WILL EISNER'S THE SPIRIT, No. 15 (Aragonés, Evanier / Smith; DC, 2008)

Every Wednesday morning, I make a blind pull from Siri's (randomized) choice of one of the 20 alphabetically-organized shortboxes that constitute my comics collection, (re-)read it, write about it, and publish the resultant review/memory/whatever. Earlier installments live here.

(Box17): Another of the done-in-one titles that DC was publishing at the time (the superb Palmiotti / Grey JONAH HEX being the other), the only fault in this issue being that not only did the team of Aragonés, Evanier, and Smith have the unenviable task of following Darwyn Cooke's run on the title but that all were working under the shadow of Will Eisner's long and incalculably innovative pen.

As much as I love The Spirit and his world, I find it to be, in the hands of anyone other than Eisner, lacking: Cooke did an admirable job, as did Aragonés, Evanier, and Smith – though the less said about Frank Miller's monstrosity of a film version (that being said, I'd argue that, had Miller tried him in comics (though maybe not the Miller of the mid-late naughties), it would've been a different story: film is clearly not Miller's medium, something I think (and hope) he's come to recognize) the better.

The missing piece in those non-Eisnerian hands? Eisner himself and that spirit (yeah yeah) of innovation: it's as much a part of The Spirit's character as the cape and cowl are to Batman, the radioactive spider to Spidey, and the S-symbol to Superman: to simply tell stories, no matter how enjoyable and fun, isn't enough to make the character resonate. Nonetheless, this issue – and the whole of the DC series – was, if not resonant, then at least both enjoyable AND fun.

SUPERMAN, No. 664 (Busiek / Pacheco, Merino; DC, 2007)

Every Wednesday morning, I make a blind pull from Siri's (randomized) choice of one of the 20 alphabetically-organized shortboxes that constitute my comics collection, (re-)read it, write about it, and publish the resultant review / memory / whatever. Earlier installments live here.

(Box17): Now entering the weird, post-INFINITE CRISIS / pre-FLASHPOINT back half of the DC naughties when nothing quite clicked though, in theory, it should have: Busiek and Pacheco (RIP; if there was anyone born to draw Superman) are a phenomenal team but even they couldn't bring magic to the character and his world as it was then. Not that this is a bad issue – it isn't, not by a long shot – but I won't remember any of it after writing this; starting to lose some of it even a few moments after reading it: it was wholly there in its thereness.

(IIRC, Morrison and Quitely's ALL-STAR SUPERMAN was unfolding in stuttering release parallel, an unenviable position for any team on the main books to find themselves in.)

If anything, this makes evident why the New52 (and the ensuing decade+ of rebirthing and rebuilding) came into being: there was clearly a need to revitalize the line (though the Bat-line came through unscathed, as it was quite good then, IIRC: Morrison again); it was only in the shoddy, haphazard execution via "editorial bloodsucking" of said revitalization that the New52 failed to leave little more than a bad taste.

Though I'll admit, the pie was a nice – if unsubtle – touch.

SUPERMAN, No. 214 (Azzarello / Lee; DC, 2005)

Every Wednesday morning, I make a blind pull from Siri's (randomized) choice of one of the 20 alphabetically-organized shortboxes that constitute my comics collection, (re-) read it, write about it, and publish the resultant review/memory/whatever. Earlier installments live here.

(Box17): While my (re-)entry here into the Azzarello/Lee "For Tomorrow" run was the penultimate "Superman gets his ass handed to him until he does something the bad guy (Zod, right?) never conceived of stay tuned for the conclusion" issue and my memory of the storyline – which I recall rather enjoying, contrary to (IIRC) the general reception of the time – was foggy at best, my revisit was nonetheless quite enjoyable.

I've long appreciated DC's – back then, at least; I don't know if it holds true today – anti-"Previously" page edict: I love the feeling of being hurled headfirst into the deep end of the minds of two masters of the medium working their magic on the archetype of the medium itself. Azzarello is a strange fit for Superman, but that strange fit is, I think, why it works: one of those instances of a writer being outside their normal wheelhouse and making it work rather well; that Lee and Williams were along for the ride no doubt made that dance into the unknown far more fluid.

Lee was born to draw Superman, full stop: this was the artistic follow-up / spiritual successor to "Hush," yes? I prefer his Superman to his Batman, by far. Though I've had the trade for awhile, his team-up with Scott Snyder (whose writing, with some exceptions – OWLS, BLACK MIRROR, and LAST KNIGHT ON EARTH – I’ve yet to fully embrace), SUPERMAN UNCHAINED, remains unread. Might have to dig into that one if only to see more Lee Superman.

Questions with no answer, yet: The OMAC here - harnessing cancer to create super-soldiers was an intriguing solution to the super-soldier quandry – was different than the one in INFINITE CRISIS, right? Did Orr ever show up again? Was FOR TOMORROW re-collected recently? Might need to pick it up – revisiting just this one issue, headfirst into the deep end, intrigued enough to re-read the whole thing.