Comments on: Back to Work LinkBlogging

By: Greg Morrow

Greg Morrow — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:50:46 +0000

The “Sex Special” may well have dated from the point after Willingham got booted from his own creation by Comico’s new owners.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:00:14 +0000

Thanks so much for correcting my bad memory, Tommy, and doing the research! I know I’m right about the “Sex Special”, though. :)

Brian, I know about the reprint mix, since that’s what I enjoy about the digests. What I wanted to highlight was that the digests are the ones that reach the wide audience, with 5-10 times the readers of the comics. That makes the choice to launch this change in a digest particularly interesting, I think.

By: Brian Cronin

Brian Cronin — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:31:20 +0000

Yeah, the digests may sell better, but they’re almost all reprints. When they do “events,” it’s in the regular titles.

So this way, they don’t have to worry about messing with the semibalance of “continuity” that the titles have.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:04:19 +0000

Dan, wow, I’m glad now that I never kept up with Pantheon. Still, there were some good stories in the early issues elementals that pushed superheroes forward a bit (though the results of that, like with Watchmen, are regrettable). One of these days I’ll have to find those issues and re-read them with a better trained eye (though I’m missing the –sumthin– War issues where the series really goes downhill).

By: Anon E. Mouse

Anon E. Mouse — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:42:47 +0000

re “forgettable stuff” in Archie Comics, it’s the other way around. The various Archie digests (some are 96 pages long, others are 192 and are priced accordingly) are about 90% re-print with usually one new story thrown in. Anything important happens in the monthly books first, then is later collected in a digest or (more rarely) in a trade paperback (1994’s “The Love Showdown,” for example).

By: Tommy Raiko

Tommy Raiko — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:29:58 +0000

I could be misremembering, too. Hopefully, another reader will be able to clear it up for us, because I really don’t want to start googling that topic right now. :)

OK, I did a little Googling so you wouldn’t have to, and turned up this usenet post from 1992 (Usenet! Text only! No graphics! No fear!): http://tinyurl.com/tvkyj

Basically, it seems to confirm that it was a character from Hero Alliance whose powers are increased when aroused and whose costume enhances that for her. Kinda like a riff on the Hulk’s “The madder he gets, the stronger he gets,” only replacing “madder” with “hornier”…

By: Dan Coyle

Dan Coyle — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:59:03 +0000

Well, all I know is, after reading Pantheon, Willingham has some pretty freaking bent views of women in power. Or rather, what happens to the Superman-level superheroine and how she is rescued is monstrously sexist.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:57:57 +0000

I could be misremembering, too. Hopefully, another reader will be able to clear it up for us, because I really don’t want to start googling that topic right now. :)

By: Tommy Raiko

Tommy Raiko — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:10:26 +0000

This is straight from the I-can’t-believe-I-know-this-file, but we were all young once…

The superheroine who justified her outfit because of its arousing effect on her powers–was that really from Elementals? ‘Cuz I swear I remember the same rationale used for another character…perhaps someone in Hero Alliance…?

I seem to think that I’ve seen this explanation before, but I’m fairly certain I’ve never read Elementals, but have read a few issues of other indy-publishers’ superhero team books of the era.

Then again, clearly it’s such a good idea (sarcasm!), it may have shown up in several comics…