Magnificent Creatures | The Every Thursday Free Online Comic

The independent graphic novel series Carpe Chaos has launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for a concept art book. The team of writers and artists behind the project have amassed thousands of concepts when fleshing out their huge universe, and they are hoping for the chance to share that artwork with fans. The book will include at least 150 pages of imaginative alien creatures along with their environments, technology, and spaceships, many of which haven’t yet been shown to the public. Whether you’re an artist looking for inspiration or simply a concept art aficionado, this book won’t disappoint! Be sure to check out the campaign’s video to see many of the concepts that will be included in the book.

After Another Dead Moth in the Water, Mulele and I had a bunch of the kinks out of the way and Butterfly Industrial became the second Magnificent Creature that Mulele and I would create together. We’d done a lot of talking about making something arty and fun and inventive and I think we had a good feel for each other’s interests. For whatever reason, I knew he was going to draw a female lead and so I began formulating internal dialogue that I hoped would be considered counter-intuitive for the character - I wanted her to be a stand-out female character. As things developed, I also began to create a kind of dialect for the world we were developing.

Because my dialogue was a single person’s internal thoughts, I had to write a lot about what was going on in her head, what she was experiencing - it was fun. This gave me a great opportunity to really flush out the world, the character of I/O and the people she encountered. In many ways, this was a fantastic way to generate a huge world of potential. I often think about how much fun it would be to expand on this post-apocalyptic cyber-punk world that we imagined for Butterfly Industrial. Mulele’s art was of course phenomenal and I finished the project with a universe of clans and post-cyberage ideas for stories.
We were both so happy with Butterfly Industrial that we were forced to create a 2.0 version that would go to print and see digital download. The new version had a cover and some other goodies that cannot be found with the original version at MagnificentCreatures.com. Often, when I’m selling the book at conventions and shows, I refer to it as our book where “chicks kick ass.” I take particular pride in I/O being a non-traditional character that does exactly what she pleases and often beats down other people’s expectations. Hopefully, one day we’ll get to do it all again in some longer form stories.

Another Dead Moth in the Water was our first Magnificent Creature. After lots of talk about web comics, Mulele Jarvis and I had come up with this extremely convoluted idea for an art comic. It was going to be an exquisite corpse project in practice. We had no idea about genre or tone or any other aspect of what we were going to create except that we wanted it to be about the process and about reaching into something from art history, something that had never touched the comic book world. We were going to plan as little about the stories as possible - he did not know what I was going to write week to week and I did not know what he was going to draw - we only had the previous weeks’ work.

Mulele and I had put the site together - I’d bought the domain, took care of the hosting; he got the ComicPress installed, took care of the original graphic design. The name Magnificent Creatures came from my abstracting the words Exquisite Corpse and we were both in love with the title - especially when we found the domain available. Within a short period of time, we got the first panels up and we were kinda chugging along.

Another Dead Moth in the Water by Mulele and dale wilson

Immediately in the first panel, we found the project too loose, it needed more constraints. So we discussed having a kind of outline. It would not be too constricting, it would just give us some really basic direction. But this also meant that any focus we had on the story we started would have to be scrapped. Now that I think about it, we did not even have a title for those first few panels, they were just images and text. The title actually came from something Astra once said when she was cleaning out our dog, Griffin’s bowl - I found it beautiful and poetic and thought it might make for a nice title to a story that was for all intense and purposes dead. The digital download version of Another Dead Moth in the Water can be found at DriveThruComics.com.

So now, 3 years later, Magnificent Creatures is about to get another face-lift and start in a new direction. At least for the foreseeable future. It’s going to be the blog for the comic book production/publishing side of DWAP Productions and the weekly will comics will slow down as of the end of The Second. I am immensely proud of having kept up with a new panel a week - roughly - for 3 years. It was a lot of work but also tons of fun working with new artists all the time, getting to see some of them really take hold of the Exquisite Corpse aspect of things and others just draw my silly scripts into reality. But it’s time to run along and work on other projects - more to come on these exciting ventures in future blogs. thank you.

Never enough said.
-dale

In my previous post I ranted about the gratuitous use of the word “fun” in art-related texts. Now I want to blabber about another pet hate of mine. The word “creative,” just like “fun,” gets thrown around more and more often in relation to various cultural products, and no other words (even the old offender, “beautiful”) have such power of rendering those products meaningless and pointless. If I ever become an editor of articles about art, I will purge those adjectives mercilessly from the texts, when I see them used as compliments to serious art pieces.

The word “creative” is a great leveler. It locks art in the closet of “creative work” with fields like shoe design and advertising, and as a result such fields get elevated beyond belief thanks to their association with art, whereas the latter gets violently downgraded. No one considers it out-of-place anymore when a respected art museum organizes screenings of award-winning advertisements, or exhibits of expensive designer dresses. Just like art, those things are made by creative professionals, so why not? At the same time, decorative and techno-gimmick works that otherwise would be termed design and entertainment, now bear the name of art. The category of art gets muddled; many people get disappointed by “serious” art exhibitions that feature neither high entertainment value, nor displays of “mad skills,” nor technical innovation. (This might seem to contradict the claim made in the previous post, that people do not go to art exhibits in search of entertainment. There is actually a paradox: people indeed tend to hold art in higher esteem than, say, Hollywood movies, but they often leave art shows complaining that the works on view are “boring.”) But art is not at all about that. Instead of “creativity,” the word I would prefer to see in press releases and articles is a really unfashionable one—“intelligence.”

Unlike decorative painting or advertising, art is able to critically reflect on itself and the world around it, that’s why it doesn’t fit too squarely into capitalism. By labeling art just “creative work” capitalism limits it, by locking it in an apolitical field. Art, though, is able to serve as a critical practice and point to the political dimension of things. In other words, “creative thinking” is essential for the functioning of capitalism, whereas “critical thinking” is not. Art strives to create a space from which we could look at our market-governed world as if from outside, to see the familiar as strange and problematic. No, I’m not saying that art should hide in an ivory tower. Quite the contrary: it invites other “creative practices” to look at themselves with a critical eye, too.

Consider, for example, the Soviet avant-garde era (roughly, the 1920s to the early 1930s) when accomplished artists such as Lyubov Popova and Varvara Stepanova designed fabrics for mass production. Their work was part of the large project of egalitarian society, and they did not feel disadvantaged because of that. For them the work was valuable not because it was art but because it was design for the proletarian masses. Another example is the British music magazine Wire, whose writers often engage with their subject from a socio-political point of view. To them, adventurous music and music writing can be on par with art (and not simply “entertainment”) because of their complexity, intelligence, and cultural value, not by birth right (as in, “all creative activities should be respected just because they fall under the rubric of creative.”) Quite a contrast with, say, advertising, which obscures the blatant fact that it’s, basically, a “making money for corporations” type of activity with a fig leaf of “art” or “creativity.” This is basically what the latter word does: it obscures the difference. It hides the uncomfortable truth.

Dale would probably say that “creativity” is an indispensable part of what you need in order to make art. I agree, but I would underline that it’s only a part. It takes care of how the artist wants to say something, not of what they want to say, and in art the most crucial thing is the what. And, I would add that a lot of contemporary artists now do not “create” in the strict sense of the word: they appropriate from various sources. Other “creative practices” do that too: design, for example, is hugely indebted to art. And speaking of advertising, I have seen too many advertisements that had meaninglessly stolen ideas from artworks, and I don’t even own a TV.

In other words: to hell with creativity, as says the best Russian art critic Ekaterina Degot, whom I admire. Intelligence is much more interesting, and to my mind “intelligent” is a much more fitting compliment to a work of art that you find important.

Posted by Julia Glosemeyer

“No” by Santiago Sierra

The characters from NOgoodDEED and Hellbound Heroes

On January 27th 2012, Astra Price and I went and saw NOgoodDEED, a comic book play (or should I call it a Graphic Novel Theater Presentation?). Whatever you call it, it was really good - smart and incredibly self-aware, it poked great fun at comic books, drug abuse and the news media while honoring the sequential art medium in the shear fact that the play was written and produced. If you like comic books / graphic novels / sequential art and have even the slightest distaste for pop culture media, then this play is for you.

Before the play started, Astra asked, “When was the last time you saw a play?” Her point was well taken, I’ve seen very few plays and when I do see them, they’re generally experimental with multimedia aspects - it’s what I dig. That having been said, I can’t say a whole lot about the direction and acting about NOgoodDEED but that it was at least satisfactory enough for me to enjoy the show and not think too much about the technical aspects. I had little room to talk and had no real complaints

Now, I’ve already said that I like multimedia plays - the last one that I remember seeing was in fact a shadow-puppet play up at the California Institute of the Arts and it was pretty damn cool. So, NOgoodDEED really fit my bill. To me, one of the most amazing parts of the play were the live and pre-recorded video projections that lit up the stage in many ways: the main-stage backdrop, then on an upper level to the stage, there was a single large panel and 3 movable panels. The panels on the upper level served to establish simultaneous location context as well as made the stage look like a comic book page.

NOgoodDEED image from LA Stage Times article by AMY TOFTE | January 19, 2012

OK - I need to come clean and fully admit that I did do some consulting for the play but it was only about their comic book that accompanies the play where my company, DWAP Productions has an ad as compensation. Either way, I definitely recommend that you see this play if you’re interested in any of the following: comic books, sequential art, multi-media plays, theater, art, and puppy dogs. Below is the pertinent information about the play.

January 18 at 8:00pm until February 26 at 8:00pm
Where
[Inside] the Ford, 2580 Cahuenga Boulevard East
Description
Furious Theatre Company is back with an epic World Premiere…don’t miss this darkly comic production that is part play, part graphic novel.

NOgoodDEED image from LA Stage Times article by AMY TOFTE | January 19, 2012

NOgoodDEED
Written by Matt Pelfrey
Directed by Dámaso Rodriguez

Starring:
Nick Cernoch, Shawn Lee, Troy Metcalf, Johanna McKay Katie Marie Davies, Dana Kelly, Jr., Robert Pescovitz, Danny Lacy, Brian Danner, Stefanie Demetriades, Adam Critchlow and David C. Hernandez.

The Production Team includes:
Susan Coulter, Christie Gilmore, Jason Thompson, Dan Weingarten, John Iacovelli, Doug Newell, Ben Matsuya, Deidre Works, Brian Danner, Christy Hauptman and Shannon Dedman

For tickets and showtimes go here:
http://fordtheatres.org/en/events/list

For more info about the show go here:
www.iamhellbound.com

For the FaceBook Invite, go here:
https://www.facebook.com/events/158871397555661/

Absolute Monsters "Eat Me!" bag detail

Looking for an eco-friendly, reusable, canvas bag that can be used for books, groceries, dog toys, and other fun? Want your bag to to be quirky and silly? DWAP Productions and Taco Comics have the bags for you. Conceptualized by dale wilson and printed at the Taco Comics factory in Southern California, this bag is sure to remind you of the laughs and giggles you had every time you read Absolute Monsters, the comic by dale wilson and DCASTR. This bag features both Smoking Pancake and Big Beefy Recall, the socio-political wrestlers of Absolute Monsters. Unlike the comics, Smoking Pancake has only words for Big Beefy Recall. The bags are limited so order now.

Absolute Monsters "Eat Me!" bag side 01

Absolute Monsters "Eat Me!" bag side 02

Since I work as an art correspondent for a website, I’m subscribed to newsletters of many arts organizations. One thing I’ve been noticing recently is how often the word “fun” comes up in the invitations to their events. That leaves me kind of perplexed. Fun? Seriously? Give me a break. As if I don’t already have the whole entertainment industry and product advertisers of all kinds wanting to seduce me. The least thing I want is more people chasing after me with their promises of fun.

Why do PR people of art organizations imitate those corporate tactics? Do they seriously hope that a person in search of fun will choose their debate on Conceptual art or avant-garde dance performance over a Hollywood movie or a party? When people want fun, they don’t go to see art. Period. Even those who are not art geeks in any way go to museums or galleries expecting to find there something other than entertainment. They go there to broaden their cultural or intellectual horizons, get to know more about history, find transcendence, provocation, or just plain beauty. In other words, an encounter with art is generally perceived (by the right and the left alike) to be something deeper and more meaningful than entertainment. And art should take advantage of this fact, instead of trying to compete with corporations over who can provide the most fun.

Probably the word “fun” is used in newsletters just to appease the corporate sponsors, as if: look, we’re doing something to attract new audiences. Hmmm, that is kind of absurd. If there are indeed such art noobs who will go to an exhibit in hope to find divertissement, they will leave confused. I know because I once was such a noob myself. Some years ago, when I was still blissfully ignorant regarding all things contemporary art, I was invited to an opening, with an assurance that it will be “a lot of fun.” Naturally, I left the event weirded out, not because of the crowd or ambience (they were all right), but because I just did not know how to mentally approach the work that I saw. Maybe a better strategy to lure new audiences would be to stress the importance (or, if the institution is bold enough, the indispensability) of the stuff on view.

Most of all, in my communication with an arts institution I want to be treated like an equal. An artist is not a service provider, and an arts organization shouldn’t aspire to be one, either. As I said before, contemporary capitalism views us as creatures that constantly need to be seduced, served, and pampered, and are always in pursuit of fun; art should be a counterpoint to that. I don’t want it to look at me with misty eyes from below, begging for attention and promising pleasures. We are needy rich children surrounded by servants in our leisure time, while being screwed by “job creators” at work. This situation is totally schizophrenic, and it’s in a desperate need of being acknowledged and articulated.

Posted by Julia Glosemeyer

This was going to be it. The last week of The New 52 by DC Comics. At this point, it was a job buying all of the comics, reading and swapping them. But we were still digging it, enjoying new books, new twists on old books and swapping opinions. I was glad to see an end to the tunnel but I was also a little let down that I was not going to be able to finish several of the stories that I had started. I don’t buy floppies - that’s a blog for later - and the hardcovers had to come out - comics marketing strategy - before the trade paperbacks.

All-Star Western 1: Inventive. When DC first restarted Jonah Hex a few years ago, I was a fan. It was good stuff and I liked the unspoken Clint Eastwood as Jonah Hex. Eventually the title dried up a little for me when it started to become predictable so I dropped it. With this new All-Star Western, the character and his world are new and interesting again. Dropping the most bad-ass cowboy into a Sherlock Holmes/Jack the Ripper story is brilliant. Also - Moritat is one of the most amazing artists in the biz and that does not hurt my opinion of the book at all. Great read.

Aquaman 1: Revenge? Take an otherwise disrespected water-hero, make his world a little dark, show that he is kick-ass, reiterate that he does not talk to fish and make him a romantic, what do you have? A healthy remake of what used to be a key character for DC. I liked it. I liked that he was super-strong, that he carried a slick trident and that he seemed to be a family-man (an interesting trait). I also really dug that the villains were a little creepy and dark. So what’s the problem? It’s pushing the character but right now, I don’t see it pushing the medium and I just don’t have any interest in the book.

Batman: The Dark Knight 1: Batman Was Darker. Back to Batman, again. I’m not going to recap the problem I have with his recurring iconography but I will say that there was another break-out at Arkham Asylum - wasn’t that part of the problem in another Batman book? Maybe not - they do all blend together after all and maybe it was the same breakout. Either way, that place needs new security. My gripes and gratuitous shots of women’s legs and butts aside, the book looks good and reads well, there’s just not a whole lot here for me. They are not doing anything particularly new with the character of Batman - although, they do seem to be experimenting with the villains again, and I get bored with repetitious characters and story-lines.

Blackhawks 1: Well-Done But Not My Thing. Blackhawks is one of those strange para-military science fiction team books where everyone dresses in similar but personalized uniforms. In some ways, it’s exactly what I’d love to see in this kind of book - somehow more realistic. It’s also pretty well-executed - good writing with smart art but for some reason, I feel no inclination toward this book. Why? Because it’s exactly what it needs to be and is missing quirks. I need some specific idiosyncrasies. Maybe. I’m not 100% certain why this book is not on my pull list but I can say that it is well crafted. Oh, and how does Andrew Lincoln keep his glasses on?

The Flash 1: Not Very Quick. Yeah, I’m a minimalist but is it too much to ask that a book about a fast-guy be smooth and sleek? The art is often overly functional in that it does little more than drive the story along and then there are moments when the art is great but the bad parts out weight the good parts. A particular thing that really bothers me is that there is a flashback where we are supposed to gain empathize with the main character and learn about a new, important character and it only takes up half a page. Regardless of my disdain for a location transition to happen in the middle of a page, it really bothers me that I a supposed to care about a character after a half page of flashback. The book is also awfully wordy and I get that this is at least a little intentional in that a fast man is probably at least a little jittery but it is not sustaining. I’m also not all that interested in the accidental slipping away to change costumes; it just comes off as silly and a few decades old. This book would have probably been pretty good in a past decade but is not very interesting to me today.

The Fury of Firestorm 1: Batgirl Was Better. I know that it is pretty unfair to judge one title against another but that was my first reaction to having read this book. I was interested in Firestorm because the main character is a cool, unconventional hero with an interesting background but also because Gail Simone had crafted such a surprisingly smart book with Batgirl. But The Fury of Firestorm seemed to be missing some of what made Batgirl good. I think that my biggest hangup about this book was that the two main personalities that went into forging this new incarnation of Firestorm were too easy - high school/social stereotypes. And maybe they are going to flush these characters out as the book progresses but I probably won’t be reading it.

Green Lantern: New Guardians 1: Another Green Lantern Success. As I’ve said before with great unpopularity, I am not a Hal Jordan fan. That having been repeated, I did find New Guardians 1 interesting in that it seemed to build on the rainbow of new ring possibilities with lots of cool aliens and other fun. What is my problem with this book (because I always seem to have a problem with every book)? Why does Earth have to be the center of the universe? Have we not proven already that it is not? I mean, in the real world. I know that writers try to tie readers to books by giving them something they can understand, something they can hold onto but aren’t there plenty of books out there that don’t use Earth as the way-station for all important activity in the massive universe? Anyway, New Guardians is well crafted good writing and art with a jump right into action fun and twists and turns to bring readers back.

I, Vampire 1: Joshua Hale Fialkov. Even though I was “buying and reading all of The New 52”, I almost did not read this book. Based on the title, I lived in absolute fear that it was going to be sparkly. But wow, it turned out to be interesting and new - particularly for a vampire book in today’s market. The writing and art were smooth, it is not a superhero book and it is a horror-alternative so I am leaning toward picking up this trade paperback.

Justice League Dark 1: Predictable Mystery. Can there possibly be a problem that The Holy Trinity of Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman can’t handle? Well, maybe. So who would you call in then? Justice League Dark, right. Sure. Where do you find this team? Dig up some Vertigo characters - haha. But, yeah, that’s pretty much it. Do I sound like I have a problem with this book? No, not really. I guess my problem is with the publishers. I don’t know why they have this book in the DCU. What is the point? Not sure. Just leave the characters in Vertigo where they will get the appropriate editorial love. My concern is simple in the end: Will John Constantine be allowed to smoke and cuss? I just hope that Justice League Dark is not what the people in the team call it.

The Savage Hawkman 1: Biggest Disappointment. There is something about me that loves this character concept and I feel like it has never been treated correctly. Let’s put it this way, I read (past tense because it is not part of The New 52) Justice Society of America because Hawkman was one of the key characters. So, here we go. In the new book, they’ve made him Wolverine, kinda. They have put his weapons and costume in his body so that he can Hawk-out at any point and does not have to suit up. I like when he wore armor and felt like a warrior because of it. And would Carter Hall really destroy all of his weapons and with only a bottle of gasoline and a flare gun? The story really just bothers me a good bit with a bunch of jumping around, some unnecessary coincidences, a seemingly ultimately powerful new villain and a poor cliffhanger.

Superman 1: Over-written. I’m really not sure what to say about this book. There is SO much text, I feel like nothing is left of interpretation, the editor needed to do some slashing and I came out not really caring. There is voice-over at the same time at dialogue and Superman inner dialogue and in one panel, we get both inner dialogue and voice-over. What are the perks of this book? The overshadowed art is nice, the twists and turns of the new Superman are relatively interesting and Lois Lane is more interesting than I remember her from older books.

Teen Titans 1: Super-powered Mini-Me’s. How do you capitalize on your existing popular heroes without just making another Justice League or individual character spin-off? Make the Muppet Baby version by taking the existing characters, changing them very little and making them younger. Yawn. Complaining done, the book is done pretty well. The art is nice, the writing is pretty good. I might be interested in reading more if the characters weren’t so boringly 1% and white bread.

Voodoo 1: All The Right Parts. Sexist pun aside, the book is pretty well crafted if not for the overt audience-catering of the making a book about an exotic-beauty-stripper. Much of this book looks like the lingerie magazines that most of the audience was looking at before they were able to get a hold of at least a soft core porn mag or had the gumption to look at nudies on the web and clear the browser cache afterward. This book is particularly frustrating to me because I was a WildCATS fan from back in the day, I liked Voodoo, the art, page/panel layout and even the mystery of the book are well done and interesting but I cannot keep reading a book that essentially just proves that sex sells.

What did I learn after all of this? There are lots of straight forward books that are well done but I’m just not that interested in them. The holy-trinity of the DCU permeates everything in DC Comics; it maintains the audience that can come back to something they know and love but it constrains he growth into new markets and concepts of thought. There is plenty of sexism/sex being sold as part of the existing iconography. But there are also some well-crafted books that live within and break the bounds of all of the positive and negative things that I have mentioned above.

Who am I to speak so blatantly of DC Comics and the DCU? How can I bash and praise the luminaries in the same series of paragraphs? I am an opinionated lover of the comic book medium, having been reading comics off and on for as long as I can remember. I have been a comic book small publisher for more than 5 years now having published mostly my own material but I have also ventured into publishing works by friends/co-creators. I have published my own and other people’s works online at http://www.MagnificentCreatures.com and in print at http://www.DWAPproductions.com. I have a literature and language degree from Webster University where I also minored in comparative religion. I also work at The Search Agency as a creative editor focusing in SEM and have dabbled in the study of SEO. I write, I market, I write, I think.

We were officially in the heat of it. Every Wednesday, my buddies and I were buying books, trading others, talking about what was happening in what and which books we were going to continue reading. We were kids again - it was nice. The guys were reading all kinds of books they had never considered before and I was studying everything. Back in the day, I was a marvel fan so I knew the universe pretty damn well - I was the kid that read all of the history books and loved every second of it. It was only in the last few years that I had started understanding DC’s approach to supers. And now, I was seeing The New 52 as a way of getting an early grasp of much of the universe.

Batman 1: I have not been shy about my disdain for Batman appearing in every book. I essentially see it as writers/DC Comics relying on iconography rather than trying to create new characters that are just as interesting as old ones but that is a gripe for later. That having been said, Batman is good - well-constructed and smart with appropriate transitions and a smartly put together reveal. The art is smooth with appropriate changes to distinguish different times in Bruce Wayne’s life. In some ways, this book is really frustrating because it’s well done but I want new characters in my reading so I won’t be buying this Trade Paperback.

Birds of Prey 1: Action-packed Fun. Admittedly, I had some trouble with a few of the right-side-of-the-book location transitions and surprise-reveals but overall, I really dug this book. Great drive. Cool art and fun writing drew me in and a roller coaster ride kept me. And the not-overly-sexy but still cool main characters also give the book points - look at the cover and recognize how much skin isn’t shown. This book kicks ass, it does not sell ass.

Blue Beetle 1: A Good Beginning. Action-packed, cool alien beginning and a Green Lantern Corps mention, smooth art and generally good writing with an introduction to the human side of what will be the new guy wearing the Blue Beetle guise. I was really keen on the unusual villains, their powers and costumes seemed strange and enticing. This makes for a good core superhero book but I as with some of the other well-done but otherwise uninteresting and not very challenging books, I don’t have a whole lot of reason to look forward to reading it any further.

Captain Atom 1: All the Right Atoms. The first thing that strikes me about this book is how appropriate the art style is for the story and character. Nicely done. This book has solid writing if a little dialogue heavy and as I said, the art is appropriate but also well done. The panel layouts stick out as smart and page/location transitions are strong. What is my concern about the book? That the main character is a science project in a bottle with a limited amount of access to other characters which means a limited number of relationships that can easily be built. This concern is further compounded by the amount of internal dialogue that appears in the book. Worth reading in the book? Sure but it may have a limited shelf-life.

Catwoman 1: Much Ado About Sex. There were a lot of complaints and conversations bantered around Facebook and what not concerning how this book ends - Catwoman and Batman make a cross-species porn. So what. Catwoman’s book/character is cheapened by her being a single-dimensional character with nothing but sex to sell her books. I can’t help but feel that DC sometimes only has a single character to “make books worth buying” - Batman. In the end, I don’t care that DC has cheapened another female character - they do it all the time. I’m really just getting tired of Batman being the only character that can do anything interesting in the DCU. I’d think that Bruceman would be tired at this point too - when does he sleep? After sex with Catwoman? Probably not.

DC Universe Presents 1: HAHA, The Deadman Book. Why do I laugh when I talk about this book? I’m not really sure. Deadman just kinda feels like a 70s (first premiered in 1967) character that never grew up DC seems to refuse to update his look (that of a superhero circus act) and keeps putting him books - comes off as “one of those relatives.” Said and done, I dig that the character is dark and strange and that they are pushing pretty hard to make him interesting. Since I don’t know much about the history of the character and there’s a lot of “voice-over,” the read is a little confusing. I also feel like the Iraq War reference is somehow too easy. I feel no need to read any further.

Green Lantern Corps 1: What Green Lantern Should Be. Aliens and willpower. A series of super-powerful extra terrestrial Green Lanterns have been offed by some mysterious assassin in black. The human Green Lanterns are bored on Earth so they come in just in time to rescue Oa. I sound a little sour about this and I am. With the vast imagination that we all have, can’t we imagine incredible worlds with creatures alien to ourselves but with similarities enough that we can see them as metaphors for ourselves - sure, why now? But other than humans coming to the rescue, I dig this book.

Legion of Super-Heroes 1: Cool But Busy. Again, my inclination is to explore new worlds, unusual characters and teams so this book automatically gets extra points from me. We are however, dropped right into the middle of storylines and character interaction that seem to require some knowledge of previous books in order to properly understand what is happening. This book also drops the reader right into the entire team which means a good bit of jumping around from location to location. There’s also a ton of dialogue and character description boxes that make the pages a little busy at time, causing some clunkiness in the way the book reads. Overall, I am intrigued by the characters and team but not sure that this is the place for me to start reading.

Nightwing 1: A Batman Alternative. Strong book with good page placement, not too rushed, strong art. There is only one page payout foible that bothers me. Otherwise, I like it. Look, he’s essentially Batman but with a different costume so that DC Comics can have Batman but not Batman. It’s really no different than Midnighter (an interesting take on Batman). OK, I will leave my seeming-hatred for Batman for another article (honestly, I don’t hate him). In the end, I like the book and if I am in the mood for a Batman fix, rather than feeding the beast of conservatism, I will give Nightwing a try.

Red Hood and The Outlaws 1: Overshadowed by More Sex. Is this book any good? It’s hard to know with all of the online sex-scandal hype and Playboy like-images of Starfire. Is there something wrong with Starfire’s promiscuity? No, not really. But the way she is portrayed is definitely problematic to me - there is not a single image of her in the book that is not objectifying. So, what’s wrong with that? Other than the objectification of the character, it takes away from what might otherwise be a good book. The writing is not altogether bad and the art is actually pretty interesting. There are even a few characters including another woman named Essence that in her few seconds of appearance, she is at least relatively interesting. In the end, this book comes off as having potential but cluttered by soft-core porn.

Supergirl 1: Super-surprise. This book felt so efficient. Smooth. Although I do like this book, my first, immediate thought is that I am happy that she is no longer wearing the cheerleader skirt - that thing was just icky and kept me away from the book for many years, no matter who was writing or drawing it. Am I completely happy with the bathing suit look? No but the skirt is gone and we can all rejoice that much. About why the book flows so well: it is certainly in part due to the wonderful sense of space that the art provides; it is in no way cluttered and that is just exquisite. The writing is simple and straight forward, also without clutter. It is basically Supergirl landing on a new planet, discovering where she is, that she is crazy-powerful and facing off against a bunch of mega-powerful mecha-suits. One flaw aside form the swimsuit aspect not being perfect? Superman’s center-of-the-DC-Universe-beside-Batman appearance. Otherwise, I am buying this trade paperback.

Wonder Woman 1: Not Azzarello’s Best. Look, I don’t expect everything he writes to be 100 Bullets goo but he did set the bar, right? It is an interesting new take on an old standard super-heroine, tying her contemporary heroics into a crazy mythical world but how does that make her want to fight alongside Superman and Batman? We’ll leave that up to the DC writers. It’s also pretty damn dark considering how Godfather they went to open a portal to Earth. I also like the overall personality that they gave the lead-damsel in distress. OK, here we go again, what’s wrong? Did the damsel in distress really need to be dragged around in her underwear and why does Wonder Woman wear a corset? I was a fan of the pants with legs. Sure, Wonder Woman’s look is probably an editorial/corporate choice that Azzarello had no control over but it is sad nevertheless. As a bit of an addendum, I will admit that I liked the book more when I went back to it after some time and I will consider buying/reading the trade paperback.

It was becoming a regular thing now. Every week, my three buddies from work and I would hit our favorite cheap Chinese restaurant that was down the street from the local comic shop and spend a bit of our lunch break at the comic store. DC Comics’ efforts to get people into stores and buying their books was working. But how many of them were books that we’d keep up with? How many of them were worth keeping up with? It kept bothering me and drove me to read all of DC Comics’ New 52 first issues. And here we are again with another week of reviews.

Batman And Robin 1: Whiny. I knew there had been some hype around the new Robin and that he was more edgy than previous ones had been but I did not know that he was so damn annoying. I am not sure if I would have liked this book without him but I certainly did not really care about it with him in the book. I know he did not raise him but I was saddened that the dark and brooding genes of Bruce Wayne made this. I won’t be reading this or any other books with this Robin in them.

Batwoman 1: Good Even with Batman. I was a fan of the character from what Greg Rucka and J.H. Williams III did in their trade that had come out earlier that year. I dig Rucka’s writing and I’d buy damn near anything Williams III draws but throw in a little trippie-horror and I am that much more in. Then, say that Williams is doing most of the work on this new Batwoman book and with a single issue, I knew that I was going to be buying another Batwoman trade paperback - even if there was another goddamn annoying appearance by Batman. Does the entire universe have to pivot on the decisions that he makes? Here’s to hoping that his presence in the book ends with issue 1 cause he is not really needed. OK, before I get pulled aside by Batman’s unnecessary appearances in every book, I wanted to mention again that J.H. Williams makes this book another comic, “where the medium should be.”

Deathstroke 1: Hook-Driven. It’s an action-intense book with creepy vampires and a bad-ass ultra-villain as the main character. So, I’m a little more interested than I might have otherwise been. I am after all, a big fan of doing new and even relatively new things with superheroes. It was a lot of fun and I was totally sold on the hook - great move. But it felt like a one-shot (pun intended). It did not seem like there was really a future to this book and based on that, it did not make it to my list of trade paperback to buy.

Demon Knights 1: Fantasy Cool. It is the only fantasy book, it has cool characters and some interesting dynamism. There is a good deal of “mystery” going on here - I am attracted to this book because I really don’t know where it is going to go. That having been said, there is something missing from this book. What is it? A main character? An immediately lovable or interesting character? I think so. I also think that this is another example of a book that would have been better suited with a Vertigo editor. I’ll check out the trade paperback.

Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E. 1: Horror Twisted. This book does most of the others should - it takes already existing icons and presents them in a new and interesting ways. Given that I’m normally interested in pushing idols and that I’m a horror fan, I should be all over this book. But I’m not. Why? It’s forced. This issue feels like it’s in a rush to present the characters, their goals and idiosyncrasies - how they are not like the other versions of these characters that you know and love so well. I get no sense of what these characters are really like as individuals, just what they need to be like for this story going forward. I will check out the trade paper back but doubt that I will buy it.

Green Lantern 1: It Was OK. I’m not a big Green Lantern fan - I love the idea and I really thought it was cool when I was a kid but I don’t really keep up with it. The only interesting part of Green Lantern to me was always the Corps - all of the exotic aliens and the peace-keeping aspects are pretty cool. That having been said, I felt like I had seen/read most of this book several times already. It seems pretty obvious that the twist is that Hal Jordon does not have his ring and Sinestro does but it was just not enough. Hal was kinda a cocky jerk and Sinestro seemed a lot more sympathetic than Hal. Why would I want Hal to get the ring other than because it is what Sinestro wants? Maybe I’ll read the Sinestro book when it comes out but no Green Lantern for me right now.

Grifter 1: Was Already Done Better. One of the things that was nice about the old version of the Grifter character was that he was stupid-smooth - it might not have been realistic but it was a classy character trait. As the character progressed through the Wildstorm books, it was this character trait that could be tweaked for the sake of development. In this new version of the character, he just seems crazy; the book seems crazy and there seems to be little or no direction for me to come back to. I’m not interested in the new version of the character and not interested in the book.

Legion Lost 1: Where Did It Pick Up? Right in the middle of action is where we got dropped. Great. I was immediately drawn to the strange, non-traditional characters of the team - more great stuff. But I didn’t love the book. Why? Too much all at once. I needed a slow, not rushed introduction so that I could learn the characters - the truly important part. Admittedly, I don’t know the Legion of Super-Heroes so I am at a loss in terms of history but I could, no, would have preferred a slower, still action-packed beginning. Even if we just had an action packed beginning of a single character, I’d be more inclined to check out the trade paperback.

Mister Terrific 1: Fair Play But That’s All. I wanted more from this book. The art and writing are serviceable even if there are some location transitions on the right page that bother me. The main character is different and interesting even if his main visible power is a set of powerful Ben-Wa balls and his name is Mister Terrific. What’s missing here? I honestly don’t know - maybe nothing and maybe it’s just not my kind of book? Possibly but I’m still not interested in the trade paperback.

Red Lanterns 1: Interesting. It has some cool things going for it - all the cool things about Green Lanterns: cool powers, crazy-looking aliens and my personal favorite, rage. This book also has a good use of time - we live in the head of a single character for most of the book as opposed to trying to rush through the entire gambit of interesting characters and not getting enough of any one. What are my problems with this book and why am I not completely sold? Too much mystery and does Earth always have to be the center of the universe? I’d have been more into this book if we’d have stayed completely off Earth and seen alien existence as more of a metaphor for human existence.

Resurrection Man 1: Better Off Dead?. No, it’s not really that bad but it was not that great either. It was kinda forgettable. It’s essentially more mystery-horror in the darker side of the DCU. The writing and the art is certainly serviceable but I could not help but feel like it would have been better served in Vertigo. This is one of those titles that makes me wonder why it wasn’t just handed off to a Vertigo editor and made really un-accessible and good.

Suicide Squad 1: Good for Bad Guys and Gals. I inherently like books from the villain’s perspective. It is a relatively new and interesting way to look at the superhero genre and that is sorely needed. That having been said, it’s also a good book. Well written and drawn, it also experiments with format in a fun way, breaking up the story structure and page breakdowns. Too much experimenting? Nah. However - will I be picking up the tradepaper back? Probably not. Other than some interesting character changes, in the end, the only thing that it has going for it was that it broke some rules - like a good villain.

Superboy 1: Kinda Cool and Quirky. Like the main character, this book is a little strange but that’s ok and makes this book better than most. In the end, it’s Superman if he had been grown and controlled by a sterile US government secret-lab. It works for me because it’s a new way of looking at the character but it doesn’t really do anything for the superhero genre so it falls a little short. I don’t feel a burning desire to see where this character goes, oh well.