Comics Roundup for 1/27/10

Big, expensive week. Here goes:

New Avengers #61 - A few issues back, I complained that the issue didn't really live up to the cover, as it indicated that there'd be some Spider-Man interaction with Spider-Woman. I suppose that cover belonged on this issue, as we finally get some here, and it certainly was amusing. It's been a long time coming, and it really shows that the only thing these two have in common is the "Spider" part of their names. Oh, and Steve Rogers is back! But he's not dressing as Captain America? What the heck? Oh well, it was a fun issue, even if a whole lot didn't actually happen.

Green Lantern #50 - I'm thinking that the Blackest Night is going to be the final phase of Hal Jordan's redemption. What does he go and do in this issue? He willingly fuses with Parallax (the creature that turned him evil years and years ago) in order to stop a Black Lantern Specter. Of course, everybody thinks he's crazy for doing it, but a good Green Lantern shows no fear - not even of the living embodiment of fear. It should be interesting to see what happens next.

Blackest Night: The Flash #2 (of 3) - I suppose I'd be more into this if I was more familiar with The Flash and his rogues gallery, but this was still an amusing little issue. Only one more issue? I'm down. Plus, we get to see a bit more of Blue Lantern Flash, and I hope that we learn a bit more about exactly what that means next issue.

Superman: Secret Origin #4 (of 6) - This series is enjoyable, but I'm starting to feel more and more that it's not really all that necessary. I liked it when we got all the Legion of Superheroes stuff in the first couple of issues, but right now it's just a story that I've seen several times already. I'll stick around until the end, as this creative team has a way of surprising me and has earned the benefit of the doubt. Let's hope they don't disappoint.

Astro City: The Dark Age - Book Four #1 (of 4) - I flipped through it, and it looks good, but I'm going to go ahead and sit down and read this entire 16-part Dark Age story once all the issues are out. There's just too much going on from month to month for me to remember.

Thor #606 - Awesome issue, even if it is Billy Tan on art. (Is it me, or does he always start out pretty good and then it just goes south after that?) This issue finally explains how Valhalla winds up just over American soil - which is what the situation was in the first issue of Siege. Not only that, but there was a great interaction between Loki and Doctor Doom, where both of them thought they were manipulating the other, and honestly I'm not sure which one has the upperhand? Normally I'd say bet on the god, but we are talking about Doctor Doom here.

Daredevil #504 - Another solid issue, and we see Daredevil really taking things to even greater extremes by the end of this installment. I really like how Andy Diggle is really running with the story that was handed to him, and he doesn't seem to be in any huge hurry to wrap it up. Hopefully he won't make the opposite mistake of having it go on for too long, but the stakes keep getting ramped up every issue, so I don't see any signs of that.

Kick-Ass #8 - Yeah, they're making a movie out of this. I've seen the preview. I'm not sure how well this thing's going to translate. It's definitely a fun series, and this installment was a good one - but a movie? I don't know. From what I can tell though, they're sticking pretty close to the story, but having an 11 year old girl hack a bunch of mobsters to bits in a comic is one thing, in a movie, that might be a bit too hard for people to handle.

The Amazing Spider-Man #619 - We get some pretty cool Mysterio action in this one, as the fishbowl-headed villain manages to really get under Spidey's skin by convincing him that he killed a guy. Of course, just like any villain, he takes things too far and Spider-Man has him figured out by the end. Oh, and Marcos Martin is still doing the art. Awesome!

Captain America: Reborn #6 (of 6) - Hey! Steven Rogers is back! Not that it's a surprise, but considering that this issue came out after some of the post-"Reborn" stories have come out, it's really, really a non-surprise. But who cares? Steve Rogers is back! And it's good to have him back.

Spider-Man: Clone Saga #5 (of 6) - I mentioned last issue that this series was actually getting pretty interesting, and it's not really obvious just where it's going. That holds true with this one, and I'm curious as to how they're going to wrap all this up next issue. Not only that, but I have to wonder how much of this really was the original plan for this story?

Batman and Robin #7 - Grant Morrison is always intriguing, but sometimes he's also confusing. This issue made me feel like I jumped right into the middle of the story. Also, I still don't get how Batwoman just appeared out of nowhere. Still, this storyline is going to explain what the deal is with the body of Bruce Wayne. I'll stick around.

Echo #19 - This is another one of those series where I really don't have much to say, yet I wouldn't dream of not picking up the next issue. Once again, things move along, Terry Moore's art is as expressive as ever, and I'm wondering what's going to happen next. What else would you want from a comic?

So when are YOU going to have a baby?

One thing that really irritated me before my wife and I got married is when people would keep asking us when we were going to get married. I guess it was one thing when family members did it, but I'd hear it from a lot of people whom I barely even knew. I never think to ask the couples I know when they're going to get married. A coworker and friend of mine just got married, and while I'm certainly happy for him, I don't feel as though I really had anything invested in whether he married or not. Maybe when I know a couple pretty well, I might ask them out of sheer curiosity if they're going to get married, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Do you guys think you'll get married?" and not "When are you going to get married?"

Of course, the only thing worse than this is when people won't leave you the hell alone when it comes to when you're going to have a baby, and this tends to happen almost instantly after you get married. I was hearing it from all sides, and I really have to give my in-laws credit on this one. I know that they were ready to be grandparents the day after Kirsti and I married, but they never got on our case about having a baby. They deserve to be commended, as you could actually make the argument that they do have something at stake here. After all, my father-in-law was already looking into getting season passes to the zoo until we told him that maybe he might want to hold off for a couple of years. (Infants, I imagine, get the same thrill from the zoo as they would the backyard.)

Where I did hear it though was from a lot of people who really should have minded their own damned business. One of them was my sister's ex-husband's mother's brother. (Okay, it wasn't really that - but the actual relation to me was just as tenuous.) It was almost like some kind of weird peer-pressure thing, where it was like their best argument was, "Come on, you should have a baby." And that really isn't really an argument at all. I mean, do these people really think that the type of person who'd have a child simply to stop being nagged is the kind of person who SHOULD be having a child? Also, what is it with this issue anyway? Is the human race dying off or something? I never realized that the future of humanity rested on my shoulders, because some people pretty much acted like it did.

The thing is, I know some people who have decided that they don't want to have kids. Some of them are my age, so they still get grief from people who tell them that they ought to have them. I really don't understand that. I want my friends to be happy and do what's right for them. If they want to have children, then they should, but if they don't, then they really, really shouldn't. What better reason to not have kids than the simple fact that you don't want to have kids?

Of course, all of the above is how I used to think. Now that my wife and I are expecting, I'm asking every couple I know when they're going to have a baby. 'Cause if you think about it, they totally should.

Baby thoughts

I haven't blogged in a while, and the main reason for that is that the one thing that's been taking up a lot of space in my mind was something that I wasn't ready to announce just yet. I can now finally say what that thing is, and I can finally start writing some of my thoughts. In short: I am going to be a father.

As is my wont, my head is spinning on all sorts of things about this. Don't get me wrong - the primary emotion that I'm feeling over this news is happiness. Still, I'm anticipating many annoying, clueless, and even downright stupid remarks from people. While this will be my first child, I know enough about how this stuff works that I can expect people to give me all sorts of advice, and no doubt I will be doing some things that will make them think that I'm raising a potential serial killer and/or spontaneous combustion.

I also want to clear something up. As many people know, my wife and I were hoping to adopt a child. That process wound up taking much longer than we ever suspected. Finally, we decided to just go ahead and try to have one for ourselves, and maybe down the line if we want another kid we can adopt one.

Basically, my wife and I anticipated, and sure enough we're getting them, comments about how "everything happens for a reason". Now, anybody who knows me knows that phrase makes me go into a murderous rage as it is, but this really shows that they don't quite understand what happened. We had a baby of our own because the adoption process wasn't working out for us. It's not the other way around. We did not seek to adopt because we couldn't have one of our own - we genuinely wanted to adopt a child. In other words, adoption was our first choice.

Speaking of things that bug me, I told my wife that I was going to punch the first person who told me our child's astrological sign. Well, somebody already went and did that, but that person is a sweetie, so I don't want to say anything bad about her. And to be fair, she said it because she was the same sign, and it wasn't followed up by a description of what this sign was and how we should properly prepare. It was just kind of a "Oh, it'll be a __________." type of comment that wasn't meant to mean anything important. Still, I did punch her in the face - not very hard though. I'm a man of my word.

What will drive me crazy is when people start to talk about it as though it's something that I'm going to give any consideration to at all. (Notice that I refuse to identify which one it is? You'll never hear the word escape from my mouth.) Recently somebody asked my wife and I what signs we both were - as if it mattered to us. I just don't know what to do about people sometimes.

Anyway, I realize that this is just an expression, but it's an expression that needs to go away. I'm talking about when people refer to a baby as a "miracle". No, it's not a miracle. We know where babies come from. It's a natural process. Is it still amazing? Sure. I also think that when a dog has babies it's amazing, but this is quite a bit moreso only because it's MY baby (and my wife's - she seems to have some sort of role to play in this whole thing). It really hit me hard (in a good way) when I saw him/her moving around like a Mexican jumping bean when we saw the ultrasound. It's fantastic, it's wonderful, it's sublime, but it's not a miracle. A miracle would be if the baby just popped out of nowhere. At the very least, it would be a miracle if it didn't make my poor wife feel bloated and sick to her stomach.

It's a natural process, like I said. This isn't to say that it's somehow not great and beautiful, but to me a miracle would be the type of thing where you just don't know how the heck it could have happened. We know how this happened. (Or maybe that's the problem - some folks don't know!)

Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm sure that I will post more thoughts about this as the next few months fly by.

Comics Roundup for 1/20/10

I skipped going last week, as there were only two books out that I wanted. Here are those two books plus this week's haul:

Captain America #602 - I'm not entirely thrilled that there's a lame "Nomad" backup that brings the price of this book up a whole dollar, but considering that the main story is as good as it is, I don't mind too much. I'm guessing that while the Steve Rogers Captain America is going to play a bigger part in Siege, the Bucky-Cap is going to play a bigger part in the regular series. I'm fine with that, as the character has really grown on me. Also, I like that we're finally catching up on the third Captain America, the one from the 1950s who's a bit on the crazy side. Plus, it's nice to see Brubaker using some current events in this, and we even get a "Tea Party" rally with somebody holding the "no government in my Medicare" sign. (The villains are taking advantage of the discontent in the country.) This whole saga continues to be amongst my current and maybe even all-time favorites.

Batman: Streets of Gotham #8 - Another guest writer? It's a decent issue, and it's nice to see that Dustin Nguyen is still on board for the art, giving it a consistent look. Still, I was really into Paul Dini's current storyline. It looks like this will be a two-parter, so it'll be a little while until we get back to that. Oh well, not a big deal. Like I said, it's a decent story, plus I'm getting into the "Manhunter" backup storyline, so I wouldn't want to miss that.

Batman #695 - I was hesitant to get this one, as the last issue was a bit of a mess. This one was much stronger, and I need to sit down and read all of Tony Daniel's issues in one sitting. One thing is for sure, this is definitely some of his best artwork that he's done for this series. Why couldn't it have been this good when he was drawing Grant Morrison's scripts?

The Amazing Spider-Man #617 & #618 - They continue to bring back the old villains, with The Rhino making his appearance in 617 and Mysterio popping up in 618. The art in the Rhino issue was decent, but the Mysterio story, which will run for three parts, I believe, is being drawn by Marcos Martin, easily one of my favorite artists right now. His Spider-Man is a great blend of Ditko and Romita. Plus, his Mysterio captures the goofy awesomeness that is that character. I'm glad they didn't try to update his costume like they've done so many times in the past. Anyway, it's only somewhat clear how all this stuff ties together, but supposedly this series is building towards something pretty big. I'm sure I'll be there for the ride.

Spider-Woman #5 - Yup, still getting this one. I think that if it weren't for Alex Maleev's art, I wouldn't bother. I'll definitely say that the story picked up a bit in this issue though, and the last panel ends on a nice cliffhanger. This series seems to be a "one damned thing after another" situation with old Jessica Drew. That can be good, but it's difficult to keep up the momentum.

Dark Avengers #13 - I've never been that keen on The Sentry. I don't know why, he's a decent enough of a character, and his personality problems make him more than what he seems to be on the outside, which is simply a Superman clone. This issue shows that he might be even more messed up than we thought. I guess I'm a bit more interested. Also, Marvel recently announced that this series, along with all of the Avengers-related comics, will be canceled at the end of the whole Siege storyline. That sounds like the right decision to me, as this series especially won't make a whole lot of sense after that story goes down. I'm just pretty curious as to what they're going to do to replace them. Hmmm...

More Spidey Reboot Thoughts

It looks like the reboot is pretty official, and things are moving along pretty rapidly. Honestly, I'm becoming more and more optimistic about this all the time. For starters, they got the guy who directed 500 Days of Summer to do this one. Also, they're going to focus on a teenage Peter Parker. As I've mentioned before, this might sound to some like a move to attract the Twilight audience - and it very well may be - but it does have its precedent in the comics. Peter Parker was in high school for the first dozen or so issues of the original series. Also, I've read that the new series of films will be inspired more by the Ultimate Spider-Man line of comics, which has kept Peter in high school throughout its 100+ issues. I happen to love Ultimate Spider-Man, so that's just fine with me.

What's also interesting is that they're going to go somewhat low-budget for this new movie. That doesn't necessarily mean that it'll be good or bad, but usually a smaller budget means that the creators have more control. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the screenwriter is James Vanderbilt, who wrote the screenplay for Zodiac. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing, as it's a very different sort of a movie, but it certainly isn't a bad thing. As I've stated before, one of the main reasons why the third Spidey film went wrong is due to studio interference, as Sam Raimi wasn't even interested in using Venom in it.

I guess the only bit of news that has me somewhat concerned is that they're supposedly going for a "darker" tone. I don't even remember where I read that, but let me just say that "darker" is definitely not where you want to go for Spider-Man. Unless it means no more "Staying Alive" types of scenes like we saw in the third one, then "dark" is not a word to describe Spider-Man's adventures.

Tony Hicks from the Contra Costa Times recently wrote about his thoughts on the reboot. While I vehemently disagree with him about Spider-Man 2, I thought that he had some interesting points. He, for one, did not like Tobey McGuire as Spider-Man. I've been a Toby defender since day one, and I think that he perfectly captured Peter Parker. I was suspecting Hicks' comments to be along the lines of others that I've heard, where they show that they simply don't get the character. However, Hicks' problem was that McGuire didn't capture the Spider-Man part just right.

This got me to thinking - he's right. While I still think that McGuire was a good choice, people who only know Spider-Man from the movies aren't as familiar with the wise-cracking hero that the comics fans know. Sure, you'd hear Spidey crack a joke or two here and there, but in the comics, he's a motormouth - he even annoys some of his fellow members of The Avengers with the simple fact that he doesn't seem to ever shut up. Of course, all Spidey fans know that he does this to distract his opponents, as his lame jokes tend to get them all frustrated and sloppy. I think that this will be a tough thing to get right. If it's done in the wrong way, it'll be downright campy and silly. If it's done right, it'll be awesome.

What's the last bit of news I read? They're going for unknowns for the actors. Hmmm...maybe this will have us Spidey fans going "Tobey who?" We'll see.

Oh, and I was going to (and might still) write about my thoughts on the upcoming Green Lantern movie. It looks like they're going to do a lot of the things that I'd hope they'd do.

Any jackass can preach.

In order to become a public high school English teacher, the first thing I needed to do was get a high school diploma. From there, I needed a bachelor's degree, and I needed to pass the CBEST. In order to keep working full-time, I had to complete a credential program, and I had to pass two content-specific tests - the SSAT and the Praxis. Beyond that, my performance was reviewed for two years before I received tenure. While there certainly are some dim bulbs and/or trainwrecks who manage to get through the system, my point in explaining all this is that I did have to go through a bit of work and study before I could have my job.

As an English teacher, I'm expected to know my subject matter. Generally speaking, I have a better vocabulary and command of grammar than the average person does. Not only that, but I have a pretty good grasp on writing and how to tell when it's done well and when it isn't. Beyond that, I have a fairly decent sense as to how I can pass on this information to others. In other words, in matters of language and literature, a lot of people feel confident in seeking my advice. What I don't get, thankfully, is people expecting me to know things about any and every topic in the world. People don't assume that I know how to fix their car, explain quantum physics, or perform open-heart surgery.

I suppose that if I wanted a job that didn't require qualifications, and I wanted people to take me as an authority on all sorts of things that I knew nothing about, I'd go ahead and be a preacher. Now look, I know that a lot of preachers are well-read, learned people. Many of them have to go to seminary and study the Bible in-depth (without considering the possibility that it's nothing more than a book of mythology though). Still, what's to stop me from preaching on a corner and starting up my own congregation? If I was a good enough of a demagogue, would it matter to my followers as to whether I had actually gone through a tremendous amount of studying?

I think of this because I recently found out that one of the biggest idiots I've ever known in my entire life has become a preacher. Let's just call him Ennis, okay? While I knew him beforehand, I had the unfortunate luck to have him as a student in summer school one year. He was the type who had to go to summer school because he essentially failed out of every one of his classes. One of his biggest problems involved waking up and getting to school on time. Another one involved him shutting his stupid mouth up long enough to learn anything.

The thing is, he wasn't a completely inept person. He was pulling off a B in my class. Now, in summer school, that's not really saying much. Still, you'll get a knuckle-dragger or two who can't even really pull that off. What was really stupid though was that when there was only about a week and a half left of a six week term, he dropped the class. He claimed that he dropped because he didn't see the point in finishing since he wasn't getting an A. To be fair, his dad made some kind of a deal with him where he had to get an A in order to something or other. Still, getting some more units in order to graduate wasn't incentive enough, I guess.

Okay, dumb is one thing, but he was also a compulsive liar. He was a BS artist of the highest order. He'd often talk about how he was going to go to UC Berkeley and become a scientist. When I was puzzled as to how he was going to pull that off, he claimed that his high school transcripts wouldn't matter because he was going to get "all A's" in junior college and then transfer. In my head, I thought to myself that I'd be impressed if he even finished a class at the junior college. (Guess what? He didn't.) He also spoke of becoming a cop, a lawyer, and a cabinet maker. He even got a job selling cars, but that didn't last for very long.

He worked for a grocery store for a while, and I know that he almost got fired from there for chronic lateness. He quit before that could happen, and a few jobs later he worked construction. Basically the only job he could be trusted with was digging ditches, and he couldn't even do that very well. Not only that, but he eventually got fired because he could never show up on time - even after repeated warnings.

My point is, the guy is a compulsive liar and an idiot, and now he's preaching. In a way, I thought to myself that it's the perfect job for him. After all, even though I never fell for his crock-and-bull stories, I know that there were plenty of people who did. The guy does have a talent for convincing the morons of this world. I can easily see him standing in front of a crowd of people and talking all sorts of crap about what the Bible supposedly says and doesn't say, and they'll all fall for the whole thing.

Of course, they'll probably also turn to him about all sorts of other things. I can't help but think of that clown shoe, Rick Warren, when he was on Larry King and was talking about everything from homosexuality to the theory of evolution as though he had any idea what he was talking about. Was it that Warren had studied psychology and biology? Of course not. He's a preacher though, so his followers will just take him at his word because after all, a "man of God" knows what he's talking about, right?

I realize that not every preacher is a jackass, but any jackass can become a preacher.

Catholicism quandary

I'm going to write about a few people I know here, and I know that they read my blog. I don't want to sound self-righteous or as though I'm saying that they did the wrong thing. So, I'm going to start with my conclusion. It is, as follows:

I'm glad that I was never put in their position because it would be too hard for me to figure out what the right thing to do was, and I'd feel conflicted about my decision no matter which one I went with.

With that said, let me get to what I'm even talking about.

I was lucky when I married my wife that she is not a religious person. She refers to herself as agnostic, although she leans a bit more atheist sometimes, but at the time she leaned more toward being a believer in some sort of higher power. The point is, we didn't have any problem deciding that we wanted a decidedly non-religious marriage ceremony. We had a guy from the Unitarian church marry us, and after talking to the guy, I'd probably best describe him as being somewhat of a deist. I could live with that, and even though he mentioned something about "the blessings of the Holy One" at the end of the ceremony, I didn't have a problem with it. There were no Bible verses or references to Da Jeebus. "The Holy One" is so vague that it could mean anything, so there was no problem.

So I was lucky. I had a friend who got married in a Catholic Church because his wife was a Catholic. I know somebody else who got their baby baptized in the Catholic Church because the grandparents wanted it. One other friend became a godfather to his nephew. (I should point out that none of these people are religious at all.) I sometimes put myself in their shoes, and depending on which way the wind is blowing, I have one of two reactions:

1. I do not compromise. I view the Catholic Church as a largely evil institution. No, I don't view all Catholics as being mostly evil, but the institution itself is evil. This could be a blog post in itself, but do I have to go any further than mention not only all the child molestations but the subsequent coverups? Imagine if the same thing happened in the public school system! Anyway, in this scenario I say to my would-be wife: "I cannot take part in anything that goes so firmly against my principles. I will have nothing to do with that institution, and for you to ask me to do it is for you to have absolutely no respect for me."

2. I compromise. While I may have a problem with the institution itself, I don't have a problem with traditions and rituals (so long as they're not something harmful like snake-handling). My wife and her family are not engaged in any of the evil aspects of the Catholic Church. For them it's about tradition. Also, the very nature of marriage involves compromise, and so long as nobody's asking me to believe certain things, I can go along with it. Besides, do I want to throw away my entire relationship based on just this one issue?

In all honesty, the first scenario plays out far more often in my head. Lucky for me, I never had to deal with this scenario. If I did, I'd have to play the non-compromise angle out to its inevitable, and potentially disastrous conclusion. Still, if I went ahead and compromised, I'm sure that would stick in the back of my brain for the rest of my life, and I'd always feel some degree of resentment.

What's the right choice? I don't know. Again, I'll give my conclusion: I'm glad that I never had to actually make this choice. It would have been a real Scylla and Charybdis moment for me.

Oh, and if you'd like to hear some good arguments as to why the Catholic Church is evil, check out this debate. It's a bit long, but it's definitely worth it:

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5: