Showing posts with label Newsletter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newsletter. Show all posts

Monday, September 7, 2026

Eee! Tess Ate Chai Tea: The Newsletter #64 (September 2026)

E!TACT #64
Lanterns Review, Maximum Overdrive Review, and Trucks Review
By Grunion Guy


Lanterns, A Review
The new HBO show about the Green Lanterns asks the most important question that can be asked about the space cop organization created in 1959: "How many of the decisions of a sentient, mostly inanimate object are informed by systemic racism?" I don't mean that as a cynical criticism at all! It's obviously a great question because the backdrop of the show is Earth but particularly America where we should be asking that question of ourselves every day. Not because we're looking to feel awful or shame ourselves (and others which can be a lot of fun so we should be careful about how and why we do it but that discussion should be saved for an essay on some Spider-man franchise) but because we should constantly be moving ourselves toward being better people creating a better country so that our children can have a better future. Most people don't want to ask questions like that which is why a dumb show about comic book characters needs to ask it multiple times right in your face in the third episode.

Hidden behind that question and eagerly vying for your attention is the next big question the show asks (which is the question that has been asked for decades by Hal Jordan himself): How can a space police force run by little blue aliens whose concept of ethics, order, and morality are so foreign to not just human beings but every single other alien species in the entire universe know what is best for everybody? How can not it not become (assuming it didn't actually start out this way) a fascist, authoritarian regime demanding an infinite variety of people and cultures all act in accordance with their will and using their supreme belief in their will (and will itself) to justify the violence their Corps enacts?

So, you know, they, at least, have that in common with our police force in America (and probably other countries but since few other countries espouse the belief that plurality is what makes us great and then to have a police force that uses that plurality as an excuse to arrest and beat and murder the non-whites compromising a good percentage of that plurality (and because I live in America), I'm less concerned with how other countries do it right now).

But Hal Jordan does not believe that Green Lives Matter. He would never be caught dead with an American flag with a putrid green line replacing one of the other lines as if members of the Green Lantern Corps somehow are a special class of American that deserves unconditional support for absolutely no Goddamned good reason. Hal Jordan questions authority. And, sure, Hal Jordan also is want to run into a situation with green fists blazing, using violence to enact order, he usually does so for the right reasons. It's why Kyle Chandler's constantly talking about his gut and his instincts in the show. Usually, I'm whatever the opposite is of a proponent of cops using their guts and instincts (oh! It's "opponent", isn't it! I'm an opponent to cops who think their gut feelings are accurate and believe intuition is evidence!). But this is a comic book series where Hal Jordan is the actual Main Character because stories are allowed to have Main Characters whereas real life does not have Main Characters because people who act like Main Characters are actually NPC douchebags. Hal Jordan does the right thing with an inherent knowledge of the right thing that is (mostly) infallible because he is the good guy and the hero. I say "mostly" because he also still has things to learn from younger generations and Black artists who also need to learn things because they (the Black artist in question here is John Stewart) have things to learn about strictly following authoritative forces and acting on orders without thinking.

Speaking of John Stewart (who is maybe the actual Main Character of this show (which is also wrong because the show is called Lanterns which is plural indicating more than one main character exists (two for sure but possibly three and maybe four, depending on how much Sinestro will play apart and how often Guy Gardner will be allowed to steal the spotlight in every scene he winds up being in)), this might be the first time that I'm fine with Stewart's background being that of a Marine. I always hated that his character somehow morphed from an architect to a soldier. But in this case, they give him the architectural bent (less subtly going for the "art" part of it than the "building" part of it which I always thought was fairly clever (also making him an artist, and making him extremely competent with the ring in ways even Hal seems impressed by, might be an indication that there's no place for Kyle Rayner in this show which could upset some people but I'm fine with)) along with the soldiering bit. And I don't mind it because we see a man that was raised by a strong authoritarian voice using the promise of a better life after his normal one just so of going with the flow of the whole military mindset. His parents lie to him to get him to do what they want. The military lies to him to get him to do what they want. And now the Guardians are lying to him to get him to do what they want. Stewart, being a smart chocolate chip cookie (as opposed to a smart cracker which is what Hal would be if he were smart), has already sensed the downfalls of listening to authoritarians. He lost everything when the military used him to clean up their (and Hal Jordan's!) mess. He wound up a child back in his parents' home where he was never really happy except when drawing. His mother finally sees what they've done to him by forcing him to do what they say because of a vague Christian hope for an unbelievable life after the current life he's living if he just behaves and acts in a proper manner. She relents and helps him get into art school.

This first series has Hal and John hunting down a Manhunter which, I mean, a bit on the nose if you wanted a naming convention to absolutely Other an alien on Earth. But it's really about John learning that orders should be questioned and Hal learning that other people can be trusted to be competent and brave and heroic too. But Hal probably won't learn the lesson that he doesn't have to go down in flames like his father did just to prove something to himself and others because we already saw in the first episode how his story will end. But maybe it ends that way because he does the learn the lesson, right? That's almost certainly the story being told. And John will take over but he'll have been genuinely corrupted by Hal (in a good way by helping John to realize cops, even space cops, are awful people!) so that the Guardians will be all, "FUCKING HAL JORDAN! YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT! YOU RUINED ARE SUPER COMPETENT GREEN LANTERN PUPPET!"

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the show after four episodes. I really fucking like it a lot and Kyle Chandler couldn't be a better Hal Jordan. And Aaron Pierre is one fine John Stewart ("fine" being defined as excellent and so fucking hot). Plus during the first episode, the sheriff tells Hal to "eat shit" which is surely something Tom King demanded be in the first script as a shout-out to my web page, right?! Sure, it would have been better if the sheriff had spelled out the word shit ("Eat s-h-i-t, Hal!" she would have said while turning and winking at the camera) but then maybe it would have been too obvious, right?!

* * * * * * * * * *

Maximum Overdrive, A Review
This movie is terrible. I suppose that's a criticism but maybe not the criticism you think it is because it isn't unwatchable. It's especially watchable when you know Stephen King directed it at his peak cocaine-fueled frenzy and that Stephen King is not a movie director and also that the cocaine probably had something to do with his belief that he was. The dialogue is shit. The acting is awful. The reason that everybody remembers the goblin face on the front of the toy truck semi is because it was the actor who could emote the best in the entire film. That might not be a fair statement because Yeardley Smith actually blows everybody else out of the acting waters. She somehow plays the new wife who totally loves her husband but realizes he's capable of doing really stupid shit and needs to be screamed at occasionally while also never holding it against him in the way bitter, resentful wives of idiotic sitcom husbands always seem to do. Like, why are they married to that idiot if they obviously hate him so much? But Yeardley Smith obviously loves her big stupid new husband who won't stop risking his life for the stupidest of reasons.

The best part of the movie which I didn't totally realize was the best part of the movie (but suspected it was) until I watched Trucks (we'll get to that soon enough!) several days later was that it didn't take itself seriously at all and knew it was a kind of campy movie that was going to act stupid and irreverent for about an hour and a half. Yes, I did laugh at the bank marquee simply displaying, "Fuck" and "You" over and over again. I liked when the ATM called Stephen King an asshole and then when he, dumbfounded, had to report back to his wife that the ATM called him an asshole. I probably laughed at a bunch of stuff that wasn't supposed to be as funny as it was (or funny at all?) like when the hitchhiking lady lead first meets Emilio Estevez and says, "Hey! You're kinda cute!" (Sorry. I don't remember her exact quote so my brain stole a quote from Schoolhouse Rock.) Estevez responds with some sort of laughing "Oh yeah?" response (I don't remember! I wasn't planning on reviewing this when I watched it!) and she replies, "Not that cute." It was stupid. And sort of cute. And absolutely fucking ridiculous because, like, trucks were killing people and shit. Maybe they didn't know that yet but I think at least that goblin truck was acting super suspicious!

I'm not a huge AC/DC fan because I feel like most of their songs just sound too similar. So it's fine to hear one AC/DC song (doesn't matter which one, really!) while listening to other songs because it's not too much AC/DC. It's just enough! The radio is all, "Here's some music by a bunch of rock stars which makes you think they all only had two or three songs because we refuse to play any deep cuts at all ever! And now here's one by AC/DC. Probably 'You Shook Me All Night Long' but does it matter?!" Anyway, I bring it up because having AC/DC due the entire soundtrack is another consequence of putting piles and piles of cocaine up your schnozz. My favorite AC/DC song is "Who Made Who" which was basically the theme song for this movie. It's also kind of the line yelled at the trucks at least five times by the waitress of the diner as she freaks out, constantly storming outside to yell, "We made you! WE MADE YOU!" So the question was sort of answered long before the song played at the end of the movie. Unless the song was supposed to bring into question the waitress's declaration!

True story: the hottest and loudest concert that I ever attended was AC/DC at the Cow Palace in San Francisco. I left that show dehydrated and deaf. It was fucking awesome!

One last AC/DC fact: at the beginning of the movie when the bridge decides to lift itself, a black VW Bus with AC/DC's logo on the side gets caught up in the chaos. It was so cool! I don't even like AC/DC that much but I wanted it so badly! Stupid Stephen King destroyed it though.

By the end of the movie, way more people than I've ever seen in a disaster movie like this survive. It's kind of uplifting! Most disaster or horror movies are all, "Here are the couple of people who you're supposed to care about. Nobody else matters but these few people who will survive." But this movie is all, "You know all those truckers whose trucks turned on them? Most of them are going to live! Can you believe it? There's like twenty people on that little sailboat at the end!" The final victim, a glorious death by the goblin truck, claims Tom Nuttal from Deadwood because he's too greedy. But then Billy the Kid blows the goblin truck up with a rocket grenade and then he probably fucks the hitchhiker. Again!

Yeah, I guess there's a romantic subplot in this thing where Emilio Estevez and Laura Harrington (the hitchhiker who thinks he's cute!) where they're constantly fucking each other in the back bedroom of the diner whenever there's any downtime? It's fucking weird. Especially when the kid who has survived on his wits by hiding from homicidal ice cream trucks and killer lawn mowers walks in on them because Emilio is needed for some reason. That reason is that he somehow becomes the leader. Maybe because he's an ex-con? At least it makes more sense than if, say, Timothy Busfield were the leader of the group! Can you imagine that? Actually, you don't have to because the movie Trucks exists!

* * * * * * * * * *

Trucks (and One Helicopter), A Review
This movie is terribler than Maximum Overdrive. I know I should have written "more terrible" but that doesn't quite grasp how majestically terrible this movie is. The motto for this movie is probably the motto that the First Lady really wanted to use: "Be Terriblest".

Somewhere in Hollywood in the late mid-90s, some executive was asking the question, "What if we remade Maximum Overdrive but took it more seriously?" Too bad there wasn't an executive in the same place and time willing to kick that executive in the balls. I haven't looked into the reasons Trucks exists but it could be because Stephen King got involved and wanted to see his short story done right. Like how he couldn't abide Kubrick's The Shining existing without his own official version of it. What's especially weird about how serious this movie takes itself is that it may have made me laugh even more than Maximum Overdrive. Oh, it didn't want me laughing. But I was laughing. I was laughing at it and not with it. Because, deep down, I'm a bully and an asshole.

Timothy Busfield appears onscreen near the beginning and nobody who didn't see his name on the poster thinks, "Oh! There's our leading man! The guy who looks like he invented the idea of being a clown without make-up." At least when I saw Emilio Estevez, I knew with whom I was dealing! "That there's one of them good lookers! He's probably going to be the one to save the day by being all, 'I know how to sail a boat! We can go to an island to escape the trucks even though our movie is more about all technology turning on people and not just trucks!' Also he's going to bang the '80s hot lead actress!" Now that I'm thinking about Maximum Overdrive's weird romantic subplot again, it makes me think of Trucks weird romantic subplot which makes me realize the Maximum Overdrive romantic subplot wasn't weird at all! It was just the regular old male gaze '80s romantic subplot where if a woman entered the picture, she definitely wanted to fuck the male protagonist. Like, immediately. But in Trucks, the romantic subplot involves teenagers who constantly look at each other like they're about to learn the definition of "awkward finger blasting". Their relationship is so weird and strained but seemingly inevitable that it actually works for the big surprise ending when Logan hugs Abby in the helicopter and she's basically comatose. He's all, "Abby! It's me, Logan! I'm going to hug you like I haven't done all movie but we both knew we wanted t!" She just stares into the void of despair because she already knows the surprise ending. But while I was watching it, I just thought, "Typical Abby! Totally emotionally unavailable!" But then Timothy Busfield moves the curtain away from the helicopter cockpit (a thing that doesn't really exist? Right?) to reveal that Abby's father isn't piloting it at all! The helicopter which isn't a truck is sentient too! And it's got the four survivors you knew were supposed to survive in its belly! OH NO!

One of the bits I found pretty funny in this movie was how phones and televisions weren't working due to, I don't know, a chemical explosion or a comet or something, but whenever the people in the diner needed a little expository clear-headedness, the television would go from static to a live news report giving out needed details to understand what's going on. I guess the television only showing them what it wanted to show them was a hint that it wasn't just the trucks that had turned?

Trucks contains a number of scenes that are references to Maximum Overdrive. Obviously, they couldn't ignore that this film had already been made but for the big screen and with a better budget and, well, I guess I ran out of things that were better about the film. Some of the minor references I appreciated were when the guy was playing pinball but doesn't get killed by it because he kills it first by tilting it and when they show the cook using an electric knife that doesn't turn on him and cut his arm so that he goes crazy and begins screaming at every piece of electronics, "WE MADE YOU!"

I don't remember anything about the soundtrack of this movie so AC/DC wins that comparison.

The married couple in this movie aren't cute like Yeardley Smith and her man. They're fucking annoying and they fuck but we don't get to see any titties or dicks or asses because this was made for television, I guess? Even though it's rated R? They both die. Also the two truckers at the diner die. Plus the cook dies. Everybody dies except Timothy Busfield and his waitress, Hope (although by the end non-proper noun hope does die!), Logan (Busfield's son), and Abby the rebellious teenager. Oh, also the hippie dude dies saving Abby so part of her comatose persona at the end was formed when she got him killed because she answered a ringing phone that was just a trap set by the trucks. Was that part a joke? That the teenage girl couldn't resist answering a telephone?! I couldn't tell because I had no idea why she needed to answer the phone so badly.

Maybe it was supposed to be a joke because there's one scene that had to have been put in for laughs which is weird because the movie really tries to be taken seriously: the scene where the mailman is killed by a toy truck. It's basically a cartoon moment. If a guy can get his head exploded by a toy truck that wasn't even the solid metal Tonka kind of toy truck but an obviously lightweight piece of shit, he fucking deserved to die. Maybe that was a reference to Maximum Overdrive as well where so many people in that movie deserved to die because how do you get killed by a soda pop machine blasting sodas out of its fuck chute? Just step one foot to the side, jerkos! Also some lady we see hanging out a second story window was strangled by the cord of her hair dryer? So the machines don't just have control of their functions but any part of them? Or did the lady just go, "Oh no! My blow dryer has turned up from warm to hot and it's uncomfortable! I don't want to live!" and then she strangled herself?

The main thing this movie made me ask was: "How did Timothy Busfield become such a huge star in the '80s and '90s? Were all of us on cocaine? Like fluoride in the water?! Do I now believe in chemtrails?!" The non-main thing it made me ask was, "Why was this made?"

I just read the Trucks wiki to see if it would explain why the movie was made but it didn't. What it did do was make me realize I'm a fucking shit reviewer because this quote from Rob Dean of Daily Grindhouse was pretty good: "The constant attempt to ground the story in a "logical" explanation - mostly delivered by a TV set that shouldn't work but does, and only gets the exposition channel - undercuts the fact that this could just be a goofy thing with some menace that people would overanalyze on the Internet 20 years later." Also 30 years later, Dean!

Sunday, September 6, 2026

Eee! Tess Ate Chai Tea: The Newsletter #30 (Fourth Week of June 2018)

E!TACT #30
Robin vs. Ra's al Ghul #1, Nightwing vs Hush #1, Batgirl vs the Riddler #1, Red Hood vs Anarky #1, Harley Quinn vs The Joker #1, Batman #50, and Letters to Me!
By Grunion Guy

COMIC BOOK REVIEWS!

Robin vs Ra's al Ghul #1
By Seeley, Walker, Hennessey, Gray, and Bellaire

There's a line at the beginning of this book where Selina Kyle says to Damian Wayne, "I thought I was going to have to jump in and save that guy from being force-fed his own pins." Do I even need to say what I first read that as? If I do, you must be new to my reviews! Welcome! For you, I'll say it: I thought "pins" was "penis"! Part of me likes to think, "Tim Seeley did that on purpose. What a genius!" The other part of me is thinking, "Why are you reading comic books when your country is being burned to the ground by liars and despots?" But then that's exactly why I'm reading comic books, isn't it?!

Robin decides to have his own bachelor party (what do you call the thing the son of the groom gets up to the night before the wedding? If I had to rely on my own experience of my dad's third marriage, I would believe everybody simply played Infocom games all night after refusing to go to the wedding because they didn't want to dress up) which consists of sneaking into an arcade and playing a game called Cheese Viking. What he actually does is fight some guy named Aion who looks like Catwoman with her tits bound. I'm not going to look up "aion" to see what it means in whatever language it's from. I'm just going to assume it means "I'm your stepmother with her tits bound."

For some reason I'm not going to think too deeply about, I took a break to masturbate after that last sentence.

Aion. I suppose it could also be defined as "offspring of a bat and a cat but from a different timeline than the one you think." So basically he's probably Damian Wayne's half-brother from another time mother. I mean, his costume is Catwoman's suit with a red and green feathered cape. Imagine his identity issues! "Am I a bird? Am I a cat? Am I Batman?!"

Aion does reveal that he's Selina and Bruce's kid. Two pages later, they aren't sucking each other's dicks. I checked because I really felt ready for another "break." You'll see in the Letters to Me! section how I admit that I would be a poor caretaker of the Star Wars franchise. Same for Batman.

At this point in the comic book, most comic book readers aren't thinking "I thought this was Robin vs. Ra's al Ghul! Not Robin vs. some idiot from a different dimension or future timeline!" because most comic book readers don't think while they read their comic books. Like pigs at the trough, they gulp down whatever they're given. But not me! I think about these types of things carefully. Most of the time I don't come to the conclusion that Damian Wayne is hallucinating Aion due to the tailor's needle that pricked him during his fitting for his wedding garb. But I probably would come to that conclusion if I weren't taking so many "breaks"!

Anyway, that's what happened. The tailor was an assassin in a certain league run by Damian's grandfather. So it's really Ra's whom Damian is confronting.

Doesn't Batman have some kind of overly expensive alarm system that alerts him to when Ra's al Ghul comes anywhere near the western hemisphere?

Ra's doesn't stop by to kill anybody or steal anything or take control of the entire world for the good of humanity. Like Joker, he just dropped by to make Damian feel like a piece of shit and ruin everybody's good time. Luckily for Damian, he's a disagreeable person who doesn't mind confronting people about their bullshit. So Damian confronts Catwoman about how his role will change after the marriage and she says all the right things. He'll probably be calling her mom from now on although not in front of anybody who will remain alive after hearing it.

Rating: Come on! It was written by Tim Seeley! You expect me to shit on something that Tim Seeley wrote? Even if this was terrible (which it wasn't!), I'd probably give him a pass and blame the editor or food poisoning or the clone that replaced him after one of Marvel's paid assassins took him out in the never ending bloody war between Marvel and DC. This issue works because Tim Seeley understands the characters of Damian and Selina. A writer who only writes comic books and not stories would have made this all about Damian winning a physical battle over Ra's rather than the emotional one he's confronted with.

* * * * * * * * * *

Nightwing vs. Hush #1
By Seeley, Moore, and Bonvillain

Oh good! Another Seeley comic book! I think it was me who suggested that Tim Seeley and Tom King write some stories together so I'm going to take credit for these Prelude to the Wedding books. You're all welcome.

If any of them are terrible, though, that's not my fault. I'm sure Seeley has a Twitter account. Bitch to him for failing so hard.

This issue begins with Nightwing and Superman throwing Batman a bachelor party. Yikes. A bachelor party devised by the two goodiest two shoes in the DC Universe? Pass.

Nightwing explains that Catwoman and Batman are getting married publicly but not Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle. Because of "too many secret identity questions raised by a billionaire businessman marrying someone with Selina's rap sheet." But no questions are raised about Batman marrying the criminal and ex-mob boss Catwoman (who everybody knows is Selina Kyle, right? So she can't be seen out with Bruce in public?). I guess everybody just thinks, "Batman's got your Arkham Asylum right here, baby!" "Right here" is when they grab their crotch. Also the everybody who thinks that are guys.


Gross.

Hush crashes the bachelor party because he was on the cover of the comic book and in the title too. He claims to be Batman's "best man" because, I'm assuming, he's forgotten about Joker and Bane and Riddler and Penguin and Bat-mite and Crazy Quilt and Man-bat and Kiteman and Wrath and Calendar Man and every other Batman villain that people think about before Hush (which is all of them). Maybe that's just me because I didn't read Jeff Loeb's epic about the person who mirrored Bruce Wayne in so many ways that readers couldn't help but realize that was the point of the story. Unlike all of Batman's other villains that are reverse mirror images done too subtly for comic book readers to understand. I mean, The Joker is anarchy and death while Batman is order and life. Wrath is exactly like Batman but a bad guy. The Riddler uses logic and rationality for selfish reasons while Batman uses it for the greater good. Catwoman has a vagina while Batman has a penis. The Penguin is fat and out of shape while Batman is a perfect physical specimen. Scarface is a puppet while Batman is a real boy. I could go on and on proving my point but I think you're finally going, "Oh shit! I never even noticed that! So cool!"

I guess Batman and Catwoman's marriage isn't actually supposed to be public. I guess it was just meant for Batfamily and Justice Leaguers because in this comic book and the last one, there was one panel that specifically had a character asking, "How do they know about the wedding?!" And based on last issue's epilogue, it seems the Joker has told all of Batman's foes about it so they can ruin it. Just in case, you know, his discussion with Catwoman failed to cast doubt on the entire thing.


Is Hush implying that Batman and Nightwing engage in anal sex? Because if he is, I need another break.

Nightwing says, "Joker jokes. Riddler riddles. But Hush? You never shut the hell up." That's pretty clever! I bet he thought it up weeks ago and kept bothering Damian about it. "Hey, Damian. Want to hear what I'm going to say to Hush next time we fight? Come on. You know you want to hear it. Stop playing Cheese Viking for a second and listen to this! It's hilarious!"

Hush and Nightwing wind up falling through Superman's malfunctioning lightning door. They wind up in The Betwixt which isn't as delicious as it sounds. It's filled with people with no faces who fell between the cracks of the real world. They're called the Gone Men and they hate people with personalities. Man, I would be public enemy number one in The Betwixt!

Hush learns Nightwing's identity and then reveals that he's changed his face to look like Dick Grayson. Mostly because the Joker showed up at his doorstep one day sobbing over Batman getting married to somebody else. During their chat, Joker couldn't resist telling Hush to be more like Dick Grayson if he ever wants to get into Batman's pants. There's a lot of homoerotic overtones to this story.

Hush winds up disappearing into The Betwixt where he probably belongs, being that it's a place where people who don't know who they are or how they fit in wind up. But Nightwing is saved by Batman and then has that awkward conversation with the groom of an upcoming wedding where you have to ask, "What the fuck do you mean I'm not your best man?!"

Rating: Once again, Seeley knows these characters enough to write a nice little compact story that highlights their relationships. In the first one, Joker fucks with Ra's to try to get him to convince Damian that he's going to be lost and ignored because of Batman's new relationship. It doesn't work because Damian doesn't mind confronting people instead of stewing and pouting and plotting. In this one, Joker fucks with Hush so that Hush will get Nightwing to doubt how close he really is to Batman. But Nightwing is the most giving and sacrificing character in the DC universe, confident of his place in Batman's life. When Dick and Bruce speak at the end, Dick mentions how moving to Blüdhaven wasn't meant to put distance between them but to just allow Nightwing to flourish without needing the safety net. I like to think that this is a slight allusion to Wolfman's 80s New Titans where Dick was a whiny fucking brat who absolutely created tension with Batman in his need to break their ties. Man how I hated that Dick Grayson!

* * * * * * * * * *

Batgirl vs the Riddler #1
By Seeley, Jung, Marzan Jr., and Bellaire

The Joker has now given Riddler an assignment: make Batgirl feel like an old maid. I don't know how that's going to ruin Batman and Catwoman's marriage but then I'm terrible at riddles. Remember that old childhood riddle, "What two letters stop a car from going?" I thought the answer was "F U." I was always a rebellious kid!

That's a lie. I was actually what you might call an autistic kid. I sat and stared at walls until somebody did something I couldn't abide and then I'd throw the mother of all tantrums. But this was in the 70s so I've never been diagnosed with anything but "being stubborn" and "acting like an asshole." I'm so pissed. Just think about all the great medication I could have been doing in the 80s!

Do autistic kids get medication? Or do they just get vaccines? Brazinga!

I don't know who I just brazinga'd in that joke but I'm hoping it was the idiots who think vaccines cause autism. At least if I brazinga'd autistic kids, they won't notice.

I guess if you think vaccines cause autism, I'm joking about a serious subject and it wasn't very funny. And if you're smart and not a complete idiot, I was making fun of anti-vaxxers.

"Can we get to the comic review, Grunion Asshole?" rudely asked some person I imagine is actually reading this. "Fuck you! I'm being my best me!" I respond charmingly before getting straight to the comic review.


See? Just Batfamily and Justice Leaguers. Black Canary isn't either.

Hey, young people? Can you not use "talking" as a euphemism for "fucking"? Because I'm really getting confused and inappropriately horny listening to innocent conversations.

Not that Batgirl is fucking! As we learned from Batgirl's Diary, she's totally a virgin. A super hot virgin who loves one specific Bat-toy.

Batgirl defeats Riddler's riddles in record time which leads to Batman not praising her because he'll probably never know about it anyway. But her being super smart wasn't the point. I mean, it kind of was the point in that Riddler was playing with the idea that maybe he could love somebody as smart as he is. And if Catwoman can find love in the Bat-family, why not Edward Nygma?

In the end, Batgirl turns him down and decides to call up Nightwing to see about losing this thing she's been carrying around for years.

Rating: I'm not sure Tim Seeley could really find a good theme to focus on Batgirl so, since she's the girl in the Bat-family, her story had to be about finding love. What else motivates women?! Heck if I know! It's not like it could be the same things that motivate men, could it? Oh man. Could it?!

* * * * * * * * * *

Red Hood vs Anarky #1
By Seeley, Fernandez, and Kalisz

You know what "Prelude to the Wedding" is? It's "Death of the Family" done better. Here we have a story where the Joker is trying to sow discord and mistrust among the members of the Bat-family. He's trying to ruin Batman's life by making the people who love him turn on him. That's the same story as "Death of the Family." But whereas the Joker succeeded in "Death of the Family" in a way that didn't really have any lasting impact and so it wasn't, ultimately, a fulfilling story, the Joker is failing in this version. Which is how it should have been in Snyder's story! The drama in Snyder's "Death of the Family" was at WB levels. Characters are told something they didn't want to hear from the source to be least trusted and yet they believe it and go off with their feelings hurt. The Bat-family should be above that bullshit. Especially when it's the Joker telling them the things they don't want to hear. "Prelude to the Wedding" is basically the same premise except we have the Bat-family acting the way they should. They're just not buying it. I mean, it seems like maybe Catwoman bought into it in Batman #49. But then she isn't really part of the Bat-family. She can still have doubts that she won't be accepted or that she's not worthy of Batman's love because of her past. But Nightwing turning on Batman? Stupid. Damian? Ridiculous. Batgirl? Well, maybe, if he got creepy on her or something. And Jason Todd? Well, okay. That guy is a psycho.

If I had typed that sentence on tumblr — Jason Todd is a psycho — I would have gotten at least five serious and legitimate death threats.

This is the first Jason Todd story in quite some time that I'm not hating before I've even opened the cover. That's because Tim Seeley is a better writer than most. Usually Red Hood is written by Scott Lobdell so I've developed quite a bias against the character. Which isn't fair to Jason Todd. But since he's fictional, I don't give a shit. I'm no real fan of the current Anarky either. I suppose he's Jason Todd's foil because they have similar beliefs about justice. That means Jason Todd will have a tough time rationalizing his own actions in the name of justice when he watches a douchebag like Anarky do some of the same things.

The best way to begin questioning one's own beliefs is to see somebody you despise or look down upon express the same beliefs.

The issue begins with Catwoman and her friends at the bachelorette party. Most people would not have a problem with this but I'm seriously angry at Tim Seeley now. "Why?" you ask naively and innocently and void of the anger and trauma from having read dozens of books by Ann Nocenti. Oh, I guess the way I wrote that sentence answers the question. It's because the first character to speak is Alice Tesla which reminds me of all the built-up anger and trauma from having read dozens of books by Ann Nocenti. But it's good Tim Seeley remembered to include her because I've always thought she could be a great character if somebody with any writing chops at all got the chance to work with her.

Jason Todd is also at the bachelorette party because Batman asked him to spy on Catwoman. He pretends he's asking Todd to simply keep an eye on her in case there's trouble but Todd knows right away what Batman really wants: photos of Catwoman going down on Poison Ivy while Harley Quinn stands over them pissing. I just made that image up off the top of my head and haven't been thinking of it for years at all.


So according to Bizarro, his sensors haven't picked up something interesting? I'm confused!

So I'm guessing Bizarro no longer says the opposite of what he means. Probably because this is a Lex Luthor clone and not the actual Bizarro from Bizarro World. And also probably because Scott Lobdell forgot that Bizarro's main characteristic was speaking in antonyms. Also don't correct me and tell me the exact reason why Bizarro doesn't speak like Bizarro because I'll just make fun of you for reading Scott Lobdell's Red Hood book.

If Tim Seeley were here, I'd hug him because I'm fairly certain that he's making fun of Scott Lobdell's writing in the following panels:


If you weren't parodying Lobdell, I apologize for comparing you to him, Mr. Seeley.

Another reason I feel like Seeley is parodying Lobdell's writing is by the way he introduced Jason Todd. No, he didn't have Todd narration box "My name is Jason Todd. I was once killed by the Joker. Now I'm back to kick ass and chew gum. And I'm really into ass." But it's close! He does the other thing Lobdell and hack writers who think they're hilarious do! He introduces the character with the following text: "Jason Todd. Former Robin. Formerly murdered. Current Red Hood."

Remember that Swamp Thing event, Rotworld? Remember how all the characters who were being written by terrible writers at the time were the ones who were infected by The Rot? That was one of the best and most subtle digs at the terrible writers working at DC. I still think about it and applaud.

Jason Todd and Anarky fight. Afterwards, Todd listens to Anarky discuss his daddy issues. Then Batman reminds Jason Todd that he failed because Catwoman saw Todd. And Jason Todd gets to have that moment where he sees somebody he despises or looks down upon express his own feelings and sentiments so that he can think, "Is that what I'm like? Ugh. No way. I'm going to be better."


And this is where I, once again, remind everybody that I'm a Goddamned Grandmaster Comic Book Reader! Bam!

Rating: Another good chapter in the "Prelude to the Wedding." It's writers like Tim Seeley who make me wonder how so many other comic book writers have jobs. Can't DC and Marvel tell the difference between terrible writers and great writers? Or do they just not care because fans will read any piece of shit story as long as their favorite character appears in the comic? And, you know, there are a lot of Jason Todd fans willing to read Lobdell's stories.

* * * * * * * * * *

Harley Quinn vs The Joker #1
By Seeley, Basri, and Kholinne

I guess I ran out of things to say because I just sat down and read this one straight through without writing a bunch of digressions while trying to write about the comic book.

Rating: Harley Quinn tries to tell Joker that their relationship was terrible and she was glad to be out of it. Her terrible relationship is one reason she wants to see Batman and Catwoman happily married. So she tries her best to keep Joker occupied by killing him. It doesn't work. The Joker gets away to go cause the havoc he causes in Batman #48 and 49. Which means I read these in the wrong order, I guess! Stupid comic book stack. Can't it stay in the proper order?!

I don't have any insight into the theme of this issue because I think it has something to do with love and relationships and what do I know about those things?! What am I, a Kay Jewelers commercial?! I think the main thrust of the story is that relationships are terrible and they never work out. So Batman and Catwoman would be lucky to have Joker shit all over Batman's wedding and maybe even fuck the cake. If that's not the takeaway then tell me why nobody in the DC Universe has a happy marriage?! Hell, any marriage, happy or otherwise! And you can't point to Lois and Clark because they're from the Pre-Crisis DC Universe when people were allowed to get married. Post Crisis, if you were married, you either got divorced or a divorcee of some other hero travels along a phone line and lands inside your brain, killing you instantly and causing hundreds of people to instantly hate the name Brad Meltzer.

* * * * * * * * * *

Batman #50
By King, Janin, and Chung


Why is this an anniversary issue? Does DC not know how years work? Or weddings?

I can't wait to get to the end of this comic book and think, "Well, that's that! Batman and Catwoman are now happily married and will be until one of them dies in a horrible bat-boating accident!" I'm overjoyed for them, taking this romantic step into a gloriously joyous future laced with dozens of annoying bat and cat babies! I hope Batcow gets to be the ring bearer!

The Joker has been trying to stop this wedding in every way he knows how because he wasn't invited. The big dumb-dumb should have just purchased a copy of this comic book like I did! It says I'm cordially invited right there on the cover! What does "cordially" mean, anyway? Doesn't it mean "injected with alcohol"?


Fact: Snickers' vampires grow their canine teeth in the wrong place. No wait. The fact is the artist of this piece is a dolt.

The story begins with Kite Man getting the crap kicked out of him by Batman and Catwoman because Tom King's hard on for Kite Man is legendary. It's so big and thick and veiny! I wonder what part of Kite Man Tom King likes best? Is it the kite part? Or the man part?

Batman and Catwoman decide to get married on the blood spot where Kite Man was defeated at the break of day. Because that's when bats and cats are most horny. It might also be the place least likely to have a Joker ruin it.

"Isn't it 'the' Joker, Grunion Guy?" you probably aren't now asking. But if you were, I might have to remind you that there are three Jokers in the DC Universe. Nobody has really elaborated on that too much. Maybe nobody was ever meant to. Perhaps it's just an easy way for DC editors to answer huge nerd critics of their comics.

Huge Nerd Critic: "How come the Joker wasn't acting like he usually do...."
DC Editor: "THERE ARE THREE OF THEM! CHRIST YOU NERDS ARE GETTING ON MY LAST TIT!"

Batman finds a judge for the marriage ceremony. His name is Wolfman and he's known as the Raping Judge. Not because he's into rape! That's a terrible thought and nobody should think it. It's because he's named after Marv Wolfman who is totally into rape.

Catwoman's witness for the marriage (her and Batman each get to bring one) is Holly Robinson. Not the Holly Robinson of 21 Jumpstreet fame (is she still famous for that? Or is she famous for marrying Barry Sanders?!) but the one that murdered all of those people who Catwoman was blamed for murdering. She has to break her out of Arkham for the experience. Batman should be totally cool with that and definitely won't be thinking, "What the hell?! How many times do I have to tell her, 'No crime! Bad kitty! You're going to be punished for sure!'?" Then he'll think about her whip and smirk a bit and think, "Oh yeah. I see why she keeps doing crime now."

If you read that last paragraph and began developing a hot take on what I'm not saying around the words I am saying, just stop now. I'm just reporting what Batman was probably thinking. I'm not agreeing with his need to control Catwoman's thoughts and actions! That's all Bruce Wayne, baby!

The issue is made up of a lot of pin-ups by various artists. Laid out over the pin-ups are Batman and Catwoman's words. They're probably their vows but since I'm not done reading, that's just a guess. Anyway, the layout, where everything is kind of a mirror of the opposite page, is pure Tom King which probably pissed off all the Tom King haters. "He's just repeating everything in that way that means nothing except he's trying to be smarter than us! Why the fuck does he have to use form?! And tones?! And theme!? What's wrong with Batman punching stuff for eight pages straight?! So obnoxious!"

I began this review with the joke that the wedding obviously won't work out. This is comic books. Everybody read that initial paragraph and rolled their eyes and thought, "Yeah. We know this is a huge farce. It's going to end in disaster." But how many of you thought, "Grunion Guy probably really means what he's writing here. He wants to see Batman married and happy! The big fag." First off, such language! We all stopped using that word in 2008! I mean 1989! Come on, imaginary reader. Be better! Second, I did mean it. I do mean it. I really hope that Tom King surprises us and he allows Batman and Catwoman to be happily married. Why not for as long as he's writing this book? Why can't they have part of their middle story be one where they get the joy of being together? Who is that going to harm?!

So now you know my secret. No, not that I'm a big fag! Sheesh. You people are terrible. I mean, yeah, that's my secret! But I wouldn't word it that way, you gross jerks. I also wouldn't word it as I'm a little girly girl pussy baby girl butt. I would say I'm a modern man who accepted during college that he loved Sailor Moon in the most innocent and emotional way a man can love a fourteen year old girl cartoon character and who only hid that the show made him weep uncontrollably for ten years, give or take a few.

Selina and Bruce have their big wedding kiss in the exact middle of the book which can't be a good sign for how it's going to end. I mean, they haven't had the wedding yet! They just get all dressed up and then meet, right in the middle, right there on the staples (okay, not exactly because the staples come the page before. But I blame an error in the layout of the advertisements. I see what you were trying to do, Tom King. I got you!). The big loving embrace. The big kiss in their wedding finery. The moment they knew was coming. And hopefully not the last moment they were happy. Don't you dare, Tom King, with your shitty mirror image storytelling that everybody hates (I mean, not me! Just the dumb critics!) . . . don't you dare do that mirror thing with this story. Don't you begin hopeful, get to a middle that's the peak of happiness, and then descend into chaos, despair, and destruction! DON'T YOU FUCKING DO IT, TOM KING!


This is the page immediately after the big kiss (and the pin-ups, of course! Every two page spread of story is followed by two pages of pin-ups and wedding vows). Things are already tumbling down the story's climactic peak!

Of course Alfred is Batman's witness. Even Alfred knew it would be him but he was too polite to assume so he still gets emotional when Bruce asks him. Or, rather, casually tells him like it's no big deal.

On the subject of the pin-ups: they tell the story of Batman and Catwoman across DC's history. It even feels like, in many cases, they use artists chronologically along the way (there are obvious places where this doesn't hold up. But it, mostly, feels fairly close to the mark). They even eventually get to the New 52 on the roof sex scene, and the recent double date with Clark and Lois. It's really quite sweet.

The wedding vows have a lot to do with one partner's thoughts on the other partner's eyes. It's romantic but not in that way that makes me think, "Oh boy! At the end of these vows, they're going to declare their undying love for each other!" The tone feels more like they'll cause me to exclaim, "Oh no! It sounds like they're both reaching the conclusion that maybe they shouldn't get married! But they'll still probably keep up the tradition of fucking on rooftops!"

Also, I'm nearing the end and not a single whiff of Batcow.

As Selina and Holly head to the wedding, Selina mentions that she's currently writing Batman a letter. So that's what the "vows" have been. Her letter. And Batman's letter to her (I'm assuming on the next page which I have yet to read, he'll confess to Alfred that he's also been working on a letter!). Both of which, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, seem to be heading to the conclusion that neither one will want to go through with the marriage because they feel it will go against, and possibly change, the very nature of the other person. So. You know. Shit.

And so, Selina declares, in her letter, that she can't marry Batman because it will kill him. And Bruce declares in his letter, that maybe he can become somebody happy. Maybe he can change. Which isn't exactly what I expected. I thought they would both agree. So, at least, Tom King surprised me on that level. And, apparently, that was the point since Holly goes back to Arkham to discover Bane and a bunch of other people who have been highlighted in Tom King's run (along with Poorly Shaved Batman. I don't remember if that's somebody or if that's Batman and this is all a hallucination of some kind or maybe Tom King is speaking through Bane or maybe...well, I don't know!). Bane says, "The Bat is broken," (which is a terrific pun that somebody once thought up and now Batman writers can't stop using!).

Rating: I guess giving Batman hope that he can be happy and then taking it away is supposed to break Batman? But isn't the whole point that Batman's unhappiness and grim misery and obsession over justice are the only things keeping him Batman? Won't this devastating loss just make him even more Batmanier?! Or do the members of Batman's rogue's gallery all believe he's going to become a pouting emo baby for the next few months? A total pushover which they can take advantage of?! Anyway, it was a good story well told. The only flaw was that the staples were off by one page. Stupid layout editor! Somebody should fire whoever's job it was to place the ads!

* * * * * * * * * *

LETTERS TO ME!

Upright writes: “Do I like Elfquest?”

Rolls up sleeve.

“I think so.”

No story needs to be told once the reveal is done. That’s why Han’s story should have just been left alone; we knew enough!


I reply: Why are you rolling up your sleeves when answering the Elfquest question? Do you have to show off your massive guns even in an email response? So narcissistic.

Most comic book writers get that "no story needs to be told once the reveal is done" bit so wrong they should probably be marched up against a wall and shot. I mean that figuratively and not Milo Yiannopoulosly! Why would somebody who begins a story in the middle of the action only to revert to the start of the story that nobody now cares about two pages later need to be shot? Other than to satisfy my own dark whims and thirst for innocent blood?

That Solo didn't need to be a film seems so obvious that it obviously had to be a film. People are so thirsty for ignoring the reality around them that they'll lap up any entertainment that gives them more details of a fictional character whose story has already been told. I knew nothing of the plot of Solo when I walked into the movie theater. I was flabbergasted (for me, that means I was slightly surprised. It's hard to get my emotional train moving) that it was telling the Kessel run story. I am not against telling early Han Solo stories. But telling that story was simply to jerk off the fan base. "Oooh! Oooh! I remember when he said that parsec thing about that mission! Fuck yeah Han Solo! Yaaaaaaas! This is everything! And we also get the story about how he won the Millennium Falcon except it in no way matches with Empire! Woo hoo! And the woman he loved knew he was a good guy right from the start! I guess he's always been such a pushover and he's so ethical and moral and heroic but in a rebellious and disagreeable way! And did you notice how he shot Woody first and then Woody commended him on shooting first?! That's where he learned to know when murder is okay and why we can embrace his shooting Greedo first! I can't believe how much cum I now have in my underwear!"

Now, I didn't hate Solo. I enjoyed it. But you can still roll your eyes five million times during a movie while still touching yourself during all of Chewbacca's scenes. It's just that the movie was a huge missed opportunity (in my eyes, of course! I know what the new controllers of the Star Wars franchise are up to. They made the message clear in Rogue One. They are fans of the Star Wars universe who are going to tell stories that revolve around the most minute details which they want to fix. "Can you believe the Death Star had such a huge flaw in its design? Me either! Let's make an entire movie to make that believable! And are you also tired of hearing people complain about the parsecs line as if it's a measurement of time when we all know how to counter that argument but let's make it into a film to shut them up!" (Again, I know I have to state this because people think "being critical" equals "hated the thing" so here it goes: I really liked Rogue One even though it was a story that didn't need to be told).

Solo should have been a one shot story that had nothing to do with the overall Star Wars continuity. If I wrote it, I would have revealed that Han often shoots first in situations that don't always call for it, getting him in more trouble than he'd otherwise have been in. I'd have written in a part for young Lando because Donald Glover as Lando is the best casting call of the Common Era. But he'd have already lost the Falcon to Han and he'd probably be quite a bit butt hurt over it and maybe he'd fuck Chewbacca in a ten minute graphic sex scene. Somewhere in the movie, Han would make up the lie about the Kessel run to save his hide and use it enough times that he realizes it's a good line to drop to line up jobs and get more pussy. And it would definitely not reveal that Han Solo single-handedly kick started the rebellion when he was fifteen years old. Or however old he was supposed to be.

Of course if I were in charge, I probably would have also had Han use a whip in one scene and then wink at the camera. The franchise is almost certainly in better hands than mine.

Back to the initial point though (sometimes I find my way back. Other times I just think I have and proclaim that I'm doing that but I'm really not back to it. I can't tell you which kind of time this is), I'm mostly against telling stories that simply fill in the details on stories that have begun in the middle. There's a delicate balance between beginning a story in the middle and fleshing out the character by revealing things that we weren't privy to before the story began and simply restarting a story that began in the middle so that the entire story can be told in a linear fashion. Look at it this way: is the Star Wars universe better off because we got the prequels? Fuck no! Now we have to live in a world where every clone was basically Boba Fett's dad. Also Boba Fett was Boba Fett's dad. Gross.

What I'm trying to say is if you know more about the Star Wars universe than can be remembered after one viewing of half the movies, you're a fucking nerd. And I mean nerd as an old school insult and not in the cool way popular and good looking people like to giggle and say, "I'm such a huge nerd!" Fuck you, you cultural appropriators! You don't know what it's like to never get laid in high school because you were busy jerking off to that one panel where you could see some serious Phoenix side boob! And also the succubus picture in the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual. So sexy!

Upright replied to himself: Oh wait! He said “You tell me,” didn’t he?

I reply: Holy shit. Okay. Now I know why you mentioned that Elfquest bit.

Awesome Virgin: "Do I like Elfquest?"
Awesome Virgin: *rolls up sleeve to show Elfquest tattoo*
Awesome Virgin: "You tell me."

I had completely forgotten about that! And the "I think so" misremember didn't help me remember! I don't remember where this happened though. Was it in that terrible panel at Comicon about the Elfquest movie where Marv Wolfman didn't announce but was probably thinking about the rape scene he was almost certainly going to introduce into the story? Man, what a shit panel. Speaking of questioning one's beliefs due to seeing somebody you despise or look down upon express those beliefs: that day, I begin hating Elfquest after seeing other Elfquest fans in person.

Friday, May 8, 2026

Eee! Tess Ate Chai Tea: The Newsletter #29 (Third Week of June 2018)

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
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.


* * * * * * * * * *


The Man of Steel #2
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).


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:


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!


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!


* * * * * * * * * *


The Man of Steel #3
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 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.


* * * * * * * * * *


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.


* * * * * * * * * *


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-.


* * * * * * * * * *


Jesus, it's getting late! And wordy! I guess it's time to go! Later, jerkos!