Not-Really Off-Topic: In-Depth Review of LEGEND OF OZ: THE WICKED WEST #16

Big Dog Ink's THE LEGEND OF OZ: THE WICKED WEST, has been one of the best things on the comic book market since it first came out. Even it's lowest points are better than most of what I read in comics. This week, two issues came out, #15 and 16, and while I'll be including the first in my regular comic book reviews, issue 16 warranted an extended review.

During the story arc concerned with the origin of the flying monkeys, we got to finally see Dorothy Gale again, but she wasn't really 'in action'. Instead she was the recipient of the story told by the leader of the flying monkeys, a leader that is now under her direct command. The whole time, while we got to see that colorful and engaging story unfold, there was this underlying tension. "What has happened to Dorothy?" we ask ourselves. There is no doubt she has changed, but to what extent? What has become of her?

Well here we started to have some of those questions answered. Dorothy, no longer the audience of a story now enters into another story that has been bracketed off for a few issues: The Tin Man, Jack and the others looking for Ozma of Oz. We've waited a long time for Dorothy's return to action, and damn was it good.

Dorothy has been transformed into a larger-than-life character, a being of vast power and a living mystery. It reminds me of what Time Lincoln did to Abraham Lincoln, though in this case it is a familiar fictional character who is raised to supreme heights. Dorothy is chided by her friends for not taking a more direct hand in events, but it is clear that the Dorothy before them is not the friend they once new. She is still 'in there', but this new almost cosmic being has duties and ways that cannot easily be understood by mere mortals.

This transformation intrigues me. The Dorothy of the original film is a far more vulnerable character, and so was the Cowgirl Dorothy Gale in LEGEND OF OZ, earlier one. That vulnerability, combined with a spirit of adventure, has been elevated to grand heights. And isn't that the central conviction of the Christian faith: that the vulnerable adventurer, after the final battle with evil in which they always seemed to have the lesser hand, has been elevated to heights unimagined, and is now synonymous with that mysterious force that both stands over our lives and yet seems so far apart from what and who we are now? Strange that the God who became one of us, who is our friend, is yet still that mysterious force that stands beyond all we know. That paradox, that Jesus made God something we can relate to and yet because of His association with God still stands 'as one apart' is evident here in this book.

Dorothy challenges Glenda as not being quite as 'good' as she always pretends to be, and in her own way asserts her new found authority: we can be sure that she is not one to be manipulated. She is no longer the victim of various forces, but is a force unto herself. She is warned that others very much like her have found themselves in positions similar to hers and were corrupted by the power. But Dorothy shrewdly asserts that this risk exists so long as the power exists, and she will not relinquish her new duties nor her new position to anyone.

I simply loved this issue. It had everything, the pacing was (as has been the norm for this book), perfect. The dialogue does not seem forced or awkward, even though the dialect is idiosyncratic for the book. That kind of interplay is hard to get right, but the writer Tom Hutchinson pulls it off brilliantly. The color is always amazing, and the art work is some of the best out there. On every level, this book works, and it includes themes that elevate the genre.

My overall rating for this issue is a rare 5 Stars!

Paradigm Shift

I've come more and more to see the New Testament not about meeting some conditions for the forgiveness of sin, since such conditions were already laid out in the Hebrew scriptures, but rather as the story of God extending a direct relationship with people beyond the boundaries of Israel and to the four corners of the Earth. I think of the Bible as the story of a war between God and the devil. God first created an outpost 'behind enemy lines' with the nation of Israel. He 'adopted' that nation. From there God worked outward until He extended His presence throughout the Earth. God offered to all people the chance to have a direct relationship with Him. Jesus sacrifice is a physical manifestation of the battle that God waged against the devil.

The Jews long before Jesus had come to believe that wars, for instance, were like physical expressions of a spiritual or rather cosmic war between cosmic forces of good and evil. This is clearest in the Book of Daniel. So the carnage, the destruction and the bloodshed that results from conquest and war are like 'incarnations' if you will of battles between angels and demons. In the same way, Jesus suffering is like a physical manifestation of a great battle between God and the devil, in which victory was finally achieved for the side of good. One difference would be that in this case, in the case of Jesus, what Jesus actually did here on Earth, the way He lived and died, was a part of that battle and did not just present it to us. Jesus is the victory of God over satan and the extension of God's full grace to the sum total of humanity. Now there are probably many aspects of the Jesus-event that played this salvific role, and forgiveness of sin is a part of that. I've also suggested political aspects to this, and also suggested that Rene Girard's work gives a clue to how all that works. But the main point of the whole thing is the defeat of the devil and the extension of God's grace.

This makes so much sense of so many passages found in the New Testament. Think about the parable of the worker and the vineyards, where the workers hired at the end of the day are paid the same amount as those hired at the beginning. Doesn't this passage make a heck of a lot more sense when you think about the gentiles and the Jews? The Gentiles receive the same reward as the Jews, given equal status before God, without the same level of suffering or the shared oppression. The resentment of the workers can be understood as the resentment of some Jews and even Jewish Christians at the removal of certain requirements (like identification with a particular oppressed minority and the sign of circumcision) for adoption into the people of God. The same thing is true of the story of the Prodigal Son. Doesn't this story make so much more sense if we think of the Prodigal Son as the Gentiles and the Faithful Son as the Jews?

There are so many places in Paul's letters where Paul lauds Judaism and marks off Jews as 'keepers of the promise' (Romans 3) and even derides Gentiles as 'sinful' (Galatians 2) even as he attacks any attempt to question equality before God between the two groups. I think if you re-read Paul's letters with this new paradigm in mind, you will find many mysterious passages illuminated.

Now, this new paradigm does create some new problems. Some passages that may have once made sense from a certain point of view become obscured. Yet I would suggest that there is more made sensical by this way of looking at the New Testament than by the alternative. The number of passages that are problematized are outnumbered by those that are de-problematized. No exegetical paradigm is going to be perfect, but I am convinced that this one is superior.

One-Post Wednesday: Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews

Marvel's NOVA #13
I'm falling into the middle of this Nova storyline, and so I'm a bit lost, but I picked up this issue because it featured Beta Ray Bill. It seems Bill's people, the Korbanites, have suffered tragedy yet again, and I wish they'd stop making this noble character's life so miserable. But I have to say, in the overall, I liked this book. The new Nova reminds me a lot of the old school Billy Batson and I like that very much. His fight with Bill was solid, and there was some humor interjected that work. The pacing was good and the dialogue was really good. The art was middle of the road for me. All in all a good book and I'll be sticking with it at least as long as Bill is featured.

Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

Marvel's NEW WARRIORS #1
The New Warriors were one of my favorite superhero teams from the 90s and I was excited to see them get back together. I also like some of the new additions to the team. The new Nova is here, and as I said before I'm just starting to get into this character. What I saw here further boosted his stock for me. The Scarlet Spider is featured also, and this is the best use of this character I've seen in a while. The villain seems to be the High Evolutionary, also a favorite of mine. I think I can see where this is all going, and so the storyline is a little predictable, but I can't stay firm with that prediction until I do, in fact, see where it is going. But a lot of this seems very familiar. But really, that is quite forgivable. The dialogue is really strong, and the art is good. The pacing is solid to, which is hard in an introductory team book like this. I'm impressed.

Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars

Note: This comic is rated 'Angelic Approved', my wife liked this book. As I've said before, this is a big endorsement.

DC's  BATMAN '66 #8
King Tut makes his first appearance in this comic book, and we also see the writers do some things that the television show never did. There is a big science fiction aspect to this book and I think it worked. Yes it was over the top but that is exactly what it should've been, given the context in which it is taking place. One thing that makes this book work so well is that every book is practically a one-shot. This makes pacing difficult but the writers pull that off, and it also forces them to tighten up the storytelling. That they stories are SUPPOSED to be tongue-in-cheek helps, naturally. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and this continues to be one of the strongest DC offerings out there, IMHO.

Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars

 Zenescope's TALES FROM OZ #2
Well this book was good, and I especially liked the art. The way it turned the whole 'cowardly lion' story on its head was interesting. The pacing was off, but that doesn't matter much. I'm sad to say this will be my last receive subscription from Zenescope. There has been way too much crap coming out of that company recently, and the recent conclusion to OZ clinched it for me. This one positive book was not enough to keep my supporting them. I may pick up a book here and there, but I am no longer subscribed to ANY Zenescope books.

Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars

DC's BATMAN BEYOND UNIVERSE #7
The return of Brainiac continues, and it continues to be interesting. Though in all honesty the second story in this giant sized comic, the Man-Bat storyline, was even more riveting. The writing on this book is really solid, and I like the size of this book. The writers have plenty of time to tell stories that are yet tightly contained. The dialogue can be a little weak at times, but the stories are really solid, as is the art work. I really liked the way it addressed the coming together of magic and technology. It was nothing I'd seen before. I'll be following this book at least as long as these stories continue.

Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

Eudaimonia and Eutheoia

The Greek philosophers were concerned with Eudaimonia, or at least Aristotle was. Eudaimonia is translated 'full human flourishing'. They sought the greatest good for all people. I've found that as long as I focus on my own flourishing, flourishing eludes me. As soon as I have it, it vanishes like the wind. That changes when I see my own flourishing as God's flourishing. I seek 'eutheoia' rather than 'eudaimonia', the full flourishing of God Himself.

I have known know great experience than sharing in the joy of God. I've known no more terrible experience than sharing in the suffering of God. Eudaimonia, seeking the good of people as my only goal, is a much more muted experience, yet it never really delivers. As much as living with and through God costs, it is the only way of life I have known that really delivers at all. And indeed, at the end of the day I find that God finds joy in my joy. I find that by seeking God's best I also find my own.

What happens in this universe hurts or helps God. It brings God joy or pain. This is the only way I have been able to make sense of my own encounter with meaning and value through the joys and pains of life. By giving into that experience fully, by focusing on the meaning behind the moment, I find genuine joy.

A Light Shines In The Darkness

I have written before that I try to guard my heart, and limit the negative imagery that I expose myself to. But I also find it edifying from time to time to explore the darker side of the human soul. Not that I am counseling engaging in sinfulness, no, rather I'm suggesting that art that may seem to border on the evil can be useful even to the Christian soul. For instance, I just recently finished the third season of GAME OF THRONES on DVD, and it has brought up some interesting thoughts and experiences.

Now the show is extraordinarily dark. It is extremely violent and there are some sex scenes that cross lines, but in the overall the show is a remarkable piece of art. It is well-acted and well-directed. The writing, based as it is on a successful and acclaimed series of books, is top notch as well. The cinematography, editing, special effects, set design, costumes, all of this is just the best television has to offer. But in point of fact, the aesthetics are only half the reason I watch the show.

This show contains no truly redeeming characters. It is not like the comic book WATCHMEN, where you literally come to hate almost every character. There are some characters you can root for, some that have some decency and some moral code. But none of these characters has a spirit that elevates the show. There is no sense that this world is worth living in, at all. To me, GAME OF THRONES shows us what the world would be like if God did not love us. The human spirit can never reach into the salvific because there is nothing salvific in the universe. Life remains 'deep', in the sense of there being magic and mysticism, which I think is true in the real world too. I mean, for me, the depths of the fullest range of my experience require a kind of 'mythic' reflection or else the description would leave a lot out. Life is experienced in such a deep way in Game of Thrones.

But that depth gives no one any confidence that behind it all is benevolence. In the real world, it seems to me, we have evidence, experience, that points to a depth of reality. In that depth we find both good and evil, both light and dark. Suffering does not always point to meaninglessness, in this world, and in fact suffering can bring about a depth of spirit and an achievement of the soul that is redemptive. This does not make suffering good or desirable, but what it does mean is that suffering is not definitively the end of the story. Death and evil may not have the last word.

In the good we experience a promise, a promise that what we do matters and matters ultimately. There is the sense we have that in the good is the eternal and that evil ultimately passes away. This contrasts starkly with Game of Thrones, where all depth is related to revenge and power, and the experiences of love, of goodness, even of beauty seem fleeting and without any mystical dimension. The contrast between that world and this one, between a story that has no redeeming characters and a story that has at least a few, brings forth to me an important lesson about life, especially Christian life. For I can see in the story of Jesus a genuine ground for hope. I can live in this world with at least the possibility that over it all is a God who loves and cares for us. The suffering of the world need not be the last story. Resurrection follows crucifixion. Sometimes you need to spend some time in the darkness to really appreciate the light.

Cross-Blogging

I've been spending the day setting up a Blog site for my youth group's LARP activities. Check it out, and know that I will be back here doing my regular thing tomorrow:

http://stthomaseyclarp.blogspot.com

Not Really Off-Topic: Review of Justice League #28

In this issue we meet the New 52 version of the Metal Men. This band of intelligent robots has been a feature of the DC universe for a long time, and has figured prominently in some of its most important books, most notably to my mind Alex Ross's JUSTICE. Here, the robots are yet again the product of the genius of one William Magnus, a top scientist working under the auspices of the US Military. Magnus is obsessed with the 'flaws' of humanity, finding human beings less than suited to run the planet as a whole. He seeks to create a race of perfect beings, without the (to his mind), flaws of human emotion. He seeks a perfected consciousness, a consciousness that is substantive, adaptable, but focused on whatever particular mission it is given.

To that end he creates the responsometer, a device that is dropped in molten metal and reforms it into anthropomorphic robots that contain the 'spirit', if you will, of the metal into which they are submerged. Expecting metal to create true machines, Magnus is shocked to learn that nature is as much spirit as matter, and finds that the beings he created have inherited from the metal personalities, feelings, and will that he neither thought they would, nor sought for them.

You see, Cyborg sought Magnus out so that Magnus could create a new round of metal men for Cyborg to team up with in his battle against the Crime Syndicate (this is a Forever Evil crossover storyline), and Magnus keeps mentioning the 'flaw' in the creatures created by the responsometer. For most of the book we think this is the emotion and the feeling the robots express. The metal men, once they discovered they were going to be used by the US military, escaped from the lab, not wishing to be tools of war. This disobedience, we are led to think, is why Magnus at first refuses to help Cyborg.

But instead, we see that what really haunts Magnus is how well the robots carry out their programming. They were programmed originally to protect and save humans, no matter the cost. This was the nature of the responsometer, this was it's gift to them: a directive. But they were willing to save, and save, taking whatever risks necessary no matter the threat to themselves. Magnus could handle putting cold machines into this situation, but once he realized that the consciousness of the robots was much like that of humans: full of feeling and thus of all the responsibility that comes with that feeling, Magnus was devastated. He was forced to see very human-like beings destroy themselves to save others. In the end the 'flaw' Magnus spoke of was not the human emotions, which he now realizes is the very substance of consciousness, but of their unwavering willingness to be self-sacrificing for others.

This was a beautiful story, with incredible art and coloring, that added to the depth of the themes explored. There is probably no way to create a consciousness without the 'flaws' of human emotion and intentionality. The chaos that exists with the human mind is a part of the interplay of chaos and order that is the mark of both nature and mind. Without some measure of disorder there can be no creativity, without order, no consistency. The resentment Magnus feels at the willingness of the metal men to die for others is also very poignant. It reminded me, yet again, of that line I've gone back to so many times from Luke where Jesus tells the women of Jerusalem to 'weep for yourselves' (Luke 23:28). Isn't that God's message to us? We resist self-sacrifice for others as a burden, but Christ tells us something very different: that it is an honor to serve, and give even our lives for Him and for His children.

Awe is sometimes mixed with resentment. We resent what we cannot do, we are envious of those stronger than ourselves. Magnus' resentment towards the Metal Men is presented as a kind of fear: a fear that he is bringing feeling beings into this world that are meant to die for others (the fear the Father must have had when He sent the Son to Earth). Yet in Magnus' feelings do contain something more like resentment than fear, for he seems almost broken by seeing in his creations what he never had in himself: a genuine willingness to care for humanity itself. Magnus' resentment for humanity was turned towards his creation. It is Cyborg who helps the good professor see that this was not a flaw, but perhaps the key to humanity's salvation. The Christian undertones are not hard to see.

Aesthetically, this book was really well done. The storyline was good, the dialogue was good, the art was excellent on every level. The pacing was a little off, but that can be forgiven. Overall, I'd give this comic 4.5 Stars.

A LARP In Blogging

I've been LARPing with the youth group I lead the last two days. Thus the lull in blogging. But worry not my friends, I shall be back in full swing tomorrow.

Quotable

"The spirit at once surrenders itself to this universal claim and appropriates it for itself. So far as it is dominated by religious experience, life is conditioned by this formative principle, equally individual and general, equally actual and beyond completed act, equally compelling recognition and permissive of disregard.

This principle is not a dogmatic formulation, but the intuition of immediate occasions as failing for succeeding in reference to the ideal relevant to them. There is a rightness attained or missed, with more or less completeness of attainment or omission.

This is a revelation of character, apprehended as we apprehend the characters of our friends. But in this case it is an apprehension of character permanently inherent in the nature of things"- A N Whitehead

God & The Universe

I saw this on my Facebook newsfeed and was intrigued. There is truth in this. But I think the most vital truth is missed. There is a connection between the biological and the cosmic. We see certain patterns in ourselves, and indeed in all life, that are repeated at the cosmic and even at the atomic level. The universe looks much more like a living thing than a machine. This was really the great philosophical contribution of the advances in theoretical physics made in the 20th century. Most people make this strict distinction between the biological and the purely material...between matter and life. But more and more people are realizing that these lines are blurry. I believe it was the (ironically atheist) Bertron Russell who said "either life is matterlike or matter is lifelike."

But Alfred N Whitehead said, wisely I think, that the great religions of the world had already prepared us for just such a discovery. Yahweh is a God of life, life as Ultimate Reality. It should not have surprised theists, then, to find a universe that reflected a grounding in life itself. Whitehead went further, though. He suggested that just as the line between life and non-life is blurry, so is the line between mind and mindless. In point of fact, mind is just a quality of matter, for Whitehead. The discovery of the biotic nature of the universe proceeded not long after we finally started to get to the heart of the life sciences through the theory of evolution. Biology was invented as a genuine field of science and not long after our model of reality itself started to mirror what we found there. I suspect that as a genuine science of mind is developed, we will find the universe is not only life like but mindlike.

Might there not be a character or soul behind reality itself? If our bodies mirror the universe, might our minds not mirror the Mind of the Universe. And what would God be, but Ultimate, Universal mind. Just as Whitehead suggested that the theist should not have been surprised by the biometaphors discovered by 20th century physics, he thought that religion itself was the first, primal encounter with the mind that he suspected physics would find in the next century.

I agree with this sentiment, and so I think that the awe that the above meme expresses at the connection between our physical bodies and the universe will be replaced by a greater awe, long held by the great religions of the world, at the true nature of mind itself. We will find that Mind was with us all along. When scientists get there, us theologians will be waiting for them, hopefully ready to welcome them in to add their own no doubt valuable insights to that discovery.

God &

My Favorite Superheroes (#5-1)

#5- Deadman- This is one of my favorite recent additions to my comic book repetoire. Boston Brand as a circus performer who is killed via sabotage during his act. He is giving a chance to return to the earthly plane by the goddess Rama. He becomes the hero Deadman, able to possess any person he encounters and use their bodies as his own. This includes superbeings, whose powers he then temporarily possesses. What makes Deadman so interesting is the way his powers can generate countless new and original stories. It is very much like the show QUANTUM LEAP, with Sam Backett living a new life each week. Deadman's stories literally start from 'jump' each week. His recent involvement with JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK got me into that comic book, and it has consistently been one of my favorite since I started collecting it. All in all, Deadman has risen through the ranks of my faves quickly, and rightly takes a place here near the top.

#4- Superman- This is the character who started it all. Powerful, with a character more noble than almost any other in all of comicdom, Supes has been one of my favorite characters since the DOOMSDAY storyline in the 90s. What really drives my interest in the Man of Steel is the underlying theological themes that are going on. Superman is a kind of commentary on messianism in general and Christology in particular. The idea that this sort of god lives among us, as one of us, commenting from the outside by his words and deeds on the human condition, well it just makes the whole thing so damned interesting. Yes, the character can be overpowering and his New 52 writing has left something to be desired, but the latter issue has changed since SUPERMAN UNCHAINED and SUPERMAN/WONDER WOMAN begin, and it may be that this character soon reclaims his sometime spot at the top of this list.

#3 Time Lincoln- The comic book TIME LINCOLN had a weird effect on me. The first time I read it I didn't know what the hell had just happened. What was it I was just exposed to? Did I like it... I wasn't even sure. So I re-read it, and found out yes indeed I did like it. Then every time I read it I found I liked it even more, until by the 12th re-reading it had taken a place in the top echelon of my favorite books. And at the center of it all stands Time Lincoln himself. Former the 16th president of the United States, Time Lincoln is in essence a god of time transformed from human to cosmic proportions by a chance encounter with an equally cosmic evil. His powers are wacky but fascinating, and his character is truly larger than life. But it is the act of gathering together a cadre of history's most noble figures to fight alongside him that really makes Time Lincoln one of the best superheroes, indeed one of the best fictional characters, I'd ever encountered.

#2- Adam Warlock- There was a time, and there may be a time again soon, when Adam Warlock would've sat prominently at the to of this list. But recent years have eroded the character, though a soon-to-be-established reboot looks very promising. Adam Warlock, like Superman, is a bit of a Christ figure, and the Warlock mythos includes a lot of Christian imagery in it, though the anti-christ that Warlock faces is a future version of himself, which is a little twisted. Warlock is a reluctant hero, heck he was reluctant even to be created. He was grown in a lab by a group of men who wanted to create a superbeing they could use to control the world. Sensing his creators' evil intentions, he killed them and left to make his fortune among the stars. There he acquired even greater cosmic powers, and eventually he became the key player in some of Marvel's best and most important storylines. His relationship both friendly and antagonistic with Thanos was one of the most interesting story-drivers in all of comic history. Powerful, mysterious, with a real depth and complexity of character that keeps you coming back for more, I hope and pray Warlock soon finds a renewed place of prestige in the Marvel universe.  There is simply is no character like him.

#1- Captain Marvel/SHAZAM- Adam Warlock is dark and brooding, and he was for so long my favorite character. It is fitting, I think, that today it is a happy and positive character who now stands atop the list. Okay, the more recent incarnation isn't as fun and upbeat as the Captain Marvel of old, but still, Shazam is the ultimate in wish fulfillment. I started collecting comics when I was 12 years old, just about the age of Shazam's alter ego Billy Batson. With a magic word Batson becomes the fully-grown Superman-level empowered superhero known as either Captain Marvel or Shazam. The first couple of dozen issues of the last ongoing Shazam series was insane, and I like his recent turn in New 52 despite the darkening of the character. But it is some of the alternative universe stories like his place in Alex Ross' KINGDOM COME and JUSTICE, and especially the kid-friendly MONSTER SOCIETY OF EVIL book that really makes the character stand out. Fun, innocent, but possessed of great wisdom (it is literally one of his superpowers) and massive power, Shazam embodies everything I love about comics and everything I'd like to be. There is something almost scriptural about the character, and I wait in fervent prayer for him to bust out of the comic pages and someday, perhaps onto the big screen and the life of more people.

MavPhil Post + A Comment

A good read:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/02/russells-teapot-revisited.html

Anyone comparing the posit God to a teapot or spaghetti monster reveals themselves to be seriously disingenuous or lacking any common sense.

Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews

DC's CONSTANTINE #11-
The Blight branch of the FOREVER EVIL storyline continues. Generally I've thought highly of the BLIGHT arc but here we have a little bit of the problem JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA is facing. It was too much filler. Of course, the generally hopeful turn of the last few issues in this arc were missing, but that isn't too terrible, I expect a rise and fall to any thematic element, and a story would suck if it lacked this. There was something very interesting regarding the reason why the Criminal Syndicate kidnapped the original JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK team, and that elevated the storytelling some, but a lot of this book was predictable and I thought the villains here, Nick Necro and Faust, were too thin. Overall, a decent but by no means great book.

Storyline: 3 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars

Zenescope's ROBYN HOOD: CINDY VS ROBN One-Shot
Man, I just don't like the direction Zenescope is going in the overall right now. This whole thing where the fairy tale characters are secret agent types, it just isn't working for me. The whole thing is repetitive and the pacing in this book really sucked. There were some good scenes with Robyn being her usual cheery (joke) self, but overall it just didn't work for me. And there was a time when I was so into what Zenescope was doing.

Storyline: 2.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 2 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 2.5 Stars

DC's SUPERMAN/WONDER WOMAN #5
This was the moment I've been waiting for for the last few issues: Wonder Woman and Superman team up on Zod an Faora. It never really made sense in the past, how Superman could defeat several beings as powerful as he is, with the inclusion of Wonder Woman in the New 52 version of the Zod storyline, we have an answer to all of that. It annoyed me the way Wonder Woman lost one of her key weapons in this issue, and I really want that rectified quickly. But beyond that I liked the action and the way the first meeting between these power house duos worked out. Good stuff.

Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars

Dynamite's GRIMM #10
Dynamite comics' foray into the universe of the television show GRIMM continues as Nick begins a GRIMM-verse version of the 12 Labors of Hercules. First up? The Nemean Lion. The book really is expanding the television show's mythos with the inclusion of new Uber-Wessen. Here we see two super-lowen. The pacing in this book was a bit off and there were a few plot holes, but in the overall this was a good book. I liked this new avenue for the GRIMM-verse with Greek myth and the homage to ESCAPE FOR NEW YORK was awesome too. Overall, a good book. The art, as usual, shows a lot of room for improvement.

Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

The Dark Side of Nerdom

Nerds and geeks are not all fun and games. There is a high degree of sexism in comic books and at conventions, and a lot of over-sexualization as well. With people's imaginations completely unhinged, some engage the darkest parts of the human mind, and experiment with ideas like satanism and the like. You see similar problems in Dungeons and Dragons and other role playing ventures. I have seen people give themselves over to the darkest parts of the human soul and the world, and create images and generate ideas that I consider genuinely dangerous.

People must learn to guard their hearts. There are some things you want to expose yourself to sparingly, and some things you don't want to expose yourself to at all. The film THE EXORCIST actually has an important message: about the sacrifice priests make for those in their charge. But there are two scenes in this film I wish I'd never seen at all. They could've just edited them out, or I could've done it myself. They haunt me and they have left a darkened corner of my soul. On balance, I wish I'd never seen the film. There are a few other films and shows that are like that.

These lines are hard to draw and no one can draw them for you. Generally, I'm a freedom guy, I don't like to build too many boxes for people to just sit in. But I say to you: be careful what you let within the confines of your heart. Darkness can creep in like a disease and rot your soul, and there is no easy cure for it. Sometimes it can leave a mark that lasts forever, and makes it that much more difficult to hear and obey the voice of the Lord.

Yet the Christian answer of just rejecting all this stuff tout court is self-defeating. If we refuse to ever play Dungeons and Dragons (which is a blast), then we cede control of the storytelling to those who don't share a love of Jesus Christ and the good. When I Dungeon Master a D&D game, it has morals and Christian themes, almost like LORD OF THE RINGS. So my fun is not morally neutral, and neither is the fun of those who are playing. Are the moral rules looser? Yea, they have to be for the game to proceed as they should, and really they are in stories like RINGS. But the Christian themes are there, as any of my players can attest to.

This weekend we have a LARP game in my youth group. Some Christians would be appalled by this, and indeed there are plenty of LARP games that are appalling. But they need not be, and I don't think mine will be. Will it be all about telling the Gospel story? No. Is the Gospel story in there somewhere? You bet it is. I won't cede one of the funnest activities nerds engage in to the dark side.  

Not Really Off-Topic: In Depth Review Of JLA # 12

DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA #12

I have been generally disappointed with the JLA branch of the FOREVER EVIL storyline. But this month's offering was really quite good. Martian Manhunter and Star-Spangled Girl continue their quest to find the Criminal Syndicate's Deathstorm, stop him from destroying Los Angeles in a nuclear explosion, and freeing the rest of the Justice Leagues from their prison.

In the middle of their quest, they are ambushed by Despero, who may have killed Manhunter in the process (the comic book ends without us knowing for sure.) As he lay near his end, Manhunter recounts a Martian legend to the young woman, inspiring her to face down Despero on her own. We also learn of a tragedy Star-Spangled suffered at the beginning of her superheroine career.

In the midst of the darkness that is DC's FOREVER EVIL storyline and the chaos we see in EARTH 2, we are starting to see DC acknowledge that what had always defined them was hope. Seeds of hope are not only showing up in the various books, they are being specifically identified as such. We have been seeing that in JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK and in EARTH 2, and even in the main FOREVER EVIL book. Now we see it in JLA. Star Spangled Girl's youth and power, her willingness to fight and to keep faith in the face of terrible odds, is lauded by Manhunter, who uses his story to ignite that flame to heights great enough to give her the inner resources she needs to face down Despero.

Perhaps what DC is trying to do here is make that tradition of hope that much more poignant by placing it against a background of genuine darkness. There is some truth in this. The light that shines in the darkness is all the more noticeable, all the more important. I recently heard Alvin Plantinga say that the very fact that Jesus dies for a lost world makes life all the more miraculous. As if God let the world fall to show the glory of Christ. I do not believe this exactly, but it is interesting, and it is interesting that DC may be playing with some similar ideas. We really see that possibility here in JLA.

Aesthetically, the pacing in the book is off but the dialogue is pretty good and so is the story, the art is good too. But it is the themes I really liked, and the thematic elements elevated the whole thing. I'd give the whole thing an overall rating of 4 Stars.

Squishy-Wishy Universalism

I often find myself in the unenviable position of having positions, beliefs and opinions that overlap in only a few places with any particular group. I have to compromise when it comes to belonging to a church because there is no one church that encompasses a majority of my beliefs about God, the afterlife, etc. I am a conservative, but many of my opinions put me on the 'outs' with my fellow conservatives and I often hate the WAY in which many of my fellow conservatives argue for, hold, and analyze their own beliefs.

When it comes to Universalism, I find that I have a large number of cohorts when it comes to rejecting the idea of an eternal Hell. Yet many Universalists hold their beliefs about Universalism in a way I find almost as bad as the doctrine of eternal Hell itself. For many Universalists reject beliefs about sin-nature, or even the idea of sin altogether. They often have this "I'm okay, you're okay" attitude and seem so open-minded their brains are falling out. Their beliefs really do come off as little more than wish-fulfillment and often they don't even believe in 'evil' at all.

I cannot understand or abide this attitude. Our experience of evil is as palpable as our experience of good. Any theology that fails to speak to that experience has an internal inconsistency that should be readily apparent. The experiences that lead to God are retained and accounted for, but any that lead in a diabolical direction are just psychologized. But if I can "psychologize" sin and the devil I can do the same to the soul and God. Even in our experience of God itself, we have a sense of discomfort. Over and over again in the Bible we see talk of the 'fear of God' and the idea that before God we are crushed down in a position of utter repentance. And sin? What the heck is the point of belief in Jesus Christ as divine at all if there is no sin? None, as far as I can tell, and that is why Universalists often become Unitarians as well.

Any faith that fails to speak of sin and grace severs its ties with Biblical religion and fails to do justice the Revelation of God that takes place in the heart of Christian believers. Any religion that fails to capture the full range of human experience, both good and evil, and the real nature of the numinous: both inviting and overwhelming, fails to be of any interest to me, at least.

My Universalism is grounded in an awareness of sin: particularly my own. If people are so sinful that they are not even capable of genuine faith or love of God, as I have argued elsewhere, then the conviction that Jesus' sacrifice was salvific has to find some objective dimension, rather than a subjective one. I believe that people are so lost, and were so separated from God by the power of satan, that predestination is true. Making sense of predestination in light of the Biblical message that God doesn't want anyone to be lost, I hold to Universalism.

My Universalism is a struggle against my ego. I don't want my religion to be about "me" and where "I" go after I die. I believe that every person is responsible for the suffering and death of God, and that the reality of sin is the reality of the Cross. This is no squish-wishy message, it does not tell us life will be better with faith, it may be much harder. It makes us face the terrible reality of sin, and says something much more profound than doctrines of Heaven and Hell: it makes us face the real consequence of our sin in and through the love of God. That God is Love makes the reality of the Cross that much more difficult for the person who stares it in the face. Sin is real, it is because sin is real that we need the Cross, the Cross is both the reality of our sin and our freedom from it. When Universalism loses Christ, it loses its vitality, and its connection to the human condition. It loses its place as an Incarnational faith. It can speak boldly and beautifully of God, but not of God's proper relationship to mankind.

On Security

Relative security, carving out a little island of limited safety in the world, is not evil and is something we should encourage. Saving for a rainy day, cultivating a community of friends, finding work you enjoy that pays the bills, taking care of our children... these are not idolatrous nor is eschewing them altogether some sign of special piety. But what is evil is to mistake relative security for absolute and ultimate security. Holding to those islands too tightly, refusing to see the broad tempests that swirl offshore ready to come in at any moment, these lead to only disillusionment and despair. And mistaking the relative security one creates as some special sign of God's favor or one's worthiness, and making those the conditions upon which one's trust in God is founded, is idolatrous, destructive, and downright sinful.

One-Gospel Christians

Many Christians idealize the early Church of the apostles. In mainline Churches this admiration and focus extends beyond the original followers of Jesus into the next few generations. Theologians in these Churches have an entire branch of theology dedicated to the early Church called patristics meaning roughly "study of the fathers." The focus being, of course, on those individuals that would call themselves the Church Fathers.

Evangelicals idealize the early Church as well, but only the community of those original apostles. Given this, I don't understand the prevalence of fundamentalism among Evangelicals. For this early church didn't even include a canon. Much of what the evangelical and pentecostal movement holds as purely Biblical, cannot possibly be in line with the activities of the earliest church. And their own version of 'patristics', tight and conservative as it is, seems to speak against their Biblicism.

For the early churches certainly did not have all of the New Testament material we have. In fact, each community likely had it's own Gospel, one particular version of the four Jesus stories we have in our Bibles that they worshiped from, studies, read from, and centered their lives around. And for the original Apostles and the Churches that predate the writing of the Gospels, it is doubtful they had even that. At best they had a collection of oral traditions that would've looked very dissimilar to the Gospel accounts we have today.

This also would've led to a plurality of beliefs, worship styles, and communities that seem anathema to any doctrinally fundamentalist movement. The community that had the Gospel of John or the oral tradition from which it sprang wouldn't have had any account of the Last Supper, and the Eucharist was believed to be established after the feeding of the five thousand. The penultimate act of Jesus would have been, for these people, not the Last Supper but the Washing of the Feet. How different such a community would've been from a Lukan community where the Passover loomed heavy in the breaking of bread and drinking of wine. And both would have differed greatly from a Markan community where no origin of Jesus is given at all.

The reliance of the Bible as the sole or even primary source of one's community demands, I think, consideration of all the Church Fathers leading up to canonization, for until this point a truly CATHOLIC (in terms of being inclusive of the entirety of all the Gospels) faith was nonexistent. The plurality of views is evident in the various Biblical epistles. Such a plurality is a natural outgrowth of a community that had multiple and disparate textual sources from which it was working. In fact, to truly rediscover the Church of the Apostles one would have to eschew multiple Gospel sources altogether and adopt just one particular account as authoritative. That kind of move would, of course, be short sighted and stupid. But to continue a focus on the overall Gospel message one must admit a reliance on the broader Patristic period, and admit that one cannot and probably should not seek a pure "Church of the Apostles", as if such a thing were possible today.

The Proof Paradigm And The Burden of Reasonableness

"You can't prove a negative." You hear this all the time, especially from the atheist camp. But really, this is a red herring. The truth is that except in very few cases, you can't really prove a positive. What does 'proof' really mean? Certainty? Well any good philosopher, anyone who has really plumbed the depths of idea and thought, knows that certainty is almost always an illusion and/or a pretense. Even the Law of Non-Contradiction, so long considered a given certainty and treated as sacrosanct, has been well-assailed by the brilliant logician Graham Priest. I do not know that Priest is right. But he seems to make a very strong case. And if the LNC does not obtain than almost anything is up for grabs, at least to some degree.

Of course, most people don't really expect absolute certainty from any epistemological output. What they really mean by proof is 'evidence or argument so strong that it would command the ascent of ALMOST any rational agent.' This is a much lower standard of proof than the one the atheist really pretends to be burdened with when reasons are demanded for their atheism. So we've already wiped away some of the pretense, and that didn't take long and wasn't very hard. But even at this level, very few things fall under this paradigm. Only math really, and a certain very thin slice of the (generally least interesting) science. Nothing of morality, or politics, or human nature, or philosophy, and indeed nothing of theoretical sciences would remain. The proof paradigm is only operative in a very thin slice of the world.

Really, for the largest swath of what we believe, truth is a 'more or less' situation, and so is 'proof'. A person owes an account: reasons, arguments, evidence... for almost everything they believe. This is the real standard of rationality we use in almost every part of our lives. Do people have free will? Some say yes, and some say no. Both sides offer massive arguments and evidence for their position. Neither side seems close to falling away into the dust bin of history. There is no 'proof' here either at the level of absolute certainty nor at the level of near-absolute rational consent. But that doesn't mean nobody OWES an account. Just because a belief can be rationally held doesn't mean it IS rationally held. I think my belief in God has 'good enough' grounds to be considered a 'rational' belief. I don't think I am irrational for believing in God nor do I think the belief in God is irrational. But there are plenty of people who are irrational because of the WAY they believe in God, and plenty of people whose belief in God is irrational.

And even for my beliefs that are not exactly rational, that doesn't make them IRrational. They can be non-rational. A person who has cancer and has a low chance of survival may believe they will make it. This ups their odds and makes their lives better in the meantime. Their belief, then, is not irrational (counter to reason) but is not exactly rational (based on good reasons).

So does the atheist owe an account as the theist does. Yes, they do. The only reason the atheist really denies this, I think, is to avoid facing their own uncertainties (and thus the possibility they are wrong) and because they don't want to realize the actual lower standard theists themselves have to meet. Everyone owes an account for what they believe. You can offer evidence, make a case, offer arguments, in defense of atheism as you can for the denial of free will or for numerical irrealism. Most philosophers in history have been realists about numbers, believing in something like platonic forms to account for them, those philosophers who have come in and railed against this belief were not let off the hook for defending their position because it was negative, but rather had to make vigorous arguments and offer evidence, as any other person would. I don't see that the atheist is in any different position. The very fact that the problem of evil is such a big deal proves, I think, that arguments and evidence can be offered for a negative. The evil in the world stands as an evidence, not proof in the aforementioned sense but evidence, that God does not exist. A theist is bound, if they are going to remain consistent and want to claim to be rational, to deal and account for that evidence.

Everyone owes an account of what they believe. That is just good moral sense. And if you are deliberately entering into a debate on the issue, you doubly owe such an account. A philosopher WANTS the burden of proof. Not forever, nobody owes an eternal account, but still it is something to be enjoyed. You do not have to offer evidence or arguments that engender certainty or that are guaranteed to convert any rational opponent, but you should want the opportunity. "If someone offers you the burden of proof for a mile, pick it up and carry it two." That is something my friend Andrew Jeffery once said to me that stuck with me to this day. It remains true for me, and for everyone. I make my case, and have made my case, and leave it at that. Always seek to do that. To run from it is to run from the most sublime responsibility.

Does An Addict Have Free Will?

Free will is a terribly touchy subject, especially for a Christian. It is an even touchier subject for people who suffer from addiction. Is addiction more like a disease, for which you seek treatment? Or is it more of a moral problem, for which you take responsibility? This topic has been blowing up the internet in the wake of Phillip Seymour-Hoffman's death by heroine overdose. Let me suggest to you that it is both at the same time. My thoughts on this matter are a bit unformed, and just for that reason are ripe for blogging.

Some of you who are familiar with me may know of my affinity for the twelve-step model for curing addiction. Of course the first step is admitting that one is powerless over one's problem. Isn't this to tacitly admit that addiction is a 'disease'? Powerlessness against a problem is not the same as a lack of freedom. The powerlessness is, in fact, a consequence of the misuse of freedom. Whatever state I wind up in, however weak my will becomes, the state I am in was the result of me taking that first drink, that first drug, and I did that freely and of my own volition. I am thus responsible for the state I am in. So it may be true that I am incapable of resisting the temptation to do drugs at time T2 but so long as the event T1 that brought me to that state was not under compulsion, I am still responsible for what I do at T2. The problem is not that my will is not FREE, it is that I don't have much WILL at all any more.

By analogy, one can imagine someone having diabetes and trying to control it by diet and exercise. A person cannot simply will oneself to no longer have diabetes. One is truly powerless to just stop having the disease. But one CAN undertake the processes, however difficult, to keep the disease from being a problem. That these processes are necessary is not something that you control. That they are incredibly difficult for you is not something you can control. But you can choose to do those things that you need to do to keep the disease from killing you. And for those whose diabetes result from a high-sugar diet the situation in which they find themselves in is still to some degree their fault.

The alcoholic, the drug addict, is not free to do what they want. You live in a paradoxical relationship with yourself. Everyone else, most of the time, gets to define freedom by desire satisfaction. Freedom for most people just IS doing what they most want to do and having the ability to do that. The drug addict, by contrast, is only free so long as they do NOT do that which they most want to do. It is this against which they are powerless: the desire. They cannot simply stop wanting to do what they want to do. Other people's desires may be fluid, and adjustable, but the addict cannot just change who they are. What they are free to do is 'work the system', to do those things that are necessary to forgo their own desires. Even the ability to admit one's own powerlessness before one's problem is an example of free will. Such an admission that one cannot do what one wants to do is an act of freedom and indeed an act AGAINST one's problem. It opens up the doorway to the only route out for many addicts: to give one's will over to God, thereby no longer living according to your own desire.

In a sense, then, the disease of addiction is not substantively different than the disease of sin. I am at any given time free to do the right thing, what I am NOT free to do is make myself the kind of person who is worthy of God's grace. It is in recognizing that fact that true freedom, the freedom given by Christ, can come. 12 Steps began as an offshoot of Carl Jung's belief that alcoholism is a form of idolatry. In that sense it is a spiritual disease, which will have similarities to physical disease but also differ from it in important ways. It is is a demonic force, and one that can only be fought by spiritual means. But if we are indeed capable of faith and faith is the cure, then our freedom to do with our will as we choose is not gone.

"An Apocalyptic Shift", Or, "Why Church Tradition Matters"

One of the things that demarcates mainline churches and traditional churches from the fundamentalists is the importance that the former places on the church's own traditions and on reason. For fundamentalists there is only one revelation... the words of scripture itself... for mainline traditions, God reveals Himself in church tradition and reason also. Of course, I've written countless pages arguing that the Bible cannot be the sole revelation of God, because of the circularity of justification involved in appealing to the Bible to justify the Bible, and because of the internal contradictions in the text. But there is another issue that comes up with the issue of ethics that needs to be considered.

Fundamentalists tend to be pragmatists when it comes to ethics. Most fundamentalists are also political conservatives and tend to support a strong military, the death penalty, etc. Politically liberal Christians rightly point out that many of these positions are inconsistent with the gospels. But liberal Christians fail to realize the degree to which they, too, are guilty of supporting positions that are not consistent with the New Testament's overarching ethical discourse. The very idea of political involvement is really anathema to the message of Jesus OR Paul. Jesus eschewed politics as a satanic temptation (Luke 4) and Paul tells us that our only political duty is absolute obedience to the reigning political order (Romans 13).

The two men had different views on the nature of political power, which I've expounded at length on this blog. However, at the heart of the political vision of both men is a simple fact that few Christians seem to acknowledge: apocalypticism. Both men expected the world to end in their own lifetimes, and so both men held up a vision of life in the world that is completely at odds with our normal way of thinking about morals and ethics. They sought an ethical existence that was predicated on an immediate expected end. If you think the world is going to end, like, tomorrow, then you don't go out and have a family, or even fight for civil rights (for God is about to come and establish the proper rights for all people... why fight a battle about to be won by God alone?), you get into a church and you pray.

There is an immediacy to the messages of Jesus and Paul, a message that right here, right now, everything is about to change because God is coming and so 'what are you going to do about it?' This, then, makes sense of the fact that so many Christian movements have been End Times movements, and why things like Rapture Theology take such deep root today.

Of course to continue to pretend that the world IS going to end "any day now" is to ignore the fact that the Christian community has now been here nearly 2000 years, and to refuse to account for that fact in your moral reasoning seems irresponsible. The truth of the matter is that the Church cannot and should not live as if the world WILL end any day, though it must and should act as if the world MIGHT end any day. This shift is subtle, but very important. In the first case working in and for life in the world as it is presented to us makes no sense. In the second case living and working in and for life in the world makes a lot of sense, since you know you MIGHT be here a long time.

An analogy can be found in waiting for a flight. If I know the flight is on time, then I wait expectantly, listening for boarding instructions and not buying a pretzel at the kiosk down the way, for I leave at any minute. But if a flight is delayed, and I don't know how long, I might go get that pretzel, for I may be in my seat for quite a while. I still do things differently: I watch the flight ticker to see if new information is available, and I keep my ears open, but knowing that flights can be delayed a long time, I also ready myself for the long haul.

The Church, as time went on, had to modify Jesus and Paul's end-times ethical and political vision to deal with the fact that it might be the bearer of the Christian message for a long time. The injunction by Jesus to eschew politics altogether or of Paul to simply obey whatever those in power had to say, simply is not feasible if the Church is to live and work in the world. It cannot operate, for instance, in a country without religious freedom, and fighting for those freedoms is important to its mission. It cannot properly serve the poor for the long haul if it is in a racist environment. So the original apocalyptic ethic of the New Testament had to be modified.

But any such modifications have to stand the test of time. New thoughts about how to apply the words of scripture in the world have to come up, be examined, and be applied where necessary. Tradition should have authority, but not unquestioned authority. Advent used to be a time of somber reflection, and Christmas was treated as a season... a season of celebration. But those 'times' were set when most people lived near extended family. Christmas involves too much traveling for the Church to fail to make Advent itself the time of celebration. Of course all of this would be a moot point if we still lived as if the world WILL end any moment.

Jesus and Paul's ethic, then, stands before us as something truly transcendent. It is an ideal we cannot, truly, live up to. Or we could, but we'd have to forget the world and the last 2000 years of history. It sets a standard before which we can only bow in repentance. We can only say before their standards "we have uttered things too wonderful for ourselves, that we understood not, and wherefore we abhor ourselves and repent in dust and ashes." I think God came in the form of an End Times Prophet for a reason. For only in such a person could the transcendence of God's goodness be contained without there being some inconsistency at the heart of His message. Jesus could be iconoclastic without being dishonest: He truly believed the end was near, and His morality beyond morality thus spoke to that. So any system of ethics we create must be opened up to the strange alien world of Jesus and Paul, we must let their truly divine way of life serve as a light upon our own, reminding us that the world will indeed some day be over, if not for everyone than for us, at the time of our deaths. We should have no moral place where we stand comfortable, so long as our own ethics seeks the balance between the Gospel and the world that is necessary for anyone who wants to live in the world. But neither should we fail to see the necessary role of interpretation and balancing that came before. The Church must go through a process of interpretation and re-interpretation, building up an ethical and political philosophy that seeks after the truth of possible persistence in the world, all the while admitting of itself that it is not the same as the message that inspired it.

Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews

DC's FOREVER EVIL #5
Boy was it refreshing to see one of the CRIMINAL SYNDICATE get their comeuppance. I won't ruin it by telling you which, but it was definitely a 'heck yea' kind of moment. In this issue, Batman and Luthor's teams are collectively attacked by Syndicate lackeys, some of whom then end up recruiting. Batman is put on the defensive (a rare place for the Caped Crusader to be) as Luthor makes it clear that he is in charge. This book also corrects a frustrating moment from the last issue by making it clear that Batman could be a great yellow lantern if he so chose. There is a twist at the end that was also pretty good. The pacing was a bit off on this issue, but everything else was top notch.

Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars

Dynamite's GRIMM: THE WARLOCK #3 (of 4)
This was a good issue as the Grimm Universe's legendary reach grows even broader. Here we see an exploration of the classic legend of the Yeti re-imagined in the Grimmverse. What makes both the television show and the comic book work is the examination of the inter-personal relationships between the various characters, including the beasties we come in each week. We see that here as the relationship between the two Yetis is given an interesting and timely twist. This book's pacing was a bit off, and as usual the art leaves something to be desired, but overall I enjoyed it.

Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

Zenescope's OZ  #6
Oh my gosh what happened to this book? It was so well done for so long, and the recent offering of the prequel featuring the Tin Man was excellent, that I expected a wonderful end to a wonderful tale. What I got was a badly-paced, explain-nothing, unoriginal ending that left everything to be desired. Oh there were some good individual scenes, and some good dialogue, but it seemed that the writers had no idea how to end all of this. It is a stark contrast to the Big Dog Ink original LEGEND OF OZ: THE WICKED WEST mini-series all those years ago, which had a clear direction and one of the best endings to any storyline in any comic I'd ever read. Oh, Zenescope, you really dropped the ball here.

Storyline: 2 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 1.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 2 Stars

Not Really Off-Topic: Extended Comic Book Review: Earth 2 #20

Today I reflect aesthetically, ethically and theologically on Earth 2 #20. We continue the apocalyptic storyline in which Darkseid's forces are revisiting Earth 2 with a corrupted Superman at the helm of his forces. Meanwhile, the themes of hope that dominated in the last monthly issue continue to shine a light in the darkness, though both themes: hope and damnation, are equally present.

As a comic book, this issue worked very well, though not as well as the last monthly or annual issues (it would be hard to measure up to Earth 2 Annual #2, though). There were some awesome individual scenes, though the shift between scenes was a little disjointed, leading to some bad pacing. There was this one incredible scene with Aquawoman towards the beginning that was just dynamite: the scene was absolutely riveting, speaking to the top notch artwork one finds in this book.

Two scenes in particular warranted a more theological reflection. There is this one series of panels where the Dark Superman sends out the parademons to destroy all houses of worship on the planet. He stands there, crying out over and over that only Darkseid is god. This is something right out of the Book of Revelation, this scene is brought to life here:

[Revelation 13:1-4: The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. ² The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. ³ One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. ⁴ People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”]

Superman clearly is playing the role of the beast and Darkseid the dragon. The devil is always a tyrant. He can allow no diversity of thought or worship. If I'm honest, I fear those who would destroy religion as a whole. The first step to getting people to worship a political leader is to get them to become materialists. Robbed of their gods, people will not seek worshiping. Worship is a matter of course, it is like breathing, it is like an animal hunting, worshiping is what humans DO. Worship directed towards elements of this world is destructive. Immanentizing the eschaton, making a kingdom of man equivalent with the Kingdom of God, is the cause of all corruption of religion, and will be worse if done under the guise of irreligion. A religion that presents itself as a secular philosophy, grounded in 'science' will be that much harder to fight because it will not be clear that the uncertainties of religion have been corrupted into idolatrous certainties. Any 'scientific' ethics will be dangerous to us all, because any ethical position given the air of scientific certainty is going to be the worst kind of idolatry.

The devil comes in the form of something that you can worship in the world. God became incarnate one, satan becomes incarnate many times. Darkseid makes a pretense to godhood and that makes him that much more of a frightening evil. Darkseid represents everything we are inclined to worship in ourselves: power, control, wealth... to see a version of Superman attacking the weak and innocent and suggesting worship of the powerful, it is a frightening thing. That is a major theme of this issue.

Yet alongside it we have Batman trying to prepare his 'secret weapon', a kryptonian boy who may be able to challenge Superman, for battle. This boy, it turns out, spent so much time in his kryptonian pod on the way to Earth he suffers from agoraphobia. The young man will not go out into the sunlight to claim his birthright. Lois Lane, the Earth-2 Red Tornado in this world, confides in the young boy her own fears, and also expresses her faith in her former husband Superman. She claims bluntly that the Superman that is attacking their world is not the real Superman, for she knows who he is and what he can and cannot do. This statement of faith in Superman is reminiscent, too, of the faithful keeping faith in the true Christ as the false christ points worship towards the dragon in the Book of Revelation. The book ends with this beautiful moment where the young boy goes outside into the sunlight, and is assured that the light is his destiny. Here the lamb takes his place in the apocalyptic allegory. This scene mirrors the last scene of the January monthly issue, where we saw Green Lantern stirring. This also brings forth a passage from the Bible, in my mind: "the light shines in the darkness."

Where will all this lead? I don't know. What I do know is that whether intentional or not, what we have here is a hard-core exploration of themes from the Book of Revelation almost on the scale of the incredible comic book Kingdom Come. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Earth 2 is DC's crown jewel, a book doing things no other monthly title I know of is doing. Every issue explores some new territory and I for one am riveted, and inspired.

My overall rating for this issue is 4 Stars.

On The Philosophical Implications of Quantum Mechanics

Some of my New Age brothers and sisters tend to blow the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics way out of proportion. They will say things like "quantum mechanics shows that the observer is important to determining reality, and so there is no one truth, we each create our own reality." I've known New Agers who think that QM proves that positive thinking ensures positive results, or that our attitude is the cause of our situation or the reality in which we dwell... basically this all comes down to the proposition that we can create our own universe through the power of thought. This is, of course, ridiculous, and quantum mechanics implies no such thing.

The irony in all this is that what QM does say is so interesting, exciting and indeed probably philosophically significant that there is no reason to over blow it at all. The truth is amazing enough. Now first it is important to point out that no one is sure WHAT the philosophical implications of QM are exactly, though many (rightly I think) believe that the significance is there. It is also important to point out that QM is a scientific theory that is subject to revision, and in fact we know that a major revision is coming because we know that QM and relativity are inconsistent and that there is likely some greater theory that will find a way to reconcile the two, involving major revisions in both. Finally, we must keep in mind that quantum mechanics really only matters at the level of the very small. Micro-events follow the probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics and macro-events follow the deterministic laws of relativity. At  least, that is how science operates anyways. It must be noted that some are beginning to question whether the micro/macro distinction is valid and there have been a few recent experiments where quantum mechanical laws have been artificially forced upon a macro event.

With all that in mind, lets look at what quantum mechanics really says. Quantum mechanics is, and this may be the most important aspect of it, not deterministic. Imagine you had an orange, and you put it in one cup. Then every once in a while, and seemingly for no reason, the orange appeared 'magically' in another cup a few feet away... like it teleported. Now quantum events, events at the level of single atoms or smaller, do things like this. Quantum mechanics, the math behind it anyways, is very good at predicting the percentage change the 'orange' will be in one cup or another. What it can't do is tell you if in any given instance the orange will move or not. So it may predict something will happen with a particle 33% of the time, and indeed after 100 tries you find that particle 'jumped' 33 times. But in any given case you cannot know for sure. And this uncertainty, this openness, is not just from a lack of knowledge. It is an inherent part of the universe.

Now only slightly less important is the fact that for quantum mechanics' math to work, it has to put the observer into the equation. So go back to the imaginary teleporting orange. Whether the orange is in its original cup or whether it has appeared in another cup is an open question in each case, and the location of the orange is not fixed UNTIL YOU LOOK INSIDE ONE OF THE CUPS. In fact, the math treats the orange as existing in both places at the same time, until someone looks inside the cup. Quantum particles, too, behave one way or another according to a probabilistic framework, but which way they behave isn't determined until someone looks at what they are doing. In other words, the observer is a part of the system that determines how the particle will behave. But this DOES not mean that the observer creates their own reality.

Think about the particle as making a decision. It decides to go this way or that. The "orange" "decides" whether to stay in its own cup or move to another. The decision is not the observer. The observe does not force the orange to be one place or another, the scientist does not force the particle to behave one way or another. What the observe does is forces the particle, the "orange" to make a decision one way or another. But reality is what it is on its own terms. You do not create the world around you, though you can have some small influence on making the world be SOMETHING. What that something is in in your own hands.

Now many of the positive philosophical implications of this...the reality of freedom, the line between the macro and micro, even the consequences for logic in a world where science seems to deal in the contradictory, these could be laid out in stark terms but it would take pages to do all of that, probably a book. My goal here is not to paint a picture of what this all MEANS for us. What I'm trying to show here is that even on the most interesting interpretations of the facts, quantum mechanics does NOT teach that we each create our own world, or truth, or reality or whatever. At its most interesting, and this is interesting enough, what it teaches us is that the observer has a role to play in the process of the world creating ITSELF. It is the world and the things in the world that are doing the deciding. What they choose is what they choose no matter what you think or want. All we do is force the world to make that decision one way or another. That is interesting enough.

One-Post Wednesday- Off-Topic Comic Book Reviews

I had so many comic books from my last Wednesday "pulls" that it has taken several reviews to cover them all. This is the last review pertaining to that batch.

Marvel's SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN #26

Well when this whole "Doctor Octopus Spider-Man" fiasco began, I complained a lot. For one, Marvel made this stupid claim that it had 'killed off' Peter Parker by having him switch minds with Octopus, when in fact they left open the door for Parker to come back any time. We all knew this would happen, and so there was nothing brave or bold in the switch. Now we have Peter beginning to return, with parts of Peter's mind still intact deep in Octopus' subconscious. That whole storyline just doesn't do anything for me. Nor does the struggle between Superior Spidey and the Avengers. All of this is predictable and the dialogue and monologue of "Octo-Spidey" does nothing for me. Thankfully, we also have a second story here, and that story is the real reason I bought SUPERIOR this week. It involves a struggle between Green Goblin and Hobgoblin and their respective "Goblin Armies". It was action packed, it was a classic Goblin battle between two longtime competitors. I loved the art and loved the story and dialogue between the two. The scenes with Parker were also refreshing:

Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars

Dynamite's ARMY OF DARKNESS VS HACK/SLASH #5

This statement alone should make you want to buy this book: "Ash becomes a sex slave in ancient Greece." One aspect of Dynamite's ASH is that he is a time-traveler, often sent to different time periods to fight the evils of the Necronomicon, which can after all open portals in space and time. The pacing in this book was a little off, but it was more than balanced out by the good dialogue and the twist at the end. I have enjoyed this series better than any other Dynamite ASH offering except maybe FREDDY VS JASON VS ASH. Good stuff.

Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

Marvel's GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY #11
Intrigue abounds as the Shi'ar seek to return to Earth to kidnap a time-traveling Jean Grey and try her for crimes her future self will be guilty of. Meanwhile, Star Lord has to suffer the consequences of a bounty out on his head. I have to say that Star Lord comes off as very Han Solo in this book, and while derivative storytelling is a dangerous place to be, it really works in this book. As always, the dialogue was excellent, though the pacing was a big off this time around. There was too much jumping around from storyline to storyline. Still, a good book and a good issue.

Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

My Greatest Fear

Someone asked me what my greatest fear was recently. I told them bluntly my greatest fear is that there is no God. It is a simple truth, and one I think every theist in his heart can identify with. I think that believers can be split into two camps: those that would admit this fear and those that won't. It is hard to imagine that all of this is illusion, and that all these grand experiences that point to eternity are nought but lies. This world is marvelous if meaningful but nothing but a tale told by an idiot if it is not. Nothingness whispers into the ear of every faithful person, and oh how terrible is that nothingness. Another voice tells us that oblivion is a liar, that it is not ultimate, and not god, but that Life, Being and Love are truly God. To imagine a world where the reverse is true, it is almost unthinkable. It is frightening in the extreme.

Perhaps part of the problem is that I'm more an immortalist than I used to be. I believe in an afterlife not only because I believe in God, but alongside my belief in God. And the possibility that life is eternal but God is not over all is similarly frightening. An endless line of life like the one we know in this world, with all the horrors included, is almost too terrible a thought to bare. The idea that life just ends, too, is quite terrible. The best defense of the proposition that oblivion is something to be hated and feared can be found in Miguel De Unamuno's THE TRAGIC SENSE OF LIFE. I could not make a better case than the one found there.

Anyways, I know why some of my fellow theists make a pretense to certainty and knowledge where it seems clear to me that only experience and faith can exist. For this fear, that God does not exist, is too terrible for most to face. To face the fear is to acknowledge the possibility that it is true. I know it is possible that God does not exist. I believe God does. I know I could just be delusional when it comes to my sublime experiences. I choose to trust them for oh so many reasons. But to admit that trust is necessary is to already admit of the possibility of error. I cannot tell a lie: this is who I am.

I suspect, though, that atheists fear that they are wrong as much as I fear I am wrong. After all, they have staked their lives.. and their lives should look differently because of this... they have staked their lives on the proposition that there is no God. It would be terrible, I would think, to have pained God so greatly as to deny His existence and then to fall into His very hands. Judgment, an absolute right or wrong, separation from one's Very Source, all these would be falling in all at once. And their behavior decries their fear. Atheists engage in too much insistence and hand waving to be as certain as the pretend to be. They doth protest too much.

And indeed, there are atheists who admit this fear, like Thomas Nagel. Maybe that is why atheists like Nagel always seem like brothers to me. I feel kinship with those who share my pain, the pain of unknowing, the pain of uncertainty, the pain of fear in the face of the Mystery of the Unknowable. It is in that shared fear that brotherhood is found. Isn't that what Christ is all about? God sharing in that same condition? God knowing the confusion and fear of not knowing if God really cares?

Happy Birthday Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Today Lutherans celebrate the birth of the martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was killed by the Nazis for his involvement in plots to kill Hitler. He is one of my all-time favorite Christian figures, and he embodied faith like few Christians actually do. Here is my favorite quote by him:

"I learned later, and I am still learning up to this moment that it is only by living completely in this world, that one learns to have faith. By this worldliness, I mean living unreservedly in life's duties and problems, successes and failures...taking seriously, not our own suffering, but the sufferings of God in the world. In so doing, we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, standing with Christ at Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith. That is metanoia, and that is what it means to be a Christian, and a man."

Not Really Off-Topic: Extended Review of JUSTICE LEAGUE: DARK #27

While FOREVER EVIL is a good comic book and a good storyline, it has really screwed up some books, like JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA, but JLD has been able to maintain a good pace during the 'pause' that is going on while the DC Universe goes 'evil' for a while. This story is the nigh-conclusion of the battle between the NEW Justice League: Dark team and the evil known as Blight, a demonic presence in the collective human unconscious brought to life by the appearance of the Criminal Syndicate.

As you may remember from last week, I said I was impressed and found it refreshing that there has been a focus on the hopeful and sublime in the last few issues of the FOREVER EVIL: BLIGHT story arc. This issue begins with the reader wondering if all that heavenly 'progress' might be squashed by the writers. Will they embrace hope or will they continue the depressing themes that have dominated the DC universe as of late?

The center of the story this time around is the young boy, a person brought back from heaven a while back by Phantom Stranger, who has been possessed by the evil spirit Blight. As Constantine gives into his inner darkness in an attempt to become more powerful than the evil he faces, Phantom Stranger, Pandora and the angel Zauriel seek out the young boy who is acting as a conduit for the demon. This issue turns into a kind of commentary on theodicy: the theological attempt to answer the problem of evil and innocent suffering. The answer given is that evil is ultimately going to be used by God as a tool for a greater good. This is a rather pat and bland answer that has been offered many times, and which I have spent a lot of time refuting.

For if evil is just a tool to bring about more good then it seems that God is something of a utilitarian. The ends justify the means. If God is supposed to exist as an example, as an ideal to which we strive, then it seems that our morality, too, would have to be utilitarian. It is so easy to show this false that I will not waste the ink here.

So the foray into theodicy doesn't go so well. Yet there is something truly remarkable about this book. The boy ends up being the one to destroy Blight. And his entry through the hell that was blight's spirit is a kind of purification right. It echoes the ancient belief among some Christians that Jesus entered Hell on the three days of his death. In fact the Christ imagery is thick here. The boy, surviving his foray into Hell, comes out as a being of pure light, literally redemption incarnate. So the writers do indeed come out on the side of hope, and I for one am thankful for it. I really liked the way this book ended. The Blight Storyline had some problems, but it was more or less entertaining and it had something of some substance to say. And I like the hopeful turn. It is a refreshing look back to the kind of experience DC used to engender in almost all its books. I miss the hopeful, idealistic DC Universe. There was something divine in it.

Overall Rating: 4 Stars

Lessons From The Death of a Master Artist

Phillip Seymour-Hoffman was one of the great actors of our times. He was prolific, embodying roles both large and small in some of the best films of the last 20 years. In every role he played, he elevated the part, transforming it into genuine art. Some actors play their best in big films and mainstream cinema, others fail when they foray into the mainstream and shine only in small independent parts. Hoffman was rare in that he elevated films-for-entertainment into something more, and made smaller independent films something that could appeal to almost any audience, if they were only exposed to it.

His best known parts were probably "Big Lebowski", "Almost Famous" (God he was great in that film), one of the Mission Impossible films (one of the few he was in I didn't see), "Capote", "Doubt", and the recent "Hunger Games: Catching Fire". But he had dozens of other roles you probably know nothing about, many of which were, in my humble opinion, his greatest. Two in particular come to mind: "Flawless", where he played a drag queen who has a redemptive relationship with a man struggling with speech problems due to a stroke, and "Owning Mahoney", which is the best portrayal of addiction and its consequences I've ever seen.

That last film was about a compulsive gambler, and seriously anyone who is interested in what it is like to be an addict should see that film, but Hoffman's ability to play that role so brilliantly stemmed from his own battle with his own addiction, drugs. It was this addiction that took Hoffman's life.

It is hard to explain this to someone who hasn't struggled with a demon that takes over their life like drugs or gambling can, but watching Hoffman fail in his battle is very difficult for people in recovery who looked up to him. When actors are candid about their addictions, as he was, and watch someone like him stay clean for 20 years and then fall off the wagon, well it can be disheartening. It is hard because anyone who struggles with addiction has at least some fear of failing after a long period of success. Addiction is always day-by-day, and so no addict can ever wake up and say, "that is it, it is over, no more fear of failing, I'll never fall off the wagon." Such an attitude is an almost guarantee of failure. For freedom comes by realizing one is not free, and giving your life over to God. Anything else is doomed, at least for those of us who have found sobriety in and through God alone.

Yet events like this remind us that life remains day-by-day, and we can never rest on our laurels or the amount of time we have been sober. Drug and alcohol addiction is a progressive disease. If you quit when you were 25 and you begin again when you are 45, it will not be like you take up where you left off. It is rather like you have been a continual addict that whole 20 years. Thus the danger in relapse increases over time. Each day is a struggle. Forget that and you're screwed.

I have forgiveness and anger in my heart for Hoffman. Anger, because this remains his own fault. He chose to do drugs and he has to take responsibility for them destroying him. Yet I realize that drugs, and the struggle against them, is more than just a moral struggle. If anything has convinced me that there is a honest-to-goodness devil, it is my struggles with addiction. Drugs are demonic in their ability to tempt, to coax, to inspire false worship. There is something more diabolical than simply exciting dopamine and mimicking seratonin. Those are simply vehicles for something deeper, and something darker, with a longer history. Knowing how hard this struggle is, I have plenty of grounds to forgive.

Yet I regret and will regret the loss of beauty in this world. What a terrible spoil death and the devil have won here. Anything that removes aesthetic value from the world removes at least a less diffuse form of good, and Hoffman's art had a lot of aesthetic value to add. He wasn't even close to hitting his peak yet, and he elevated the field he worked in, and the life of people in this world. He elevated mine for sure. There are maybe 5 actors and 5 actresses that are under 50 that I consider truly great, and he was one of them. What he has done stands in this world for a while longer, and I think forever in the world to come. But there will be no new plays, no new parts, and no more deepening of the cinematic experience by his hand. Death cannot take what he did and the good that lived inside of him, but it has taken what would've been. God gained so much from the life, and lost so much from the death. But due to the sacrifice, that beautiful gift on the Cross, He has forever to give now to Hoffman himself. I believe this, I believe that the wonder in his soul that made it possible for him to create such wonderful moments is not dead. If I did not believe that, if I thought the wonderful things life gives evaporate, if I thought the once was disappeared with the might've beens, I'm not sure I could go on. And I'd wind up just like Hoffman, and that is something I am committed each day to making sure does not happen.

There but by the Grace of Christ go I.

*Spoiler Alert* Not Really Off-Topic: Extended Comic Book Review of EARTH 2 Annual #2

This is one of two extended reviews of comic books this week, this one dealing with DC's EARTH 2 Annual #2. Let me say right off that this is one of the best single issues of any ongoing comic book series I've ever read. EARTH 2 recounts the story of an alternate-universe Earth. Alternate from the universe that produces the main story lines of the major DC characters, that is. Batman is supposed to be long dead in this universe, but recently someone wearing his cape and cowl has shown up as the new Earth-2 Batman. Who is this mysterious figure? And why is he almost as skilled as Bruce Wayne and seems to know so much about him?

This issue of EARTH 2, being an extended ANNUAL issue, was a fantastic opportunity to answer these questions and it did just that. It works on so many levels. It is a great stand alone comic book, as the story that unfolds is relatively self-contained, though it does tie in the main EARTH 2 story at the end. This book really showcases why alternative universe stories are so successful at DC. You have these profound and deeply meaningful characters that serve as a kind of symbolic language dealing with philosophical and theological ideas and here you can take those symbols, which we who are 'in the know' understand and read so well, and play with them in ways you can't in the mainline stories.

In this issue, the origin of the new Batman turns on the origin of the original. In the main Batman story, and in the original story of the Earth-2 Batman, Batman's quest was driven by the murder of his parents. Bruce Wayne saw his parents killed right in front of them. Central to that loss was the apparent righteousness of those that were killed. Bruce's parents were notoriously good people, that everyone recognized as such, including Bruce. Seeing goodness, especially a goodness embodied as a parent, ripped out of the world is what left such a mark on Bruce. His career as Batman is, then, a kind of grittier and darker resurrection story, one in which his parents goodness comes to life again in their child, who responds to their murders in a way that is in some sense redemptive.

Batman's parents, then, serve a truly divine role in Bruce's life. There is almost an ancestor-worship aspect to what Batman does, and to Bruce's life as a whole. This book asks what would happen, or what would it mean, if Bruce found out that one of his parents had done something truly criminal. And how would one of Bruce's parents react if they had robbed him of that image, if they could know what their death did to their son, and why he did what he did, and what their true nature and actions (assuming they were, say, criminal instead of righteous) would mean in the light of all that.

Another side-story in all of this is the exploration of miraclo. Miraclo is a drug that a line (family line) of heroes known as HOURMAN have used to gain superpowers for one hour. I've only recently started to delve into this character, reading some back issues and such. He is fascinating because his powers come from a drug, and that leads to something of an addiction. That adds another layer to the double life most superheroes face. Think about a person trying to kick the habit of Miraclo, faced with the choice of juicing again or saving a child in a burning building. There is layer upon layer of ethical commentary and pathos here.

Well that whole dilemma fits prominently in this issue, and I love the way it is handled. It bodes well for the upcoming HOURMAN television show. Now, you'll notice I've given some broad outlines of themes here, some of which may spoil some of the comic book, but I've tried to avoid too many specifics because I don't want to risk spoiling TOO much. For alongside the excellent thematic elements, this is just great entertainment and storytelling. It has everything: the storyline is amazing with a lot of plot twists, the dialogue is believable and shocking at times, the pacing is a little off but that is forgivable and it isn't terrible. The art is as good as the rest of Earth-2: some of the best DC has to offer.

All in all, this was a great issue in a book that has proven to be one of the best things in the New 52. I highly recommend it. I give this book 5 stars without reservation. Check it out.

Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews

I apologize for the lull in blogging, but I have a sickness in the family. This is the first of several comic book blogs as I had a huge haul this week, and several of them were exceptional. There will be two extended reviews as well.y              


DC's TEEN TITANS #27
This book takes a rather negative turn in this issue as the trial of Bart Allen/Kid Flash gets into full gear. I don't like the side story of the Superboy imposter. I really would like some more down to Earth stuff with the Superman clone. The main story is interesting and unexpected, but there really is something missing in this whole 'lost in the future' stuff. I don't know, I'd like something a little purer, sublime, and straightforward. Why does everything have to be so 'out there'? A good old fashioned supervillain/superhero dynamic would be nice. This was a good story, but I'm starting to want something a little more classic from DC.

Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

Dark Horse's SERENITY: LEAVES ON THE WIND #1

This is a comic event many have been waiting for a while now. Other FIREFLY based comics have been prequels or do-overs, but this book takes off directly where the SERENITY film left off, with the aftermath of the reveal of the 'truth' about the Reavers causing major upheaval across the systems. The powers that be seek to cover up a truth already revealed while stamping down a new resistance to its domination, while both them and the newly empowered rebels seek the crew of SERENITY, though for different reasons. I don't want to say too much because this one is full of interesting tidbits that would be easily spoiled.

Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars

Zenescope's TALES FROM OZ #1 (Tin Man)
Zenescope is expanding it's OZ universe by exploring the origins of some of the major players in the main OZ book. Here Tin Man is explored. The changes Zenescope applies to the original Oz mythos is very poignant here. It is the difference between exploring a character that was created without the ability to love, and a character that had that ability taken from him. This was a well done story that I thoroughly enjoyed. It makes the main OZ Zenescope offering much richer, too.

Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars

Marvel's THUNDERBOLTS #21
This takes off where the last one left off, and it was pretty impressive. I particularly like the way Ghost Rider is being handled here, Johnny Blaze seems to be going back to his daredevil, public spotlight roots with all the talk of Hollywood, the crossover with real life and the recognition that the two GHOST RIDER movies sucked was funny and refreshing. The storyline is a bit disjointed here, and the pacing is a bit off, but the often funny, and very unique dialogue more than makes up for it. I particularly like the exchanges between The Leader and Mephisto. Overall, a fun if a bit disturbing read.

Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars