E!TACT #29
Batman #48 & #49, The Man of Steel #2, The Man of Steel #3, Poetry Corner, and Grunion Guy's Musical Corner of Music Reviews!
By Grunion Guy
Comic Book Reviews!
Batman #48 & #49, The Man of Steel #2, The Man of Steel #3, Poetry Corner, and Grunion Guy's Musical Corner of Music Reviews!
By Grunion Guy
Comic Book Reviews!
Batman #48 & #49
By King, Janin, and Chung
I like what Tom King has done in comics. I truly like the way he tells a story. But he's got one major problem. He doesn't seem to know when a story doesn't need to be told. This is that story.
The easy reason for why it didn't need to be told is that we've seen this premise before. If Batman is happy, he stops being Batman. Got it. Understood! Thanks for making sure Batman remains grim and unbearable for the sake of hardcore fans who don't know the definition of whimsy. Anyway, Snyder, who retold the story most recently, took over a year to tell this story so at least I can say Tom King's version is shorter.
The hard reason for why it didn't need to be told will take a convoluted while for me to tell. So let me start with why I know why it needed to be restated as prologue to the wedding of Batman and Catwoman. Comic book readers, who know this marriage will never take and is just another big nothing in the life of a comic book character whose basic attributes and life situation can never truly change, needed to be reminded that they knew this marriage wouldn't work. We've had months of Bat this and Cat that lulling us into this fantasy world where Batman and Catwoman would suddenly be fighting crime together at night and ruining the sheets Alfred keeps bleaching by day. What a wonderful world this was going to be! So romantic and fun!
But then the Joker had to show up and shit all over it in the most disturbing way possible. If you're thinking the most disturbing way possible to shit on Batman's wedding is to shit on Batman's wedding, you're wrong by a factor of a spree killing in a church.
Oh, but before I continue with that thought, let me answer the question I keep hearing from all of my imaginary readers: "So, Grunion Genius, you're saying this story didn't need to be told but that the previous Booster Gold story did?" No, you fucking idiots, that's not what I'm saying. Christ, it's like I have to constantly hold the hands of your tiny brains when I say anything at all on the Internet so I don't have to hear your incessant and imagined stupidity! Obviously no comic book story ever needs to be told. But I don't want to get into the philosophical weeds where we keep getting back to the main question of how we tell the nature of reality through our meager and insufficient means of experiencing it. If I accept the Booster Gold story can be told, I suppose I need to accept that this story can be told. Except I don't want to. Which leads me back to the reasons why before you interrupted me.
But first let me interrupt myself! Way back when I was a virginal teenager (much different than today because now I'm a virginal adult), I remember having this distinct thought about a comic book series I was reading: "I hope I don't die before I can finish reading this story." I'd like to say it was something like Watchmen or Elfquest or even Crisis On Infinite Earths. But it's sad to say it was just as likely to have been Blue Devil or Blue Beetle or Blue Falcon and Dynomutt. The important thing to realize is that I was once an age where each individual story seemed important. I was passionately invested in any garbage turned out from month to month because I was invested in the characters. Back then, I didn't follow writers or artists or Gnostic visions brought on by the ingestion of psilocybin mushrooms. I just wanted to read more stories about Skywise banging Foxfur in a starry meadow. But I'm more sophisticated now! I mean more cynical! I mean more understanding of the way comic books work and how they never really get to the point of anything. They're just one meaningless drama after another as each writer takes a turn to express why they feel the character was important to them twenty years before they finally got a chance at writing that character. It turns out a lot of writers just want to say the same exact thing.
And that was my first and easiest to come up with reason for why this story didn't need to be told. My second reason was, essentially, that no story actually needs to be told so that seems to make my first reason moot. But it doesn't! Because if no story needs to be told then all stories can be told. Which means none of them truly matter. Because at that point, the story about how your grandmother would eat her toenail clippings suddenly has as much worth as the story of Christ resurrected (which, I guess, it does so that's a bad example. But hopefully you get my point!). Which brings me back to the difficulty of expressing the point of this essay: Tom King didn't need to tell this story.
I think it's important to try to understand why Tom King thought he needed to tell this story though. Did you read The Sheriff of Babylon? I'm going to assume that you did. In it, Tom King seemed to be expressing the absurdity of this world in a truly serious and awful story about how war and the clash of cultures and greed and desire and need and corruption and all of the human accessories are piled upon us to fuck us all, forever. It's absurd that so many people suffer from global conflicts that we all feel powerless to avert, as if they're a volcano erupting or a tsunami triggered by a massive earthquake. We're all swept up in unnatual disasters we treat as natural. What can you do? This is the way things are. We have a role and we must play our part. *shoulder shrug*
In The Sheriff of Babylon, we discover a group of people caught up in this existential farce. But we also see them trying their best to do the right thing. What can you do in the face of absurdity except to try to do your best? I mean aside from, like most people, to do their worst by making everybody miserable simply to get as much wealth and power as they can. There is that choice, after all. That point will probably tie back in when I get back to Batman but my main point here is trying to highlight that, I think, the world cracked Tom King in his pre-comic book writer life and he can't help but laugh at the absurdity of it all as he treats it as deadly serious.
Take a look back at the Booster Gold story in the previous Batman arc. It's nothing if not a deadly serious situation told in an absurd fashion about one guy trying to do the best he can to improve that situation. That's also The Sheriff of Babylon (except the one dude is two dudes and a lady). That's also The Omega Men (except the one dude is a tiger man and a princess and a robot and an orphan and the worst Green Lantern (in his best role)). That's also Mister Miracle (except the one dude is one New God and his wife and baby). And then, there's Maude. I mean Batman.
Maybe I should sum up "The Best Man" before continuing? The Joker murders a bunch of people in church to get Batman's attention. He then defeats Batman so that Catwoman has to step in. This is when we learn that his main reason for this nonsense is to convince Catwoman to not marry Batman by killing her. Or maybe just convince her by almost killing her and then dying. Whatever his reasons (which, let's face it, are unfathomable because he's The Joker, right?!), the main point is to keep Batman sad and grim so that Batman will keep punching The Joker in the face.
Wait! I don't think I told that right! The Joker points out that if Batman is happy, he can't be Batman (as we saw in Snyder's story and all the others that I'm certain exist but I don't have time to research and I can't remember due to all those Gnostic visions). And if he can't be Batman, he can't stop the Joker from constantly killing people in Gotham churches. Not that Batman stops that anyway. I guess what Batman's real service to Gotham is to stop the Joker from killing everybody in two churches (or killing everybody from two poisoned reservoirs (or killing everybody from two Joker-tainted Justice Leagues (or killing everybody from two massive gas attacks (or from killing everybody from two machine gun filled parades (or, well, you probably got the point twenty years ago))))). What is left ambiguous is whether the Joker wants Batman to stop him because, as Catwoman via The Riddler's logic points out, he's not really crazy and needs to be punished for what he knows are evil actions, or if The Joker just loves Batman and would miss him if he stopped being there to punch Joker in the face. What isn't left ambiguous is that the Joker convinces Catwoman of this by the end of the story. Batman says, "We don't know what the Joker wanted but he didn't get it." And then Catwoman laughs because, literally, what he wanted was for Catwoman to laugh. Of course his main agenda was to get Catwoman to not marry Batman. But that, of course, is why Catwoman laughs at Batman's suggestion that the Joker didn't get what he wanted.
So that's the story! The Joker does a horrible thing while saying shocking stuff to Batman and then nearly kills all the main characters before Catwoman finally gets the joke. And after all these words, I haven't really stated why this story didn't need to be told (aside from the fact that it's been told and we, as comic book readers, already understand that Catwoman and Batman will not wind up in a happily ever after (since, you know, comic books don't have an after! They just have an eternal almost now)).
The reason the story did not have to be told seems to be because it made me uncomfortable. It really is an unpleasant read. I can see the regular Internet critics who hate Tom King right now feeling justified: "He's trying to write funny dialogue in a deadly serious situation! What a hack!" But it made me think, "Has this version of The Joker ever been done before?" Sure, the Joker's made readers uncomfortable by killing randomly. He's made people uncomfortable due to his unpredictability. And he's made people uncomfortable by trying to suck Batman's dick. But has he ever made people squirm because of the things he's saying in a way they shouldn't be said? And then I thought, "Am I the Joker?"
Example: the Non-Certified Spouse and I were watching season one of Project Runway Junior. When Victoria gets kicked out, she says, "It's been such a great experience being around kids that all share the same passion." And I said, "What? Masturbation?" At that point, the Non-Certified Spouse looked at me as if I'd just shit all over Batman's wedding.
I don't know. I guess I just can't defend my own premise. The Joker's actions are absurd. Batman's reaction and the way he lets the Joker lead him to defeat is absurd. Catwoman's blasé attitude to Bruce possibly being killed and then bleeding out with the Joker is absurd. Is this a retelling of The Sheriff of Babylon in microcosm? Is Batman Christopher? Is Catwoman Saffiya? Are they just caught up in an endless man-made natural disaster called Gotham?
At the end of the first half, The Joker tells Batman to head toward love because all else is chaos. But his whole point is to end Batman's love. Is it because the Joker's love is chaos? Is he, finally, admitting he doesn't love Batman at all? If that's the case, I might have to scrap my original premise that this story didn't need to be told. Because I've grown tired of the Joker as Batman's disgruntled and rebuffed boyfriend. The whole idea that the Joker loves Batman has become a parody of itself. I think the Lego Batman Movie finally put the fork in that one. You can't keep alluding to it if everybody begins stating it outright. But what if Tom King is saying, "No, wait. The Joker doesn't love Batman. The Joker actually does love murder and mayhem and chaos. The Joker loves those things. But what are those things without an audience? It becomes masturbation if there's nobody there to witness it. And so, in that way (and that way only), the Joker needs Batman. He needs a serious and grim and opposite-of-absurd witness to the chaos." If that's what Tom King is saying (and I don't know for sure because I haven't asked him because every time I'm at a con where Tom King is signing, there's picture of me posted to warn security to keep me at least fifty feet away from his table (I mean, seriously, you tweet at a guy a non-insubstantial number of times that you'd like to suck his dick in appreciation of all the great stories he's told and you get blacklisted for it!)), you know what? Maybe this story did need to be told. But if he's not saying that, fuck him! Just kidding! I mean, seriously, if he's not into getting his dick sucked by a crazy eyed rabid stranger, he certainly won't be into full coitus! Maybe he's been hinting around that what he really wants offered is a hand job? Hmm.
Rating: If you'd read my introductory paragraph and thought, "Grunion Guy is really going to let Tom King have it by describing why this story shouldn't have been told," you're now finding out you were wrong. What you should have thought when you read my introductory paragraph was, "Grunion Guy really doesn't know how to write essays, does he?" Because I liked this story. It was awkward and uncomfortable and disgusting and all the things the Joker should be. But it still shouldn't have been told. Because I like my Joker crazy and violent and chaotic. This Joker knows way too precisely exactly how fucking creepy he's being. And if this version of the Joker sticks around, we're all fucked.
P.S. Don't @ me for saying "It becomes masturbation if there's nobody there to witness it" because I, too, understand how nice masturbation is when there's somebody there to witness it. As does the Joker, I think.
By King, Janin, and Chung
I like what Tom King has done in comics. I truly like the way he tells a story. But he's got one major problem. He doesn't seem to know when a story doesn't need to be told. This is that story.
The easy reason for why it didn't need to be told is that we've seen this premise before. If Batman is happy, he stops being Batman. Got it. Understood! Thanks for making sure Batman remains grim and unbearable for the sake of hardcore fans who don't know the definition of whimsy. Anyway, Snyder, who retold the story most recently, took over a year to tell this story so at least I can say Tom King's version is shorter.
The hard reason for why it didn't need to be told will take a convoluted while for me to tell. So let me start with why I know why it needed to be restated as prologue to the wedding of Batman and Catwoman. Comic book readers, who know this marriage will never take and is just another big nothing in the life of a comic book character whose basic attributes and life situation can never truly change, needed to be reminded that they knew this marriage wouldn't work. We've had months of Bat this and Cat that lulling us into this fantasy world where Batman and Catwoman would suddenly be fighting crime together at night and ruining the sheets Alfred keeps bleaching by day. What a wonderful world this was going to be! So romantic and fun!
But then the Joker had to show up and shit all over it in the most disturbing way possible. If you're thinking the most disturbing way possible to shit on Batman's wedding is to shit on Batman's wedding, you're wrong by a factor of a spree killing in a church.
Oh, but before I continue with that thought, let me answer the question I keep hearing from all of my imaginary readers: "So, Grunion Genius, you're saying this story didn't need to be told but that the previous Booster Gold story did?" No, you fucking idiots, that's not what I'm saying. Christ, it's like I have to constantly hold the hands of your tiny brains when I say anything at all on the Internet so I don't have to hear your incessant and imagined stupidity! Obviously no comic book story ever needs to be told. But I don't want to get into the philosophical weeds where we keep getting back to the main question of how we tell the nature of reality through our meager and insufficient means of experiencing it. If I accept the Booster Gold story can be told, I suppose I need to accept that this story can be told. Except I don't want to. Which leads me back to the reasons why before you interrupted me.
But first let me interrupt myself! Way back when I was a virginal teenager (much different than today because now I'm a virginal adult), I remember having this distinct thought about a comic book series I was reading: "I hope I don't die before I can finish reading this story." I'd like to say it was something like Watchmen or Elfquest or even Crisis On Infinite Earths. But it's sad to say it was just as likely to have been Blue Devil or Blue Beetle or Blue Falcon and Dynomutt. The important thing to realize is that I was once an age where each individual story seemed important. I was passionately invested in any garbage turned out from month to month because I was invested in the characters. Back then, I didn't follow writers or artists or Gnostic visions brought on by the ingestion of psilocybin mushrooms. I just wanted to read more stories about Skywise banging Foxfur in a starry meadow. But I'm more sophisticated now! I mean more cynical! I mean more understanding of the way comic books work and how they never really get to the point of anything. They're just one meaningless drama after another as each writer takes a turn to express why they feel the character was important to them twenty years before they finally got a chance at writing that character. It turns out a lot of writers just want to say the same exact thing.
And that was my first and easiest to come up with reason for why this story didn't need to be told. My second reason was, essentially, that no story actually needs to be told so that seems to make my first reason moot. But it doesn't! Because if no story needs to be told then all stories can be told. Which means none of them truly matter. Because at that point, the story about how your grandmother would eat her toenail clippings suddenly has as much worth as the story of Christ resurrected (which, I guess, it does so that's a bad example. But hopefully you get my point!). Which brings me back to the difficulty of expressing the point of this essay: Tom King didn't need to tell this story.
I think it's important to try to understand why Tom King thought he needed to tell this story though. Did you read The Sheriff of Babylon? I'm going to assume that you did. In it, Tom King seemed to be expressing the absurdity of this world in a truly serious and awful story about how war and the clash of cultures and greed and desire and need and corruption and all of the human accessories are piled upon us to fuck us all, forever. It's absurd that so many people suffer from global conflicts that we all feel powerless to avert, as if they're a volcano erupting or a tsunami triggered by a massive earthquake. We're all swept up in unnatual disasters we treat as natural. What can you do? This is the way things are. We have a role and we must play our part. *shoulder shrug*
In The Sheriff of Babylon, we discover a group of people caught up in this existential farce. But we also see them trying their best to do the right thing. What can you do in the face of absurdity except to try to do your best? I mean aside from, like most people, to do their worst by making everybody miserable simply to get as much wealth and power as they can. There is that choice, after all. That point will probably tie back in when I get back to Batman but my main point here is trying to highlight that, I think, the world cracked Tom King in his pre-comic book writer life and he can't help but laugh at the absurdity of it all as he treats it as deadly serious.
Take a look back at the Booster Gold story in the previous Batman arc. It's nothing if not a deadly serious situation told in an absurd fashion about one guy trying to do the best he can to improve that situation. That's also The Sheriff of Babylon (except the one dude is two dudes and a lady). That's also The Omega Men (except the one dude is a tiger man and a princess and a robot and an orphan and the worst Green Lantern (in his best role)). That's also Mister Miracle (except the one dude is one New God and his wife and baby). And then, there's Maude. I mean Batman.
Maybe I should sum up "The Best Man" before continuing? The Joker murders a bunch of people in church to get Batman's attention. He then defeats Batman so that Catwoman has to step in. This is when we learn that his main reason for this nonsense is to convince Catwoman to not marry Batman by killing her. Or maybe just convince her by almost killing her and then dying. Whatever his reasons (which, let's face it, are unfathomable because he's The Joker, right?!), the main point is to keep Batman sad and grim so that Batman will keep punching The Joker in the face.
Wait! I don't think I told that right! The Joker points out that if Batman is happy, he can't be Batman (as we saw in Snyder's story and all the others that I'm certain exist but I don't have time to research and I can't remember due to all those Gnostic visions). And if he can't be Batman, he can't stop the Joker from constantly killing people in Gotham churches. Not that Batman stops that anyway. I guess what Batman's real service to Gotham is to stop the Joker from killing everybody in two churches (or killing everybody from two poisoned reservoirs (or killing everybody from two Joker-tainted Justice Leagues (or killing everybody from two massive gas attacks (or from killing everybody from two machine gun filled parades (or, well, you probably got the point twenty years ago))))). What is left ambiguous is whether the Joker wants Batman to stop him because, as Catwoman via The Riddler's logic points out, he's not really crazy and needs to be punished for what he knows are evil actions, or if The Joker just loves Batman and would miss him if he stopped being there to punch Joker in the face. What isn't left ambiguous is that the Joker convinces Catwoman of this by the end of the story. Batman says, "We don't know what the Joker wanted but he didn't get it." And then Catwoman laughs because, literally, what he wanted was for Catwoman to laugh. Of course his main agenda was to get Catwoman to not marry Batman. But that, of course, is why Catwoman laughs at Batman's suggestion that the Joker didn't get what he wanted.
So that's the story! The Joker does a horrible thing while saying shocking stuff to Batman and then nearly kills all the main characters before Catwoman finally gets the joke. And after all these words, I haven't really stated why this story didn't need to be told (aside from the fact that it's been told and we, as comic book readers, already understand that Catwoman and Batman will not wind up in a happily ever after (since, you know, comic books don't have an after! They just have an eternal almost now)).
The reason the story did not have to be told seems to be because it made me uncomfortable. It really is an unpleasant read. I can see the regular Internet critics who hate Tom King right now feeling justified: "He's trying to write funny dialogue in a deadly serious situation! What a hack!" But it made me think, "Has this version of The Joker ever been done before?" Sure, the Joker's made readers uncomfortable by killing randomly. He's made people uncomfortable due to his unpredictability. And he's made people uncomfortable by trying to suck Batman's dick. But has he ever made people squirm because of the things he's saying in a way they shouldn't be said? And then I thought, "Am I the Joker?"
Example: the Non-Certified Spouse and I were watching season one of Project Runway Junior. When Victoria gets kicked out, she says, "It's been such a great experience being around kids that all share the same passion." And I said, "What? Masturbation?" At that point, the Non-Certified Spouse looked at me as if I'd just shit all over Batman's wedding.
I don't know. I guess I just can't defend my own premise. The Joker's actions are absurd. Batman's reaction and the way he lets the Joker lead him to defeat is absurd. Catwoman's blasé attitude to Bruce possibly being killed and then bleeding out with the Joker is absurd. Is this a retelling of The Sheriff of Babylon in microcosm? Is Batman Christopher? Is Catwoman Saffiya? Are they just caught up in an endless man-made natural disaster called Gotham?
At the end of the first half, The Joker tells Batman to head toward love because all else is chaos. But his whole point is to end Batman's love. Is it because the Joker's love is chaos? Is he, finally, admitting he doesn't love Batman at all? If that's the case, I might have to scrap my original premise that this story didn't need to be told. Because I've grown tired of the Joker as Batman's disgruntled and rebuffed boyfriend. The whole idea that the Joker loves Batman has become a parody of itself. I think the Lego Batman Movie finally put the fork in that one. You can't keep alluding to it if everybody begins stating it outright. But what if Tom King is saying, "No, wait. The Joker doesn't love Batman. The Joker actually does love murder and mayhem and chaos. The Joker loves those things. But what are those things without an audience? It becomes masturbation if there's nobody there to witness it. And so, in that way (and that way only), the Joker needs Batman. He needs a serious and grim and opposite-of-absurd witness to the chaos." If that's what Tom King is saying (and I don't know for sure because I haven't asked him because every time I'm at a con where Tom King is signing, there's picture of me posted to warn security to keep me at least fifty feet away from his table (I mean, seriously, you tweet at a guy a non-insubstantial number of times that you'd like to suck his dick in appreciation of all the great stories he's told and you get blacklisted for it!)), you know what? Maybe this story did need to be told. But if he's not saying that, fuck him! Just kidding! I mean, seriously, if he's not into getting his dick sucked by a crazy eyed rabid stranger, he certainly won't be into full coitus! Maybe he's been hinting around that what he really wants offered is a hand job? Hmm.
Rating: If you'd read my introductory paragraph and thought, "Grunion Guy is really going to let Tom King have it by describing why this story shouldn't have been told," you're now finding out you were wrong. What you should have thought when you read my introductory paragraph was, "Grunion Guy really doesn't know how to write essays, does he?" Because I liked this story. It was awkward and uncomfortable and disgusting and all the things the Joker should be. But it still shouldn't have been told. Because I like my Joker crazy and violent and chaotic. This Joker knows way too precisely exactly how fucking creepy he's being. And if this version of the Joker sticks around, we're all fucked.
P.S. Don't @ me for saying "It becomes masturbation if there's nobody there to witness it" because I, too, understand how nice masturbation is when there's somebody there to witness it. As does the Joker, I think.
* * * * * * * * * *
KB already replied: I think I get what you're saying. In theory, a writer should ask whether the story he's telling is worth telling -- does it reveal any new wrinkles about the characters or change their world in any fashion? -- and then the question after that is, does it leave the characters in a better storytelling condition?
You can tell a story that has no impact on anything; that's all right, but at least make it fun. You can tell a story that's already been told, but please don't; at least come up with a new wrinkle that leaves characters in a better position. As you point out, it looks like the Joker is in no way improved by this.
I wonder if the writers and editors have trouble with what to me is a simple concept: Bruce Wayne may not exactly enjoy being Batman, but he finds it fulfilling at some level. That shouldn't be that hard to understand, and it serves as a good center for Batman: he'd love to live in a world where he wasn't necessary, but since he is, he's in for the duration. It's hard and it's stressful, but he can do no less. And maybe they could spare us from retelling this story yet again if it were treated like a no-brainer: Batman Batmans because somebody has to and he is the best candidate for the job.
Two things I liked about "Zero Year" that, I think, really inform who Batman is and how he relates to the Joker:
1) We saw in the ZY flashbacks that Bruce Wayne is very deeply bugged by the fragility of human life. As a teenager he was in the habit of seeing all the people around him as basically one bullet away from being corpses. That's a solid insight into Bruce Wayne and why he Batmans: not because he hates crime, not because he wants revenge, but because people are going to die unless he does something. So simple and straightforward, yet so many writers (and readers) have trouble with it.
2) Here's how things look from the Joker's perspective (I'm not even going to try to give it the Joker's voice but bear with me). "Okay, so we used to try to commit crimes and terrorize Gotham as the Red Hood Gang, right? Except there was this vigilante who showed up to stop us. I don't know who he was; he'd dress up in disguises so we never knew who he'd be, but he'd turn up again and again, and he could never quite stop us. I guess we pushed him too far, because one day he just showed up dressed as a giant bat! HO-LEE SHIT. That guy is NUTS!" Snyder never said so explicitly, but I definitely got the feeling that the Joker loved how he'd pushed his vigilante into some next-level crazy; how do you walk away from that?
Anyway, those are examples of stories that reveal something new about the characters, and I feel leave them in a better position. On the other side of that we've got Snyder's later reveal (which I still think was originally just a hallucination and then bad editors got involved) that the Joker is immortal, he can suddenly be seen in old photos, he heals like he does because of magic metal, he can stick an axe in Jim Gordon's chest without killing him, and so on. New wrinkles but they weaken the character.
My Reply: 1. I hate the idea that Bruce Wayne can't be both Batman and happy. It doesn't make sense and it's just something most current Batman writers and editors just seem to agree with.
2. Why can't Bruce and Selina be happily married? Why can't a wife who is also Catwoman temper Bruce/Batman in the same ways that readers have accepted Robin does. Not those same ways, pervert.
3. I think the Joker may have been improved by this. That was kind of my point and nearly the only reason I liked it after a second or third reread. I believe this is a Joker we haven't seen. I can't be sure because I haven't read all of the Joker stories. But I hated this Joker. Not in an "I hate the way Tom King wrote this Joker" kind of way. I hated the Joker Tom King wrote because I'm pretty sure I'm meant to hate him. I don't think you can admire this Joker in the way fans admire psychotic bad guys because of how entertaining they can be. This Joker was the creepy Japanese horror villain amid all the Freddy Kreuger's and Jason Voorhees of Western horror cinema.
4. Because of #3, I believe this story did need to be told. But that's the only reason. Everything else was stuff we've already gotten. Batman failing to save people from Joker. Joker hurting people to get to Batman. Fans being told in a fairly explicit way, "This marriage can't work because fake reasons we've all told you about over and over and over again."
5. Okay, maybe #3 wasn't the only reason. I do think having Joker poison the marriage by getting to Catwoman was a nice touch (since it had to happen in some way anyhow). Plus the way Catwoman and Joker kind of commented on their history as Batman villains (while awkward and unrealistic due to bleeding out but not bleeding out because they kept pressure on their wounds! (but, I mean, comic book! So unrealistic I don't mind!)) was a bit of that fun absurdity in a deadly serious situation.
6. I still can't believe Snyder's Joker story didn't turn out to be a hallucination. Perhaps he's still hallucinating and has been since that story?!
7. The bottom line for me was that when I first read this, I hated it. After the second reading, I realized why: it was fucking disturbing. After the third reading, I realized it reminded me of The Sheriff of Babylon. That's when all of Tom King's stuff began reminding me of all of Tom King's stuff. He's the real world example of Watchmen's Comedian. Not because he raped somebody or beat up a guy because he was gay (did he do those things? Sorry fictional Comedian if I just slandered your character) but because he chooses to add whimsy and goofiness to stories that have an underlying deadly and serious tone.
8. It's like when I began to realize that all of my all-time favorite books had a common thread of escaping versus fighting back. Catch-22. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The Grapes of Wrath. Even House of Leaves and Alice in Wonderland tell a version of that story. I'm drawn to certain themes and tones, it seems. And whatever Tom King is doing overall, I'm drawn to it.
9. I can't wait for more from Tom King. For me, this was the worst Joker ever. In a good way.
Oh, and I like your points #1 and #2. Of course, your version of The Joker fits with Riddler's version, I'd say. Where he isn't really crazy. But he is, like all Batman villains, obsessive. His obsession, once he realized the bat guy was nuts, is in fucking with the bat guy. I can totally see that.
You can tell a story that has no impact on anything; that's all right, but at least make it fun. You can tell a story that's already been told, but please don't; at least come up with a new wrinkle that leaves characters in a better position. As you point out, it looks like the Joker is in no way improved by this.
I wonder if the writers and editors have trouble with what to me is a simple concept: Bruce Wayne may not exactly enjoy being Batman, but he finds it fulfilling at some level. That shouldn't be that hard to understand, and it serves as a good center for Batman: he'd love to live in a world where he wasn't necessary, but since he is, he's in for the duration. It's hard and it's stressful, but he can do no less. And maybe they could spare us from retelling this story yet again if it were treated like a no-brainer: Batman Batmans because somebody has to and he is the best candidate for the job.
Two things I liked about "Zero Year" that, I think, really inform who Batman is and how he relates to the Joker:
1) We saw in the ZY flashbacks that Bruce Wayne is very deeply bugged by the fragility of human life. As a teenager he was in the habit of seeing all the people around him as basically one bullet away from being corpses. That's a solid insight into Bruce Wayne and why he Batmans: not because he hates crime, not because he wants revenge, but because people are going to die unless he does something. So simple and straightforward, yet so many writers (and readers) have trouble with it.
2) Here's how things look from the Joker's perspective (I'm not even going to try to give it the Joker's voice but bear with me). "Okay, so we used to try to commit crimes and terrorize Gotham as the Red Hood Gang, right? Except there was this vigilante who showed up to stop us. I don't know who he was; he'd dress up in disguises so we never knew who he'd be, but he'd turn up again and again, and he could never quite stop us. I guess we pushed him too far, because one day he just showed up dressed as a giant bat! HO-LEE SHIT. That guy is NUTS!" Snyder never said so explicitly, but I definitely got the feeling that the Joker loved how he'd pushed his vigilante into some next-level crazy; how do you walk away from that?
Anyway, those are examples of stories that reveal something new about the characters, and I feel leave them in a better position. On the other side of that we've got Snyder's later reveal (which I still think was originally just a hallucination and then bad editors got involved) that the Joker is immortal, he can suddenly be seen in old photos, he heals like he does because of magic metal, he can stick an axe in Jim Gordon's chest without killing him, and so on. New wrinkles but they weaken the character.
My Reply: 1. I hate the idea that Bruce Wayne can't be both Batman and happy. It doesn't make sense and it's just something most current Batman writers and editors just seem to agree with.
2. Why can't Bruce and Selina be happily married? Why can't a wife who is also Catwoman temper Bruce/Batman in the same ways that readers have accepted Robin does. Not those same ways, pervert.
3. I think the Joker may have been improved by this. That was kind of my point and nearly the only reason I liked it after a second or third reread. I believe this is a Joker we haven't seen. I can't be sure because I haven't read all of the Joker stories. But I hated this Joker. Not in an "I hate the way Tom King wrote this Joker" kind of way. I hated the Joker Tom King wrote because I'm pretty sure I'm meant to hate him. I don't think you can admire this Joker in the way fans admire psychotic bad guys because of how entertaining they can be. This Joker was the creepy Japanese horror villain amid all the Freddy Kreuger's and Jason Voorhees of Western horror cinema.
4. Because of #3, I believe this story did need to be told. But that's the only reason. Everything else was stuff we've already gotten. Batman failing to save people from Joker. Joker hurting people to get to Batman. Fans being told in a fairly explicit way, "This marriage can't work because fake reasons we've all told you about over and over and over again."
5. Okay, maybe #3 wasn't the only reason. I do think having Joker poison the marriage by getting to Catwoman was a nice touch (since it had to happen in some way anyhow). Plus the way Catwoman and Joker kind of commented on their history as Batman villains (while awkward and unrealistic due to bleeding out but not bleeding out because they kept pressure on their wounds! (but, I mean, comic book! So unrealistic I don't mind!)) was a bit of that fun absurdity in a deadly serious situation.
6. I still can't believe Snyder's Joker story didn't turn out to be a hallucination. Perhaps he's still hallucinating and has been since that story?!
7. The bottom line for me was that when I first read this, I hated it. After the second reading, I realized why: it was fucking disturbing. After the third reading, I realized it reminded me of The Sheriff of Babylon. That's when all of Tom King's stuff began reminding me of all of Tom King's stuff. He's the real world example of Watchmen's Comedian. Not because he raped somebody or beat up a guy because he was gay (did he do those things? Sorry fictional Comedian if I just slandered your character) but because he chooses to add whimsy and goofiness to stories that have an underlying deadly and serious tone.
8. It's like when I began to realize that all of my all-time favorite books had a common thread of escaping versus fighting back. Catch-22. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The Grapes of Wrath. Even House of Leaves and Alice in Wonderland tell a version of that story. I'm drawn to certain themes and tones, it seems. And whatever Tom King is doing overall, I'm drawn to it.
9. I can't wait for more from Tom King. For me, this was the worst Joker ever. In a good way.
Oh, and I like your points #1 and #2. Of course, your version of The Joker fits with Riddler's version, I'd say. Where he isn't really crazy. But he is, like all Batman villains, obsessive. His obsession, once he realized the bat guy was nuts, is in fucking with the bat guy. I can totally see that.
* * * * * * * * * *
The Man of Steel #2
By Bendis, Shaner, Rude, and Sinclair
By Bendis, Shaner, Rude, and Sinclair
"Happy birthday, son! We got you an alienating back story!"
Over the years, I've had a lot of responses to my comic book reviews. While a few of them were "Why do you hate my . . . I mean Cullen Bunn's writing so much?", most of them were a version of "So I just finished your review and I was wondering what you really think of the comic book." This has always intrigued me. Why would somebody actually want to know a stranger's opinion on what was almost certainly a shitty comic book? Maybe ten of my four thousand reviews were actually meant to encourage people to read the comic book I was reviewing. Most of the reviews were an experience unto themselves. Whenever somebody would ask what I really thought, I realized that person didn't read the review correctly and probably had a learning disability. I mean, it was a Batman comic book! You already know what 95% of that experience is going to be! And if you need the other five percent to be whether some terrible writer on the Internet liked or disliked it, maybe you've got issues trusting your own judgment.
What's even worse is when people argue with me. There was that one guy who totally wasn't Cullen Bunn or his wife who argued incessantly with my Twat Lobo reviews. He then went on to argue with my Not-Twat Lobo-centric Justice League of America reviews. On a number of occasions, I simply responded, "You don't understand this blog." He would invariably answer, "What's to understand?!" which he probably meant as an insult, right? "Your opinions are so simple-minded and biased! Sorry not sorry!" But I refused to explain the magic trick and instead just continued to boggle at his inability to understand exaggeration for effect and obvious bias disguised as impartial critique.
Not that I should be surprised by that response and then insult their learning disability that I'm sure they've been struggling with for years when the whole point of my reviews is that they're supposed to sound like an arrogant yet somewhat stupid asshole who doesn't know how to write reviews! Did that sound convincing? Do you now believe that it was a purposeful fictional voice created all those years ago? I finally fired my therapist and I'm trying a new strategy to get people to like me. Right now I'm trying "Oh, you thought that was my real personality? Silly!" My previous attempt to get people to like me was to not care if they really thought I believed the horrible things I said. Spoiler alert: they all thought I really believed the things I said and hated me for it!
That last statement isn't entirely true. That one time when some petitioner on the street asked me if I wanted to save the pandas and I said, "I hate pandas," she flirtatiously stuck her tongue out at me and I'm fairly certain I only imagined her mutter "Cunt" from behind my back as I walked on.
"So, um, Man of Steel #2?" you might be asking. "Yeah, yeah!" I say charismatically. "I'm getting to that!" That's the segue into the actual review part (which, as I pointed out so that you don't retain any high expectations, will barely be a review).
What's even worse is when people argue with me. There was that one guy who totally wasn't Cullen Bunn or his wife who argued incessantly with my Twat Lobo reviews. He then went on to argue with my Not-Twat Lobo-centric Justice League of America reviews. On a number of occasions, I simply responded, "You don't understand this blog." He would invariably answer, "What's to understand?!" which he probably meant as an insult, right? "Your opinions are so simple-minded and biased! Sorry not sorry!" But I refused to explain the magic trick and instead just continued to boggle at his inability to understand exaggeration for effect and obvious bias disguised as impartial critique.
Not that I should be surprised by that response and then insult their learning disability that I'm sure they've been struggling with for years when the whole point of my reviews is that they're supposed to sound like an arrogant yet somewhat stupid asshole who doesn't know how to write reviews! Did that sound convincing? Do you now believe that it was a purposeful fictional voice created all those years ago? I finally fired my therapist and I'm trying a new strategy to get people to like me. Right now I'm trying "Oh, you thought that was my real personality? Silly!" My previous attempt to get people to like me was to not care if they really thought I believed the horrible things I said. Spoiler alert: they all thought I really believed the things I said and hated me for it!
That last statement isn't entirely true. That one time when some petitioner on the street asked me if I wanted to save the pandas and I said, "I hate pandas," she flirtatiously stuck her tongue out at me and I'm fairly certain I only imagined her mutter "Cunt" from behind my back as I walked on.
"So, um, Man of Steel #2?" you might be asking. "Yeah, yeah!" I say charismatically. "I'm getting to that!" That's the segue into the actual review part (which, as I pointed out so that you don't retain any high expectations, will barely be a review).
These four panels basically explain the premise of the entire series. My review of them? "If I have to read this many words in every panel, I'm going to kill myself publicly."
Let's pretend that Rogol Zaar is Bendis's Mary Sue and Krypton is America so that we can theorize how Bendis is anti-America. Who else is on board with that interpretation? To completely understand it, you might have to remember how Rogol Zaar's reasons for destroying Krypton was that Krypton was a threat to the entire fabric of DC continuity. Just like how Bendis thinks America is a threat to world peace. In Bendis's mind, America must be destroyed if we're to save the rest of the world.
Not that I'm saying I agree with Bendis because I live in America and please don't destroy me but it's a compelling theory, right?!
But that whole Rogol Zaar crap doesn't matter yet! The thing that matters is that Lois Lane and Jon are missing and everybody is all, "Did Clark Kent murder them?" Even Hal Jordan was all, "So, I heard from Oberon that things in the Kent-Lane home (and probably bedroom) aren't so great?" But instead of Superman telling Hal, "Well, maybe I could use the Justice League's help because there was this incident last week where this thing appeared in our kitchen and then I was on the moon and . . . well, I'll tell you more as the story unravels across six issues. For now, that's all you need to know." Then Hal could have been, "Oh, um, excuse me. I need to be on Planet I'm-Not-Making-Up-This-Name in like a nanosecond. Thanks for whatever!"
I wasn't sure how I felt about Bendis and then I got to this page:
Not that I'm saying I agree with Bendis because I live in America and please don't destroy me but it's a compelling theory, right?!
But that whole Rogol Zaar crap doesn't matter yet! The thing that matters is that Lois Lane and Jon are missing and everybody is all, "Did Clark Kent murder them?" Even Hal Jordan was all, "So, I heard from Oberon that things in the Kent-Lane home (and probably bedroom) aren't so great?" But instead of Superman telling Hal, "Well, maybe I could use the Justice League's help because there was this incident last week where this thing appeared in our kitchen and then I was on the moon and . . . well, I'll tell you more as the story unravels across six issues. For now, that's all you need to know." Then Hal could have been, "Oh, um, excuse me. I need to be on Planet I'm-Not-Making-Up-This-Name in like a nanosecond. Thanks for whatever!"
I wasn't sure how I felt about Bendis and then I got to this page:
He's the greatest comic book writer of our generation!
Ambush Bug is saying, "Dsagfds! Jgfh hgfdhdfg gfsdd." I guess he can only speak using letters in the home row. In the next panel, he exclaims, "Ljkl!" as he drops the items he's juggling. I guess "Ljkl!" is Homerowese for "FUCK!"
In the galactic bar where Ambush Bug has declared his DC continence (don't argue with me. That wording works better than you think!), Rogol Zaar wanders in to have his once yearly drink. I guess he's been slumbering for thirty something years and only wakes up once a week or something. While there, he sees the symbol of the House of El and learns that there's still a Kryptonian out there. Apparently his rage wasn't that the race of Kryptonians would destroy the universe but that they existed at all. Because he's still super angry about one superman left in the galaxy. His racial animosity flares and, I'm pretty certain, he's planning a trip to Earth. Or what are the other four issues going to be about? Superman looking for Lois and Jon? How much punching will be in that story? Boring!
In the galactic bar where Ambush Bug has declared his DC continence (don't argue with me. That wording works better than you think!), Rogol Zaar wanders in to have his once yearly drink. I guess he's been slumbering for thirty something years and only wakes up once a week or something. While there, he sees the symbol of the House of El and learns that there's still a Kryptonian out there. Apparently his rage wasn't that the race of Kryptonians would destroy the universe but that they existed at all. Because he's still super angry about one superman left in the galaxy. His racial animosity flares and, I'm pretty certain, he's planning a trip to Earth. Or what are the other four issues going to be about? Superman looking for Lois and Jon? How much punching will be in that story? Boring!
Maybe Bendis is less the greatest writer of our generation and less angry at America's abuse of power on the world stage and more of a MAGA type. Why are all his homeless people minorities?
I apologize if Bendis isn't as racist as that page might seem. It could also be Doc Shaner or Steve Rude or Alex Sinclair who are the racist ones.
So, um, anyway, Rogol Zaar decides to hop on his space motorcycle in an attempt to be even less like Lobo (that was sarcastic because Lobo rides a space motorcycle and is also black and white and also loves genocide!) so he can zip to Earth and kill Superman (oh! And Lobo also once tried to kill Superman!).
Rating: My interest is still being held! There's a story here which is better than all of those comic books that don't have a story. The only problem is that the antagonist has been seen before in several different versions and parodies of those versions. And there's always a new version of how and why Krypton was destroyed. But at least Lois Lane has been kidnapped so that's, um, not yet the different thing I was looking for. What about the Daily Planet going under or being sold? No, no. Seen that. Anyway, Ambush Bug made an appearance! That's got to count for at least fifty cents of the cover price!
So, um, anyway, Rogol Zaar decides to hop on his space motorcycle in an attempt to be even less like Lobo (that was sarcastic because Lobo rides a space motorcycle and is also black and white and also loves genocide!) so he can zip to Earth and kill Superman (oh! And Lobo also once tried to kill Superman!).
Rating: My interest is still being held! There's a story here which is better than all of those comic books that don't have a story. The only problem is that the antagonist has been seen before in several different versions and parodies of those versions. And there's always a new version of how and why Krypton was destroyed. But at least Lois Lane has been kidnapped so that's, um, not yet the different thing I was looking for. What about the Daily Planet going under or being sold? No, no. Seen that. Anyway, Ambush Bug made an appearance! That's got to count for at least fifty cents of the cover price!
* * * * * * * * * *
The Man of Steel #3
By Bendis, Sook, and Sinclair
By Bendis, Sook, and Sinclair
The maniac was Uncle Bushido zombie David Bowie Lobo?!
I get the feeling when Brian Michael Bendis was designing the character of Rogol Zaar, people kept asking him, "Are you trying to make him like Lobo?" And Bendis's answer was always, "Why do people keep asking me that? Of course I am! Now I have to make him even more like Lobo so they stop asking!" Because at first, he just sort of looked like him with the white and black motif and the facial hair. But then readers were introduced to his love of genocide. Then when people were thinking, "Geez, Brian. You know Lobo already exists, right?", he let us all in on Rogol Zaar's unique method of getting around space: a space Harley! At that point, there were few people denying the blatant rip-off of Lobo in the character design. But those few who were left were all, "No way. Totally different. It's not like Rogol Zaar loves space dolphins and has a skull belt buckle!"
Game, set, and match!
Rogol Zaar trashes the Fortress of Solitude before finding the Bottle City of Kandor half full of Superman's late night wees. There's no guessing what he's going to do with it! Except this comic book isn't being told in the world that I want to live in so there are probably just a few guesses that could be true. Fucking it until all the Kandorians drown in Rogol Zaar cum probably isn't one of them.
Superman hears the Fortress of Solitude alarm and leaves Batman alone to investigate the arsons in Metropolis. Superman is a boy scout and not a detective. Superman can start a fire but he can't tell you who started one. I hope there isn't a "Man of Steel Tie-in!" issue of Batman where Batman has to leave Catwoman on their honeymoon to investigate arson for twenty pages. But I do hope there's a Catwoman "Man of Steel Tie-in!" issue where Batman has to go investigate arson on their honeymoon so she spends twenty pages masturbating in a heart-shaped bed.
Superman hears the Fortress of Solitude alarm and leaves Batman alone to investigate the arsons in Metropolis. Superman is a boy scout and not a detective. Superman can start a fire but he can't tell you who started one. I hope there isn't a "Man of Steel Tie-in!" issue of Batman where Batman has to leave Catwoman on their honeymoon to investigate arson for twenty pages. But I do hope there's a Catwoman "Man of Steel Tie-in!" issue where Batman has to go investigate arson on their honeymoon so she spends twenty pages masturbating in a heart-shaped bed.
Superman grew up with the most cerebral parents. "Stuff is just stuff" and "Fire is fire!" You don't get this kind of down-on-the-farm wisdom growing up in a coastal elite bubble!
Superman finds Kandor smashed. Supergirl arrives ready to punch somebody in the face and blast them with her vagina.
Some of you might be new to my reviews so I should remind you that there are around four thousand previous entries. I will occasionally refer back to that library of work. When doing so, I will probably confuse the new people and they might think, "Well, that was rude and sexist." I don't mind. It goes with the territory. But if I know there is at least one old school reader who remembers how often we saw Supergirl FWAAAASH an enemy with her exploding vagina, I'm content. Also, remember how Superman stole Supergirl's exploding vagina power? But he couldn't handle it and it always made him lose his powers for twenty-four hours? What a non-pussy.
As an aside, I think Dove of Hawk and Dove was the first character to use the vagina attack in The New 52.
We get to see a little bit more of the moment Lois and Jon disappeared and while, last time, I thought, "Has Brainiac decided to become a giant robotic caterpillar?", this time I'm left thinking, "Holy fuck. Mister Mind kidnapped them?" Now, sure, Mister Mind is a little bitty caterpillar thing. But it seems maybe now he's a full grown humanoid who rides around in a robotic caterpillar mechazoid. I could be wrong but I'm probably not. I am a Grandmaster Comic Book Reader, after all. Plus, if I am wrong, I have a catalog of four thousand reviews to obfuscate and hide my failures. Nobody will remember this one! I mean, how many people remember how adamantly I proclaimed Harvest was Red Robin from the future who had been turned into a vampire? Like probably nobody, right?
And, also, Harvest absolutely was Red Robin from the future who had been turned into a vampire.
Rogol Zaar leads Superman and Supergirl back to Metropolis so they can have a big street battle. I guess Rogol Zaar wants to remind everybody of Doomsday as well.
Rating: When a big name comic book writer is lured over to another company to shake things up, I always imagine the editors need to offer up something to sweeten the deal. Sure, Bendis was probably excited to take lead on Superman for a bit. Who wouldn't want to write Superman? I mean aside from all the writers who have written him whom you could tell weren't really interested in writing him. I would name some but you all remember how much I can't stand Scott Lobdell's writing.
Editors: "Look. If you sign this contract, we'll let you bring Ambush Bug back into mainstream DC continuity."
Bendis: "I was going to do that anyway."
Editors: "You can have your own creator owned title! Just please fix Superman for us!"
Bendis: "I can get that at Image any time. But I'll take that too. I just need a little more."
Editors: "What if we let you change the entire history of Krypton's destruction?!"
Bendis: "Wait. Weren't you expecting that from me? Look, guys, you really need to sweeten this deal before I let you suck my dick while fingering my asshole?"
Editors: "You can kill Kandor!"
Bendis: "Oh. OH. Oh yeah. Okay. Also, never mind the dick sucking because I just came in my pants so hard."
That wasn't a standard comic book review rating but it's all I got. Sue me. But not for sexual harassment because you might win that lawsuit. Sue me for something frivolous and dumb that will immediately get thrown out of court, forcing you to pay for my lawyer's fees. Also my lawyer will be me so if you want to skip all the hassle, you can just cut me a check.
Some of you might be new to my reviews so I should remind you that there are around four thousand previous entries. I will occasionally refer back to that library of work. When doing so, I will probably confuse the new people and they might think, "Well, that was rude and sexist." I don't mind. It goes with the territory. But if I know there is at least one old school reader who remembers how often we saw Supergirl FWAAAASH an enemy with her exploding vagina, I'm content. Also, remember how Superman stole Supergirl's exploding vagina power? But he couldn't handle it and it always made him lose his powers for twenty-four hours? What a non-pussy.
As an aside, I think Dove of Hawk and Dove was the first character to use the vagina attack in The New 52.
We get to see a little bit more of the moment Lois and Jon disappeared and while, last time, I thought, "Has Brainiac decided to become a giant robotic caterpillar?", this time I'm left thinking, "Holy fuck. Mister Mind kidnapped them?" Now, sure, Mister Mind is a little bitty caterpillar thing. But it seems maybe now he's a full grown humanoid who rides around in a robotic caterpillar mechazoid. I could be wrong but I'm probably not. I am a Grandmaster Comic Book Reader, after all. Plus, if I am wrong, I have a catalog of four thousand reviews to obfuscate and hide my failures. Nobody will remember this one! I mean, how many people remember how adamantly I proclaimed Harvest was Red Robin from the future who had been turned into a vampire? Like probably nobody, right?
And, also, Harvest absolutely was Red Robin from the future who had been turned into a vampire.
Rogol Zaar leads Superman and Supergirl back to Metropolis so they can have a big street battle. I guess Rogol Zaar wants to remind everybody of Doomsday as well.
Rating: When a big name comic book writer is lured over to another company to shake things up, I always imagine the editors need to offer up something to sweeten the deal. Sure, Bendis was probably excited to take lead on Superman for a bit. Who wouldn't want to write Superman? I mean aside from all the writers who have written him whom you could tell weren't really interested in writing him. I would name some but you all remember how much I can't stand Scott Lobdell's writing.
Editors: "Look. If you sign this contract, we'll let you bring Ambush Bug back into mainstream DC continuity."
Bendis: "I was going to do that anyway."
Editors: "You can have your own creator owned title! Just please fix Superman for us!"
Bendis: "I can get that at Image any time. But I'll take that too. I just need a little more."
Editors: "What if we let you change the entire history of Krypton's destruction?!"
Bendis: "Wait. Weren't you expecting that from me? Look, guys, you really need to sweeten this deal before I let you suck my dick while fingering my asshole?"
Editors: "You can kill Kandor!"
Bendis: "Oh. OH. Oh yeah. Okay. Also, never mind the dick sucking because I just came in my pants so hard."
That wasn't a standard comic book review rating but it's all I got. Sue me. But not for sexual harassment because you might win that lawsuit. Sue me for something frivolous and dumb that will immediately get thrown out of court, forcing you to pay for my lawyer's fees. Also my lawyer will be me so if you want to skip all the hassle, you can just cut me a check.
* * * * * * * * * *
Poetry Corner with Grunion Guy!
Poetry Corner with Grunion Guy!
Civility
As the blood ran down my nose, I looked him dead in the eye and said, "Fucker."
Mrs. Marshall grabbed my arm and hissed, "There's no call for that kind of language."
And so I spent detention seated across from my schoolyard bully.
As the blood ran down my nose, I looked him dead in the eye and said, "Fucker."
Mrs. Marshall grabbed my arm and hissed, "There's no call for that kind of language."
And so I spent detention seated across from my schoolyard bully.
* * * * * * * * * *
Grunion Guy's Musical Corner of Music Reviews!
Grunion Guy's Musical Corner of Music Reviews!
Revolution 1 by The Beatles
Isn't it interesting that a song about revolution on an album exclusively referred to as the "white album" sung by a group of four white males would have the lyrics "Don't you know it's gonna be all right"? Of course a bunch of white guys are going to say that, whether or not the song is calling for violent revolution. I mean, I know they say "You can count me out" but then they also quickly say "in" so I'm confused.
Actually, I'm not totally convinced this song has anything to do with revolution at all. I think this is just a list of retorts Lennon thought up to say to peace activists on the street bothering him about signing their petitions. "Oh, you say you've got the solution? Let's see the plan? No? Well fuck off then, mate." "Oh, you want some of my money? I'm doing my own thing to save the world that you don't know about, buddy! Shove off!"
It's also possible that I'm letting my own feelings interfere with an objective review of this song. I guess it doesn't really matter because does this song need any new commentary about it? At least it isn't Revolution 9!
Grade: B+.
Number One by Ookla the Mok
If you're really into Star Trek: The Next Generation-themed songs and songs about needing to poo, this song is the nexus of your loves. The premise of the song is that, upon being assigned to the Enterprise, William Riker discovers that it doesn't have any bathrooms and he must hold in his shit for seven years. This becomes the basis for Riker's entire arc of The Next Generation. It's why he becomes fat and bloated. It's why he grows a beard. It's why he's always so short with Wesley Crusher. It's the origin story for his evil transporter twin. The guy just can't relieve himself! I'm laughing just thinking about how "Number One" is what Riker is called as the first officer and how "number two" is slang for pooing! Another highlight of the song is how Riker says if he can't go soon, he'll have to "boldly go where no one's ever gone before!" Get it?!
Another cool thing about this song is the way it'll force you to constantly regard Jonathan Frakes' acting as a result of his needing to poop so badly. It really makes an already pretty good show shine in the way that, if you love playing tennis, playing tennis is fun but then you play tennis on acid and it's super-duper fun because you're also laughing maniacally the whole time and feeling like maybe you have to pee but you're not quite sure and also you get to know the meaning of life for a few hours. Well, maybe it's not just like that but it's similar in the way that Kermit's voice by Jim Henson is similar to Kermit's voice by Steve Whitmire. I didn't know that's the person who took over for Jim until this moment because I'm not as obsessed with Kermit as that stalker Miss Piggy.
Grade: B+ (Yes, it's just as good as Revolution 1!)
Questions in a World of Blue by Julee Cruise
Last year while I was hopped up on medicinal cannabis in chocolate form, my friend Upright and I discussed the third season of Twin Peaks. While I wouldn't say we figured it out, I think we were on the right track. We came to the conclusion that a large part of the series was a dream. But not just one person's dream. These were the dreams of all the main characters from the series. Eventually, though, they did all merge into Laura's dream to defeat Bob. Or whatever that thing that was bigger and more evil than Bob was called. But, being that Lynch decided not to end it there (presumably because Mark Frost wanted to end it there and Lynch needed to point out to Mark Frost, one more time, that Lynch's dick was much bigger than Frost's), the results of the final battle were more than a little bit ambiguous.
Some people will believe that making everything a dream is an easy out. But it's not like Lynch just went, "Hey! All this stuff never really happened! It was all a dream! Ha ha!" No, Lynch believes the dream is the most important thing. He says as much in the series. But I'm digressing and I don't want to digress into a discussion of Twin Peaks: The Return because I'll never come back from that. I just wanted to describe the moment I knew — absolutely and positively knew — that every single thing in the show was a dream: it was when James was allowed to sing on stage at The Roadhouse. Plus remember how that one woman said James was cool? Like that has ever been said ever in any discussion of Twin Peaks ever. Lynch knew that would be a signal to people that it was a dream! "James? Cool?! What the fuck is going on here?!" Plus by the end, even in his own dream, James knows he isn't man enough to be the hero. So he dreams up a ridiculous British guy with a super glove to save the day instead! James is cool? No, no. James is a fucking disgrace.
But that's not about this song. This song is sad and lovely and I'd probably be crying now if I hadn't paused it to think about James. Here's another thing I thought about James: I bet James is the exception to Internet Rule #34.
Now I want to discuss Fire Walk With Me as well! I mean, I don't want to discuss it so much that I'm going to put the work in writing an essay about it.
Grade: A.
Good Clean Fun by The Monkees
I just came up with a theory. That theory is that The Faint's "Southern Belles in London Sing" was written as a response to this song. I think if somebody could do a mashup of these two songs, it would probably work better than when I try to play one on YouTube and the other on my iTunes! Being that I don't really understand music or music theory, I can't vouch for those two songs sounding good when mixed together. My theory stems from the fact that Southern Belles is about a person waiting for somebody to arrive on a plane while Good Clean Fun is about a person on plane arriving to a person waiting for them!
I didn't say it was a good theory. But it is an okay song.
Grade: C+.
The Kindness of Strangers by Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds
Sometimes you just feel like listening to a song where a lonely lady is murdered while just trying to make some human contact. When that's the case, you can just pick up any old Nick Cave song at random and play one of his songs because they're all composed of that sort of tone. But if you want something a little more specific, this is the song you were thinking of.
This song is also a good example of negging. Dick Slade probably couldn't have killed and raped Mary Bellows if he'd pursued her like a normal person. Instead he's just all, "Look how charming I am! I don't even care if you don't want to fuck me! I'm just going to leave you here to think about my wink goodbye and the five times I 'actuallyed' you while helping with your luggage!" And Mary Bellows was all, "You know what? I know I've masturbated myself to sleep every night of my adult life but I'm currently on an adventure to see the ocean! Tonight, I'm going to get laid!" And she does get laid! Probably. It's not really clear on that point. I suspect the reason Dick killed her after handcuffing her to the bed could be because Dick was impotent and Mary said, "What the fuck is wrong with your tallywacker? Stiffen that floppy monster up, you big nerd!" Then he was all, "Oh man! You just justified my hatred for women which totally wasn't a thing until just now no matter what every single one of my actions and Internet posts up until this point indicate! Now you'll get yours!"
Some of you might be thinking, "Where did this whole impotency theory come from?" as if I just loved to spout random things that make no sense. I mean, I do love to do that! But sometimes I use logic to come up with my theories (like how Harvest was really Red Robin from the future after he'd been turned into an impotent vampire). His name is Richard Slade. A nickname for Richard is Dick. Slade is a flat grassy area. Like a vagina! So the opposite of a boner! Quid pro ex temper sum laude, bitch!
Grade: B-.
Isn't it interesting that a song about revolution on an album exclusively referred to as the "white album" sung by a group of four white males would have the lyrics "Don't you know it's gonna be all right"? Of course a bunch of white guys are going to say that, whether or not the song is calling for violent revolution. I mean, I know they say "You can count me out" but then they also quickly say "in" so I'm confused.
Actually, I'm not totally convinced this song has anything to do with revolution at all. I think this is just a list of retorts Lennon thought up to say to peace activists on the street bothering him about signing their petitions. "Oh, you say you've got the solution? Let's see the plan? No? Well fuck off then, mate." "Oh, you want some of my money? I'm doing my own thing to save the world that you don't know about, buddy! Shove off!"
It's also possible that I'm letting my own feelings interfere with an objective review of this song. I guess it doesn't really matter because does this song need any new commentary about it? At least it isn't Revolution 9!
Grade: B+.
Number One by Ookla the Mok
If you're really into Star Trek: The Next Generation-themed songs and songs about needing to poo, this song is the nexus of your loves. The premise of the song is that, upon being assigned to the Enterprise, William Riker discovers that it doesn't have any bathrooms and he must hold in his shit for seven years. This becomes the basis for Riker's entire arc of The Next Generation. It's why he becomes fat and bloated. It's why he grows a beard. It's why he's always so short with Wesley Crusher. It's the origin story for his evil transporter twin. The guy just can't relieve himself! I'm laughing just thinking about how "Number One" is what Riker is called as the first officer and how "number two" is slang for pooing! Another highlight of the song is how Riker says if he can't go soon, he'll have to "boldly go where no one's ever gone before!" Get it?!
Another cool thing about this song is the way it'll force you to constantly regard Jonathan Frakes' acting as a result of his needing to poop so badly. It really makes an already pretty good show shine in the way that, if you love playing tennis, playing tennis is fun but then you play tennis on acid and it's super-duper fun because you're also laughing maniacally the whole time and feeling like maybe you have to pee but you're not quite sure and also you get to know the meaning of life for a few hours. Well, maybe it's not just like that but it's similar in the way that Kermit's voice by Jim Henson is similar to Kermit's voice by Steve Whitmire. I didn't know that's the person who took over for Jim until this moment because I'm not as obsessed with Kermit as that stalker Miss Piggy.
Grade: B+ (Yes, it's just as good as Revolution 1!)
Questions in a World of Blue by Julee Cruise
Last year while I was hopped up on medicinal cannabis in chocolate form, my friend Upright and I discussed the third season of Twin Peaks. While I wouldn't say we figured it out, I think we were on the right track. We came to the conclusion that a large part of the series was a dream. But not just one person's dream. These were the dreams of all the main characters from the series. Eventually, though, they did all merge into Laura's dream to defeat Bob. Or whatever that thing that was bigger and more evil than Bob was called. But, being that Lynch decided not to end it there (presumably because Mark Frost wanted to end it there and Lynch needed to point out to Mark Frost, one more time, that Lynch's dick was much bigger than Frost's), the results of the final battle were more than a little bit ambiguous.
Some people will believe that making everything a dream is an easy out. But it's not like Lynch just went, "Hey! All this stuff never really happened! It was all a dream! Ha ha!" No, Lynch believes the dream is the most important thing. He says as much in the series. But I'm digressing and I don't want to digress into a discussion of Twin Peaks: The Return because I'll never come back from that. I just wanted to describe the moment I knew — absolutely and positively knew — that every single thing in the show was a dream: it was when James was allowed to sing on stage at The Roadhouse. Plus remember how that one woman said James was cool? Like that has ever been said ever in any discussion of Twin Peaks ever. Lynch knew that would be a signal to people that it was a dream! "James? Cool?! What the fuck is going on here?!" Plus by the end, even in his own dream, James knows he isn't man enough to be the hero. So he dreams up a ridiculous British guy with a super glove to save the day instead! James is cool? No, no. James is a fucking disgrace.
But that's not about this song. This song is sad and lovely and I'd probably be crying now if I hadn't paused it to think about James. Here's another thing I thought about James: I bet James is the exception to Internet Rule #34.
Now I want to discuss Fire Walk With Me as well! I mean, I don't want to discuss it so much that I'm going to put the work in writing an essay about it.
Grade: A.
Good Clean Fun by The Monkees
I just came up with a theory. That theory is that The Faint's "Southern Belles in London Sing" was written as a response to this song. I think if somebody could do a mashup of these two songs, it would probably work better than when I try to play one on YouTube and the other on my iTunes! Being that I don't really understand music or music theory, I can't vouch for those two songs sounding good when mixed together. My theory stems from the fact that Southern Belles is about a person waiting for somebody to arrive on a plane while Good Clean Fun is about a person on plane arriving to a person waiting for them!
I didn't say it was a good theory. But it is an okay song.
Grade: C+.
The Kindness of Strangers by Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds
Sometimes you just feel like listening to a song where a lonely lady is murdered while just trying to make some human contact. When that's the case, you can just pick up any old Nick Cave song at random and play one of his songs because they're all composed of that sort of tone. But if you want something a little more specific, this is the song you were thinking of.
This song is also a good example of negging. Dick Slade probably couldn't have killed and raped Mary Bellows if he'd pursued her like a normal person. Instead he's just all, "Look how charming I am! I don't even care if you don't want to fuck me! I'm just going to leave you here to think about my wink goodbye and the five times I 'actuallyed' you while helping with your luggage!" And Mary Bellows was all, "You know what? I know I've masturbated myself to sleep every night of my adult life but I'm currently on an adventure to see the ocean! Tonight, I'm going to get laid!" And she does get laid! Probably. It's not really clear on that point. I suspect the reason Dick killed her after handcuffing her to the bed could be because Dick was impotent and Mary said, "What the fuck is wrong with your tallywacker? Stiffen that floppy monster up, you big nerd!" Then he was all, "Oh man! You just justified my hatred for women which totally wasn't a thing until just now no matter what every single one of my actions and Internet posts up until this point indicate! Now you'll get yours!"
Some of you might be thinking, "Where did this whole impotency theory come from?" as if I just loved to spout random things that make no sense. I mean, I do love to do that! But sometimes I use logic to come up with my theories (like how Harvest was really Red Robin from the future after he'd been turned into an impotent vampire). His name is Richard Slade. A nickname for Richard is Dick. Slade is a flat grassy area. Like a vagina! So the opposite of a boner! Quid pro ex temper sum laude, bitch!
Grade: B-.
* * * * * * * * * *
Jesus, it's getting late! And wordy! I guess it's time to go! Later, jerkos!
