So-called columnist at ComicBook goes much too far with entry about DC superheroes who allegedly were portrayed killing

Here's a writer at ComicBook who, in his sad attempt to make defamatory smears about 7 superheroes at DC who supposedly killed enemies, he went way overboard in his descriptions without even providing any concrete evidence to prove some were portrayed doing so, and on the other hand, doesn't even criticize one example of writing where this did happen. It begins with the following:

DC Comics molded the concept of superheroes into the unbreakable symbols of morality and hope they are today. Many of the tropes associated with the genre can be attributed to DC Comics, including the no-killing rule. Even when faced with certain death, superheroes will oftentimes refuse to take a life because it sets a bad precedent for how criminals should be dealt with and violates fundamental human rights. However, even in the ideal world of DC Comics, some superheroes are willing to kill their enemies. The reasoning behind these killings can range from the hero having no other choice to their corruption and becoming supervillains. Many of these heroes have racked up high enough body counts to rival or even surpass the deadliest of villains.

Although the idea of superheroes committing genocide sounds unbelievable, it’s happened several times in DC Comics. Sometimes those killed didn’t even deserve it and were instead innocent victims of a hero who turned to the dark side and unleashed their full power. Deaths that were undone or retconned will be included. With heroes like these running around, it’s no wonder that Batman has contingency plans to take down every member of the superhero community.

It's no wonder the columnist wouldn't take an objective view of something so tasteless. Anybody who takes such a casual view of mass murder certainly can't be expected to deliver a perceptive view from a critical perspective. But why, decades after the Phoenix story in X-Men at Marvel, does the columnist think it's "unbelievable" anybody at DC would go miles out of their way to try and ape it? Because in a way, that's exactly what they've been doing all these years themselves, or, even if the body count an individual character's had forced upon their reputation isn't as big, they certainly go out of their way to write up shock value stories where a goodie is forcibly turned into a baddie. That's what they did with Jean Loring, girlfriend/wife of the Atom, in Identity Crisis from 2004, and even before that, they did it with Carol Ferris in the Green Lantern stories from Action Comics Weekly in 1988. Absolutely sick. Now, here's an example proving they're not fans of the characters in focus, starting with Hawkman:

With a hero as long-lived and brutal as Hawkman, it’s unsurprising that he’s racked up an impressive kill count. Whether as a Thanagarian soldier or throughout his numerous reincarnations, Hawkman has killed numerous opponents in battle. Almost every villain Hawkman has fought has had their skull bashed in with his mace. The Justice League still must constantly try to keep the winged hero from killing more enemies. Hawkman’s most egregious act of mass slaughter was when he triggered an avalanche to bury an entire army of sentient undersea monsters before they could attack the surface world. Over his many lifetimes and countless battles, thousands of people have been the victims of Hawkman’s savagery.

Wow, they sure love making clear they're not fans of the Winged Warrior, seeing how they make it sound like he was created from the very start as some kind of serial murderer, infinitely worse than the villains he took on. Carter Hall never smashed skulls with his mace or any other weapon in the Golden Age stories I read, and neither did Katal Hol in the Silver Age stories I read. I don't think they were depicted so horrifically in any stories published up to the turn of the century. And even if they were, whose fault is that? The writers/artists. But again, creator Gardner Fox never did what they claim in the stories he wrote, so the above paragraph is a blatant lie, giving specialty news sites a very bad name. Now, here's their hints they're not Green Lantern fans either:

Hal Jordan’s descent into madness is one of the most infamous instances of a superhero becoming a genocidal monster in comic book history. When Hal’s home, Coast City, was destroyed, the embodiment of fear known as Parallax took advantage of the hero’s grief and corrupted him, turning him into an intergalactic supervillain. Hal then proceeded to slaughter thousands of his fellow Green Lanterns to claim their power for himself. By the end of his rampage, Hal had killed almost every single Green Lantern in the universe. Although many of these Green Lanterns would eventually be resurrected and Hal would be redeemed, many people never forgot what Hal had done.

So Hal's guilty, but the writers/artists/editors (Ron Marz, Darryl Banks and Kevin Dooley) who forced this repellent story upon him have no responsibility to shoulder, and don't owe GL fans an apology? Gee, how considerate. No mention of how Katma Tui, though briefly resurrected in 1993, was put right back in the intergalactic grave soon after (assuming she'd ever actually been revived in the first place), and I can't recall Jim Owsley (Christopher Priest) ever clearly apologizing for being party to that atrocity either. So what's their point? (Saddest part about the ostensible brief revival is that it took place in the unbearable Gerard Jones' short-lived spinoff, GL: Mosaic. So maybe it doesn't count?) Next comes some drivel about the Spectre:

As the embodiment of God’s wrath, the Spectre has punished sinners in biblical proportions. With his infinite reality-warping abilities, the Spectre has inflicted numerous ironic and cruel punishments that killed many criminals or left them praying for death. The Spectre has been delivering this type of divine punishment throughout human history and is even responsible for the destruction of Sodom and the deaths of the firstborn sons of Egypt. The Spectre’s nation-level acts of genocide aren’t exclusive to biblical times either, as he once leveled the entire country of Vlatava, killing millions because he believed that they were already doomed to die soon of war and famine. Even for the personification of vengeance itself, that was egregiously cold-hearted.

On this, I think it can be said the columnist's not a fan of Jerry Siegel or even artist Bernard Baily, who co-created the Ghostly Guardian in the Golden Age. I hesitate to think what they'd say about Percival Popp, the bumbling would-be detective who was added in the middle of the 5 year run as a comedy relief character. Next, here's what's told about Dr. Fate:

Even as far back as the Golden Age, the Sorcerer Supreme, Doctor Fate, has wielded cosmic levels of power, resulting in numerous deaths. After destroying a series of nebulae that were threatening Earth, Doctor Fate traced them back to their source and discovered that they were created by an alien race called the Globe Men. To stop the Globe Men’s continual attempts to destroy the Earth, Doctor Fate used his magic to throw their planet into the sun. In just the blink of an eye, Doctor Fate exterminated an entire civilization and its billions of inhabitants without a shred of remorse. Thankfully, over time, DC writers eased up on Doctor Fate’s genocidal tendencies.

I've read a lot of the Golden Age tales, and I don't recall seeing those "genocidal tendencies" they speak of. Where do they get off fabricating such lies? Is this an allusion to post-2000 atrocities? Either way, this is disgusting how they even employ a bizarre double-standard: they seemingly acknowledge writers are accountable for what a fictional character's written doing, yet they still make it sound like said character's a real life person. The repulsion continues with this drivel. And then, there's Captain Atom:

Captain Atom is one of the strongest and most ruthless members of the Justice League, whose near-limitless power makes him a serious threat. After suffering from life-threatening injuries that warped his mind, Captain Atom went mad and became the supervillain Monarch. With his immense power, Monarch killed everyone in the city of Bludhaven before making plans for multiversal conquest. To build an army, the Monarch kidnapped numerous heroes from across the multiverse and forced them into gladiatorial death matches, where he recruited the winners. Monarch’s rampage was only halted during a battle with the Monitors and Superboy-Prime that ended with Earth-51 and its billions of inhabitants eradicated. While Captain Atom has since regained his sanity, his time as a villain cost countless innocent lives.

This may have happened years after the Armageddon crossover from 1991, possibly around the time Infinite Crisis was published, but once again, their continued remaining with the shoddy cliche of failing to take an objective view of what they describe is despicable. So too is their take on Doctor Manhattan from the Watchmen, whose cast was actually revived in the past decade, presumably to prevent Alan Moore from ever regaining the rights to the overrated 1987 story:

The power of godhood and a complete disconnection from humanity is a dangerous combination. In Doomsday Clock, after leaving the Watchmen universe, the omnipotent Doctor Manhattan traveled to the DC Universe and sought to make changes there to satisfy his curiosity. After killing Pandora, Doctor Manhattan arranged for Alan Scott’s death so that the Justice Society and its members would never exist. Doctor Manhattan also orchestrated the deaths of Superman’s adoptive parents in a car crash. Finally, he erased the entire Legion of Superheroes’ timeline, making it so that trillions of people were never born. Doctor Manhattan’s machinations threatened to cause the DC Universe to tear itself apart. Luckily, Superman managed to convince Doctor Manhattan to undo all the damage he caused and restore everyone he killed or erased.

Be that as it may, this is still just as insufferable as any of the other examples, and downright boring. Lastly, there's Superboy-Prime, presumably the one seen circa Infinite Crisis:

There was a time when Superboy-Prime was the greatest threat the DC Multiverse has ever encountered. However, in recent years, he’s undergone a significant redemption arc, bringing him back to his heroic roots. Still, even if he’s acting as the new Superman and guardian of Metropolis, the blood on his hands is incalculable. On top of having previously killed Superboy and Earth-2’s Superman, Superboy-Prime is infamous for his multiversal rampage that saw numerous universes destroyed and trillions of people dead. If all that wasn’t enough, Superboy-Prime also killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Green Lanterns. Even with his reformation, Superboy-Prime still struggles with his darker impulses while trying to be a real hero.

This, if so, was doing little more than turning another cast member into a sci-fi variation on the Joker. And again, no questions as to whether this story was ever in good taste to begin with. That's why it's sick, sick, sick.

If there's anything that can be learned from the above drivel, it's that the specialty press has quite a few phony fans running amok, who don't appreciate what prior generations of writers and artists did for entertainment, nor any consideration given that their livelihoods practically depended on the hard work they did. Why does anybody even advertise on these awful news sites, let alone read their "contributors"? What ComicBook posted to their site is some of the most loathsome forms of contempt for the works and creations of classic veterans, and it's stunning they're still in business after all the humiliating columns they've written in tabloid style.

British comics editor Barrie Tomlinson dies at 88

The BBC announced that Barrie Tomlinson, editor of the sports comic Roy of the Rovers has passed on at the age of 88:

Tributes have been paid to the editor of classic British football comic Roy of the Rovers.

Barrie Tomlinson, who was born and lived most of his life in St Albans, died on Tuesday, aged 88, his daughter Jennifer Tomlinson said.

He "absolutely loved doing the comics" and was known for portraying the character of Roy Race as a real person who was "his best friend", she added.

Race, a star striker for the fictional team of Melchester Rovers, initially appeared in the comic Tiger in 1954, and later in his own standalone title until its closure in February 1993.

The Roy of the Rovers strip then featured in the BBC's Match of the Day magazine until its closure in 2001.

Tomlinson, who was also editor of Tiger, wrote the Scorer football strip, which appeared in the Daily Mirror for 22 years, and authored two books, Real Roy of the Rovers Stuff and Comic Book Hero.

He had a great idea to produce sports comics, something I don't think the USA's mainstream has ever seriously capitalized on till this day. The news also tells, interestingly enough:

Book publisher Simon & Schuster UK said Tomlinson was a comics writer and former group editor at IPC Magazines, who wrote strips including Death Wish and Turbo Jones for Wildcat.

He was also involved with Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles and Scream! comics.

Curious they use the "hero" substitute for "ninja", recalling that's what the UK government under Margaret Thatcher imposed when the merchandise based on Ninja Turtles was first sold in Britain nearly 4 decades ago. If that restriction was eventually abandoned under later governments, isn't it rather silly to continue its use when most people today know the word "ninja" is part of the original title, even in the UK? But, I won't be surprised if Mr. Tomlinson had to make use of the PC retitling years before when he was a comics editor.

Anyway, it's a shame he's gone, but his contributions to sports comics are appreciated, and perhaps the mainstream of the USA should consider putting more emphasis on sports like soccer too in the future.

Comic cookbook about cocktails

The Des Moines Register wrote about author Sarah Becan, who's developed a GN about the origins of and recipes for cocktails, similar to one that was spoken about here earlier:

Becan has spent months researching not only the cocktail recipes themselves, but also their origins. In her illustrated graphic novel "Let's Make Cocktails!", she's collected dozens of standouts for everyone to enjoy. [...]

"Hands down, the best part of making these books is seeing when people make recipes from the book and show it to me, knowing that I was part of making that bowl of ramen possible or I was part of making that drink possible," Becan said.

Who is author Sarah Becan?

Becan began illustrating food because she was thinking about how food and self-worth tied together, she wrote on her website. She got her start creating an autobiographical webcomic titled "I Think You're Sauceome," and would draw meals she and her partner would have in restaurants around Chicago.

Becan said restaurants started noticing her drawings and approached her to make art for commercial work. That eventually led to Becan becoming the illustrator for "The Adventures of Fat Rice" in 2016.

From there, the publisher kept in touch with Becan, later asking her to create a full-length comic book for ramen recipes. That's how the "Let's Make" series was born, with spotlights on ramen, dumplings, bread and now cocktails.

Becan has been nominated twice for the Ignatz Award, a prestigious honor that recognizes outstanding comics and cartooning.

Again, I think the subject is a good one provided it's not alcoholic beverages they're promoting, and so long as it's fruit and vegetable-based, that's what'll make this latest comics cookbook a good one. The comics about ramen and bread are certainly bound to be good choices, and there's plenty of bread recipes I do like, such as onion, sourdough and French rolls.

Monaco's soccer youth federation celebrated 50 years with an interactive comic

AS Monaco announced an interactive comic to celebrate 50 years of its soccer academy training:

Have you ever dreamed of stepping into the shoes of a player joining AS Monaco's youth academy? Now you can, thanks to our interactive comic book created especially for the Academy's 50th anniversary. From a welcome by Sébastien Muet to the triumph on the pitch at the Stade Louis-II, including the moments of doubt, each page lets you discover all the stages experienced by a resident of La Diagonale.

Soccer's definitely a sports topic the USA comics medium could emphasize more often. Good for the academy they thought of this.

Why would this local collector consider Magneto a favorite?

Ynetnews interviewed an Israeli comics reader and merchandise collector, and while his reasons for buying memorabilia and merchandise are interesting, which character happens to be his favorite?

When speaking to Etan, one thing becomes clear: he does not collect for resale. Yes, some items in his collection range from a few shekels to several thousand. Yes, he owns rare pieces, including a massive handcrafted Wolverine head sculpture of which only two exist worldwide, but market speculation does not drive him.

“I don’t buy something because it might be worth more one day,” he says. “I buy it because I love the design.”

His favorite character is Magneto. The choice is personal. Magneto, a Holocaust survivor in Marvel canon, carries ideological complexity. Etan connects deeply to that narrative weight. Still, he does not buy every Magneto piece available. Only the ones that visually resonate.

Granted, he may only collect memorabilia out of respect for art in general, not for money's sake. But as for Magneto, while I know there was a time during the 1980s when Chris Claremont wrote Erik Lensherr reforming and joining Charles Xavier's academy to lead the New Mutants, should a guy who was written committing serious criminal offenses be considered a favorite? In UXM #150, he almost slew Kitty Pryde, who was characterized as being of even more ethnic Jewish background than Magneto was, and in the Fatal Attractions storyline of the early 90s, circa sans-adjective X-Men #25, Magneto ripped all the adamantium out of Wolverine's body. If you go by what's told in this CBR item, Magneto also unleashed a electromagnetic pulse blast that could've resulted in thousands of deaths. Years later though, when crossovers like House of M were published, that's when the real abuse-of-character really came to the fore, as under Brian Bendis's writing, Magneto led to the death of Quicksilver, and the article also notes there was a storyline where he caused the death of Charles Xavier. Viewed within the specific contexts, is somebody like the Master of Magnetism somebody to admire? No, although the writers who brought his characterization down to abysmal levels certainly aren't. Near the Ynet article's end, it's told that:

Collectors live in contradiction. “I’m never satisfied,” he says. “I’m not satisfied that I don’t have enough. And I’m not satisfied that I have too much.”

His home contains six or seven large boxes filled with comics alone. Shelves of Marvel, DC, Alien, Ghostbusters. Pops protected in cases.

And yet, he contemplates selling everything from time to time. The offers have come. Significant ones. He always says no. [...]

He emphasizes discipline over impulse, focus over frenzy, and above all, community. “If someone needs help finding something,” he says, “I’ll help. A collector understands another collector.”

Well I do give him credit for not taking the exact same path as other collectors who do it in hopes of producing millions of dollars worth in classics to be sold cyclically on the speculator market. Even so, if he hoards the comics without reading them, and keeps them wrapped in eternal plastic, then what good is it to collect them at all? Especially in an era where mainstream comics sunk to dismal levels? And I think it's a shame he'd choose Magneto over say, Kitty Pryde, or even Nuklon of Infinity Inc, Moon Knight, Doc Samson from the Hulk, and even Colossal Boy from Legion of Super-Heroes, whom I think was written with a Jewish background too. I suppose it could be worse though: what if the collector in focus considered Harley Quinn a number one favorite? Based on how she was written in the comics after she was shoehorned into the DCU proper at the turn of the century, to make her a major pick would be atrocious in the extreme. Making a fictional character your favorite choice based on the ethnic background alone is not the way to go, and that's a vital lesson some would do well to consider.

More examples of how claims Absolute Batman's an utter success are a silly farce

Popverse decided to follow up on a previous news report that DC's Absolute imprint's supposedly selling like hotcakes, and simultaneously admit the "New52" canon from 2011 wasn't exactly the success they surely want everyone to think it was:

According to public reports from its distributor at the time, the 'New 52' Batman #1 sold just over 225,000 copies in September 2011. Over its 52-issue run (not including annuals, specials, and spinoffs), Snyder's 'New 52' Batman run never once dipped under 100,000 copies sold in the first month of each issue's release - something subsequent Batman runs haven't been able to keep up with, based on the limited evidence publicly available. Either way, those numbers don't include any copies sold outside of that window, which would include reprints, digital copies, non-US editions, and collected editions.

Absolute Batman, however, sold just under 400,000 copies in its first six weeks of release back at the end of 2024, and demand has continued that DC recently reprinted it for an eleventh time. According to sources familiar with sales figures, DC's Absolute Batman has settled into the range of selling roughly 300,000 print copies per issue, going on two years later.

"We’re over a year into these titles, and the sales on multiple titles are going up issue to issue — sometimes by really startling amounts," Conroy tells Comics! The Magazine #1, without giving specifics.

Snyder, who made his career thanks to the success of the 'New 52' Batman run, honestly didn't think Absolute Batman would come close to matching that.

So they merely continue the comedy, right down to implying the whole New52 direction taken in the early 2010s was literally a success, when here, they mostly abandoned its "canon" at least a few years later, and reversed some of the directions taken with Identity Crisis. They admit there's hardly any proof of what they claim, but continue to make a joke of their news coverage anyway.

Even if Snyder's Batman run didn't fall below 100,000 in copy orders, what's told still doesn't prove it was a literal success. At best, it's just wishful thinking, and at worst, it's all an insulting joke, pretending it's all as successful as what movies make. And all this is their idea of a substitute for making an argument in favor of switching from pamphlet issues to paperback/hardcover books. In reality, it's just more sad jokes that don't do any favors for comicdom.

Does the Man of Steel still matter after nearly 90 years?

A writer at the Oregonian addressed the issue of this year's Superman Day, and claims the Big Blue Boy Scout is still relevant. Near the beginning though, the following is told:

Every April 18, fans celebrate Superman Day, marking the 1938 release of Action Comics No. 1 — the debut that introduced a new kind of hero and helped shape the superhero genre as we know it today.

His first appearance had an original print run of about 130,000 copies, which sold out almost immediately, eventually reaching roughly 200,000 with a second printing in circulation. Earlier this year, a copy reportedly sold for an astonishing $15 million — not a bad investment for what had an original 10-cent cover price.

Well if that's correct, then even if it's true Action Comics sold out in the month it debuted, what this suggests is that even during the Golden Age, comics weren't the massive sky high success the MSM wants everyone to believe they were. I'm a big Super-fan myself, but I don't consider this great history, realizing the supplies of the times were hardly anything, and if it was little more than 200,000 copies overall as a pamphlet, surely it "sold out" simply due to how low the numbers were they printed up? I wonder how much even the anthology pamphlet where the Golden Age Human Torch, Ka-Zar and Sub-Mariner debuted had printed up in 1939? If it was little different for Marvel's early offerings, then even there, it's not like we have something to be proud of when the real numbers amount to a joke.

Nearly nine decades later, Superman remains one of the most recognizable figures in popular culture. The nostalgia alone spans generations.

While Supes may be a most recognized figure, it could sadly be argued his regular comics series aren't. Predictably, they don't make a serious point about that.

On the big screen, Christopher Reeve’s portrayal in 1978 led to four films in the franchise, including one film alongside Hollywood’s hottest actor of the time, Richard Pryor.

Odd they should mention the 3rd film so casually and superficially, because, while the 1st and 2nd major live action films showed promise, the 3rd and especially 4th were disasters, critically and financially. That the original Supergirl film was equally catastrophous is also sad.

More recent films — including “Man of Steel” and “Batman v Superman”— continued to reinterpret the character.

Last year’s “Superman” movie, directed by James Gunn, grossed $618.7 million worldwide, making it the 10th highest-grossing film of 2025.

Even here, the citations are superficial, delivered without any objectivity, or recognition of why, for every good project featuring the Man of Steel, there's also a bad one, and the clash between Supes and Batman was decidedly something we could've done without, based on how director Zack Snyder retained such a repellent bias in favor of the Masked Manhunter. Nor is there any mention of what atrocious politics Gunn's movie built on, and the new Supergirl film doesn't look like it'll be any improvement. For all we know, in the long run it'll probably be quite a setback to whatever plans WB has for a brand new franchise. And despite the box office sums given for Gunn's movie (which, granted, is a lot more to consider than what the Golden Age Superman actually sold), it didn't make as much as the 2013 movie, and probably didn't even turn enough of a profit, though today's filmmakers are clearly so unwilling to admit defeat, they'll just keep wasting money even if it eventually bankrupts the company.

Simmons has multiple copies of early Superman comics from the ’40s for sale in his shop that opened in 2010. His back counter also displays a detailed Italian porcelain mosaic reproduction of Superman #14.

Superman’s broad range is part of what makes him enduring.

“He’s done everything,” Riordan said. “He’s been noble. He’s been silly. He’s been thoughtful. He’s been stupid. That makes him a great character to explore Americana through.”

At the same time, that versatility can present challenges.

“So many people gravitate away from Superman because it seems like he can do anything,” Simmons said. “And how do you challenge a character like that?”

Wow, they sure chose a great "spokesperson" to lecture us about the subject. So magic, despite being mentioned in an earlier article, doesn't register high on a so-called historian's alleged knowledge? Fantastic. Come to think of it, it's also charming how nobody asks how the Man of Steel can be written challenging an adversary who relies on magical energies, or even mechanical technology and bioengineered superpowers, among other goodness-knows-what concepts in science-fantasy writing. Also absent from the above quotations is...Kryptonite radiation. How odd.

Stephen Meads, employee at Tasteecat Comics, sees that complexity as part of the appeal.

“He’s a very challenging character for a lot of people to write and maybe to relate to,” Meads said. “But I think Superman is a really great attempt to tackle the idea of an all-powerful figure who still chooses to do good.”

Meads said his earliest Superman-related items in his personal collection include his original “Death of Superman” issues from the early 1990s — a storyline that brought unprecedented attention to comic shops.

Few remember that moment more clearly than Debbie Smith of Excalibur Comics, Portland’s longest-running comic book store established in 1974.

When DC Comics announced Superman’s death in 1992, her family-owned shop leaned into the moment with an unusual marketing approach.

“My dad took out an ad in The Oregonian and made it look like an article,” Smith said. “The headline was ‘Death of a Hero.’ It talked about how Superman was going to die and told people to call and pre-order their copy.”

The response was immediate.

“We sold over 5,000 copies,” she said. “People lined up all the way around the block to get their copy when it came in.”

Smith points to Superman’s place in history as the foundation of her entire business.

“He birthed a whole genre,” she said. “He was one of the very first superheroes. You have to be thankful for him.”

But why must we be thankful to these retailers who make it sound like the death of a hero is literally something to celebrate? Even if Supes "died" heroically, that doesn't make it something to be utterly happy about. That kind of mentality is exactly what led soon after to Emerald Twilight, and then Identity Crisis a decade later. And people actually considered this something to crowd the streets for, waiting for their turn to buy a copy? Did they even read the ensuing story that spanned possibly 3 dozen issues or so for the following year, or did they store them all away in a vault, hoping this would later bring them a billionaire fortune? It's disgraceful, and if nobody advertised and lined up at the stores this way for the 1996 wedding with Lois Lane, that's decidedly telling too. It's chilling how tragedy is considered more worth celebrating than joyous moments in life. Such a mentality cannot continue to be inculcated in the public mindset.

Not every version of Superman resonates the same way for everyone.

“I loved the movies growing up,” Smith said. “But, as far as the comic books... I never cared too much for the comics because they were so goofy and so preposterous. And it always really, really annoyed me that Lois Lane was always trying to put herself into danger to make him prove that he loved her. That just annoyed me so much.” She joked, “I always rooted for him to let her fall, which is terrible.”

Steve Duin, former columnist for The Oregonian and noted comic book enthusiast, has a different take on Superman’s love interest. Duin, who never collected DC Comics, does own one piece of Superman art: a full-page piece by artist Tim Sale featuring a wordless moment between Lois and Superman. “I own it because of my passion for Lois Lane, fellow journalist.”

And here too, they obscure the importance of merit, along with whoever's credited to the writing and artwork of the 50s and 60s, when some of these stories were originally published. She may have "joked", but that's not funny, though it does make clear there's women out there who don't give a damn about lady co-stars even if they're meant to provide a figure who, if they wanted, could be written as flawed but admirable figures they can relate to. I recall once discovering a letter written by a woman to Amazing Spider-Man #125 in the months after Gwen Stacy was put to death in issues #121-2, who used alarmingly denigrating descriptions for somebody non-existent, with the irony being this same person actually wanted Mary Jane Watson developed more, even as she also acted like MJ were real too. Some could reasonably wonder if such confused idiots are the reason we wound up with a situation like 2007's One More Day, where not only was MJ kicked to the curb, we didn't get Gwen back either, and both were made to look bad earlier in the pages of J. Michael Straczynski's Sins Past story.

I find what the store manager says about Lois objectionable and insulting to the intellect, and hesitate to think what her positions could be about Jean Loring, Sue Dibny, Pepper Potts, Sapphire Stagg, Sharon Carter, Vicky Vale, Lana Lang and goodness knows what other lady cast members were ever created for the Big Two. If that's what she's going to tell a mainstream paper about even fictional characters whose original writers/artists worked hard to create them in the first place, then I don't want to buy at her store, period. Anybody who takes such an atrocious approach is not a serious person. As for the onetime columnist for the paper, if this is so he's never collected DC's comics, let alone Superman's, then while it's impressive he sets a good example by retaining a poster as opposed perhaps to a speculator's concealed collection that's possibly "slabbed", his failure to prove he's as avid a reader as the next person is decidedly galling.

After 88 years, Superman remains an enduring force. Both culturally and monetarily.

“If you pop over to our Tasteecat website, we do have a Superman #1 in inventory.” Meads said. “I think it’s only $95,000. So if you want to buy it.... Yeah, it’s available.”

And that's another insult to the intellect: instead of recommending some of the best reprints in archives, including the DC Finest series, they encourage everybody to spend tons of dollars on a back issue they'll never read and will conceal in a vault. What good are Marvel's Epic Collections and DC Finest archives if they won't recommend newcomers try out the older stories inside, and judge for themselves? Why, what good are even Image/Skybound's recent archives for GI Joe and Transformers if they won't recommend those either? This is proving one of the worst examples I've ever seen of retailers who sound like they're more interested in selling stuff they believe will be craved by blatant speculators than in encouraging anybody to read stories of adventure/romance/sci-fi that could give them a sense of entertainment and escapism, and hopefully something to learn from in terms of how to best manage one's life.

And look how they continue to claim Superman's still an enduring force, even though the franchise has been tainted by far-left ideologues who've forced in LGBT propaganda in most alarming fashion, and the Son of Kal-El spinoff was eventually cancelled as nobody liked or wanted to buy it. Even earlier, there was the sad case of Superman being exploited for anti-American propaganda, and simultaneously, a story where he's written just levitating between Iran's tyrant forces and civilian protesters, not making any effort to defeat the overlords at all. In all the time since Iran's forces working for the now deceased ayatollah Khameini slaughtered thousands of unarmed protestors, and even fired tons of missiles at Israel and other nearby regions, that 2011 Superman tale now looks very dated, to say nothing of utterly repellent, because it's insulting to the opressed citizens, especially women. And what about that time when Dan Jurgens depicted the Man of Steel defending Islamists and illegal immigrants? As a result, how can Superman still be called "culturally relevant", when these same ideologues even go so far as to distort the origins by claiming Supes is an "immigrant" too, instead of a refugee from a destroyed planet? That last year's movie even resorted to anti-Israel metaphors not only didn't help matters, it was also a slap in the face to creators Siegel and Shuster, whose ancestry came from Israel.

Superman will not remain relevant so long as leftist ideologues continue to hold his very creation hostage to their loathsome propaganda and ideologies, and hasn't. There's only so many comics creations of the past century who've been denigrated by ingrates in modern times, and many once perceptive stories have sadly been turned into a joke as a result of this shift. And we have jelly-spined retailers as much as the modern publishers and creators themselves to blame for the downfall of the Man of Steel and plenty other creations. It's enough to wonder if any sane person should finance their stores if they can't admit something's gone terribly wrong with today's management, morally, culturally or otherwise.

Jason Aaron's controversial comic being adapted to TV, and a certain problem with it is mentioned

Woke writer Jason Aaron's controversial comic titled "Southern Bastards" is being adapted to TV, and Pajiba's commented on how his co-creator, Jason Latour, makes it all the more complicated an affair:

Created by Jason Aaron and Jason Latour, the book told the story of a small town in Alabama that was home to a high school football coach/crimelord named Coach Boss, and all of the enemies he’s made over the years. Such enemies include Earl Tubb, who fights back against the maniacal coach. The comic book and its creators felt powerful. I remember Latour putting out an image in the style of the book of a bulldog pissing on the rebel flag in response to the Charlottesville riots. It rules.

Then, at some point, the book just… stopped. For a long time, I wasn’t sure why. It certainly didn’t come out quickly. Between April of 2014 and May of 2018, only 20 issues were released. Latour and Aaron are both successful comic creators, so I just assumed that other work had gotten in the way. I found out recently that that was not the case. It turns out that, in 2020, Jason Latour was accused of sexual harassment by illustrator and designer Lauren Tracey, a.k.a. Lorua. Then, surprise, many other people came forward to say that Latour was a creep. [...]

There was zero mention of Latour’s past in the announcement. I don’t expect there to be, but it does feel odd. It doesn’t seem that he will be involved, but the comic book was essentially cancelled due to his actions. There was a planned 21st issue that he was going to write and draw, which was never released. The second volume of the series was collected in 2022, but it doesn’t seem that there are any future plans for the series to continue, and, to my memory, the story on the page was far from finished.

Very interesting. One could wonder if such topics have anything to do with Aaron's own woke pandering. To date, it looks like Latour's career is mostly over after the accusations were made against him, though Aaron continues to be one of modern comicdom's worst contributors in terms of political correctness. If their would-be indie masterpiece stopped publication due to Latour's misconduct, it's hard to care. But while this article does remind of something troubling from the past several years, it fumbles near the end with a forked tongue cliche that was perhaps sadly expected:

In a world where I am (rightfully) constantly hearing about JK Rowling’s hateful actions whenever the new adaptation of Harry Potter is brought up, it just seems like there should be some talk about Latour as well.

Why do they keep mentioning their ludicrous beef with Rowling in the same articles as the subjects she claimed to have been a victim of? Do they realize they're throwing out whatever impact they hoped to make with bath water? Let's be clear. Latour's the one who made mistakes, not Rowling. The bizarre double standard in regards to Rowling has got to stop.

"Southern Bastards" sounds like little more than yet another dark crime drama that takes up too much of the market today, and I have no interest in viewing a live action adaptation of it any more than reading the comic. And yes, some discussion of Latour's sexual misconduct could be brought up. But anybody who's going to keep constantly putting Rowling in the very same boat is making their point utterly soggy, and it's about time that cease, as it reeks of ideological grudge-laden obsession, which is not how you make a valid point about serious issues.