Two Caps for the Price of Two

There’s a scene in December’s Deadpool #3 in which the villain-posing-as-mercenary Madcap tries to boop Steve Rogers – a grizzled old man who used to be Captain America – on the nose. Rogers grabs Madcap by the index finger and says:

“You know what happened to the last man that tried to ‘boop’ me? He died screaming in the Ardennes Forest.

To escape Old Man Rogers’ fingerhold, Madcap cuts off his finger with a pair of scissors and jumps out a window.

I quite like this version of Steve – drained of Super Soldier Serum, showing every year of his age but oddly fit for a 90-something-year-old and still wearing skintight clothes and going on missions. But he’s not Captain America.

At least not for a few more months.

If you blinked toward the end of Marvel’s Captain America 75^th anniversary special Tuesday night, you might have missed the company’s announcement that it is launching a new “Steve Rogers, Captain America” title that will de-age the character and return him to full superhero duty. The book is being marketed as a companion to “Sam Wilson, Captain America,” which will remain on Marvel’s schedule. Nick Spencer will write both books, and a preview of the cover to Steve’s first issue features Sam in his current Cap costume, alongside classic Team Cap members Bucky and Sharon Rogers.

I’ve made my love of Captain America pretty clear since I started writing for this site. Writer Ed Brubaker’s run, which reintroduced Bucky to the Marvel Universe as the Winter Soldier and saw him replace Steve as Cap for a time, is one of my favorite in superhero comics.

But I also love Sam as Cap. I was excited to see Steve’s longtime partner and friend take up the shield. It felt like a natural fit when it was announced back in 2014, and while writer Rick Remender didn’t get the job done for me, I really like what Spencer is doing. On the one hand, Sam is beset by the current divisive political climate, floundering public opinion (they love the bird, though) and a lack of funds and resources, having cut ties with SHIELD. On the other hand, the book is a love letter to Mark Gruenwald’s run in the late ’80s and early ’90s. Spencer brought back CapWolf, for Christ’s sake! And D-Man! Even Brubaker didn’t do that, and his run touched on nearly Cap’s entire history.

Technically, Sam has been Cap for almost two years, but there’s a huge gap of time missing in that period due to Secret Wars, which interrupted the entire line for four months. So we’ve gotten far more time with legacy characters who have been around just as long, such as Kamala Khan/Ms. Marvel and Jane Foster/Thor. To me, Sam needs more time to stand on his own, and I would gladly make due with more of Steve as Clint Eastwood in his Commander Rogers Action Figure outfit.

But of course, there’s bigger forces at play. Captain America: Civil War, will be out in May, and Marvel likely believes if they put out a book with a face familiar to moviegoers, a few dozen extra people might buy it. Maybe. But as someone who works for a newspaper, I’ve been made to understand that our online product and our print product are two different animals with two different audiences and should be treated as such. Yeah, it was weird in 2000 when the first X-Men movie came out and the teams in the books looked nothing like what was on the screen (Cable? Thunderbird III? No Cyclops?), but the industry was still figuring out vertical integration then. We know more now than we did 16 years ago, and for character’s sake, Sam could probably stay the One True Cap for a little while longer and not hurt Marvel’s bottom line.

That said, I’m not gonna not buy Steve #1 when it comes out. So well played, Marvel, you got me.

In addition to writing for The Matt Signal, Dan Grote is now the official comics blogger for The Press of Atlantic City. New posts appear Wednesday mornings at PressofAC.com/Life. His new novel, Magic Pier, is available however you get your books online. He and Matt have been friends since the days when Onslaught was just a glimmer in Charles Xavier's eye. Follow @danielpgrote on Twitter.

Embrace change: Why All-New, All-Different isn’t just a Marvel thing

My wife bought me the first volume of Essential Avengers for my birthday, featuring the first 24 issues of the series from the 1960s. Among the book’s supporting cast then was a club of ham radio enthusiasts called the Teen Brigade, led by Rick Jones, who would warn the Avengers of trouble and occasionally get kidnapped.

Maybe it’s the fact that I’m reading these issues in black and white, but these kids all look exactly alike: all male, all white, all clean-cut. There wasn’t even a fat kid or a beard guy or a dude who wore a remarkable hat. Hell, I don’t even think any of them had names apart from Rick Jones, and Stan Lee couldn’t even get his name right – every couple issues a narration box or word balloon would refer to him as Rick Brown.

Flash forward to 2015. Promos for what Marvel will look like after Secret Wars wraps later this year show a Muslim Ms. Marvel, a mixed-race Spider-Man, a female Thor, a black Captain America, Old Man Steve Rogers AND Old Man Logan, a female Wolverine, and a native American character with whom I am unfamiliar. On top of that, Marvel Editor-in-Chief Axel Alonso has promised us a “controversial” new Hulk who is not Bruce Banner.

Granted, many of these were pre-existing characters and character-role changes. But it shows the company is wholly uninterested in snapping back to a status quo in which all its major characters are the same ones from the early 1960s.

Thank God. Most of those early Avengers and X-Men stories were terrible.

A few years ago, during its promotional push for Secret Invasion, Marvel told us to “embrace change.” While the campaign went away with the crossover, the message never really did. There are no new readers without change. There are also no new readers if Marvel spends all its efforts appealing to the old ones.

Frankly, I’m all about comics working to expand the market. In the days before the Internet, when I was 13 and had just started spending my allowance on X-Men books every week, I had one other person I could talk to about this thing I was really into (you may recognize him as the proprietor of this blog/godfather of my child). I would have loved to have been able to talk to other people about that kind of stuff, especially, you know, GIRLS.

Heck, my wife didn’t start reading comics until last year, after 12 years of being with me, and her first book was Ms. Marvel. Kamala, not Carol. She didn’t think it was pandering to women or a minority. She didn’t care about “that name already exists, why don’t they make their own superheroes?” She just genuinely enjoyed the book, and it led her to seek out collections of the old Ms. Marvel (Carol, not Kamala), She-Hulk, and Spider-Woman stories. That, dear reader, is what comics are supposed to do: Let more people in da club.

Marvel’s not the only company embracing change this year. Look at the Distinguished Competition’s DCYou campaign, in which the company abandons the New 52 thinking of the past four years to focus on creating a wider range of titles. Characters like Cyborg, Starfire and Black Canary are getting their own books. There’s new all-ages series like Bat-Mite and Bizarro, for the kids who may have been introduced to those characters through the most recent Lego Batman specials. Even Batman’s changing: The new Dark Knight is Jim Gordon in a mostly badass (I’m not crazy about those antennae) Bat-battlesuit!

God, even Archie’s got a new look, starting from scratch this summer in a brand-new series by Mark Waid (Daredevil, Flash) and Fiona Staples (Saga). And lemme tell ya, if you don’t want to see the gang from Riverdale as drawn by Fiona Staples, as opposed to that collection of mayonnaise jars that have been haunting supermarket checkout racks for decades, then I just feel sorry for you.

Not everything’s becoming All-New, All-Different, though. On Saturday, Marvel announced a new Invincible Iron Man series written by Brian Michael Bendis with art by David Marquez. Not only is Iron Man, who has been front and center in the latest Marvel promos, back in the red-and-gold armor, but Bendis is returning to a character he’s already quite familiar with, having written him in various and sundry Avengers series over the past decade.

And Peter Parker’s still Spider-Man. He’s just got a coterie of similarly spider-powered amazing friends to pal around with, such as Miles Morales, Silk and an alternate-reality version of his long-dead ex-girlfriend.

So go ahead, make Cap black. Make Thor a woman. Make the Hulk controversial, whatever the hell that means. Put Hank Pym in a wheelchair … no, really, do that, because another thing I’ve learned reading old Avengers comics is that Hank Pym was never not the worst.

I just have one question based on these All-New, All-Different promos: WHERE’S DEADPOOL?! Come on Marvel, you know he ain’t gonna stay dead with a movie coming out next year!

In addition to writing for The Matt Signal, Dan Grote is now the official comics blogger for The Press of Atlantic City. New posts appear Wednesday mornings at PressofAC.com/Life. His new novel, Magic Pier, is available however you get your books online. He and Matt have been friends since the days when Onslaught was just a glimmer in Charles Xavier's eye. Follow @danielpgrote on Twitter.

A Web-Slinger’s Dilemma: Mary Jane Watson vs. Gwen Stacy

Today marks the first issue of Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows, your friendly neighborhood web-slinger’s Secret Wars solo title. Previews of the Dan Slott/Adam Kubert book show Peter Parker happily married to Mary Jane Watson, arguing over whose turn it is to change the diaper of their daughter, Annie.

Flashback to 2007. The Internet is ablaze with the wailing and teeth-gnashing of 1,000 nerds infuriated by a J. Michael Straczynski/Joe Quesada story called “One More Day,” in which, to save the life of Aunt May, Peter and MJ agree to let Mephisto erase the memory of their marriage and the public’s knowledge that Peter is Spider-Man.

“One More Day” served as Straczynski’s exit from the Spider-titles and ushered in the era of Dan Slott, who has since then steered the character through a series of bold stories, such as Dr. Octopus spending a year and a half in Peter’s body or Spider-Men and –Women from across the multiverse teaming up to defeat a cross-dimensional brood of vampire types. One thing he hasn’t done these past eight years: Reunite the Parkers.

From the legendary time travel Deadpool (Vol.1) #11

Until now. Funny thing is, eight years is a long time to keep a major plot element out of play, and while I’m sure there are some people who heard about Renew Your Vows and said “Thank God, finally!” it feels like many Spider-fans have largely forgotten about her.

But who could do a better job of making people forget about MJ than the forces of Straczynski, Quesada and Mephisto combined?

Oh, hey Gwen!

If you’ve been to a con this year, you’ve probably seen at least one Spider-Gwen cosplayer in the sea of Harley Quinns and Deadpools and anime characters with whom you’re unfamiliar. This alternate-reality version of Gwen Stacy – from a world in which she got bit by the spider and Peter Parker became the Lizard and died – has sparked interest in Peter Parker’s other famous girlfriend like no other, to the point where Marvel spun her straight out of Spider-Verse and into her own series by Jason Latour and Robbie Rodriguez.

Quite simply, people haven’t been talking about Gwen this much since the Green Goblin threw her over the George Washington Bridge in 1973.

Which isn’t to say no one’s tried to keep Gwen in the public consciousness in the intervening 40 years. Emma Stone played Gwen in the two Amazing Spider-Man movies, and Bryce Dallas Howard played her in the third Sam Raimi film. Marvel has included Gwen in trading-card sets over the years. She was a playable character in Lego Marvel Super Heroes. She was included in the 1990s Spider-Man cartoon series.

But the grave hasn’t always been kind to Gwen. Another Straczynski story that didn’t go over well is “Sins Past,” in which it is revealed that prior to her death, Norman Osborn had raped and impregnated her. Gwen’s children, Gabriel and Sarah, grew up to be evil, which is its own hornet’s nest of commentary on rape and the fridging of women in comics.

Before “Spider-Verse,” the last time I remember Gwen Stacy being used in a way that felt powerful was House of M, the 2005 alternate-reality story by Brian Michael Bendis and Olivier Coipel in which Magneto had created a global utopia for mutants. Issue 2 opens with Peter waking up in bed next to Gwen, who in this reality is his wife and the mother of his child. When reality is restored, Peter retains his memories of the House of M world and freaks out on Dr. Strange when the Sorcerer Supreme won’t mind-wipe him, so he forgets how happy he was there. And this was a man who, at the time, was still happily married to MJ.

So where do you stand, dear reader? Did Tiger really hit the jackpot with Anna Watson’s model/actress niece, or do you believe in a world – that may have been destroyed in a pre-Secret Wars incursion – where Peter ends up with Capt. Stacy’s daughter? Was Gwen’s death so powerful a moment in comics history that she should have stayed in the grave, or are you rockin’ the white-and-magenta Spider-Gwen hoodie to cons? Are you happy to see a world in which “One More Day” never happened, or did you stop caring about the dissolution of the Parker marriage a long time ago?

Or, more simply: MJ or Gwen? Tweet #TeamMJ or #TeamGwen to @danielpgrote, and explain your choice.

Dan Grote’s new novel, Magic Pier, is available however you get your books online. He has been writing for The Matt Signal since 2014. He and Matt have been friends since the days when making it to issue 25 guaranteed you a foil cover.

Batman Day: Happy 75th Anniversary, Batman!

DC Comics has declared today Batman Day, a day to celebrate the Caped Crusader on his 75th Anniversary. I've been trying to come up with something to write for this particular anniversary pretty much all year, something that isn't covering the same space that the big comics news outlets can and have. So I didn't want to do "favorite Batman writers/artists/stories" lists (although I have done a ten best Batman stories, and might touch on my favorite creators before the year is out). And today being the day, I felt like I had to post something, even if it's just for me. Oh, and I'll be peppering this post with some of my favorite Batman covers. Not the really well known ones, so no "Year One" covers, as great as they are, but lesser known covers that I think really capture an aspect of Batman or just look cool.

So, first and foremost, I'm going to put in some links to what are my three personal favorite Batman pieces I've written over the past few years. They're all general topic stuff, not storyline or review specific, so if you haven't read them and want to get into my head about what I feel is important about Batman, this is a good place to start.:

What Batman Means to Me. - A discussion of whether or not Batman is driven by Justice or Vengeance.
My Top Ten Favorite Batman Stories - The name kind of says it all.
My Batman Isn't Your Batman, and That's OK - Post the Ben Affleck announcement, a discussion of how malleable a character Batman is, and how everyone's favorite might be different.

So, with that out of the way, I think I need to reflect on a simple question: Why Batman? Is it just that I started reading comics when Batman was a big cultural thing, and that's why I'm drawn to him? I'm sure that's part of it. We all have touchstones of our childhood we never grow out of, and if that were the only answer, it would be fine. But if I dig deeper, I think there's a reason why the Superman films, which all existed when I was a kid, never spoke to me the same way, or why the animated X-Men series didn't turn me into someone with massive runs of X-Men comics (although I do have quite a few).

One of the common answers to why Batman speaks to people is that he has no powers. You could never be Superman, or Spider-Man, or Hellboy. But, with the right amount of money and time, you could theoretically become Batman. And that's true. And that's great. I don't think anyone who grew up a nerdy kid doesn't have the power fantasy of growing up to be the biggest and the toughest and to bring justice down on the heads of the bullies of the world. And if I grew out of Batman when I finally came into my own as an adult, that might have been it too. But I didn't. I'm still a geek, probably a bigger geek than I even was as a kid, or at least more vocal about it, but I'm also married, with a good job, and I own my house. I don't need to think about beating up kids who bullied me when I was twelve.

Part of what I love about Batman is he's smart. And not abstractly Reed Richards/Tony Stark smart, although I think he is that too; this guy does build and upgrade all the crazy toys that Wayne Tech provides him, after all. But he's clever. He's a detective, and I've loved detective fiction for as long as I've loved Batman in various formats. You get me outside Batman, and I was reading Sherlock Holmes at the same time as I was reading comics (and inside Batman it's too dark to read. Thanks, Groucho). To this day, I still value intellect and cleverness far more than physical strength and acumen in my fictional characters. And that's partially because of Batman. But he fits that archetype so well.

I also think that Batman is less of a wish fulfillment character than many superheroes when you approach him from a mature level, but an aspirational one. After all, I don't think any rational person wants to be a brooding vigilante who watched his parents gunned down. But you can want to be the best you that you can be, and you can want to do right by the people around you. You can live up to the example without wanting to be that character, which is really how good fictional characters should be.

And there's that rogue's gallery! I know, when Newsarama has done they're top ten rogue's galleries, Batman has come in second to Spider-Man, but I have to disagree. Not only are Batman's rogue's more recognizable, but they're all wonderfully complex characters. The best of them have incredible designs, interesting motivations, and serve as cracked mirror versions of the hero they stand against. The Joker alone would make a hero, but when you think he might be the crown jewel, but there are a dozen other villains within steps of his brilliance, it's

The supporting cast is just as intriguing. No one character has a supporting cast that pretty much any member could headline their own book. Any of the Robins or Batgirls, Azrael, Catwoman, Batwoman, Huntress, Jim Gordon, Alfred, all are great characters in their own right, most of whom have supported at least mini-series is not ongoings. Even the lesser characters, like Leslie Thompkins, Lucius Fox, and the various GCPD officers create a fascinating tapestry around Batman. And Gotham itself is one of the best realized fictional cities in literature, with its dark alleys and gothic landscape.

And I guess, in the long run, it's all of that. Batman is a great character, in a great world, with seventy five years of amazing stories. From Bill Finger and Gardner Fox's golden age tales, Julie Schwartz's "New Look" era, the Dark Knight of Denny O'Neil and then Frank Miller, the 90s Bat family of Dixon, Grant, and Moench, into the 00s with the dark detective of Rucka and Brubaker, and Snyder's New 52 Batman, they've all provided great stories. Movies and TV, with actors Adam West, Michael Keaton, Kevin Conroy, Diedrich Bader and Christian Bale, plus directors and writers like Tim Burton, Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, and Christopher Nolan, have all left an indelible mark. That infinite malleability is something that I can't see any other costumed hero having. A dark Spider-Man or Superman story is forced, and a light Punisher or Ghost Rider story is laughable. But Batman seems to exist in all worlds at once.

And I guess, at it's deepest level, Batman was my gateway to a larger world. I talked about this when I talked about the Burton Batman movie as well, but hat movie introduced me to comics, and those comics introduced me to a passion. And that shared passion has changed my life. My best friend and I bonded over both of us bringing comics on a school trip. I met my wife when someone said, "Oh, you should meet my friend Amber, she loves Neil Gaiman too," a writer I encountered through comics. I've worked at a comic shop for over a decade, where I have made many good friends. I have something to look forward to each week, something I can discuss vehemently and passionately.

So for all those reasons, for the countless hours of reading and watching enjoyment, and for all the years to come, I say happy anniversary, Batman. Let's get another good seventy five in there, huh?

There's a Batman Comic for Everyone! or Why I Think Two New Batman Titles Are a Good Thing This Time

Yesterday, DC Comics announced through Entertainment Weekly that they'd be releasing two new Batman titles in October: Arkham Manor and Gotham Academy. I admit, even through my usual Bat fervor and Pollyannaish disposition, I shook my head. Part of that is financial; of course I'm going to buy them, and now I have to find somewhere to trim that fat. But part of it is a kneejerk reaction I've seen on Facebook and various threads following articles. The consensus seems to be, "Two more Bat titles! Nice going DC. Very original." But maybe there's more to this.

The descriptions of the two titles, whose covers flank these paragraphs, make them feel like something a little different. Arkham Manor by Gerry Duggan and Shawn Crystal sees the asylum where the worst of the worst moved into Wayne Manor (how and why isn't explained here. Read the comics to find out). And with the death of some inmates, Batman must investigate. We seem to be getting a mystery comic, plus a villain comic in there as well. And anything set around Arkham will have a twinge of horror to it. While I'm sure Batman will feature prominently at leats initially, we might get a book that gets into the heads of some of Arkham's inmates. Duggan has proven a deft hand at getting into the head of some crazy individuals in Deadpool, so it could prove very interesting. And if you've ever read Dan Slott's Arkham Asylum: Living Hell you know that the inmates in Arkham can be compelling even without the Bat looming over them (and if you haven't, it was just reissued in hardcover and is worth checking out).

Gotham Academy, by Becky Cloonan , Brenden Fletcher, and Karl Kerschl,  on the other hand, is a teen drama. It's set in Gotham's elite prep school, and it looks like 90210 meets Gotham, with the kids of the school getting mixed up in secrets of Gotham's past. So we get a bit of Scooby Doo mixed in too with that mystery. I think this is great, as long as it is a book accessible by the age group that it's featuring. So much of what DC is publishing is meant for a twenty something audience, and mostly a male one. A book featuring teen female characters that can be read by female teens, a lucrative market, is something that DC could make a lot out of. I've read little by Cloonan as a writer, but what little I have, and Fletcher's Wednesday Comics feature was a lot, and this is being drawn by his partner on that story, Karl Kerschl, who is a great artist who really has just needed that one big project to blow up as a star, and I think this might be it.

Ok, so I've talked about what I think is neat about these two projects, but I can see the points of dissent, "If you want to do a teen drama, why not just do it without having Batman in there? If you want a scary book about crazy guys, you can do that without the trappings." Sure you can, but let's get down to brass tacks here: Batman sells. The last two titles DC tried that featured pretty much exclusively new characters, Green Team and The Movement, died quick deaths, neither lasting more than a year. Part of that was mismarketing, I believe, as playing off the 99%/1% gap debate for marketing made the books seem much more political then they were, but even without that, they were new characters with only a tangential relationship to the DC Universe, and that is the kiss of death. For right or wrong, it's not easy to launch an original concept in mainstream comics. So if you want to try something different, but want a chance that it will settle somewhere near the top 100 sellers of the month, what do you do? You need a hook, and Batman is about the biggest one in comics. And it's not like DC is the only one doing it. And if we can get some quality mainstream superhero comics and the publisher makes enough money that they don't cancel them prematurely, I can't think of anyone who loses.

I'm not saying we shouldn't see some non-Bat titles. I want a Blue Beetle series featuring Ted Kord so bad I can taste it. I think Cyborg needs his own ongoing. And if you try a new character, you've got me guaranteed for the first arc. But before we condemn a new concept just because it's set in Gotham, why don't we read the dang books. They might surprise you. Who would have thought three years ago that Hawkeye would be one of the best books from the Big Two? If we can give that a go, why not Gotham Academy?

Super Hero Marriage and Maturity: The Short Sighted Path

I had a hard time coming up with a title that didn't make this sound like I was in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, so I removed defense from the title to begin with, as this post has nothing to do with gay marriage. Well, a little, since the Batwoman issue is what cued it, but that's only the most recent symptom of a problem I have seen expanding over mainstream comics the past few years. I want to admit up front, since this is an op/ed piece, there is more focus on a problem in the industry then something to celebrate, but I will be talking about some really great comics along the way, with probably a little section at the end about some of my favorite married superhero stories, and this is something I feel pretty strongly about.

For those of you who don't follow the comics news sites with the religious fervor that I do, this past weekend it was announced the creative team of DC's Batwoman title were leaving due to editorial interference, much of which had to do with DC not wanting the character to get married to her partner, GCPD Captain Maggie Sawyer. Yes, Batwoman is gay. And the main hue and cry has been that DC is afraid of pissing off people by having a gay character get married, or are themselves homophobes. I'm not going to speak to either of those points, since I am not acquainted with the people involved and don't want to cast aspersions. But what I see here is something more systemic than Batwoman and Maggie (who are a great couple, by the way, and I was hoping they'd get married), but has more to do with the second half of that two part phrase; "marriage" is more of a dirty word in mainstream comics than "gay" right now, and that is symbolic of one of the industries real problems. And for the benefit of the uninitiated as well, I'll be talking about The Big Two in this essay, meaning Marvel and DC. They are pretty much the focus of what I'm saying, so no one give me a comment about change, marriage, and maturity with a list of indy books after this, since I know and read plenty of comics that embrace the solution to the problems I'm gonna be talking about in DC and Marvel.

In the late 80s and 90s, there were a rash of superhero marriages. Spider-Man married Mary Jane, Superman married Lois Lane, Flash (Wally West) married Linda Park, Cyclops married Phoenix (the real Jean Grey, not a clone or cosmic doppelganger), and quite a few others. These were usually pretty big deals, especially the Spider-Man and Superman ones. These were major changes to status quos; things that had been etched in stone for the majority of the character's existence had been rewritten. And there, my friends, is the real problem that we have here: CHANGE. Super hero comics embrace the illusion of change, but the real thing causes all sorts of stress amongst fans and professionals, and frankly most, if not all, professionals started out as fans.

So, as is the way with nearly all real changes, these were slowly phased out. Spider-Man sold his marriage to the devil to save his aunt from dying (because the people they were worrying about offending by a divorce would have no problem with deals with the devil). Phoenix died. And the New 52 meant pretty much all DC heroes were younger, and thus not married, or like poor Wally West didn't exist anymore. And the reason that was given for this was usually that the creators/editors/whoever wanted the characters to be more relateable, and they felt the demographic they were looking for couldn't relate to a married hero.

Now some could argue that there are still married heroes left. Let's look at the few married heroes. Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic Four is not meant to be the character that is the reader proxy in that title. He's aloof at times, manipulative at others, and is the father of the family; readers are meant to associate with either Human Torch or The Thing. Animal Man's family has basically been hostages and targets since the inception of the New 52, which is fine from a story POV, and his daughter Maxine now has her animal powers, and so the book is as much about her growth into that power as Animal Man's own superheroic struggles. Frankly, as mature superhero books go, Animal Man is one of the best examples I can come up with, dealing with family, loss, fame, and heroism.

And in that last sentence there's the key word: maturity. Superhero comics started out as adolescent power fantasies. If you look at the majority of creators of the earliest superheroes, they were sickly, outcast, oddballs, and people seeking to find their power. So many Golden Age creators were Jews in a time where a shadow was being cast over their European families, no wonder they looked for a simple answer (Curious to learn more? Check out Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book for a great history of the golden age). But that was seventy-five years ago. And while comics have come a long way, dealing with all sorts of issues that Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Simon, Kirby, and Eisner never would have, so much about mainstream superheroes haven't.

Change and maturity are two very different things, which is something the Big Two tend to confuse. Mature is not a comic that has boobs and violence; mature is a comic that deals with people as people and sees them grow and change into something more than what they are at the beginning of their story. DC's Vertigo imprint has published some very mature comics, and one or two of Marvel's MAX  titles have also been mature, but many are just labeled as "Mature readers" to allow for things that might possibly offend a parent who might stumble upon a comic their kid bought.

When you look at life, there are some very clear marks of maturity; graduations, marriages, and the births of children come to mind. The sliding time scale of the superhero comic allows aging to be avoided rather easily, but these kind of milestones are signs of changes in life, and when they happen the character is changed. I feel like the creators of Marvel and DC comics are doing their readers a disservice. I work in a comic shop, I see the audience, and the mainsteam superhero comic isn't being consumed by seven to twelve year olds. The Big Two wants to appeal to an older demographic, but they're doing it by appealing to the lowest common denominator, the people who associate boobs, blood, and barbarism with maturity.

The issue where Cyclops and Phoenix got married stands as one of my favorite X-Men comics of all time, and I know plenty of others who feel the same way. And while the Superman Wedding Album was clearly rushed due to DC's having to line it up with the wedding on the Lois & Clark TV show, there are still some golden moments in it. And the married Superman and Lois Lane worked brilliantly together. Their relationship was a partnership, and when written properly, she brought out the best in him and vice versa. They grew together, and became different and interesting characters. It's how I first really encountered them (the first Superman story I read was the one where Clark proposed to Lois), and I think there's a lot to be said about what really grounds Superman, and I think it's a lot of what is missing in his New 52 characterization. Exploring how life is different can make for interesting stories, more interesting than rehashing the old will they/won't they. I will give DC credit for not immediately dipping into that well again by pairing Superman with Wonder Woman, but as long as Lois is there, everyone will know who Superman is meant to be with.

So, where does reverting thee heroes really get us? The short sighted path. The idea that we now have the same swingin' single Spider-Man of the 60s and 70s is fun, but when another writer gets the idea to really hook Spidey up with someone who means something to him, are they going to do it, knowing that whatever happens Mephisto can pop up and it will be rewritten by an editor who doesn't like the idea. When Superman and Wonder Woman get too close, are they going to split to give him and Lois a chance to dance the dance they did for fifty years? I'm not naive enough to believe that most of the people involved in these characters lives' aren't in it purely for the money, but at the same time, the industry can only alienate existing readers so many times before they call it quits. Growth and continuity aren't the same thing. You don't need to have read thirty years of Superman to understand his relationship with Lois when it was written well. A married couple is a couple like any other, and by the way, anyone who says a married couple can't have adventures, on their own or separately, and that there's no conflict left once you've "settled down," is so utterly unfamiliar with what real relationships are like that I feel kind of sorry for them.

So, what can be done about this? I wish I could tell you. I won't say you should all drop Batwoman, since I think Marc Andreyko is one of the best and most underappreciated writers in comics, thanks to his work on Manhunter (and, for those of you who are interested, one of the few publicly gay writers in mainstream comics) and I think he's going to do some very smart and mature work with the character, married or not, and dropping a book before you give it a shot is anathema to my beliefs that trying a comic before badmouthing it is the way to go. But what you can really do is support books that reward character as much as action. Batwoman has done a great job of this, as has Wonder Woman, Batman & Robin, Hawkeye, and the late, lamented X-Factor.

Oh, and if you like stories featuring your superheroes married, you might want to check out some of the following: Adventures of Superman by Greg Rucka collected in three trades, Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix by Scott Lobdell and Gene Ha, Mark Waid or Geoff Johns's The Flash, and anything you can track down featuring Ralph and Sue Dibny, DC's Elongated Man and his wife, my favorite superhero couple. And if you want a story of a superhero growing up and maturing set within one of these universes, try James Robinson's brilliant Starman.

My Batman Isn't Your Batman, and That's OK, Even If My Batman is Ben Affleck.

Pardon me, as we interrupt this week's regularly scheduled recommended reading with an op/ed piece.

Comic book movie casting is incredibly divisive in fandom. If you've ever spent anytime in a comic book shop, or on the comic book internet, you've seen it. And when I signed on to check Twitter yesterday evening, I admit to being completely shocked by two things. First, by the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman. I mean, I'd been thinking about all sorts of actors, and Affleck wasn't even on the long list, let alone the short one. But what really shocked me was the sheer level of vitriol being spewed by nearly everyone.

Now, as I said, comic geeks on the internet spewing venom is par for the course, but this was pros, both creators and journalists, rending their garments and declaring undying hatred for Affleck, DC, Warner Brothers, and Hollywood in general. And as I read down, and saw the occasional positive comment, all it did was make me shake my head in wonderment. There's something to be said for the emotion that the casting of a fictional character can bring about, and what it means to people. And Batman means a heck of a lot to me, as much if not more than to a lot of the irritated masses. But I wasn't that angry. And I'm going to give you two reasons.

The first is the simple one: We haven't seen the movie. We haven't seen anything about how they're portraying Batman. Affleck might not be your cup of tea. He's not an actor who I go to a movie to see, but I will say he's shown a lot of growth as an actor since Daredevil and Phantoms (although he was the bomb in Phantoms. Hands up if you recognize THAT obscure reference). I've said this before about the way comic fans react to announcements of new creators on comics or a change of direction; there is a preconception about liking a creator/plotline, and there's this immediate, flying off the handle response. If you have seen something and hate it, then you can rant and rave til your heart's content. Until then, maybe you should give it a try. You might actually like it; it worked with green eggs and ham. If Dr. Seuss told us something, it's probably right.

But more than that, the thing that made me look at it, shrug, and think that this isn't that big a deal is that, frankly, this Batman too shall pass. Batman is a character who is just shy of seventy-five years old. Do you know how many actors what played Batman on screen? Seven, and that's if you're not counting voice actors. You factor that in, both TV, movie, and video game, and the number hits the upper teens if not the twenties. And I don't think any one of them has ruined the character. And it doesn't make the old movies you may or may not have liked disappear.

I have a very specific vision of who and what Batman is. I've written about that before. But a new interpretation doesn't nullify those other versions. This was a big discussion when DC's New 52 initiative started, and a lot of fans were angry that the stories they had read, "didn't matter," anymore. And I'm sure if the internet existed at the time, we would have a similar reaction when Crisis On Infinite Earths happened. But DC staff said is true: that stories you love matter to you, and that's where it really counts. DC didn't come to my house and burn all my post-Crisis/pre-Flashpoint comics, and I can still revisit those versions of the character whenever I want.

When it comes to Batman on screen for me, I have a personal favorite vision. And it's not either Chrsitopher Nolan or Tim Burton. If you want the ideal Batman movie, you have to go no further then the oft-forgotten gem that is Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. It's the big screen movie from the creators of Batman: The Animated Series, and it is brilliant. It has a solid, coherent plot that doesn't crumble in the third act, some of the slickest animation you could imagine, and voice acting from Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill as Batman and Joker. It is moody,smart, and I'd wager half of you reading this haven't heard of it, and maybe half of you who have haven't seen it (it is available on DVD, and if you haven't seen it you should check it out). But I don't think I've ever seen a Batman more true to my vision than that one. But that didn't stop me from loving Christopher Nolan's vision of Gotham too.

And speaking of Batman: The Animated Series (B:TAS for short from here on out), let's briefly talk about Batman in animation. The last time I heard nerd rage nearly to this level was each time a new animated incarnation of Batman has been introduced since the run of B:TAS wrapped. I wasn't a huge fan of The Batman, although I warmed to it in its last couple of seasons. But I remember a major huff when the idea of Batman: The Brave and the Bold was introduced. A light, kid friendly Batman? "NOOO!" cried fandom, "Not Adam West again!" But after a couple episodes, I know I was completely sold, and I think a lot of other fans were too. It was a different take on the character, but Batman wasn't the joke in the series, and while he wasn't the dark avenger of B:TAS, he was a hero and played the straight man in a ridiculous, sci-fi world, and there was charm in that. And because fanboys never learn their lesson, when Beware the Batman was announced, there was a similar outcry. The computer animation, the special ops Alfred, the use of Katana; all seemed to stir up a lot of wrath. I'm still not completely sold on the animation, I prefer traditional to computer animation in most cases, or the actual design of Alfred, but I've enjoyed the series thus far, and plan an Animated Discussions on it shortly. It's a solid show, and the choice of villains have been really interesting.

I understand the casting of an actor and the complete reboot of a comic book universe or new animated series aren't a perfect analogy. There are additional elements at work in the movie casting, including the belief that the actor can't carry the role, or that it's stunt casting or favoritism. There's an intense feeling of possessiveness that comes with being a fan. And if you do choose to skip the new Superman/Batman movie because you feel that strongly about Ben Affleck, go for it. Stay home and rewatch Batman or The Dark Knight and once again experience those interpretations. But me? I'm willing to give it a shot. I might be surprised. Or I might hate it. But I'm gonna give someone else's Batman a shot for a bit and see what they have to show me.

Things to Look Forward to in 2013

It seems I have failed as a comic book blogger, since I am probably the only one to not do a, "Best of 2012" post. That doesn't mean I can't do a, "looking good in 2013," post, so that's what I'm going to do. So, in no particular order, here are some of the comics and comic media related projects that I am very excited about in the coming year.

The return of Sandman by Neil Gaiman

Ok, this is the gimme of gimmes among many comic book fans. I haven't walked much about Sandman or my love of Neil Gaiman on this blog simply because very few people need to be told that they should read it; it's a major part of the comic book landscape, up there with Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns. But the idea of new Sandman, of Sandman with art by J.H. Williams III, whose work on Batwoman has been nothing less then stunning, well this is something that should be cried to the heavens with joy. Set before the original series starts, I'd think this would be a good place for people who have never read Sandman to start and see exactly what all the hullabaloo is about. As someone who has all of Sandman in single, trade, absolute, and annotated, the idea of a new story featuring Dream of the Endless is the closest to complete comics nirvana as I can imagine.

Lazarus by Greg Rucka and Michael Lark

Gotham Central is one of the great gems that DC Comics has produced in the past decade (boy, sounds like something you might be getting a recommended reading about shortly...). Greg Rucka (and co-writer Ed Brubaker) is a master of crime stories, whose work on the Bat titles had me excited for this gritty cops in Gotham story, and artist Michael Lark, whose work on an arc of Sandman: Mystery Theatre had grabbed my attention, seemed a perfect fit. And I was right. Since then, Rucka and Lark have worked together a few times, including winning an Eisner for best Short Story, this is their first creator owned project together. Lazarus will be coming from Image Comics, and is a science fiction series set in a dystopian future where the wealthy families rule. Endeavor Carlyle, the lead, is the enforcer/strategist/security chief for her family, but learns a truth that puts her at odds with her family and society as a whole. In interviews, Rucka and Lark have said they are building a whole world from scratch, really designing everything. Combining my love of Greg Rucka's strong characterization, Michael Lark's gritty art, and world building? Sold.

The Wake by Scott Snyder and Sean Murphy

While details about this project remains pretty sketchy, new Scott Snyder horror is always something I look forward to. Combine an element of sci-fi, and you have my curiosity more than piqued. The only details that I've found are that the story begins with, "single, terrifying discovery at the bottom of the ocean." Include art from Sean Murphy, whose work on Joe the Barbarian I loved, whose Punk Rock Jesus is a book that slipped under my radar and a trade I'm dying for, and who teamed up with Snyder for one of the excellent American Vampire mini-series, and you have a book that should appeal to all horror and sci-fi comic fans.

Scott Snyder's Riddler in Batman

In my review of Batman #15, I spoke about how impressed I was about Scott Snyder's take on the Riddler. His Riddler struck me as someone smart enough to actually challenge Batman. And I'm hoping the next major arc on Batman after "Death of the Family" will prove me right. Snyder has done a great job creating new villains and presenting old villains in new ways in his work on Batman and Detective Comics; the Court of Owls and new Owlman are the breakout villains of the New 52, and James Gordon Jr. is a tremendously creepy character, and his vision of the Joker is unique and frightening. For years now, Riddler has either been a non-threat, the kind of villain who is trotted out just because he's a name, been made "edgy," as in "Hush," or been reformed, as in the great stories of Riddler, Private Eye during Paul Dini's run on Detective. I'm hoping this new vision of the Riddler finds a way to make Riddler a marquee Bat villain again. If anyone can do it, I think Snyder can.

New Star Wars: Legacy

The Legacy era of Star Wars, set over a century after the original trilogy, is a favorite era of mine. It's a little darker, but still has great characters, and builds off of all the Expanded Universe works that have come before it. I wrote a recommended reading for the original series of Star Wars: Legacy and while this new series is not from original creators John Ostrander and Jan Duursema, I see a lot of potential. From Corinna Bechko and Gabriel Hardman, the creators of some recent well received Planet of the Apes comics, Star Wars: Legacy - Prisoner of the Floating World follows a new character, Ania Solo, the great great granddaughter of Han and Leia. She get herself into trouble, and is marked for death, so basically is following along in the family business. The story is set after the final adventures of Cade Skywalker in the original Legacy series, so we'll see the galaxy move further away from the Sith-Imperial War, but that's not to say we won't see any Sith or Jedi. Bechko and Hardman have some pretty big shoes to fill here, but I'm more than willing to try out some new characters making their way through the Star Wars universe.

The Man of Steel

I will always admit a pro-DC bias, and I am also definitely looking forward to Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World, but the superhero film I'm most curious about is The Man of Steel, the reboot of the Superman franchise. After the lackluster Superman Returns, the world's first superhero has been away from the big screen. I will admit to being worried after seeing the initial teaser, as there was no Superman in a Superman movie teaser, but the first real trailer was much more interesting. Some great flying scenes, some cool looking Kryptonian vehicles, action, and no hide nor -lack-of-hair of Lex Luthor. I swear, not every Batman movie needs Joker; the same should be with Lex and Superman. I do admit that I feel we could skip the origin of Superman as it is so well known, but I do like the idea of watching Clark Kent make the decision to become Superman; it worked in Batman Begins for Batman, why not for Superman?

Young Justice Returns and Young Justice: Legacy

So, this one has already started, but I'm still including it here. After the unceremonious disappearance from the airwaves of DC Nation in October, I was worried I'd never see more Young Justice, no matter what Cartoon Network said. But as of this past Saturday, the series was back, and in as fine form as ever. There's an Animated Discussions post about Young Justice upcoming, about how it serves as the inheritor to many of the themes of the pre-New 52 DC Universe, but beyond that, it is just the best looking, best paced, and best characterized action cartoon on TV right now. And not only will we get the last half of season two, and I'm holding out hope for the announcement of a season three, but next month we get Young Justice: Legacy, a video game written by the show's writers taking place in the five year gap between the two seasons. I'm not a big video game person, but I'll be picking this one up right away for a little more story from this particular version of the DC Universe.

Year of Atomic Robo

A post on Comic Book Resource's Robot Six blog detailing the 2013 plans for Atomic Robo got me very excited. First and foremost, this year's mini-series is Atomic Robo and the Savage Sword of Dr. Dinosaur! So, while Dr. D won't be in this year's Free Comic Book Day issue, he'll be in an entire mini! And he'll probably be bringing crystals! Also, the next arc of Real Science Adventures focuses on the Centurions of Science, Tesla's team of scientists and luminaries, similar to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but with real people, like Harry Houdini and Annie Oakley. I love that sort of revisionist history, and Tesla just lends himself to it. And to top it all off, we'll also see the debut of the Atomic Robo Roleplaying Game from Evil Hat Productions, creators of the award winning and awesome Dresden Files Roleplaying Game. Now you too can live the dream of being a member of Atomic Robo's Tesladyne team, and who wouldn't want to do that?

Geek Culture For Everyone; or, I am Spartacus!

I spent a good long time this week considering whether I was going to discuss some of this week's controversial geek culture events, and how I was going to. It's hard to stay positive sometimes, and since the whole point of this blog is to remain positive, well... But I decided I wanted to put my two cents into the conversation. I don't know if I'm going to be saying anything that hasn't already been said, and possibly more eloquently than I am going to, but here goes. This isn't about comics in particular, so if you're looking for my usual discussion of a good comic, come back Monday for reviews. But if you want to read something I think might be thoughtful and personal, keep going.

This past week, there were a few people involved in the comics industry that posted things on-line that were misogynist stupidity. I'm not going to name names simply because I don't see the point; who they are isn't as important to what I have to say as that they said these things. Misogyny and fandom isn't new, tragically, and I'm sad to say at least one of the people involved is a creator whose work I have enjoyed. I'm not going to burn all his work I own, but I will not support his future projects, which were things I was looking forward to.  But it's not just misogyny that's a problem in fandom.

I am a self admitted geek. I know labels aren't required, not even necessary, but you know what, I'm proud of what I am. I'm proud I can tell you pretty much anything about Batman and his rogue's gallery, that I've read all the novels in the Star Wars expanded universe, and that I have nearly a whole bookcase dedicated to the works of Neil Gaiman.

What I think many lose sight of is that, in my opinion, geek culture is the culture of inclusion. I won't speak for anyone else, but I was a lonely little kid. I was bullied, and I didn't make friends easily. Finding friends who also read comics, or watched Star Wars over and over, or liked Star Trek: The Next Generation, that made all the difference. And even if they thought Kirk was better than Picard, or that the Hulk was stronger than Superman, that didn't give me or anyone the right to say they weren't part of that culture. We all need each other, and that buy in to the culture is what matters, not exactly what you think or like. There are so many things in the world that divide us, that make us "other." Why do we try to look for reasons to make those we do have something in common with less than what they are? These questions are rhetorical, obviously, because any reasonable person might be able to come up with some reason why someone else might, but not experience true understanding of it. I hope I never understand either.

What that boils down to is that no one has the right to say whether or not someone else is a geek. If you choose to call yourself a geek (or nerd, or fanboy/girl, or an Atlantean for all I care) then that is what you are. And we all should stand by each other for that. Some say geek culture is more mainstream now, but so what? Isn't that what we all wanted, for the things we love to be appreciated by a wider audience? And now that it is, some people whine that, "I was a fan when..."

But the fan who has just watched Batman: The Animated Series or just watched the Nolan Batman movies has as much of a right to call themselves a Batman fan as I do, someone who has dedicated his life to Batmanology. Battlestar Galactica fans are as entitled to their fandom as Stargate fans. Maybe you're a gamer, and that can mean tablestop, PC, or console. More power to you. And maybe you like to spend your time making costumes to wear at cons. Good for you, cosplayers!

One of the rants this week that "tore the internet in half" had to do with female cosplayers who aren't comic book readers but just dress in the costumes. I'm not a cosplayer, and I do have my issues with cosplayers, but that more has to do with big anime weapons strapped to their backs that hit you in the face and leave you scrambling around on the floor of the Javitz Center looking for your glasses like Velma Dinkley from Scooby Doo (no, I'm not speaking from experience, not at all). But if it was just the coolness of the design that inspired someone to dress up, isn't that a great compliment?  Someone just saw the costume and liked it so much that they decided to spend all that time to make the costume. I would be tremendously complimented. Just because they don't know Kitty Pryde first appeared in Uncanny X-Men #129 doesn't mean they can't love the design and find something to love in the character. In my younger days, I got into a discussion with someone on a fantasy lit forum who had Death of the Endless as her avatar. I was shocked to find out she had no idea who the character was; she just saw the image on-line somewhere and thought it looked cool. So we got to talking about Death, Dream, and the whole lot, and pretty soon she had devoured all of Sandman. Does it really matter how she came to it?

I'm the uncle of two wonderful nieces, and have friends with daughters. And you know what, I'd be proud if they decided to embrace  fan culture. A close friend of mine's young daughter was about the cutest little Dalek I've ever seen for Halloween this year, and my 4 year old niece can't get enough Spider-Man cartoons. I introduced my eight year old niece to Bone for birthday, and granted she might be waiting to finish reading that first volume with me when I go to visit next because I do all the great voices, but she loved it. And if that's as far as any of them go into fan culture, great. If they decide they want to dive in more, want to read more comics with Uncle Matt, start buying them on their own, I'll support that too. But I want to think a bunch of Neanderthals won't come down on them for not knowing some obscure bit of trivia. That's unfair though. I'm sure Neanderthals had better things to do, like surviving and hunting mammoth, than to pick on each other. Modern man has too damn much time on his or her hands.

So, before I kind of sum up, I wanted to just shout out to some of the women who make fandom awesome. To Gail Simone, writer of awesome comics, and queen of taking the lemons that people throw around and making sweet, sweet lemonade. To Jill Pantozzi, whose tweets were the thing that made me sit up and take notice here, and who is probably the best comics journalist out there. And to all the comic fans, Star Wars fanatics, and gamer women who have been in my life as friends, significant others, and anything else, especially my wife, Amber, a geek girl in her own right, who supports me in this little endeavor.

I think I've wandered a bit far afield in what I've been writing here, but I think the real point is that geek culture, fan culture, whatever you want to call it started out as a collection of outcasts. People who needed to find something in common, something to believe in, whether it was a guy in red and blue tights, a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, or space being the final frontier. Even if you weren't like me, a lonely kid who loved comics, there has to be a time in your life where you didn't feel like you fit in, and I'd wager knowing there were other people out there who liked the things you liked made you feel better? Why would you want to make someone else feel the way you felt? Why don't you want to share your love of all these wonderful things with someone else? When someone says they're a geek, even if you don't share the same geeky interest, why not stand up, and instead of scoffing, say that you are one too? Maybe you'll find something cool that way, and understand a little better the common humanity we all share in our love of all things fantastic.

In Defense of Cyclops

Cyclops, Scott Summers, has always been my favorite member of the X-Men. There was a time in the 90s when everyone was all about Wolverine, Gambit, and Bishop; and me? Cyclops.While in recent years he has gotten a higher profile and a better rep, thanks to top writers like Grant Morrison and Joss Whedon really liking the character and putting him out as not just field leader of the X-Men but as the leader of a mutant nation, he is still a character that I find people often misunderstand. Especially with Avengers Vs. X-Men, and the latter half painting him very much with the villain brush, I wanted to go back, talk about the good aspects of the character, and highlight a few of my favorite Cyclops stories.

Most characters who are the leaders of their respective teams have certain traits that make them stand out from the crowd and the team, aside from their leadership. Mr. Fantastic is the world's smartest man. Captain America is the noble, selfless hero who stands for America. Nightwing is looking to get out from under Batman's shadow. But Cyclops's defining characteristic is that he is the leader of the X-Men, both from a literary standpoint and in the way the character is written to think about himself. What this does is make the majority of Cyclops stories depend on the X-Men being there for him to lead, or struggle against. While there can be solo Cyclops stories, and they can be good stories (and I'll discuss a few of them later), when a character is known as the leader of a team, it kind of hamstrings him as a solo character. I think this has been part of the problem with readers views of Cyclops over the years, as readers see him as dull and predictable. He needs to be dependable, since that's what he's been built to do.

This is not to say that being the leader of the team as the defining character is a bad thing. It makes for a very interesting dynamic when with the X-Men. Cyclops has a specific relationship with his teammates because what he does is lead the team. The classic adversarial relationship with Wolverine would not be as powerful if Cyclops didn't believe holding the X-Men, and in recent years the entire mutant race, together was what he had to do. In recent years, Cyclops has sacrificed close friendships because of this drive, and that adds a depth to the character that is more than just him being a stiff, totalitarian ass.

Now, I've also seen comments that other than being stiff and dull as a character, Cyclops is so flawed that he is unlikable. I can see two major character flaws in him, and I think those actually make for a very interesting character. The first is his almost crippling self doubt. Over the years, Cyclops has been portrayed as never feeling he was good enough, or living up to Xavier's dream. That struggle is truly part of the character, and would require a major shift in the character. This actually happened after "Messiah Complex" and a lot of the voices that were against a wishy washy Cyclops now pointed out that he was too driven and focused, to the point of obsession and insanity, or at least fascism. In X-Men: Legacy #260, Mike Carey (who wrote a great Cyclops, and who I wish wrote him more) wrote a scene where Rogue talks to Cyclops about leaving Utopia for Westchester. She points out that, to push the self doubt down, he had to sort of choose a stance that all his decisions were right, and to not doubt himself at all. While not a good character trait, it's something different, which there's not many X characters who have gone through that kind of change.

Cyclops's other major fault is, well, that he has a really bad track record with women. There's no real defense here. There's something in the way he's been written over the years that doesn't allow him to be single, and has him hopping from one woman to another, desperate for love. Most stories away from the X-Men have Scott teamed with his long time love, Jean Grey, but with Jean's fairly casual relationship with life, and her recurring visits with death, there's been plenty of room for Scott to play the field. And boy has he ever. Every time he thinks Jean Grey is dead, or she actually is, he immediately hooks up with someone else. When he thought she died in the Savage Land, he got together with Colleen Wing fast. After she died in The Dark Phoenix Saga, he was hanging out with Lee Forrester almost immediately. And after her, he was single for less than two years real time before he met Madelyne Pryor. And the least said about marrying the clone of your dead ex-girlfriend the better. Then there's the return of Jean, the marriage, and the whole Emma Frost thing. This strikes me almost a tragic flaw territory, this need to be loved, and can easily be linked psychologically to the fact that he was raised in an orphanage run by an insane, immortal mad scientist, and thus having abandonment issues. Ah, yes, Comics, Everybody! (There's no comic strip for Cyclops in this collection of weird character histories, but there probably should be)

Now, I want to actually talk very specifically about the Utopia-era Cyclops, and the current Avengers Vs. X-Men series. These are the stories, and the responses that have made me want to write something defending Cyclops's actions. When Scott took over the X-Men, moved them out to an island, and kind of declared himself ruler of said island, it raised some eyebrows. And his more militaristic stance is uncomfortable at times. I do see Wolverine's point, that kids should be allowed to be kids. But Cyclops also has a valid point, that these kids need to be able to defend themselves, since so many of their friends are, well, dead. And I feel the comparisons to Magneto are invalid. Cyclops never once declared himself and mutants above humanity. He never tried to cut Utopia off from the mainland. He was trying to create a refuge, but not a prison (well except for the prisoners, but they were pretty much all mutant criminals). He also sent teams out into San Francisco to try to help the city. Magneto sat around at a Brotherhood meeting and said, "OK, Toad and Blob, it's your turn to go out and watch over Mount Wundagore's human population." Cyclops was doing things far more hardnosed than many superheroes do, no arguement, but he never was a supervillain. I will add, though, to acknowledge a fault, that calling your squad of heavy hotters the Extinction Team is probably a little more threatening than you need.

Now, on to Avengers Vs. X-Men. I haven't written much about the series since, frankly, I haven't been enjoying it all that much, although some of the titles crossing over into it have been great. But I want to point out some things. The general response on-line I have seen recently is that Cyclops started it, he should have just listened to Captain America to begin with, and now that he's all Phoenix powered, he's been a Dark Phoenix in waiting all along.

Firstly, I don't see how Cyclops started this whole mess. He might have fired the first literal shot, but Captain America showed up with a Helicarrier full of every Avenger under the sun. He pretty much went in there not willing to really talk about anything. He had been told by Wolverine that Cyclops wouldn't hand over the person he believes was the savior of all mutant kind, and who also happens to be his granddaughter, just because Cap says the Phoenix is coming. I think no one has really addressed Cyclops's emotional ties to Hope, which I find odd. This girl was raised by his son, who had to make a similar choice that he himself did. His son died to save her. Maybe part of what's going on here is him not wanting to believe everything Cable died for was in vain, which is why he's been so protective of her from the beginning. And sure, Cable came back right before this, and was a little crazy, but the Avengers were pretty hard on everyone there too. And it's not like the Avengers have a great history protecting mutants. Scarlet Witch went bad on their watch, and remember how that ended? No More Mutants. And the Avengers work for the US government, who never tried to create an army of giant robots with the sole purpose of destroying mutants. Oh, wait, yes they did. I don't know if I'd trust them either.

Now, yes, I can't argue that by the last issue of Avengers Vs. X-Men, the Phoenix force hasn't started to corrupt Cyclops. But before that, what had he done? He saved the world. There's a sort of conceit that is accepted as part of superhero comics, that when you have characters with such powers, they can't just fix things, because then there's not much of a story. You'd have a Marvel universe with everyone wearing unstable molecule clothes and driving around in repulsor cars. But when a character is presented with these kind of powers, and does something good with them, like feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and the like, there's nothing inherently evil there. The only dictum Cyclops seemed to lay down to the UN and the world was, "Don't build any more weapons." Frankly, does anyone think the world would be a worse place if everyone had to lay down their guns? His decision to send the X-Men after the Avengers, not to kill them, but to take them off the board until things were right with the world, is harsh, and does have the same problems that Cap showing up ready to fight does. But they continued to come in and try to take Hope. Eventually, she did want to go, and he wouldn't let her, and that is the slippery slope of Phoenix-powered crazy that has been part of the last third of Avengers Vs. X-Men, but you could easily argue he was provoked by the Avengers continually not wanting to talk and just coming in guns blazing over and over.

I've spent most of this piece defending Cyclops against things I've read that say what a lousy character he is, or what a villain he is, but I haven't said what I really like about him. I think that a character who is dependable, who is capable and competent, is something to be looked well on. I think, despite the whole mess with Madelyne Pryor, Cyclops does love his family, no matter how time tossed or alternate universe related they might be. I think he's tough, and a good leader. Also, for all the mistakes he made pre-Utopia, he owned up to them and tried to make amends. These are all traits that make a good man, and an interesting character to read about.

As I close this out, I want to give a quick rundown of some of my favorite Cyclops stories, ones that might makes some naysayers look at him twice.

The Dark Phoenix Saga- This is one everyone has read, but look at the Cyclops aspect of the story. This is a guy who is willing to do anything to save the woman he loves.

Endgame- This was the original X-Factor's final battle with Apocalypse. In it, Scott leads the team to defeat their deadliest foe, and to save his son, Nathan, who has been kidnapped by the villain. In the end, although the good guys beat Apocalypse, they don't win. Scott is presented with a choice: send his son to the far future to save him from the techno-organic virus that he has been infected with, or keep him here and see him probably die. The choice is heartbreaking, and powerful one for Scott. Sadly, this has never been collected

The Wedding of Cyclops and Phoenix- This is just a great story, where you get to see Scott interact with his fellow X-Men, especially the other originals and Professor X, see him and Jean happy, and get one of those great superhero wedding stories. Marvel is going to be releasing a trade pretty soon of all the stories leading up to the issue and the wedding itself, and it's worth picking up.
Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix/Further Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix- Two time travel stories, the first features Cyclops and Jean Grey in the distant future, raising a young Cable, the son Cyclops sent into the future. Again, this is a good family story, of Scott raising his son, and living for 14 years as a family in the future. The second story has Scott and Jean displaced to the past and witnessing the birth of Mister Sinister, the villain who has dogged his life since he was a young child. Cyclops actively chooses to try to redeem the nascent Sinister, to save Nathaniel Essex from becoming the monster he would, instead of just killing him. Trades for this story are out of print, but you can still find them, or the back issues at shops or cons.

Unstoppable- The final arc of Joss Whedon's run on Astonishing X-Men, this is the story that completes the evolution started in Grant Morrison's run (a good Cyclops run, but not one with any stand out issue. Still, you should read it). Cyclops, finally, if briefly, in control of his powers, leads the team to an alien world, and six X-Men, one agent of SWORD, and a few rebels, pretty much defeat the whole culture. While Colossus and Kitty get a good spotlight in here as well, I love Scott's leadership, and the interplay between him and current love interest Emma Frost. This is collected in it's own trade, plus in the Whedon omnibus.