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 19:20:39 GMT

tpjg9663@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Johnston) writes:
>rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <C19yBo.HEv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpjg9663@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Johnston) writes:
>>>  B)  It's a dream, so everyone can act out of character!  Oh boy,
>>>      what a great excuse for a writer incapable of writing anyone *in
>>>      character*
>>Gee, are you referring to:
>[...]
>>On the other hand, I actually felt that many of the characters here were IN
>>character (within the constraint of the basic viciousness of the premise).
>>Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter, and Atom, to name three.  It read a lot like
>>an adventure of the old JLA to me, actually.
>It didn't work for me because the callousness of the characters was so
>far out of character to begin with (Atom, Flash, Martian Manhunter, and
>Hawkman, and oh yeah, Green Lantern.)  Green Arrow and Black Canary
>were OK, though.

A few things to remind you, since you claim to be familiar with comic books
but don't demonstrate said familiarity:

1) The callousness of the characters is completely *in character*, given
the premise.  Ever consider how superheroes might behave when pushed over
the edge into ruthlessness?  Ever read _Infinity, Inc_ #1-10, when ten
JSAers were exposed to the Stream of Ruthlessness?  After you've read them
and seen how callous even the noblest of heroes can be, maybe you'll stop
whining about "out-of-character" situations.

2) This is obviously *not* the regular universe.  In no way do the
characters even *have* to match up with their "real" selves.

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.

Apparently you were.  In *most* of the multi-parters I've read that adhere
to the things-aren't-what-they-seem format, the first issue is simply a
basic day-in-the-life look at this situation.  If it takes that much effort
to figure out that the issue's supposed to establish a *mood*, then maybe
you need to spend a little more time reading your comics and a little less
time griping about them on Usenet Newsgroups.


--

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

Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc