Saturday, April 12, 2008

Something about your birthday...

Hey, Leaguers... The League is getting out of the way for Jamie, who has written up some sort of birthday message.

And... here it is:

Happy Birthday, Ryan!!

While I can't put it as eloquently as Steanso, I would also like to wish the League a most happy birthday. Ryan and I met nearly 15 years ago while I was attending Trinity U (also Steanso's alma matter). We did not start dating until some 2+ years later, but each of the few times we met during those pre-dating years I knew there was something special about him. There was a fascinating mixture of mischief and kindness in his eyes that made him memorable.

Thankfully the stars alligned our junior year and we've been together ever since. He proved his worth early on when, already aware of my kidney problems when we started dating, he spent a whole weekend in my hospital room when I was frighteningly (and not attractively) ill. This devotion has continued throughout our relationship, and I cannot count the number of times Ryan has dropped everything to care for me. Visions of him slumped in an ER room chair exhaustedly attempting sleep at 3:00 am come to mind. He has been my advocate and comforter in tough times.

Our rough patches were not all medical, and we had a difficult four years living in Arizona. Finding it hard to meet people there, we were forced to rely solely on each other for company (sorry Mel, Jeff, but you do not talk last I checked). Ryan kept us sane with his good nature and humor. We were able to joke with each other about our situation, which made it tolerable.

It may seem as if I am highlighting the low points of our relationship, but I am writing under the assumption that everyone out there knows of Ryan in some capacity, even if just through his writing. I find it more telling of a person's character how they react in challenging circumstances and thought some of you may not be as familiar with this side of Ryan.

So thank you Ryan, for being my champion, my entertainer, my psychologist and best friend. I love you more than I can express in this short tribute and hope you have the happiest of birthdays.

33

Tom Ames' Prayer
by Steve Earle

Everyone in Nacadoches knew Tom Ames would come to some bad end
Well the sheriff had cought him stealin' chickens and such
by the time that he was ten
And one day his daddy took a ten dollar bill
and he tucked it in his hand
He said I can tell you're headed for trouble son
and your momma wouldn't understand

So he took that money and his brothers old bay
and he left without a word of thanks
Fell in with a crowd in some border town
and took to robbin' banks

Outside the law your luck will run out fast
and a few years came and went
'Till he's trapped in an alley in Abilene
with all but four shells spent

And he realized prayin' was the only thing
that he hadn't ever tried
Well he wasn't sure he knew quite how
but he looked up to the sky

Said you don't owe me nothin' and as far as I know
Lord don't owe nothin' to you
And I ain't askin' for a miracle Lord
just a little bit of luck will do

And you know I ain't never prayed before
but it always seemed to me
If prayin' is the same as beggin' Lord
I don't take no charity

Yeah but right now Lord with my back to the wall
Can't help but recall
How they nearly hung me for stealin' a horse
in Fort Smith Arkansas

Judge Parker said guilty and the gavel came down
just like a cannon shot
And I went away quietly
and I began to file and plot

Well they sent the preacher down to my cell
He said the Lord is your only hope
He's the only friend that you gonna have
When you hit the end of Parker's rope

Well I guess he coulda' kept on preachin' 'till Christmas
but he turned his back on me
I put a home made blade to that golden throat
and asked the deputy for the key

Well it ain't the first close call I ever had
I'm sure you already know
I had some help from you Lord and the devil himself
It's been strictly touch and go

Yeah but who in the hell am I talkin' to
there ain't no one here but me
Then he cocked both his pistols and he spit in the dirt
and he walked out in the street


Thursday, April 10, 2008

Superman stinks?

Back before Superman Returns, I used to get a lot of articles like this one forwarded to me. It's an article basically stating why Superman is a terrible character. (Thanks to Randy and Simon for the link.)

There are two basic forms these articles take:
1) I am a comic fan, and I know what makes for good superheroes, and Superman is NOT IT
2) Superman is too outdated for our morally complex times (this one is usually written by a non-superhero and/ or comic fan)

These articles are usually, I assume, meant to blow the lid off of people's pre-conceptions of the All-American hero. Often they are meant as a justification of the Marvel-style of superheroes and/ or Batman as the rightful heir to being "the best hero ever".

It's a weird sort of thing to want to write such an article, even for a comic site or publication. Really, no other character generates the same negative ink, just for existing. I don't recall if I've ever seen a "why Spidey is a terrible character", "why Batman is just dumb", or "why Captain America should stay dead/ retired already".

I do think the linked article does distill the basic crux of the arguments by comic nerds who do not like Superman. It's what I would characterize as argument #1, why Superman is not a good Superhero by and for comic nerds.

The four points for why Superman is a bad character are (more or less):

1) Indestructibility
2) Moral absolutism
3) Superman's very presence somehow lessens humanity
4) Superman is given powers, and somehow that's unfair

As I mentioned above, these arguments are usually paired with the relative bad-assery that the comic fanboy finds in Batman, Spidey or Wolverine. Now, clearly The League is a pretty big Batman nut, and our Batman fandom runs many years longer than that of our Superman fandom. We understand the argument. We also like Spidey, and feel sort of "meh" when it comes to Wolverine.

The biggest problem with most of these articles is that its pretty clear that the writer has only a cursory understanding of Superman, usually formed from a high-profile project of the cross-over variety, or a team book. And quite often it seems the writer is finding ways to force the world to see Superman through the filter of Dark Knight Returns. And, quite often, the writer has selectively omitted certain aspects or perhaps just missed some detail of the story which they are citing.

The League rebuts:


Indestructibility- usually the number one writing complaint for writers trying to take on Superman. He can't be shot. He doesn't fear a gas main exploding.

All of these are true. That was kind of the point of a guy who didn't need to worry about bullets, etc... when Superman was developed. If he could be shot and die, he'd be someone else.

Yes, if you want to get technical, Superman can be hurt by Kryptonite. Or magic. Or have his powers shut off under the light of a red sun (as seen in recent issues of Action Comics). But that's not really the point.

Superman can't be injured by conventional means, but those around him CAN. People can get injured. It's one thing to get shot at, its another thing for Superman to worry about the bullets bouncing off his skin and sailing all over the place. Its another thing to worry about escalation when that super-villain knows he can't get you, but blowing up a few city blocks will sure get your attention (or poisoning all the air ducts in Metropolis, right Lex?).

This doesn't address that many other fan-favorite characters are also invulnerable. The Hulk. Thor. Wolverine (from a practical standpoint). Iron Man. Captain Marvel/ Shazam. Green Lantern. Martian Manhunter. Colossus. And, hey... even Booster Gold.

Superman, like Batman, is a character featured in perpetually produced serial fiction. Neither will ever really die, no matter what an editor or executive might think will temporarily push up sales on a comic. At what point does it not become absurd for the man in tights and bat-ears to not ever just get a bullet between the ribs from some thug who gets off a lucky shot (and you can't tell me every crook in Gotham wouldn't be carrying at least two guns just for purse snatching)? Or why doesn't someone just start shooting at Wolverine from across the room with a decent gun? Or Spider-Man, for that matter? Heck, at least Superman has an excuse for shrugging off bullets, and at least the crooks in Metropolis aren't going to just wait for their lucky shot if they know it ain't going to work.

Are we to understand that the folks of the Marvel or DCU are too dull to understand that a well placed IED could take out most of the Bat-gang, most X-Men, etc...? And while that may make those characters a bit less fantastic than the Man of Steel, worrying about getting hit with a pool cue is not really what Superman is about. Consider Superman the guy feeling guilty when the bomb goes off because people were injured, and he didn't spot the bomb in time with his X-ray vision.

To suggest that the writers of Superman comics do not address the invulnerability issue in the pages of Superman comics, and elsewhere, is a bit disingenuous. It's addressed in almost every issue. It's considered Superman's responsibility to use that invulnerability (more on this later).

And to suggest that Superman has never confronted a villain who knew his weaknesses, or who wasn't a physical threat to Superman is just simply inaccurate (Mongul, Darkseid, Doomsday, Mxyzptlk, Bizarro, Brainiac...).

Moral absolutism - When this pops up, it's usually when I get the feeling the writer has never stooped so low as to actually have read a Superman comic in his/ her life. Superman comics are generally about Superman not being sure what path to follow when confronted with an almost insurmountable moral dilemma (see Busiek's "Camelot Falls").

Our writer said: Superman has no values of his own, so he's content to just uphold the values of the ruling class

True, in that usually Superman returns the situation to the status quo before the end of the story. It's been 60+ years since Superman was portrayed as a misfit working outside the law. But to state that he has no values of his own displays a fundamental disregard for 70 years of Superman comics. That's also not to mention that the same is true of roughly 90% of what's out there.

If you really want to dissect that statement, we can go back to our friend, Batman: A rich plutocrat who goes out each night and performs vigilante acts beyond the law on a populace that is obviously desperate enough to turn to crime.

Our writer says:

In Batman: War on Crime, Bats comes up against a young boy holding a gun on him. Batman, understanding the complexity of crime and the reasons for its existence, talks the kid into dropping the gun and giving up a life of violence.

Superman would probably just use his heat-vision to melt the gun, then put the kid in prison where he'd become a hard-bitten thug who'd murder somebody a few months after getting out.


For Batman (and the actual purpose of that story, if I recall), that kid was the exception to the rule. If the kid were seventeen or eighteen and holding the gun, Batman would be telling the kid how long each bone would take to heal as he broke it. The writer's suggestion regarding Superman's solution is a fairly inaccurate portrayal as the Man of Steel has EVER been portrayed. Most likely today's Superman would either let the kid unload the clip, then ask him where his parents were. Or, melt the end of the gun and have the same conversation with the kid Batman had in Dini's book.

The writer also suggests Superman's book "Peace on Earth" is a simple story about Superman stopping hunger. I'd encourage Leaguers to read the actual book. "Peace on Earth" is about Superman's inability to solve everyday crisis, and how it weighs on him. It does look at the complex reasons for hunger, and how intervention by any power might be problematic to solving the problem.

Superman has never been portrayed as a puppet of the powers-that-be, but certainly in the post-Wertham-era, he's not been the wise-cracking outsider living outside the law that Siegel and Shuster originally conceived. But a quick glance through a year's worth of Superman comics is a reminder that Superman lives outside of humanity to a large extent, and is aware of the corruptibility of the status quo. He doesn't merely act as a super-cop with all thought to the letter of the law as the author would suggest. While he's certainly not one to just pass by a drug deal on the street, he's here to try to protect us when we can't protect ourselves.

For that matter, its kind of a silly suggestion to bring up that Superman is just some guy who thinks his morals should be enforced. Isn't what Superman is doing the same sort decision making every elected official, police officer, soldier and appointee who ever had to make a decision that would affect others?

In short, what the author seems to want is a Superman who deals with complex situations. I would welcome him to take a look at the past few decades worth fo comics.


Superman's very presence somehow lessens humanity - This is kind of the Lex Luthor argument.

The argument here is that Superman's presence and tendency to act on humanity's behalf somehow suggests that humanity is stupid and dull and needs a savior. As the author points out, this was Lois Lane's argument which earned her a Pulitzer in "Superman Returns". This author felt that Lois's argument is never really defeated by the movie's action, a point which I would note goes out the window when Lois's plane is rescued by the Man of Steel and we can see in her eyes when she realizes her article might be a bit inaccurate.

Superman was created, to an extent, as a fantasy character by two kids who were seeing the corruption, wrong doing and abuse in their world. Keep in mind, this was Cleveland during the Depression, and one of these guy's fathers was gunned down in his own store.

In the first issue of Action Comics, Superman stops the execution of a wrongfully convicted man, smacks around a man abusing his wife and rescues Lois from a local thug. Not bad for a day's work.

These days Superman tends to stop giant robots, intergalactic forces bent on destroying the fabric of space and time, or well-meaning time travelers trying to make the point our author is trying to make. Humanity needs to save itself. Which sounds great until the next mudslide, earthquake in a third world country, or nuclear meltdown.

That's more or less the current idea behind Superman, that someone can take action immediately, not wait and hope that the Red Cross will show up after the fact. We may believe ourselves masters of our world, but when we are not... when we fail or we can't save the day... that's the story of Superman. When the lights are flashing at Hoover Dam and all hell is about to break loose, who shows up to patch the dam with his heat vision and get the generators back online, say a quick hello and then disappear back into the sky?

I don't think that suggests anything negative about humanity. And maybe it even suggests something about what anyone can do to step in and help someone else out when they're in a crisis.


Superman is given powers, and somehow that's unfair -
Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Sure, everyone on his planet had to die for him to get the powers, and touching a piece of his planet will kill him... But the point here is that, I think, the author is sort of saying "all those guys who made the basketball team were just lucky bastards with natural talent. If I could have worked out all the time, and maybe had professional basketball tutors, I could have been as good as them. That's what people want to see!"

This is sort of a personal preference in your superherofandom, and it has been used repeatedly in the narrative of the DCu as a point/ counter-point between Superman and Batman.

Superman has long been about responsibility of power, from his first stories onward through the present day. The decisions about how to use that power, and what sacrifices he must make to uphold that responsibility are the fabric of the Superman mythos.

The conception was always that Superman was the one with the power working for the underdog when the world was failing them. Somewhere along the line (I point to Dark Knight Returns) this whole notion that Superman was a thick-headed goof who was a government patsy appeared, and suddenly Superman's power was frightening and worked as a great strawman villain for DKR. That was more or less Miller's interpretation, and one he explained away in Dark Knight Strikes Again.

If we follow the logic of the author, Batman didn't earn his power, and so he's very likely to abuse it or misuse it. Which is only true to the extent that he's used his billions to do much but put clubhouses in space for he and his pals, and to dress up as a bat and punch out petty crooks.

I get the whole point about Batman being a complete badass because of his training, but, hey... I think this is kind of merely a question of taste.

More on the Batman v. Superman debate (which this guy can't let go):

Look, Bruce Wayne is a billionaire trustfund baby with a chip on his shoulder. I'm not sure if the author is suggesting that Superman should hang up the cape and move aside for Batman to do his thing (which kind of boils down to beating up the poor and mentally ill to make someone else pay for a crime none of these people ever committed).

As per the inevitable reference to the DKR fight between Batman and Superman, which has been replayed a million times... We Superman fans get it. Bats used Kryptonite in a surprise tactic. See him try that twice.

The thrill in DKR was seeing the unexpected, and, really, guys... Superman actually won that fight. He didn't need to fake a heart attack so as not to get his ass finally handed to him.

I might also point out: how many people would really pay to read an issue where Superman does the completely predictable and turns Batman into Batpaste? It seems like that would be unpopular.

On a final note: A long time ago I was having a similar disagreement with someone who shall remain unnamed. Their stance was "well, this is my perception of Superman". I understand that argument, to an extent. However, I do not feel it fair to pass judgment on a character based upon a few glimpses pulled from a few comics, a few spots of media, etc... Especially when using Dark Knight Returns as your basis for evidence. Four comics from a writer focused on a completely separate character do not a character define.

These articles will start making the rounds once again, I suppose. And as much time as this ridiculous post took, this is my last word on the matter for what I hope to be many, many years.

It seems that someone else has rebutted the first author's argument, and I encourage you to read their much more concise article here.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

League Birthday Happenings

The League turns 33 on Saturday.

I know. I look much older and far worse than 33, but there you go.

I'm not having a b-day party (we're saving that for Mel), but we are going to go grab dinenr at Artz Rib House on Saturday, sometime around 7:30ish. If you're in town, why don't you pop in and enjoy some BBQ?

In addition to seeing me down about 15 lbs. of beef ribs, none other than Austin's own Flyin' A's are playing from 7:30 - 9:30. I figure: you can either show up and have a beer, or have dinner or whatever. We'll probably clear out around 9:30, so you could still have the rest of your night.

We're not really planning anything else, but if you want to hang out afterward, that might be arranged.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

You can help Melbotis!

Go to this link:

Statesman Golden Retriever vote

Mel's at #192. You can help! Go to #192 and vote "yes". Help out Mel! And then vote "no" on a whole bunch of other Golden Retrievers.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Nothing to blog about

I have nothing to share. I wish I did.

The weekend was slow. I haven't been feeling particularly great.

Jamie has been playing Mario Galaxies, and is much better at it than I (despite my attempts at coaching). Its interesting to see how two people will attack the same challenge in different ways.

I don't link nearly often enough to Sleestak's site, but here's a little bit of the way, way back machine. Paired with this post today from Occasional Superheroine, in which Valerie tries to figure out what women want in comics... Anyway, it wasn't that long ago that romance comics were being targeted at girls and young women, and a world which would make Betty Friedan's head explode was pretty much what they were selling.

Weird, no?

Way back when I was contributing to Comic Fodder, I posted on the topic of what women want in comics, and I admit... the answers were a little less concrete than what I would want as a market researcher. Could have something to do with women being a wide and diverse readership or something. And then young women getting creeped out when they visit comic shops and have to deal with the He-Man Woman hater's club-house atmosphere. I have no idea.

But at one point, the romance comics and comedy comics were selling. And it's interesting to note that manga brings both, whereas the average modern superhero comic is supposed to be grim'n'gritty for the most part, and therefore devoid of romance or humor, items which once drew in large numbers.

Also, you know, wider distribution channels when you could pick up comics at the drug store.

I've also been pondering a bit about the Warren Jeffs' commune interception by local authorities in West Texas.

For those of you not familiar, Jeffs led a community in Arizona, Colorado City, which was solely occupied by his followers. The community was comprised of a splinter group from the LDS, which still practiced polygamy, and tended to set up marriages between minors and dirty old men. As the minors were raised in the colony and told Jeffs was a prophet, they didn't know any different, and believed themselves to be doing God's bidding.

Colorado City came under fire in the first year or so when we'd moved to Arizona, and it was announced that Jeffs was buying land in West Texas and trying to rebuild his cult fantasy land in the Lone Star State. I had a good laugh at that.

Arizona has a sort of "go along to get along" sort of attitude. I guess its a weird side-effect of Goldwater conservatism, but people tend to stay out of each other's business to a much, much higher degree in AZ than folks tend to do in Texas. At least traditionally.

Jeffs managed to grab some extra media attention last year when he went on the lam and was arrested (and I think, convicted) for arranging marriages between unwilling teenagers and dirty old men. I imagine the folks of West Texas did not cotton to the idea of polygamist statutory rapists living nearby.

Well, it seems things have come to a head.

400 kids have been pulled from the West Texas compound. Whether El Dorado, Texas can absorb 400 kids raised in bizarro-polygamy-cult land into their foster care system remains to be seen.

If I seem uncharacteristically judgmental of the Jeffs followers, its because I consider them to be evil, evil bastards. Essentially Jeffs has found followers who managed to lay claim to the city government of a corner of Arizona, and were able to milk the system for years, use their official power to keep official power out, and had systematically set up a system to keep women/ girls uneducated and, essentially, as breeding stock. Further, I am deeply suspicious of what became of many of the young men of the community. If each man could have many wives, the math doesn't add up. And while some young men were run out of town... I'm just saying.

So if the El Dorado authorities seemingly overstepped their boundaries, in this case, maybe I understand. What was going on behind the walls of the compounds was not a secret. In fact, In Arizona it was very well known thanks to a few women who had escaped. (And I do mean escaped. These women were more or less free to stay and be happy, or... leaving was not really an option when you knew no one outside and were told Satan himself controlled the world outside the city).

I would like to hope that everything that has occured has been "by-the-book". Letting the Jeffs cult have any legal ground to stand on isn't any good for anybody, and many of the 400+ pulled from the community might now actually have a chance to have some say in their lives, not have their lives directed by cult leaders.





Anyhow, I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Cheston Merges with the Infinite

Toll the bells, and come not to me with words of good cheer, Leaguers. Aye, turn your eyes neither toward Earth nor Heaven in joy, but let them hear your weeping and lamentations. So above, so below.

The great one is gone. He shall stride the world no more.

Ne'er again shall we see his like. His grace. His very Chestonness which made him the Cheston. He's been called home by the cosmos, too great for this wretched world, yet always making this orb greater by his presence.

Now gone. Gone forever.



I say adieu. And goodnight, sweet prince. The world shall be poorer without your light.

Charlton Heston has merged with the infinite
.

The League is in mourning.

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Or is this the best video ever?

From who else? Bjork.

Wanderlust.

Of course, this is a pretty typical day for Jamie, anyway, so she'll be wondering "what's the big whoop?"

Friday, April 04, 2008

New Batman cartoon



Looks like there's a new Batman cartoon coming in the next year or so, intended to replace the now canceled "The Batman" series. Which had more or less turned into a team-up series in the past year, anyway. I wasn't crazy about "The Batman". The first year or two, the creators changed things, more or less just to change them, not because it added anything to the show.

I was also never 100% sold on their character designs. And they just never really seemed to really dig in and build a world the way Bruce Timm had done. Moreover, their takes on the rest of the Justice League was a far cry from the excellence of JLU.

I have no idea what the new Batman series will be like or about, but I like two things here:

1) The Dick Sprang styling on Batman. Looks very kid friendly. I'm hoping for a fun take.
2) Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle!

I am a huge fan of the current Blue Beetle series and character. One of the best titles out there right now, and the character is really well thought out, as are all of the details of the book.

I think Jaime Reyes is a natural for a kids cartoon show, so I just hope they don't screw it up.

Huzzah!

Anyway, the series looks pretty straightforward. Batman teams up with someone new from the DCU every week and, I guess, saves the day. Anyhow, I'll tune in.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Best Video Ever?

You may have your opinion about what was the best music video ever, but I am here to tell you, you are wrong.

The best music video ever? Van Halen's peaen to school boy crushes on their teachers.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Hot For Teacher



Things you often love as a kid usually wind up a lot more complicated than you gave them thought for at the time. Truly, I don't think you could get away with this video again for about six or seven very legitimate reasons. Probably the number one being the utter objectification of the authority figure parading herself in front of a room full of children. Somehow I don't think that would fly. Sexist comes to mind. Possibly even misogyny (but I think that's unfair. I think the word is objectification).

Really, the video is hilariously awful. But wasn't that always the point of Van Halen's videos with David Lee Roth? They weren't exactly out there trying to uplift the intellect of mankind, unless you think Alex's drumming on "Hot for Teacher" is a breakthrough for humanity. In which case, you'd be right.

And, seriously, back in the 80's on MTV, this wasn't even close to some of the worst stuff you'd see when it came to ladies in bikinis. This was just the silliest. As immortalized in the classic "Tapeheads", in video music making, that's considered "production value". And if you don't believe me, watch any yound ingenue's video these days.

I think you have to give the director credit for the many pieces of the video which work so well together: the Harms-like Waldo character, the library table guitar solo, the Van Halen dance sequence, the young Van Halen equivalents, the ultimate destinies of each spelled out... Man. That's about five minutes of solid music video.

Sure, the video seems a bit as if it were cooked up by eighth graders, but that's appropriate to the subject material.

The video also gave us the phrase "Siddown, Wall-do!", which I think I need to start using around the office.

Anyway, its much better than the video for Sussudio (which I spelled correctly on my first try, thank you).

What was your favorite?

Superman at LakeCreek Alamo April 27th

Hey Leaguers,

Not much time for the blogging this evening, but...

Superman: The Movie will be showing at the Alamo Drafthouse up at LakeCreek on April 27th. Yup, up in Ye Olde Land of Wherefore The League Grew Up, up there kinda near Westwood High School. There are two shows, but we're going to the 1:00 show since its a Sunday, blah blah blah...

This showing is actually celebrating the 70th anniversary of Action Comics #1, which means just about absolutely nothing to the average Leaguer, but, hey... I get my little thrills where I can.


Superman wonders why The League has spent more time watching this movie than Reeve spent making it

While I saw Superman at the Paramount about a year ago with Jamie, Julia, Steven and Lauren, I'm kinda looking forward to watching it while eating a pizza. Which, in all likelihood, I've done before at home, but hell... this will be at a THEATER WITH PIZZA (we like to mix it up).

Justin is going to be there, and he's promised to wear his Brainiac costume. I assure you, you have not lived until you've seen Justin in his tiny, pink shorts with his legs painted green.

We've already bought our tickets, so we hope you'll show up.

And, forwarded by Randy (click to see full-size):

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

bookshelves, zen, Johnny Clambake's

Hey Leaguers. Not much to report. As Steanso might say, its been an uneventful week.

Over the weekend Jamie and I began my long-dreamt-of plan to get shelving up in the hallway/ open area at the top of the stairs. The League is actually very excited about this turn of events as it means: organization. Based on evidence of my life, ages 12-18, KareBear would probably not believe I actually really, really like self-imposed organization. I like knowing exactly where things are, and setting up organizational systems. In a way, what i really wanted to do was build my own "built-in" bookshelves, but if I wanted to do that, it would take weeks, and I couldn't guarantee the shelves would be, oh... flush to the wall and all sit level. I am no carpenter.

So we've Ikea'd it. We're putting in shelves from the Billy system. The system which is going to look much better with books on it, than sitting empty.

We also sort of screwed up, and I neglected to pick up the "corner hardware" which would actually make the whole "corner" bookshelf thing work. There's also an additional, small bookshelf I think i need to make it work, but... anyway.

Tonight I intended to continue on with the great bookshelf build, but we wound up going to Austin Asian-style-food-bistro, "Zen". Which has good food, but it's claims to being "Japanese" are pretty dubious. The reality is, if the food is okay, I could care less about its authenticity or pedigree.

What struck me was how utterly unrelaxing "Zen" is as an environment. There are TV screens with 3D animations flying around, they aren't shy with the volume of music, and the art design, while interesting, is sort of aggressive. Not exactly like a stone garden.

But, again, the food is good and priced reasonably.

Speaking of reastaurants, it's been almost a year, so I thought I'd repost the Johnny Clambake's post from last year, with names removed to protect the innocent.

Johnny Clambake's 1

Johnny Clambake's 2

Johnny Clambake's 3

Johnny Clambake's 4

And Steanso's raging response to me pulling down the post.

For those of you who weren't around this time last year, the Johnny Clambake's incident was the oddest, most controversial escapade of all the escapades at League of Melbotis. Not only was I contacted at home by a business owner, some Loyal Leaguers felt my deicison to remove my post was highly questionable. Just check out the comments sections for the free-for-all that ensues.

I guess The League had strayed too far from its punk-rock roots, but hell, I was a little sensitive to unemployment issues at the time, and I stand by those crazy kids and their meatball manufacturing ways. And, hey, Johnny Clambake's has wound up making a go of it in spite of anything I thought. Bully for them.

In the end, the woner of the place extended an olive branch. Heck, a whole olive tree, but I was too tired of dealing with the issue to take him up on his offer.
Thus, we never did claim that free meal. Nor have I been back, pretty sure that I would be taken out back by guys named "Tiny" and "Chuckles" who would see how far backward my knees would bend.

Honestly, it was a pretty unhappy event for me at the time. But if you can't look back and laugh, well, hell... you shouldn't be writing inflammatory restaurant reviews or keeping a blog at all.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

DITMTLOD: Like a virus

In a single 24 hour period, two bloggers of note have picked up the banner of discussing their celebrity crushes of yesteryear.

Over at Stevengharms.com, Steven G. Harms has finally made good on his promise to produce a list of Dames in the Media he Once Dug. You can check it out here.

Steven's list in quite comprehensive, going so far as to include one entirely fictional persona. And I think he does a great job of identifying ladies of considerable interest of the 1990's, including the cartoon character.

Completely unrelated to The League, over at comic blog "Occasional Superheroine", Valerie has listed a chronological accounting of her celeb crushes. I'm fairly certain Valerie has never stumbled upon, nor read LoM, so its interesting to see the concept materialize on other blogs, especially in list format. It must be in the zeitgeist.

Somehow its more telling when you see the list rather than individual DITMTLOD, I think.

So I challenge all Leaguers to either publish your own list, or send me yours. Make it specific. Ladies of the 90's? Dudes of Glam Rock? I don't care. Send 'em in.

Comic Book Make League Cry

I know it doesn't really matter if I beg or plead with my good Leaguers... You're unlikely to pick up a comics just becasue I say so.

But if the League may recommend: All-Star Superman #10

The League is not made of stone, and every once in a while we're also particularly tired and/ or not feeling well. And in those moments, well, we confess a tear or two might creep to the edges of our otherwise manly, manly eye.

Things in comics that made me cry:

-The death of Hippolyta in Wonder Woman. Poor, poor Diana. For the love of God, comic nerds, be good to your mother. You never know when an evil space tyrant is going to take her away.

-We3. Pretty much every panel of every page of We3 had me sort of teary. It's partially due to something about how Frank Quitely draws, and partly because I'm a sucker for animal stories.

-Lois's face when she sees Superman again at the end of New Frontier. Sometimes someone actually understands Lois and Superman, and Cooke knocked it out of the park. Sadly, the movie didn't really capture the moment in quite the same way.

-Promethea. When Promethea turns to the reader and speaks to them in the penultimate issue of the series. This series was so underrated and under-appreciated in its time, its a crime. Moore truly succeeded with pushing the boundaries of reality on this one, and his collaboration with JH Williams is one of the finest examples of art and words mixing as they can only in comics that I've had the privilege to see. What Buddy Baker began with his "I can see you" business reaches a new apex.

Also, maybe one day Jamie will let me hang my two Promethea prints.

Amazing Spider-Man #36
- It's tough to imagine with a few years of separation, but in the wake of 9-11, Marvel Comics interrupted the storyline of the Spider-Man comics to tell a story devoid of cynicism, and which captured some small aspect of the tragedy of 9-11. And just as it uses the eyes of Spider-Man to capture the helplessness of the day, we also see the determination of the real heroes of 9-11 reflected in the story.

Had this story been printed now, it would seem odd, manipulative, and in questionable taste to use the very real tragedy of 9-11 as a backdrop for a tale of the wall-crawler. But at the time... And even today as the tragedy of 9-11 fades from view with the passage of time, it will be a time capsule of how we reacted in the days, weeks and months following. No doubt some readers will feel it absurd, even insulting that Marvel would have dared to tell a Spider-Man story, but that is now. This was then.

There are also stories of how quickly this comic was produced, hitting the shelves by November, 2001. Indeed, you can feel the urgency of the story, and the raw feelings of a true moment in history and how Marvel tried to come to grips with what was the only thing on everyone's mind.


Laika - Is there anything more likely to make you cry than shooting a puppy into space with no plans to bring it back? Reall, you could probably get my lower lip trembling just asking me to tell you what our Russian friends did to get something alive into space before the US of A.

This is, also, a great comic. I highly recommend.

First in Space - America's inability to treat its own non-human astronauts with John Glen-like-respect gets its own treatment in this true story of the US's first chimp in space, Ham. Suffice it to say, The League's feelings regarding poor treatment of chimps, especially when its a true story, are perhaps stronger than we care to admit.

Anyhoo...


All-Star Superman #10 managed to fall somewhere in there. And for Superman fans, Morrison and All-Star Superman have been nothing less than a gift. Each panel reflects more understanding of who Superman is and what that should mean rather than the mere caped do-gooder too many writers have fallen back on. The essence of what fans find in the character is omnipresent in each of Quitely's perfectly composed pages.


As with We3, and parts of new X-Men, Morrison and Quitely seem to have a synergy few other writer/ artist teams seem able to capture. Quitely manages to convey the quiet magic of Superman's world in a manner that seems to have been lost since the days of Curt Swan, with broad expanses necessary to contain the Man of Steel. His renderings of each character's expressions rival Kevin MacGuire for internal monologue.

The ideas and understanding of what a Superman would mean to the world, and what responsibilities that Superman would feel pervade the issue. But to tell it is to give the moments away.

Perhaps when the series is completed and collected, I can recommend the trade collection. In the meantime, you're missing out on one of the best comics on the stands. If we get a little misty when reading All-Star Superman, we hope you'll forgive us. The same thing happens whenever I watch Superman and they do that pan over the Kryptonian landscape.



The League doesn't mind shedding a few tears now and then. We're sensitive like that.

As much as I love getting a good laugh out of a Jimmy Olsen comic, every once in a while, its nice to know comics can be a powerful enough medium to involve us enough in the characters, in their worlds, to maybe do a bit more than tell another tale of fisticuffs and heat vision.

Monday, March 31, 2008

My Favorite Force for Evil: Part 1

I won't bother to get into the context of why we were talking about it, but I was asked Sunday evening: I don't think there's any question regarding your favorite hero, but who is your favorite villain?

I'm going to assume that what was meant was Comic Book Villain.

If you believe movie critics, superheroes are only as good as their villains. Now, anyone who actually reads superhero comics knows that statement is suspect, and should really read: a superhero is only as interesting as the challenge put to them. And in the movies, superheroes tend to run into their more colorful villains, usually pared down for a 2-hour action adventure, and cast with colorful actors who get to have fun with it.

Because the DCU and Marvel U are somewhat unending, and villains recur, its not the same, neat package one gets in a movie. Believe it or not, the occasional story doesn't even feature a villain (it's true!). So my criteria may be a bit different from what one sees in the movies.

It's also worth noting that superhero comics are respectively full of a multitude of villains for every hero (after all, Batman can't fight the Joker every issue, and Superman can't try to arrest Luthor every issue). Some appear once or twice, and then disappear. Others appear as an afterthought, and through the magic of re-use and popularity with fans, they can become as central to a company's entire line of comics as any superhero (ex: Lex Luthor).

So... yeah.

There are various criteria one can use for a good villain. Costume. Motivation. General characterization. Initial vision for the the villain. How that vision has expanded over the years. And some may like villains for their somehow noble nature, such as Magneto or the occasional turn by Dr. Doom.

DC is littered with great villains, and I think the past two decades have seen DC really embrace and understand how to turn a villain from a cardboard cut-out to a three-dimensional character, all on their own. In a lot of ways, Marvel has been ahead of DC in this area since their inception. But, lately... Perhaps its pop-psychology, but villains now have rich pasts, goals, etc... just like their heroic counterparts. Hell, I'm a big fan of Geoff Johns' Flash thanks to his treatment of some of DC's second-string villains.

As classic as his heroes have become, I'm also a huge fan of several of Kirby's villains (which include several Marvel staples, from Mole-Man to Galactus. From Magneto to Doom). There's vision there from Kirby, and while it may not have always shone as brightly at DC as at marvel when it came to establishing a line of villains, he did some amazing work.

At the end of the day, my favorite villain (often copied, but never equaled) is Kirby's creation, Darkseid.



You might actually remember Darkseid from the 1980's version of Superfriends, "Galactic Guardians", which took an interdimensional/ interplanetary despot and made him safe for the kids. I assure you, he's not all about trying to make Wonder Woman his ladyfriend.

Darkseid's single desire: attain The Anti-Life Equation, which, once mastered, would give Darkseid complete dominion over all life.

If that doesn't give you a pretty good challenge for your resident heroes, I don't know what will.

Already without the Anti-Life Equation, Darkseid is massively powerful, perhaps more so than Superman, with whom he has gone toe-to-toe. He's obtained the power of the Omega Force (which he stole from his brother, seemingly killing him). He poisoned his own mother to become master of the planet Apokolips. He keeps several fiefdoms of power, constantly struggling for his favor, and the citizens of his planet are known as The Hunger Dogs, and are treated as nothing more than expendable slave labor to tend the fire pits of Apokolips, which fuel his engines of destruction.

With all that going for him, Green Goblin doesn't seem like that big of a deal.



Darkseid's intervention on Earth began in, of all places, the pages of Jimmy Olsen, when Kirby took over the title in the 1970's. It was part of Kirby's four-sided storyline of the Fourth World, featuring a pantheon of celestial beings who had brought their conflict to our backyard. From shadowy figure to fully realized despot, Darkseid would repaint the landscape of the DCU and provide the villain of villains, the final threat which Earth would always have to keep in the back of its mind.

Wonder Woman and Superman are two of his least favorite Earthlings, and there's significant history with other heroes as well. This is not to mention the ongoing feud with the peaceful counterpart to Apokolips, New Genesis, where his son, Orion, was raised and turned into a weapon against Apokolips. In fact, a treaty with new Genesis (mutually beneficial, lest the two planets destroy one another), is kept intact only if Darkseid never shows outward aggression toward Earth.



Darkseid, by the way, believes that portions and/ or all of the Anti-Life Equation exists within the human genome. And he's tried to harvest many times before.

Darkseid is infrequently hands-on, and prefers to allow his various minions, from Kanto the Assassin, to Granny Goodness, do his bidding. He also has a sychophant sidekick in the malicious DeSaad, who takes pleasure in pain (Darkseid is simply unmoved by suffering). When Darkseid finally does get involved, the earth tends to shake, walls crumble, etc...

In addition to the comics and Superfriends, Darkseid has appeared in the Superman and Justice League cartoons. Rumors also circle as to whether Lucas drew some of his inspiration for Darth Vader and the Death Star from Darkseid and Apokolips. That's a judgment call, but there are certainly similarities.



What Darkseid would actually do with the Anti-Life Equation is unknown. Unlike Mongul, his cheese-colored counterpart, Darkseid is not about suffering. He's far more about control, and would likely squeeze free will from every last being within his reach.

As a "god" (little "g"), Darkseid has time on his hands, and so he's as much a schemer and planner as anything. He plays games for power with beings like Eclipso and Brainiac, and thinks little of forming alliances with Earth heroes when the occasion calls for it (Our Worlds at War).

In short, he's a big, spooky dude. Who can also atomize you with the red Omega Beams which fire from his eyes. You can't distract him to save yourself, as he is single minded about the Anti-Life Equation. You can't offer him anything he doesn't have as ruler of a planet, but the knowledge of the Anti-Life Equation and what might lie beyond the Source Wall. While not containing the flawed nobility of a Magneto, Darkseid is almost difficult to label as twisted and bent like so many other heroes. Instead, he's a single-minded force of destruction, like a force of nature in the DCU.

In many ways, of all the villains in the DCU, none has carved out their own mythology to such a degree without relying on a co-dependent relationship with a superhero to define them. That's a respect the writers and artists seem willing to give Darkseid, recognizing the place in the DC pantheon which Kirby created for him. And I've always found that more fascinating than, say... Sportsmaster.

And, yes, Thanos is interesting, but he's sort of the poor man's Darkseid.

Hope that answers your question.

I'm going to spotlight a few more villains over the next few weeks. This has been kind of fun.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

5th Anniversary of League of Melbotis

Well, holy $#!%.

The League of Melbotis turns 5 on Sunday. Our first post went out on Sunday March 30th, 2003. I had no plans for League of Melbotis at the time, short of keeping up with JimD and this Randy fellow.

In many ways, League of Melbotis has become a chronicle of my life that I never really anticipated. And while possibly originally conceived as some soapbox, its become a doorway into a community/ family of its very own in a way that on March 30th, 2003, I never would have expected.

In the past five years I've been able to find folks who dropped off my radar, have met new people, made new friends, been able to announce births, celebrate birthdays, ring in the Holidays, share our little victories, announce the arrival of our own little puppy, track our move back to Austin, tracked relationships into marriage, and, sadly, had to wish a few good people good-bye.

We've had some weird moments, like when Meco showed up in the comments section. We've had some fun contests, entirely too much about Superman, enjoyed UT's National Championship, and all kinds of stuff.


The League of Melbotis welcomes all like-minded individuals willing to use their unique abilities for the betterment of mankind.

The blog has changed, I am sure, since I left Arizona. I've changed in the past five years, too, I'd guess. I see things in older posts I miss doing. I see things I think that maybe work a little better now. It's no longer a tool to keep me attached with friends and family back home, but it now lets me keep tabs on friends and family all over the place.

And, hey, I've had an opportunity to get on my little soapbox and talk about the comics, movies, cartoons and stuff that I love, and love to hate. Thanks for being a part of that discussion.

So... Thanks again for making this worth doing. We've enjoyed it. We hope you've enjoyed it.

In the next week few weeks, I should be hitting 2500 posts. 2500. That's kind of unreal.

And God help you if you read them all.

Thanks for letting me be a part of your life. Jamie and I thank you. Mel thanks you. And Lucy and Jeff, too.

Don't forget, the party for Mel's birthday is April 19th, sometime in the afternoon after 2:00. We'd love it if you could be there. E-mail me if you need directions.

If you can't make that... April 27th, The Alamo Drafthouse at LakeCreek is showing Superman at 1:00 and 7:30. You know the League of Melbotis will be there. We're going to the 1:00 show.

Thanks to all of you once again. Here's to five more.

Superman Rights go to Siegel Family

Hey Leaguers

I am going to try to wait this one out and see what happens, but this is of no small significance to DC Comics, Warner Bros., Superman fans and the future of the Man of Steel.

As you might know, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, very young men at the time, sold the rights to National Comics for Superman for about $130. Siegel's widow and daughter have apparently successfully sued for rights to the Superman property, plus money going back to 1999 or so.

I really, really do not understand the legality of the situation. Moreover, I have no idea what control this would give to the Siegels and/ or Shusters going forward in regards to control of the property from a creative standpoint. While Siegel might have gone in a different direction with Superman, its tough to say that National and DC have not been good stewards of the character. How many other pulp/ childrens/ sci-fi properties have survived for 70 years?

Unfortunately, WB's inability to share more in the profits from Superman merchandising and licensing may mean the Siegels have some bad blood. No idea what that could mean.

For more, read Heidi's report at The Beat.

In addition, read the story as covered by the New York Times.

The Siegels have everything to gain by playing well with DC/ Warner Bros, and it would be nice if they would be comfortable with a financial deal rather than a creative deal.

I believed Shuster's heirs may have had a stake in this as well, but it seems he might not have any heirs according to this article. So stay tuned...

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Light blogging

I apologize for the light blogging. It's been a busy week.

In the meantime, I leave you to ponder

SUPERMAN: Family Man







Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Happy Birthday, Peabo

It is true. Jamie and Peabo celebrate their birthdays just a few hours apart.

I haven't seen much of Peabo this year. Between his new kid, a busy family life, church and his shady law practice, it's tough to catch up with Peabo. And its been since Halloween since I've seen the guy, but I wish him all the best on his birthday.

I didn't buy him a present or anything, but, you know... you can wish a guy a happy birthday.

I've known Peabo since our arrival in Austin in 1984. We were in the same 4th grade class, lived down the block from one another, played sports together, attended college together (with one year as roommates) and the dude was in my wedding. So there's some history there.

Anyhoo, Happy B-Day, Peabo. Hope its a good one.

A DITMTLOD special report: Sarah Jessica Parker = Not Teh Sexy?

Apparently Maxim, the magazine for guys too cowardly to justgooutandbuysomepornfortheloveofmike, has put out a list of female celebrities who are assumed to be sexy in the media, but with whom Maxim begs to differ.

They've presented a list of the 5 Unsexiest Women Alive.

There are two gut reactions to this list:

1 - Oh, those poor women.
2 - HA ha ha ha ha ha. (pause) BWAH HA HA HA HA HA.

The League believes both reactions are appropriate. It can't be fun to be Sandra Oh and to wake up one morning to find out you've been deemed one of the 5 Unsexiest Women Alive. I would say she's never really tried for sexy, but I have cable, and I once stumbled across "Dancing at the Blue Iguana". And it was not the gritty slice of life picture it was trying to be. It was so dull, I made it only long enough to see Sandra Oh in it, say something negative about Arli$$, and move on.

What is interesting is that Sarah Jessica Parker tops the list. For many a year, fans of the show "Sex in the City" have insisted that SJP was everything that a sexy, independent, urban-chic woman should be.

Others on the list are a bit more obvious.

Coming in at #5 is trainwreck Britney Spears, the subject of last night's highly disturbing episode of South Park.

#4: Madonna. Who sort of quit being sexy right after "Express Yourself", just as she was gearing up to try to chastise America for not wanting to be sexy with her, leading to her eventual move to the UK, where she morphed into a Disney villain.

#3: Sandra Oh. Poor, sad, Sandra Oh. Who is just trying to be a working actress, for chrissake.

#2: Amy Winehouse. Because a crack-smoking 20-something burning away her talent with the crystal meth and deeply in need of an intervention in public is funny-sad, and in no way sexy.

So why does SJP hit #1? She's together. She's got a career that hasn't involved becoming a public nuisance. There are plenty of other actresses who are unconventional for TV and the big screen.

All of the women on the list are generally attractive, I suppose. But that's not really what Teh Sexy means.

In many ways, we have no idea who Sarah Jessica Parker is, but we do know who Carrie Bradshaw is. And, according to the editors of Maxim, is it possible that it is not SJP, but Carrie Bradshaw that has been found wanting? Is it possible that Carrie bradshaw, and not SJP, has been deemed the least sexy woman alive?

Is it a schizm between what fans of the program feel is sexy and fun versus what frat boys who can't work up the courage to buy real porn find sexy? Does SJP not fit within the mold of the typical Maxim girl? (20, in her underwear, and apparently just come in from out of the rain?) No doubt that's part of the case.

To some extent, sure... the women on the list don't really meet the imaginary standards of the girls in Maxim. Young, somewhat coltish and seemingly available to the kind of guy who might pick up Maxim, anyway. And different kinds of guys like different kinds of girls. I don't think Tina Fey would show up for a Maxim photoshoot.

I have gone on record, stating that I understand that Nicole Kidman is supposed to be gorgeous, but I have yet to find a dude who considers her a Dame in the Media they Might Dig. I see the high cheek bones, the huge eyes, the perfect skin... but what is there to hang onto? Perhaps a different case from Sarah Jessica Parker, who is a bit less conventional, but it is an example of someone that the Entertainment Tonight's and TMZ's of the world would insist that we all must be ga-ga over. But are we? Who made that decision?

Is it a case of what I shall call "The Julia Roberts Effect"? Where the press insists that we all find someone fascinating and beautiful, when, really... meh. That might be what women relate to, or even aspire to, but...

But, mostly, I sort of think Sex in the City, despite the promise of the name of the show, was a major turn-off.


Not Teh Sexy?

Fans of Sex in the City love Carrie Bradshaw because she wears cute outfits that are not office appropriate. She gets in daffy, messy romantic entanglements with sensitive guys who want to work things out. When they don't work out, she learns a little life lesson and/ or is able to re-assert the fabulousness that the show promises regarding her lifestyle. She has a big apartment in Manhattan and great shoes and seems to afford the cost of it all by writing one column a week where she talks about the thing she knows and loves best: herself. She has friends who she doesn't work with who can always make it for lunch, and nobody minds that they all get wrapped up in each other's very personal business (nor do the boyfriends seem to mind that every intimate detail is openly discussed). She goes out every night of the week. Through countless sexual and romantic entanglements in the show's run, nobody was ever really hurt. Nobody ever seemed to actually react in the kind of crazy ways people do when real entanglements come to an end. And, anyone who has seen as few episodes as I've seen would still know that at the end of the day Mr. Big was there as the safety net, the safe guy who would always be there when our heroine got done sowing her oats and decided she wanted for someone else to pay for her expensive shoes.

And they call superhero comics an escapist, adolescent fantasy...

To the point, what is attractive to any guy about Carrie Bradshaw?

Do you find someone sexy who is going to describe your romantic entanglements in a weekly column? Or who has a back-up plan in a rich, good looking guy who rides around in limos?

I don't think this is a question of gender inequality in programming. Could a show with the same basic premise, starring four men, have made it on the air with a title called "Sex in the City"? And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be heralded as empowering and glimpse into the world of urban sophisticate. Quite the contrary, I'd guess.

What little online reaction I've read seems to be women surprised to hear that men do not love SJP/ Carrie Bradshaw the way her fans do. They've pointed to SJP's inner beauty, the fact that maybe she is pretty, but not so pretty that she clearly wouldn't hang out with you... But most of what they're praising is not actually Sarah Jessica Parker, it's Carrie Bradshaw, plus the costuming department for her show.

Returning to "The Julia Roberts Effect"... Maybe this is sort of the same thing as when guys are baffled that women might not find their action hero of choice, the one they'd like to be like, to be the perfect male specimen. For example, I do not think Jamie wants for me to be:
-Jet Li from "Fist of Legend"
-Ash from "Army of Darkness"
-Clint Eastwood from "The Outlaw Josey Wales"
-Kareem Abdul Jabbar
-George Reeves.
But I think she'd appreciate it if I were more like Harrison Ford circa 1980 or so.

For the record, I think SJP is reasonably attractive. And I certainly believe Teh Sexy doesn't come in a certain Maxim-approved package. I'm not sure if my DITMTLOD columns have always reflected that belief, but there you are.

No matter how much SJP's defenders may wish it to be true:

-shoes are almost never that exciting to guys
-it takes a sepcial kind of guy to want to have his physical and personal shortcomings detailed in a weekly column. One that his folks could read.
-Making a career out of whining about your seemingly endless string of failed personal relationships when you're pushing 40 is in no way cool.
-(In fact, a little self reflection that isn't taking place in a weekly column might be good)
-Guys do not care what designer you are wearing. Consider how many guys you've ever heard of who watch the Oscars "just to see the dresses"
-that tutu? Kind of stupid.

I am not sure this was helpful.

Discuss.