From: vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams)
Subject: Re: JLA #72 and a SERIOUS CASE OF DEJA VU!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:38:58 GMT

tpjg9663@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Johnston) writes:
>vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams) writes:
>So they're out of character with their "real" selves, at least IMHO.
>Which you you explain by saying that this is *not* the regular universe.
>No big deal, except I bought this book hoping for the regular universe.
>Therefore I was disappointed with the book.

When I saw the JLofA on the cover, complete with Firestorm and Red Tornado,
I had a feeling this wasn't going to be so much a flashback story as
something very different--particularly because the colors of the costumes
were different.  I wasn't disappointed with the book because I figured,
regardless, that the story would be interesting.

And as I pointed out below, the characters are simply carried to extremes:

>>3) As a matter of fact, the Justice Leaguers' behavior is consistent with
>>(among other writers) Cary Bates and Elliot Maggin's depiction of the JLA
>>in the early to mid-1970s, only carried to extremes--complete with Green
>>Arrow as the ultra-left-winger and Hawkman as the ultra-right-winger.

>>>>>  C)  No explanation is given for the events shown.  Were the events
>>>>>      worthwhile/interesting enough to carry the book on their own and
>>>>>      make up for the bad dialog?
>>>>>      IMHO, no, they were not.
>>>>This must be why it's only the first part of (at least) two:  The explanation
>>>>comes later.
>>>I don't mind people taking exception to my opinions, but I think your
>>>sarcasm here is misplaced.  As I said in a previous post, I didn't
>>>feel there was enough plot *IN THIS ISSUE*.  I am familiar with comic
>>>books, and believe it or not, I was not suffering from some delusion
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>that the story ended in this book.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See related thread on politeness as to why I think you're a hypocrite for
complaining about the "vicious shit" in this thread.

>Yet again, IMHO the issue didn't have enough plot.  It had enough for
>your tastes because you are satisfied that the issue served to establish
>a mood, and things had to be done at that pace.  I'm not satisfied with
>it.  I'm entitled to not be satisfied with it.  That's what opinions
>are all about.

Yes, well, thank you for bashing us all over the head with your opinions.
If you're done restating them for the umpteenth time, why don't you explain
what more plot you'd like to have seen.

>It didn't take much effort to determine what the issue was supposed
>to accomplish.  I would have liked the issue more if there was
>more plot development and less mood-building.

And some of us, as *I* said before, like the emphasis on establishing the
mood and the differences in characterization because it lays a more
comprehensive groundwork for the plot than if they'd simply jumped in and
told us about Doc Destiny's role in this.

--

 _______________ Alan Williams | vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu _________________
 \/ KIRA: Red alert!  Raise shields!                                       \/
    O'BRIEN: What shields?
                                --"Emissary," _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_