Comicscape - December 17, 2003

By: Tony Whitt
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2003

OPINION:

A brief warning before we start: I had so many varied and intelligent responses to the question of how you'd characterize the main differences between Marvel and DC that I'm having to make this column extra-long. Do not try to adjust your television set. I must also apologize to all those whose responses I could not include due to the amount of editing I'd have to do (including one whose response was so...unique that I couldn't figure out how to include it, entitled "Why DC Sucks Larks Vomit" - thanks for the image, Michael Maelstrom!) or due to how specifically about the JLA/AVENGERS crossover they were (I'm thinking of doing a whole separate column on that one, so get ready!). My thanks, then, to Rob Casaletta (again!), Humberto Rodriguez, Matt Lantz, "JJJsbestfriend," Allan Herem, "ThoreauOfConcord," "gOgIver," Metin Guler, Art Trotman, Ralph Ramil Mendoza, Peter Block, Roger Ramsundar, Ana Gómez, Jason Cisneros, Matt Schiariti, "DiscoRawhide," and Okkie W. Wibowo for sending in their thoughts on the subject. (And in response to the reader who harangued me some time ago about my "wasting time" thanking those who write in: get over it. You're just jealous that your name wasn't mentioned. And, oh look! It's happened again! Geez, some people...) Now, onto the fray. If it seems disjointed occasionally, bear in mind how difficult it must be for some poor underpaid comics columnist to take the divergent opinions of more than seventeen people and make them cohere logically. So if they don't, don't blame the messenger...Here we go!

Jose Ayala starts us off with a slightly more balanced point of view, though he brings up the first biggest perceived difference between Marvel and DC - the "realism gap": "Personally, I can't choose sides when it comes to which company I prefer cause I like them both. I've been a fan of both companies since I was a kid, and I never seemed to favor either company. You do bring up a good point on one thing, though, that whole thing about DC heroes living in a bubble while Marvel heroes get bashed by everyday things like life and government bodies at their throats. DC heroes do live easier lives not having to deal with cops, FBI, or any other governmental subsidiary. As of late, though, I guess, in an attempt to change that, they have put Lex Luthor in office and made him President. Not only that, but they've also started getting more into the personal lives of the heroes as well. For example, one of my

all time favorite heroes in DC comics is Kyle Rayner, aka Green Lantern. Right off the bat he dealt with the devastating loss of his longtime girlfriend. Most recently was the issue of his job assistant getting thoroughly bashed in for being gay. GL went to rash extremes in order to find the culprits and bring them to justice. I mean, they're trying to bring real life situations into their story lines, but not quite to Marvel standards yet. As for Marvel, [the best representative] would have to be Spider-Man...he has to deal with the bad publicity he gets from the same newspaper company he works for and always gets blamed for something even if he did just saved the day. Cops are half and half in their trust for Spidey, not to mention the regular people who still think he's a menace to society. I mean, come on, even his own Aunt May was one of his worst critics - how about that for irony? All in all I think both companies are great, even though one maybe a little more true to life than the other. Still, it's not about how true to life they can be but about fantasy and heroes that we all wish existed or actually could be. That's why I don't understand why there's conflict, especially amongst the fans. They're all fictional [- some are stronger than others,] but that point can be argued endlessly to a stalemate because of our feelings for certain heroes. That's where the conflict begins, and that's why I believe there will always be conflict."

Tom Cibelli takes his views on the "realism gap" a step further: "Marvel heroes are just grittier and more realistic than DC heroes. For me the most striking difference between the heroes of the two universes has always been that the Marvel heroes seem to live 'outside the panels' of the book. It seems the Marvel heroes have lives that exist and continue when they aren't being viewed through the square braces of the comic book. This inherently makes their stories more interesting and involved, which in turn breeds more interesting and involved stories. In addition, almost since inception Marvel has fostered this belief of life 'outside the panels' for their heroes. DC has only recently (say last 10 or 15 years) tried their hand at it. Since the Marvel heroes have much more back story and history to them they are deeper characters and inspire deeper involvement of the reader."

The so-called "realism gap" between the two companies hasn't gone unnoticed by the companies themselves and has affected their output. Dan Finnegan goes so far as to state that "DC is trying to become Marvel. Look at their characters. Everybody's trying to become edgy. The JLA actually thinks about killing their opponents, but is held back because they have made a pledge not to kill. Marvel's characters started out edgy, and they've pretty much stayed that way..."

T.J. Manning agrees: " I followed DC as a child. It fed my need to be certain of the world. The good guys were always good. As an adolescent, I could no longer abide DC's sugar-coating and went to Marvel. I had questions that were reflected in the problems of Stan Lee's wonderfully-neurotic children. When I got to college, coinciding with Marvel's horror phase, I found anti-heroes that spoke to my discontent. Now I browse and nibble from all the 'plates' looking for new ideas and artistic aspirations."

But not everyone agrees that Marvel's supposed grittier realism is a plus. Greg Stough was "a devoted Marvel Comics fan for most of my comic book collecting life[, but it] seemed that the

older I got, the less I liked my Marvel Comics. Bankruptcy and retroactive continuity started to get on my nerves. I felt really awful when Aunt May died (remember that?) and was very upset when she reappeared younger and healthier. Marvel had too many clones, mutants, and too much angst. I hung in there for a little while when this was all going down, but I started reading NIGHTWING after his continuing series started. Here was a character trying to get out from under his mentor's impressive shadow. If Nightwing had been a Marvel Comic, they would have forgotten about his mentor completely with the launch of his series. They would have hidden his origin behind his false memories and had him agonize over questions like 'Who am I?' and 'Where do I come from?' ...Over the last couple of years I discovered the JSA, and it has quickly become my favorite team book. The characters were cheesier than the JLA but I don't think there are any truer heroes out there than this particular group of bygones. What was most amazing to me was the fact that the JLA idolized these guys. Many of the Leaguers were trying to live up to the legacy of their Golden Age forebears. What a novel idea this was! ...What all this comes down to is simple. I prefer DC to Marvel because DC doesn't forget where it came from. Marvel retcons unpopular items out of existence. Now don't get me wrong, I know DC has done this as well. When DC retcons, however, they do it in grandiose style. They have a CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS, not an interoffice memo. DC's methods do their characters justice, Marvel's methods cheapen their characters and the industry. I do appreciate what Marvel has done for the industry. I read CAPTAIN AMERICA every month and enjoy it. I love the big-budget Marvel movies because they do Marvel's characters justice. I would like to give Marvel another try since they've improved the quality of their product considerably. I just can't bring myself to put my faith in them."

Mario Hyacinth provides a possible reason for the "reality gap": "I think the biggest difference between the two companies is that DC's characters were created first, in a time when things were simpler and when the common man or woman didn't question things as much. Back in the '30s and '40s, no one needed to know just how powerful scientifically Superman and Wonder Woman were, they were just presented to induce awe and wonder in readers. The main stable of Marvel characters were created in the '60s when there was a greater degree of turbulence in the world. Is it any wonder that the reader quoted in the column suggests that Capt. America seems like more of a DC character? He was created in the '30s as well. I take issue with his panning of DC's characters, though. I think there's a place for all types of heroes, heroines and storylines. No, we can't go back to the times in the '50s and '60s when DC put out ridiculous stories, which I suspect is the main reason why comic book haters treat the industry with a lack of respect. But I think there's a place for both 'icon' and 'reality' heroes and heroines. What's 'real' anyway? I had a discussion with a woman one day over lunch, and she talked about why she loved the Spider Man movie and never liked Superman because he was too 'all-American.' She said Spider Man was more realistic to her. It all depends on what you're looking for. [That first reader] says you can't believe in a guy who never gets mad (like Superman), but are we to believe in a guy who's been bullied and rejected his whole life who gains super-powers and uses them to help people (Spider Man)? For every argument there is that says Superman would kill and destroy everything since he has the power to do so, there's the argument that Spider Man would exact his revenge against all the guys who bullied him and all the girls who rejected him. Why is that 'reality' ignored? ...I read books from both companies, but I look forward to reading the DC books more. I think the coupling of the 'icon' status with a 21st century sensibility makes for much better storytelling. Grant Morrison's run on JLA comes to mind, as does KINGDOM COME. I find it interesting that for all the DC bashing I've heard over the years, the two comic book works most people point to as being the best are THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and WATCHMEN, both from DC. Imagine."

"Lewelling111" looks at the greater differences underpinning both companies: "The main difference between DC and Marvel is that Marvel shows us who we are as a society and DC shows us who we should or could be if we choose to be. Marvel shows our hatreds and our weaknesses and the darker side of everyone's personality in contrast to our desires to do the right thing. DC shows a more idealized version of ourselves. The side of us that would never let atrocities happen or let our weaknesses overpower our ability to help those who are weaker than us. Both companies tell stories in different ways, yet both viewpoints can be valid because, as a society,

we can never stop trying to be better than we are (as in DC) nor can we lose sight of who we are now (as in Marvel). Another main difference is target audience. Marvel over the last 10 or 15 years or so has really tried to make comics for the more mature audience. On the other hand DC, while trying to stay up to date, tries to stay close to comics' original target audience, kids. Marvel has spent years trying to make superhero comics for the 18 years and over crowd with things like its Marvel Knights imprint or its MAX imprint, taking characters and making them porn stars (Karen Page in DAREDEVIL) or making them violent blood-and-guts killing machines (the Punisher). While these series target a mature audience, they are right next to lighter comics on the comic racks. They even cross over "kid safe" characters such as Spiderman into these mature books. DC also has their own mature line, Vertigo. However, Vertigo does not do much in the way of crossovers into the regular DCU, nor are Vertigo books superhero comics to begin with. DC over the last five years has begun to move into more mature storylines (hate crimes against gays) and even sex (Kevin Smith's 1st issue of GREEN ARROW) but DC has yet to fully commit to giving up on the kid readers as I feel Marvel has. As an adult, I can read both companies and enjoy what one another has to offer. However, 10 years ago when I was a kid, my parents never would have let me read comics with such violence, gore, or sex. If my Dad had read one issue of Garth Ennis's run on PUNISHER, he never would have let me read comics again. This is the big flaw of the whole industry: comics for adults and not for our children. I know that for the most part kid readership has left comics. Will Marvel and DC ever give them a reason to come back? I hope someday they do -but when even Stan Lee is doing things about superpowered strippers, I have my doubts."

Neil Steen (pro-DC) takes "Lewelling111"'s idea about an idealized world in the DCU one step further: "I've always felt that there were two kinds of writers: writers who write people as they should be, and writers who write people the way they are. To me, that encapsulates the difference between Marvel and DC in a very general way. Marvel's characters are known for being relatable everyday people with challenges and responsibilities every bit as daunting as their superhero adventures. Iron Man is an alcoholic, Peter Parker can't pay rent, an Avenger beats his wife, and so on. DC characters, on the other hand, are much broader in scope, almost mythic. They're like royalty or even gods who are beyond such petty concerns as bills and high school tests, etc. But I'm not laying a judgment on either company. Some people like to read about characters they can relate to, and others prefer to escape from their own problems and lose themselves in a larger than life adventure. For me, I'll always prefer DC. Something about the epic-sized heroes and adventures of mythic proportions (at least when the writers get it right). I love the fact that DC doesn't throw it in your face that these heroes are just like us. They take a less obvious, and more metaphorical route. Clark is the boy inside of us that never gets noticed unless we're making a fool of ourselves and Superman is the Man we all wish we could be: Smart, Confident, Powerful and Noble. I've always found it funny that both companies, in an effort to be all things to everyone has tried to take a stab at the competition's formula. Captain America is Marvel's approach to DC, and I always thought Kyle Rayner (current Green Lantern) was inspired by Spiderman. It's kind of nice to know there's something for everyone, it just depends on your taste."

Jonathan M. also characterizes the difference as primarily "a philosophical one. Namely, DC has a largely transcendent philosophy, while Marvel is much more materialistic. DC is full of mystery and religious symbols; but Marvel has cold, scientific explanations for the most remarkable occurences. Both companies tell stories about a universe similar to ours, except with fantastic everyday events. DC accomplishes this by bringing our world into fairy-land, while Marvel brings fairy-land down to the level of our mundane world. And this leads me to my reason for preferring DC over Marvel (though I maintain that both publish some excellent storytelling). I enjoy DC because it contains mystery on a cosmic level. It allows for the existence of spirituality and transcendence, even if I disagree with most of their spiritual ideas. Marvel, on the other hand, seems to have no place for such things. They allow for nothing holy and spiritual in the cosmic scheme. It is almost as though in the DC universe, the gods have come down to visit, while in the Marvel universe regular people have godlike powers. This would also explain why DC manages to effectively pull of its yearly Cosmic Event storyline. They have an expansive view of the universe, and this is reflected in the stories where the universe literally comes to an end once every few years. Marvel does not pull off cosmic storylines as well, because they are always dragging the cosmic down into the mundane. On the other hand, DC is rarely able to make their superheroes act believably like everyday folk. Marvel can do this easily, and we have no problem accepting that Spider-Man's alter ego is just like the guy next door."

Robert Gibbs has something to say about the philosophical differences, though I'm a bit surprised at his characterization of last week's column: "After reading your extremely pro-Marvel article I have some things to say in defense of DC." Um, you did notice I was quoting other people who seemed "pro-Marvel," didn't you, Robert? Anyway, he continues, "I was not a big comic fan as a kid. I was familiar with characters from comics, but for the most part this was because of cartoons I saw on TV which featured characters from both DC and Marvel. I was in the sixth grade right in the midst of the crazy collector period in comics, right before the bubble burst. While I had a great deal of affection for superheroes in general, the stories that I read in comics then seemed flat, uninteresting, and overproduced. In particular I was

turned off by X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN during this period, because their convoluted stories were completely impenetrable to me in spite of the fact that I knew the characters from having watched them on TV. I didn't get into comics until I was a senior in high school and read KINGDOM COME. If you want a strong argument for the iconic nature of the DC universe, that series is it. With little more than the knowledge I had from childhood cartoons and superhero movies, I found myself completely engrossed with the epic sweep of the story and the arcs of the characters. I attribute that wholly to the iconic nature of the DC characters. There is nothing in the Marvel Universe that communicates on as elemental a level as do the DC figures. DC's emphasis on grand and mythological themes provided the foundation from which Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN (and the entire Vertigo line) could come forth. I love the Marvel Universe, but DC brought me into the fold and I find that their stories and characters stick with me the longest."

Kwasi Forson puts it in more basic terms: "I am primarily a DC reader who gravitates towards the Bat-titles mostly - though Greg Rucka's had me picking up the last 5 issues of his WONDER WOMAN run. That man is a minor genius. I have, nonetheless, read a fair amount of stories from both universes and it is really hard for me to explain why the one appeals to me more than the other. The best I can come up with is that, where the Marvel universe seems like the way things would be if super-powered beings actually existed, DC feels like the way I would hope things would be like with them. I think that is the operative word: "hope." DC makes me feel like there is hope; I wish I knew why."

Tim Agen addresses the larger question of the iconic resonance of each companies' characters, which may be explained by their individual "worldviews," if you will: "Do the DC superheroes have a larger 'iconic resonance' than Marvel's? Expanding one's view beyond that of comic fandom, you have to say yes. This last summer, there was some press coverage of VH1's list, '200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons'. Here is where the spandex-clad found themselves their homes: Wonder Woman at #176, Batman at #158, Spider-Man at #151, and Superman comes in at #2, beaten only by Oprah (sometimes I forget how big she is). Yes, this is a silly list from VH1, but focusing on the relative positions of the do-gooders, the list suggests that Superman is not only the biggest superhero, he is also one of the greatest pop icons ever...Pulling back into comic-fandom, my regular visits to fan forums, review sites and past COMICSCAPE columns leads me to believe that much of fandom (including me) is actually indifferent to the current Superman tales (witness the sales numbers in the mid 30k for ACTION COMICS and SUPERMAN). So while I have near-zero interest in reading any of his books, I understand and respect his power as an icon. And it's one reason I don't think I'll ever be able to dig his books, because DC can't do (and sustain) anything truly stunning with him, potentially marring an icon that is bigger than DC itself...Another point I thought of while reading the column was that Marvel's biggest creation, Spider-Man is not one of their edgy, or flawed characters. Your column brought up drug abuse and spousal abuse as some of the dings in some Marvel characters. Spider-Man is said to be humanized because of Peter's problems with money and secret identity - that's not quite the same level of flaw as some other characters. I'd suggest that this is one of the reasons why Spider-Man is Marvel's biggest icon. He's simple: a crime-fighter who has to pay the bills in NYC. And while I don't know the detailed histories of most DC or Marvel superheroes, I would be surprised to learn that there are no DC characters who have had a rough go at it - similar to the Marvel examples in your column. Closing note - To me, and hopefully, to most readers, the iconic resonance of any of these characters means diddly squat if the stories stink." Amen, Tim.

Getting back to those philosophical differences and the "realism gap," Craig Shaw makes a point that the JLA/AVENGERS crossover has based an entire plot strand upon: "Whenever the difference between Marvel and DC is mentioned, one of the first things I think of is how DC comics are set in imaginary places like Gotham and Metropolis and Marvel in what is more like

our actual world. While at first glance this seems quite pithy, I think at deeper examination this actually gets to the core of the issue: Marvel comics are the real world with superheroes struggling in it (let's not kid ourselves - stupidly-dressed people driving humanity's interests would be persecuted) and DC are superhero comics set in a superhero universe. Depending on what tickles your tastebuds, the latter is either really annoying or it's the epitome of comics, which is why I don't know anyone who just buys DC. DC comics can't be to everyone's taste, but if you like at least some of what DC puts out, you still can't deny the quality of some of Marvel's output. I buy both. The 'true superheroics' as I coin DC, such as Superman, Batman, JLA are just a spectacular escape. But a lot of Marvel comics are just flat out fantastic (X-Men, Daredevil, anything Ultimate). The only difference is I've always bought the same DC titles and haven't really started any new ones for a long time, whereas my Marvel purchases change depending on which stories are being told where and how good they are."

Michael McGee disagrees with Craig's characterization of what those difference between realistic settings and made-up ones means for the companies: "I feel that DC gets a bad rap on the so-called 'realism' angle, and Superman in particular gets it and doesn't deserve it. DC's characters tend to be in their own cities and territories, which can have things happen to them that you couldn't really do in a Marvel book because nearly every superhero lives in Manhattan. You couldn't blow up Manhattan with a nuke or have it technoformed by an alien supercomputer without it coming off as ridiculous. And as a result, DC heroes can actually have an effect on the world around them, while Marvel has to keep their world close to ours despite the tens of thousands of powerful demigods running around. Technology can advance by leaps and bounds; trade pacts with other planets can be established; diplomats from mythical lands can travel to the 'normal' countries. Marvel is our world with a dash of spice; DC is its own world. As for Superman, the claim that he's invulnerable misses a point. Every hero with any kind of track record is invulnerable, or so close to it that despite their hazardous jobs they die rarely and stay dead even less rarely. If Spider-Man's shot at with a sub-machine gun, he'll make it through okay because he's got a book coming out next month, and in that respect he's just as safe as Superman. Superman doesn't always fight for 'the status quo' - in SUPERMAN/BATMAN he's apparently going to get Luthor kicked out of office. And even if he does fight for the status quo, so do doctors, policemen and firemen, and they're certainly heroic as well."

None of this keeps James Wall from reading Marvel, however: "I am 42 and have been collecting comic continuously for 30 years now. My preferences have changed as I have aged. I purchase 35-50 titles a month. I began my comic collecting career firmly in the Marvel camp. Superman was not credible, he could not be hurt. At the time Wonder Woman was stale and supremely hokey. The Justice League I would buy off and on depending on the writers. (I hate Plastic Man.) But the only DC titles that have continuously held my interest were the various Legion of Super-Heroes incarnations, and anything connected to the New Gods. Doom Patrol & Metal Men were appreciated as well. But the big three, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, back then bored me compared to the Marvel titles. I later picked up Wonder Woman in the mid 80s, after George Perez began to establish her rightful place in the DC Universe and treated the character

with respect. My Marvel interests were greater than my DC interests early on...I was never a Spiderman fan, however. And then the X-Men arrived. They began as the most interesting comic I had encountered from the outset of Giant Size X-Men #1. And it did mean something to me, I was there from the beginning. They were oppressed, heroic, underdogs who argued and fought one another as much as the villains. From Krakoa until the death of Jean Grey was my personal Golden age, and it was defined mainly by Marvel. Marvel, especially back then, was much better at telling epic multi-issue stories with both triumphs and failures. Over in DC land you never knew when the unbeatable Superman might arrive to induce his most fearsome power: massive boredom. However, the Golden Age came to a tragic and very abrupt end when Jean Grey was 'resurrected.' The storyline connected to her death was the best I have ever read. The issue in which she died was the best ever written. Her resurrection was the basest and most vile of betrayals. I completely and totally hate them for resurrecting Jean Grey. I loved the character, mind you - Phoenix was really a cool character. But it went from being the best story ever, to being, in effect, an imaginary tale. It meant nothing after that, and my attention focused much stronger on DC thereafter. The mutant storylines were beginning to spin out of control. No coherence, no consistency, no accountability, and no credibility. Then Rob Liebfeld showed up and proved that real people too had the power to induce sleeping sickness. I also dropped Hulk when he went gray and never looked back. The Era of Marvel (gray) Mold had begun.

"But the true reason that overall I still lean Marvel, flaws and all, is they have the best villains. It is the villains that make a comic, not usually the hero. Consider JLA-Avengers. After three issues DC contributed an out of control cosmic chrono-elemental force, Kronos. and Marvel's character, the Grandmaster (Elder of the Universe) created the plotline. Plus, I simply love Thanos, Magneto, Dr. Doom (though they ruined him of late), the Frightful Four, the Impossible Man, The Elders of the Universe, Dormammu, Kang the Conqueror, and Galactus. I just do not see DC with as interesting a set of villains/antagonists. They have some, mind you - Validus and the Fatal Five, Mordru, Vandal Savage, the Joker, Darkseid, Granny Goodness (I always loved her!) - but truth to tell, the villains are shallow in the DC Universe. Compare Dr. Polaris to Magneto. And the other strength of the Marvel Universe is that Earth is part of it. It is a community of races who evolve over time. With the Universe under the protection of the GL Corps, there are few consistent races at play in DC land who interact with earth. This allows Marvel to tell much richer and more interesting cosmic stories. DC's main aliens are a sterile being from a dead race, the Martian Manhunter, or an orphan from a destroyed world, Superman. DCs Fourth World titles are about all that is interesting in the DC cosmic verse. Blue People with Green Rings to take care of everything else - yawn. (And I collect Green Lantern, by the way.) Space is in the future in DC land. In DC land earth has been threatened umpteen times by cosmic beings. Where is the evidence that humanity is reacting by throwing resources into space related innovation? I will grant DC is a more realistic vision given our current abilities, but imaginative license allows for the interaction with alien races now. Makes for better storytelling too."

I include Eddie Chan's opinion mainly because it's such an unusual one - read on and you'll see what I mean... "My first comic was a Superman one, so you can guess which side I am on. Even though I'm a traditionalist DC fan, I do read comics from other companies. In fact, back in the 90s, I was hooked on IRON MAN, SPIDER-MAN, and AVENGERS. I have just read Frank Miller's DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN trade paperback. Instead of commenting on the differences between the DC and Marvel universes (both are equally good), I would like to talk about company politics. To me, Marvel has always been the Goliath, the stiff upper class, the Microsoft of the comics world. I remember in the 80s, they had a "no-prize" contest where you had to spot a mistake in their comics, write an essay describing why it was not a mistake, and then get to win a prize. What nerve. This attitude of Marvel

continues to this day. Another prime example of their bullying, aggressive, hostile and arrogant tactics was when they raided the DC offices for talent, leaving THE AUTHORITY with an incomplete series and DC in a ditch. I'm sure DC have made mistakes in the past and that not everyone at Marvel is 'bad,' but I traditionally feel for DC as the underdog. Marvel is getting bloated with its hundreds of titles, its stranglehold on the best comics talent and successes in other fields such as the movies, while DC can not even get a Superman movie out. In closing, I would like to say that we DC fans have to stick together in these dark and stormy times." "Stormy times," Eddie? Marvel bloated with hundreds of titles? It's interesting that you should perceive DC as "the underdog" and Marvel as "the underachiever" when DC has Time-Warner behind it and loads of titles whereas Marvel continues to be in bad financial shape and now produces far, far less than it did in the past. As someone who compiles each company's output every week, I can attest to how little Marvel's putting out lately by comparison to DC. I'd agree with you about Marvel's "attitude" and self-promotion, which has been part of its company ethos since the 60s, though - and perhaps that's where this perception that DC's "David" is being beaten up by Marvel's "Goliath" comes from. (Of course, JLA/AVENGERS is kind of making it look that way, too - or it was, until that last issue. More about that in a couple of weeks...)

And Michael Kuzmanovski brings it all together with a good ol' fashioned "can't we all just get along?" point of view, while additionally setting us up for a discussion of that contentious crossover: "I'm one of those people who likes both Marvel and DC, although, with the exception of FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE JUSTICE LEAGUE, my DC comics stay within Gotham City. I've been reading and enjoying the AVENGERS/JLA mini-series, and the opposition between DC and Marvel characters and their worlds is very deliberate. Superman sees Marvel-Earth as dirty, full of ineffective heroes that (gasp) aren't worshipped by the people they protect. Captain America sees DC-Earth as a world run by facist super-heroes who command the respect of all humans. Both have extreme views at first, as do the others on either side, but as they fight, [they realize what we the readers already know:] that they are all good guys and have no business fighting each other... When Thor is fighting Superman, and Supes is able to grab Thor's hammer, it's a great moment- if this guy can hold Mjolnir, then he's got to be good. That's also how I think about Marvel vs. DC. Now, readers can't follow every single comic from each company, but they should be open to both companies. If you find something in Marvel that you like, read it. If you find something in DC, like I did with GOTHAM CENTRAL, read it. Don't hate either company. People may end up with a preference to one company, read a majority of Marvel or DC titles, but to downright refuse to buy, or even look at through the opposition's comics, well, that's downright stupid."

Whew. That's a lot of ground covered, but I'm sure it's not the end of the debate. Still, if you want to go on talking about it, you'll have to do so without me for a while: I'm going on vacation, and in the interim we'll be featuring a special two-part article on superhero Christmas stories. I'd still love to hear your feedback on this and on the Power Records column, though, as well as your specific thoughts on the AVENGERS/JLA crossover, so send your thoughts to comicscape@cinescape.com, or to me directly. And as always, don't forget our discussion boards! I myself will return, live and refreshed (I hope!) on January 7th. Now, onto your purchasing choices for this week:

THIS WEEK:

Holy Bat-Cornucopia, Bat-Fans! Looks like you're going to have to dig deep in your wallets this week, as you're getting BATGIRL #47;
BATMAN ADVENTURES #9 (you're not too old for it, so go ahead and admit you're buying it, already); BATMAN: GOTHAM KNIGHTS #48;
ROBIN #121; NIGHTWING #88; and for those three of you in the back who didn't buy it when it first came out, there's the DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN trade paperback for $19.95. Whew! Guess that giant penny's coming out of the Batcave to help pay for all this Bat-crap...

Speaking of Nightwing, he's still leading his new team in OUTSIDERS #7, which is still being written by the most-excellent Judd Winick.

Judd Winick, however, is no longer writing GREEN ARROW, nor has he been for some time - Scott Beatty (BATMAN: GOTHAM KNIGHTS), Shawn Martinbrough (DETECTIVE COMICS) and Mark McKenna (EXILES) are writing issue #33, which also features Superman and Plastic Man. But not Judd Winick.

Nor is Judd Winick writing EXILES #39, and nor is Mark McKenna working on this issue - those chores are being picked up by Chuck Austen and James Calafiore. (Aren't you just about ready to slap me? I sure as hell would be...)

OK, enough "Six Degrees of Separation from Judd Winick," already - though I should mention that he did have his own version of the FF in EXILES... (Enough already!) But in FANTASTIC FOUR #508 ( or #79, for those of you still locked into the "old" numbering system), Mark Waid continues his saga of Reed Richards' takeover of Latveria and S.H.I.E.L.D.'s response to same. Bet they're not going to surround the country in barbed wire, no, sir...

OK, we get it already: Doc Ock's going to be in the next Spidey movie, the trailer for which went out on Monday. Now, can we stop having all these interminable miniseries? No? Oh, well...getting SPIDER-MAN/DR OCTOPUS: OUT OF REACH #2 (OF 5) is ten times better than getting a piece of crap like GET KRAVEN again, I guess...

Speaking of horribly stretched transitions, did you know that Hawkeye was once Spidey's biggest supporter for becoming an Avenger? Really - it's in SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #3 back in 1966, wherein Spidey also first discovers that the Hulk is Bruce Banner! Great stuff! Oh, yeah, HAWKEYE #3 is out this week, too.

Speaking of the Hulkster...according to my sources at Diamond, we're supposed to be getting HULK: GAMMA GAMES #1 (OF 3), HULK: GRAY #4 (Of 6), and HULK: UNCHAINED #1 (OF 3), but - who'da thunkit? - only HULK: GRAY is showing up on the Marvel website. Sigh. I'm going to paraphrase some of the folks above and point out another difference between the companies: DC has the sort of website that we'd hope a comics company should have, and Marvel has the sort of website that comics companies with real problems have. (Oh, dear, is that hate mail from Joe Quesada? Not yet, but any day now...)

Ahem. If you didn't know that the CINNAMON: EL CICLO miniseries was ending this week with #5, you do now - and I do because I read the DC website. (Oh, Tony, let it go...)

Oh, my! BIRDS OF PREY's Gail Simone is bringing back ROSE AND THORN this week in a six-issue miniseries! And if you have no idea why I should be so excited, check it out - you'll see soon enough.

Of course, there are other reasons to be excited over EMMA FROST #6, even if her boobs aren't as prominently featured this time around. You may just be buying it to find out why Emma became the White Queen, of course...but who reads these books for the plot when there are covers like that?

And speaking of books you should be reading for the plot... My new favorite book is Vertigo's HUMAN TARGET, issue number #5 of which ships this week. Peter Milligan does with this character what no one's dared try before, and he succeeds brilliantly. Don't believe me? Go see!

Wildstorm's shipping out KAMIKAZE #3 (Of 5) and THUNDERCATS: ORIGINS, VILLAINS, AND HEROES #1, which does not feature writing by Judd Winick. (Almighty God, we're not back to that, are we?)

Ahem again. In conjunction with last week's release of Kyle Baker's excellent PLASTIC MAN #1, the PLASTIC MAN LOST ANNUAL #1is being released this week for $6.95. And what a bargain for a comic that features stories from Reprinting stories from POLICE COMICS #1, POLICE COMICS #13, HOUSE OF MYSTERY #160, and PLASTIC MAN Vol. 2 #s 1 and #11! ("HOUSE OF MYSTERY"? Wow, that is a mystery...guess I'll be buying it to find out more, too!)

Plastic Man, by the way is guest-starring with Superman in Green Arrow's book this week, which by the way is no longer written by Judd Winick. (ARRGGHH! Can you see now why I need that vacation so badly, folks?) Anyway...both SUPERMAN: METROPOLIS #11 (Of 12) and SUPERMAN: THE KANSAS SIGHTING #2 (Of 2), available for $6.95, are out this week. (I'll be reading them, too, if I'm allowed any paper or staples in the hospital.)

And speaking of psychopaths and comics...ah, that wasn't a bad transition at all! CAPTAIN MARVEL #17 is also out this week, in which Genis takes on his replacement. Yup, you heard me, his replacement. He's getting kicked out by a girl (kinda like I'll probably be kicked out by someone else real soon, if this keeps up...).

I know nothing about DAREDEVIL #55 except that the handsome David Mack is writing it and that it involves something to do with a vision quest. No, not the 80s movie with Matthew Modine...

There's a double-shot of Ultimate fun this week as ULTIMATE SIX #5 (Of 7) goes on the stands this week - you did know they're the Ultimate version of the Sinister Six who first appeared in SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #6 in 1969, right? I'm just a walking encyclopedia these days - as does ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN #51, featuring the second Ultimates appearance of the Black Cat (who first appeared in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #194. (Yeah, I can just imagine what my editor must be thinking: "First he kills us with 'Six Degrees of Separation from Judd Winick,' and now it's 'Spider-Man Trivia'...He'd better go on vacation soon, or else...")

And finally, X-Fans may not be willing to shell out the ridiculously steep $17.99 for the trade paperback of ULTIMATE X-MEN VOL 3: WORLD TOUR, but how about getting together the cash for NEW X-MEN #150, UNCANNY X-MEN #435, WOLVERINE #9, and
X-TREME X-MEN #37 (none of which Judd Winick writes, by the way)?

OK, OK, I'm going! See you in two weeks!

Questions? Comments? Let us know what you think at comicscape@cinescape.com -- and don't forget to participate in our comic book message forum!

Comicscape is our weekly Comics column.