a line called necessity.....and in this case.....I'm with Diana.

3.  A lot of work went into making the DC universe darker and more grim than it had been in previous decades, and that work was pulled to the fore and highlighted in anticipation of Infinite Crisis. The last two Crisis installments were meant to bring DC back to a state of truer heroism (at least I certainly see that when I look at the chronology) and to me this series seems like a real look at the DC Universe's failure under a microscope. Heroes acting without regard for laws? Betraying each other? Taking actions to prepare for the annihilation of meta humans in an effort to save normal people? All these things are present, but the most obvious picture being painted in this series for me is the breakdown in relationships amidst the heroic community, most notably between the Big 3. I think this book illustrates everything that goes wrong in the dark, grim and gritty storytelling that was so popular in the nineties and early this century. Real heroes can't survive in that darkness without sacrificing what they stand for.

Oh.

Plus.....I liked the book.

Did I mention that part?

More this & that...

No sign yet of Marvel keeping it's commitment to relaunch the Crossgen Universe, which is a major disappointment for me. I've been rereading The Path lately, in which Ron Marz does an excellent job of mixing awesome cosmic power with a story reflective of feudal Japan.

A while back (a loooooooong while) somebody answered my commentary regarding the X-Universe and how disappointing it was that it had become so convoluted that it wasn't worth following anymore. One of the reasons this reader gave for the state of the X titles was a gentleman named Matt Fraction. At the time I didn't have anything to offer in response, because I didn't know Fraction's work. I recently started reading his work on Iron Man, and I have to say that it seems really unlikely that he was the cause of any disappointment on the X books. The man can write.  More likely the books with the reputation of being the most over-edited books Marvel produces suffered from exactly that; over-editing. When is Marvel going to learn to just let the writers write?

Somebody once told me that Mark Waid's epically short time on the X books was due to the editorial interference. I'd love to know if that's a fact, because if the truth is anything like the rumors and somebody high up at Marvel hasn't put a stop to it.....that's a major case of mismanagement.

Did everyone watch the Walking Dead last week?

The show sprouted a question by Cam, who wanted to know what I thought of the series. In the moment, my reflection on it was that it was a constant stream of bleakness that offered little hope or reason to hang around, other than to get another healthy dose of the macabre fate that awaits survivors. Through the discussion though, I think I decided that I would revisit the series and blog about it as I read. Maybe if I spend more time thinking about what I'm reading I'll find something in that series to entertain me.

But I'm not holding my breath.