RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Jeph Loeb : Brown

quote:

---

Originally posted by KMT:
The "Superman vs. Count Dracula"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sacman:
Three of my favorite stories from him are Y2K, President Lex, and Emperor Joker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EMPEROR KAMPHAUSEN:
all too often, writers make batman's driven nature into that of a computer -- where he's this relentless cyborg that knows everything, does everything, acheives everything, etc. most importantly, feels nothing.

im notta fan of that.

I hear you. I hate the "perfect" Batman, as well.

i always compare the ending to "the killing joke" to the ending of "the long halloween." without going into an advanced discertation on the two, in the former, batman is incredibly able to shrug off his enemy's past, even the events of the very book. in the latter, batman is so frustrated and wrought with guilt and pain, that he (humanly) furiously reacts to the villain, in an enraged attack.

i much preferred the latter.

Okay, I haven't read LONG HALLOWEEN, but, don't you think you're missing the point of KILLING JOKE? The entire issue was about Bruce, very humanely coming to the conclusion and ultimate knowledge that, in the end, either he or the Joker is going to die at the other's hands. The crippling of Barbara was a devastating event. Not just 'Joker killed somebody'. But, he hit Batman...very deeply, and very close to home. Jason Todd was the build-up, but, Barbara was the home run. Before that, there was at least a glimmer of possible rehabilitation for the Joker. But, that issue, as it very plainly stated, was his final chance to avoid their ultimate collision.

And, the laugh at the end...Batman chuckling along with the Joker. That was the most chilling and bizarre scene I've ever read with the Bat. Because, it was obvious that, it wasn't the joke that he told that made each of them laugh, but, the "killing joke" that they are equally crazy in their own way, and this was a final human moment, before the "bloodbath", between these two age-old enemies.

THAT is what I found to be the most human of all Batman stories.

i like the fact that batman kicks ass, and is uber intelligent, and knows 600 languages and is always cool and confident. but mixing that up on occasion with a little bit of easily-understandable and perfectly relatable emotion is a wonderful addition.

So, if Batman would just open a bit of that psycho-whupp-ass-can more often, that would make you happy? Because, if so, I agree. I tend to get bored with the Bat when he just cooly "ubers" every story and scene. Seeing him with a bit of that Keaton-esque smirk, or cocky sneer, would make ME happy.

Just don't make him into Wolverine.

one mirrored in the recent HUSH storyline, with the wonderful joker appearance.

But, much like "No Man's Land", fell into the constant implausible factor of the Bat-Mythos.

The Joker lived.

After Todd, he should've been beaten to within an inch of his life. After Barbara, he should have been crippled. But, after killing Gordon's wife, and unborn child, he should have gotten that bullet right between the eyes.

The Joker has outlived his usefulness, aside from his ability to sell lunch boxes. He is a continually implausible constant in Batman's more than logical and rational crusade. The Joker can NOT be rehabilitated now. He's beyond that. He's done too much. Killed too many. He is simply lost.

And either Gordon, or the Bat himself, should put him down. Make way for a new archnemesis. Push Batman further into the 21st Century. And, hell, if he can't stay dead, turn around and bring him back in ten years.

i've not seen anyone do better than loeb when it comes to elevating the "human" qualities of batman.

I like some of his Batman traits (hooking up with Catwoman is one of them! ). Others I find too human. That's just me.

similarly, his superman constantly made strides to emphasize that for all the power and might and ability superman has, breathes, and exudes... he's still got the heart of a young farm boy, adopted and raised by the lovingest (!) of families.

Okay, I'm disagreeing completely here. Loeb brought nothing...and I mean NOTHING....original to Superman. All he did was go to the dollar bins, buy a couple hundred issues of the Pre-Crisis/Silver Age Superman stories, and regurgitate them one after another. And he's still doing it in SMALLVILLE. And in SUPERMAN/BATMAN.

i find it infinitely more interesting that the boldest, bravest, most invincible hero on the planet has such a simple (not in a bad way), emotional core. despite saving cities and rain forrests and alien races and blowing up death stars, etc... he's still concerned about his folks, his wife, his friends, etc. stuff phases him because of his upbringing. he exerts an intensified human quality because thats all he wants and strives to be.

i like that.

But, beating me over the head constantly with it becomes tired and predictable.

I don't like that.

But, this is all just my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prometheus:
...don't you think you're missing the point of KILLING JOKE? The entire issue was about ... (yadda, yadda)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prometheus:
So, if Batman would just open a bit of that psycho-whupp-ass-can more often, that would make you happy? Because, if so, I agree. I tend to get bored with the Bat when he just cooly "ubers" every story and scene. Seeing him with a bit of that Keaton-esque smirk, or cocky sneer, would make ME happy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prometheus:
Okay, I'm disagreeing completely here. Loeb brought nothing...and I mean NOTHING....original to Superman. All he did was go to the dollar bins, buy a couple hundred issues of the Pre-Crisis/Silver Age Superman stories, and regurgitate them one after another. And he's still doing it in SMALLVILLE. And in SUPERMAN/BATMAN.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pig Iron:
His highlights are the Batman 64 page prestige books with Sale, For all seasons and probably the aqumaan issues in superman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
huh.

i just might be the only poster on this board that likes loeb's stuff!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
but i didn't like it from the perspective of looking for a batman story (not an allegory ... or some other big literary word that i have no right to use).

the point i'm arguing against TKJ and for TLH is that in TKJ, batman was like a plot device moore used to tell his story. un-feeling, un-human. in TLH, he was a human at his best and a human at his worst. he showed a love interest for selina, a kinship with gordon and dent, a child to alfred and, most importantly (to me), enraged toward the villain. utterly, bitterly, angrily frustrated to the point where he bordered between super hero and regular guy, taking out his blinding rage like any of us would, were we able.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
they've spent the past 2 decades making batman, the worlds most human super hero, into a non-human.

guys like loeb and dini are major steps towards getting some of the better, more interesting qualities back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
all too often, writers make batman's driven nature into that of a computer -- where he's this relentless cyborg that knows everything, does everything, acheives everything, etc. most importantly, feels nothing.

im notta fan of that.

---

quote:

---

I can tell you why it blew my mind.

Because Alan properly defined Batman and Joker as two sides of the same coin through the mutual understanding of how each became the way they are. Then he accentuated it with a bang by allowing Batman to experience Joker's world of letting go while Joker did exactly the opposite and let go of his madness to embrace Batman's darkness.

Batman reasons with Joker and makes him sane for a full two seconds to allow him to uncover the true horrors he had committed and Batman had joined Joker in a laugh that symbolised his belief that the Joker's words were truth and he fully understood his motivations.

Of course, just because they understand each other doesn't mean either approves of the other's methods.

---

quote:

---

The second embedded element that The Dark Knight illustrates (and Batman lore in general) is the idea of the duality of the postmodern mind. In Batman texts, the splitting of a character’s identity is not simply the idea of playing "dress-up" so that a singular entity can fight or perpetrate crime, but the actual manifestation of dual identities which are separate and sometimes autonomous. Most of the characters in Batman have multiple identities which all assume equal importance to his or her psyche, and, in most cases, this splitting has occurred due to the necessity of the mind to accept two mutually exclusive truths or existences. The external dichotomies cannot be changed, synthesized, or made into any sort of unified opposites, and so this deadlock of dialectic is internalized and creates a split psyche to deal with this problem.

Batman is the most obvious example of this splitting of identity. When his parents were killed, the small helpless boy dealt with the trauma by devoting half of his personality to continuing to exist in society and the other half to becoming the type of man who would, one day, no longer be helpless and scared. Bruce Wayne is a philanthropist playboy who moves with aplomb in the high-society social circles of Gotham while Batman is a vigilante whose only motivation is justice. The schism between the two is irreparable, no matter how many years go by, and while Bruce struggles to be normal, Batman struggles to find a way to erase the past through current actions. Although it may appear that the two identities are mere facets of a single entity, we find that this is not the case.

This sectioning off of identity is common (though often not as severe) in the mind of the postmodern. Because the postmodern mind doubts reality and perceives the world as fragmented and often meaningless, it attempts to combat these notions to allow some type of continued and meaningful existence. The idea of compartmentalization has long been a fact in the psychological realm, but the characters in the world of Batman (and our world as well) all show some form of compartmentalization, which leads to a dualistic perception of reality or, in many cases, the splitting of identity into two unique halves. Compartmentalization is generally defined as a defense mechanism of the mind that allows certain information or ideas to be shut off from the rest of the mind to allow an individual to function. For example, this is the way in which a person can have a tour of a meat packing factory and still be able to order a Big Mac for lunch an hour later. It is the disassociation of one fact from the other. Postmodern existence, with all its irreconcilable dichotomies, requires a person to compartmentalize in their day-to-day lives. Yet, compartmentalization of psyche is most profound in cases where an individual has suffered psychological trauma (has experienced abuse, war, etc.) and the mind has protected itself to allow the organism of the individual to function in day to day existence. In the most severe cases, it can lead to full-blown multiple personality disorders or memory blocking of traumatic events.

In The Dark Knight Returns, Bruce is fighting to stay in retirement because of a promise he made to a former Robin, but the pressure to take action against the social chaos is unbearable. He says of his Batman identity, "He tricks me . . . when the night is long and my will is weak. He struggles, relentlessly, hatefully, to be free" (4). And Bruce is addressed directly in the comic by his Batman persona, who says to him, "You are nothing—a hollow shell, a rusty trap that cannot hold me—smoldering, I burn you—burning you, I flare, hot and bright and beautiful—you cannot stop me—not with wine or vows or the weight of age—you cannot stop me but still you try—still you run" (16). We can see here just how far comics have come from being perceived as material for children to that for adults. Only an adult mind could truly appreciate those feelings of age and of the longing that is expressed here for the vigor of youth.

We can also see from this passage that Batman and Bruce Wayne are perceived as being separate by the very being within which they co-habitate. And this separation becomes more evident as each part exerts a negative force upon its psychic counterpart, driving them farther away while Bruce tries to deny his other identity. Bruce is never a whole and seamless man, but is complete with both of his unique identities firmly in place. When the aging Bruce once more dons the Batman suit, he says, ". . . I’m a man of thirty—of twenty again. The rain on my chest is baptism—I’m born again." We can see the rejuvenating power of the role of hero on the whole entity of the man in this passage, and we feel Bruce’s relief and rebirth as Batman is allowed to come forward. Because he is human (unlike such heroes as Superman and Wonderwoman) he has to face the downfalls related to aging, but his identity as a hero has an impact that helps to counteract his physical (as well as mental and metaphysical) aging. This struggling with aging and the attempt to regain the fire of youth resonates with us as a paradigmatic human event, and we are therefore even more acutely relieved when Bruce submits to his Batman identity and releases us empathetically from the bonds of age and decrepitude.

Batman is not the only crimefighter in his world with a secret identity.1 Throughout the years there have been a myriad of more secondary heroes who also carry the burden of duality. Yet it is not only the heroes who have a splintered identity. Not only are his crime-fighting contemporaries plagued by this duality, but the villains which populate Gotham are also struggling with it as well. It seems as though Kane was closer to the postmodern mindset than were his contemporaries when he created his rogue’s gallery in the forties.

These dark figures almost all represent the duality of the mind and exemplify the "most perverse possibilities lurking in the dark side of human nature"

---

quote:

---

ur first example is Harvey Dent (formerly Harvey Kent), a lawyer who was ravaged by a criminal’s acid attack and, in contrast to Bruce, turns toward his dark side. He was first introduced in Detective Comics #66, but didn’t find his way back permanently until the 80s.1 He became known as the criminal Two-Face because one side of his face is unmarred and handsome and the other is hideously disfigured. His mind follows this schism as well, and he regards himself as a pawn of arbitrary destiny. He uses a coin to decide the fate of himself and those around him to emphasize the fact that one choice of action, good or bad, is equal in his estimation. Two-Face was Kane’s exclusive brainchild, probably taken from Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1886 tale, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Daniels 45).

The Dark Knight Returns again allows us to experience the pain of Dent’s duality. He has gone through reconstructive surgery on his face and intense psychotherapy to cure his attendant madness. However, once he is released, he immediately begins a course which he knows will cause him to be caught by Batman. When Batman confronts him, we see that instead of the surgery making Dent a complete and sane whole, it has made his mind become the antithetical half; rather than his face being half maimed/half wholesome and his mind half maimed/half wholesome, the surgery makes his face completely wholesome and his mind completely maimed. Only in the duality maintained by his now "natural" state can Dent’s psyche remain in balance. Batman’s sympathies are evident in the text, and we are also able to see Batman’s own struggle reflected in that of Dent’s (see Illustration I). We can also see from this series of panels the dichotomy between Bruce’s human and animal selves. When he was only Bruce Wayne, his denial of his Batman half resulted in his subconscious becoming wholly animal. This struggle between human and primal elements is a paradigmatic struggle which has been seen in many cultures in many different time periods (especially, refer to the Geertz passage in the Introduction).

---

quote:

---

One of the final cultural aspects of interest in The Dark Knight Returns is the idea of good and evil needing each other for their existence. This comic wrestles with the idea that the very existence of superheroes necessitates (even creates) arch-villains. Many of the commentators and journalists who are shown in this comic feel that if Batman had remained MIA that most of the arch criminals would have stayed away as well. However, it is important to notice that Gotham was riddled with crime even without the larger than life heroes and villains. And it seemed as though there was no such thing as altruism on the part of the common individual. From psychological studies, we know that there is indeed a perceived lack of altruism and empathy in society at large. However, it has also been shown that if a person is able to view another human with empathy, that altruism increases. We can see in The Dark Knight that Batman’s empathy for others causes him to act in a way which betters his society. We also see that his empathy for the villains (his reaction and empathy with Harvey Dent and in the next comic we will look at, the Joker) causes him to attempt to make decisions which are in their best interests while still upholding the law in most cases. The desire for altruism in society is communicated clearly through this comic, and we may therefore conclude that there is a perceived lack of altruism in the extant culture of the author. But we can also see in the text that the author does not believe that evil can be extinguished if there is no good. Therefore, good must fight to maintain a balance where they will never really be rid of evil because they require it in order to be able to perform altruistic actions. And it seems an excepted fact that there cannot be a situation in which only goodness exists. This is what a postmodern mind might consider an impossibility (either because of the pervasive cynical or "realistic" view of the world). But both good and evil seem to be ever-reoccuring forces. The ideas of the birth and death and rebirth (either metaphorical or actual) of both good and evil are very strong here. Perhaps because of the ability of the hero (and thus the reader empathetically) to understand the nature of the villain, we see that the lines between good and evil often blur, but need to be reasserted in order to maintain a balance.

---

quote:

---

Many of these cultural threads are also included in the other comic selection we will be looking at in this chapter. In The Killing Joke, we are given a glimpse of the Joker’s origin from Jack, the out-of-work comedian with a pregnant wife to support, to the hideous grinning arch-villain, Joker. Jack has begun a life of crime to support his wife, but when she dies by electrocution while testing a bottle warmer, the senseless nature of her death leaves him disconsolate. However, his criminal associates will not let him back out of a heist they have planned. Unfortunately for Jack, Batman shows up during the job and knocks him into a vat of chemicals. He is disfigured and all of these things together make him go insane. But it is an interesting sort of insanity that the Joker maintains. He is fully aware of the alternative of sanity and how the "real world" functions, but chooses instead to adopt an identity which is mad in order to deal with/function within that reality. The Joker contends that the only difference between him and the "normal" members of society is one bad day.

In order to prove this, Joker captures Commissioner Gordon and his daughter Barbara (after shooting her in the back and taking pictures of her nude body as she bleeds to death). He has taken the commissioner to an abandoned amusement park in order to put Jim Gordon in a situation which is comparable to his own in order to drive the commissioner mad (thus proving his point). As Jim is exhibited, naked, to the circus freaks with whom the Joker has surrounded himself, the Joker explains his predicament (see Illustration E). The Joker then attempts to show Commisioner Gordon (and instruct us as well) that madness is the "emergency exit" through which people can avoid all the black and senseless things which happen. He urges the audience to understand the reality of the situation, sighting examples such as how close we have come to World War III because of a flock of geese on a radar screen, or the fact that the trigger to the last World War was the argument over how many telegraph poles Germany owed its war creditors (see Illustration F).

The Joker feels that madness is the only way one can rationally deal with this reality. He is unable to compartmentalize this information in his psyche to allow him to go on functioning, and it has driven him mad. As Batman arrives on the scene, he reiterates his final point—that everyone is merely one bad day away from becoming him. He says, "I’ve demonstrated there’s no difference between me and everyone else. All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day" (38). And he points out (guessing correctly) the fact that this is probably what has happened to Batman, even though he is fighting for the opposite side. In a final attempt to get Batman to understand, he says, "you have to keep pretending that life makes sense, that there’s some point to all this struggling. It’s all a joke. Everything anybody ever valued or struggled for . . . it’s all a monstrous, demented gag! So why can’t you see the funny side?" To which Batman replies, "Because I’ve heard it before . . . and it wasn’t funny the first time." Batman does not disagree here, which tells us that he may be feeling more empathy for the Joker’s position than is specifically stated, yet he fails to see the humor that is implicit (in a mad sort of way) in the meaninglessness of life. He hangs on to the meaning that has been given to him by law and by some sense that he is taking positive action for mankind.

Jim Gordon hangs on to this thread as well and does not let the incident drive him crazy: in fact, he tells Batman to bring Joker in "by the book." Gordon can be said to symbolize law in this case, and his attempt to remain whole under pressure is commendable. The monstrous experiment has failed to push him over the edge; his one bad day has not made him turn his back on the only shred of stability in his life: the law. No one in the script, especially Batman, denies the claims that the Joker has made as to the terrible nature of existence, but both Batman and Gordon rely on the belief system that gives them some meaning, some hope, that things will eventually become better. They are able to support the duality necessary to continue to remain sane in a sometimes meaningless and mad world.

At the end of the comic, Batman has beaten the Joker and is ready to take him back to Arkham Asylum. He asks the Joker to let him help them both by trying to fix their individual problems together. He wants to try to avoid what seems to be the inevitable necessity of them killing one another. The Joker says that it is too late for him (and thus for Batman as well) and illustrates his reasoning by telling a joke about two crazy men who are attempting to break out of an insane asylum (see Illustration G). Batman finds that he cannot keep himself from laughing at the punchline, and this allows us to see just how close Batman is psychologically to the Joker—how similar they are1. We see that it is only a matter of will and choice that Batman is not the Joker. This duality is perfectly representative of the postmodern mind, where both aspects of the psyche constantly struggle for dominion. Yet neither can be triumphant and still allow the psyche to remain balanced. The use of humor in this case is not only ironic, but it acts as a safety valve for us as readers so that we can deal with a situation that we cannot deny is horrible.

---

quote:

---

When we become Batman, we are no longer afraid of the darkness in our world. We have fulfilled a desire for safety and have given purpose to a sometimes meaningless world. Batman becomes our ego ideal and urges us to choose to be a positive force for good in our apathetic world. And in allowing him to be the hero we emulate, we are able to come to accept (though not resolve) our own conflicted natures.

---

I have NEVER gotten this kind of depth and intricacy from Superman or any other hero for that matter (except for the question, but he never got a chance to evolve). All I got was miles of sermons from someone who isn't a preacher and long-ass runs of inconsistent power levels. Superman and his villains will never give this level of intrigue to me or ANYBODY I suspect.

If anything, Superman IMO is the one note character. I'm thoroughly sick of seeing heroes stand up in comics and deliberately/idiotically make themselves a target merely because it is the right thing to do/the American way (even if they're not American). Superman is the embodiment of all this tripe and stupidity. I'm not saying he should get a changeover though, I understand the need for his existence. Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

.....ONE NOTE MY ASS!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Animalman:
Moore wrote the two best Superman stories ever("Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" and "For the Man who has Everything..."), so I think he got him right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AX Knight:
In your opinion Moore may have written the best Supes story. That isn't my opinion though. My opinion is that For All Seasons by Loeb is the best Supes story and it is my favorite all time comics story. And my opinion is the one I always consider right before I take the word of random net people.

SMS

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
Neither am I (however, where you enjoyed Miller's Batman work, I didn't, so we'll have to agree to disagree there).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
Over and over again I hear people assert that making Batman human, allowing him to be able to smile, joke, and enjoy life once in while makes him "campy" and turns him into Superman in a blue cape. Over and over again, I see them claim that a totally humorless, heartless, hateful, one-note psychopath makes him "serious" and a good character.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
I'm sorry, but I find such a one-dimensional, one-note Batman to be not only a villain in hero's clothing, but I find the "humorless, always grumpy" Batman to be the campiest incarnation of the character yet. At least Adam West's version was intentionally funny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
The Batman of 1986-onward is so pretentious and over-the-top "dark" and "obsessed" that he's practically begging to be skewered and mocked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
My preference for Batman has always been, and will continue to be, the Batman of Finger, Fox, Hamilton, Alvin Schwartz, Broome, '70s O'Neil, Robbins, Englehart, Wein, Brennert, Conway, and Goodwin--the Batman of 1940-1986.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
That was a Batman who was driven and serious, but noble, caring, and able to enjoy life every once in a while.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
One of the best scenes in any Batman story I've read was in Englehart's "The Deadshot Ricochet," where Batman and Robin were sparring. They were joking around, teasing and kidding each other and having a good time. I love that scene to death. To me, that encapsulates what Batman ought to be; a horrifying menace to criminals everywhere, but in the company of friends and loved ones he's a guy who can smile and laugh and live life to the fullest. He was a fully-rounded, deep, rich character, not a hateful, one-dimensional cipher like the Batman of 1986-onward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
Kia Asamiya's Child of Dreams echoed this by making Batman a caring, likable individual ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
... and the FOX run of the animated series presented Batman in that 1940-1986 light, with Batman smiling, joking, and teasing Robin and Alfred and playing pranks on the Joker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
Far from being campy, such a portrayal shows Batman as a fully human and developed character. I miss that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
As for Loeb's Batman (pre-"Hush"), I think he was trying to achieve a middle ground between the one-note sameness of the 1986-current Batman and the humanity of the 1940-1986 version. And I think he succeeded, making Batman somber and depressed without making him a jerk. That said, I don't think I'd want to read about that Batman on a regular basis. I like my Batman with some joie de vivre.

---

quote:

---

You're missing out. Dark Knight Returns isn't just the greatest Batman story ever told. It's the greatest superhero story ever told.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KMT:
You're missing out. Dark Knight Returns isn't just the greatest Batman story ever told. It's the greatest superhero story ever told.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
[QUOTE]I can't STAND that thing, and it's for that reason alone that I avoided Dark Knight Strikes Back. I hated Miller's Batman the first time around, why go back for more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Animalman:
Moore wrote the two best Superman stories ever("Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" and "For the Man who has Everything..."), so I think he got him right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KMT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by King Krypton:
[QUOTE]I can't STAND that thing, and it's for that reason alone that I avoided Dark Knight Strikes Back. I hated Miller's Batman the first time around, why go back for more?

---

Comparing DKR to Dark Knight Strikes Again is like comparing oral sex to cancer. Dark Knight Strikes Again is quite possibly the worst thing to ever see print. Ever.

---

How about Marville?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Animalman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AX Knight:
In your opinion Moore may have written the best Supes story. That isn't my opinion though. My opinion is that For All Seasons by Loeb is the best Supes story and it is my favorite all time comics story. And my opinion is the one I always consider right before I take the word of random net people.

SMS

---

.....wow. I'd insult you at this point, but I'm seriously considering the possibility that you're either under 14 or have some form of learning disability, and I don't wish to seem insensitive.

So, I'll merely say that the implication, unless I specifically state otherwise, is that whatever I say is my opinion. This is pretty standard procedure. I'd rather not have to attach "IMO" to the end of all my sentences, so, from now on, just assume that whatever I say is my opinion.

You're more than entitled to your opinion, however silly I might think it is. Have you, by chance, read either of the two stories I mentioned? I consider them to be the best because they dig deep into the heart of who Superman really is, emotionally and spiritually. They examine and explore his deepest desires and even his flaws. In "For the Man who has Everything", the reader is shown that even a man with powers as vast as Superman's is powerless against his own humanity. That a man who has "everything" can still wish for something more, something simpler, something that we less-empowered people might take for granted. That a man who embodies hope can feel the dark depths of hopelessness. This is deep stuff that, in my opinion, no Loeb Superman story has ever even begun to touch on. And Moore did this nearly 20 years ago, before "gritty and edgy" became commonplace in comic books, before realism was valued above all else, as it is today.

In my opinion, Loeb is a stock writer. He uses the same story setups and formats for his Sale projects, and they become tiresome and boring. For All Seasons is a nice, little, compact memoir piece, but in my opinion, it's nothing more beyond that. It doesn't tell me anything new, it's just sort of a rehashing, a regurgitation. I wasn't deeply moved by it in the way I was when I read the aforementioned works(years ago, when I was far more cynical and hate-filled than I am even now, if you believe that). I also thought the hints at Clark's powers were corny("Clark told me today he saw right through a rock! Gee golly!").

---

Boy.......it's not nice when someone nitpicks you huh.