Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities Lardy's Roundtable (Gym'll's Ed.): Grant Morrison

Regarding the New Avengers, I've read quite a few trades of theirs, and enjoyed most of them...but ya know what, they're not really the Avengers. They're who Bendis wanted to play with. Plain and simple, and JQ gave him the go ahead. That's cool, he runs the joint...so be it. I'd actually love to see Bendis back on Daredevil, and give him a Heroes for Hire title to play with his other toys. Cage is great under his direction and I would probabl think about picking up a seeries about him with Bendis writing it.

I get what you're saying Dev, but if you're talking from that high corporate angle, than we're getting well beyond DC vs. Marvel. We're getting closer to Time-Warner vs. Disney. Because the go-betweens from Didio to Karen Berger are all people you and I have never heard of.

Marvel releases like 10 titles a month of comic book adaptations of classic stories like the Odyssey, Pride & Prejudice, Blackbeard, etc. Some of them are written by the legendary Roy Thomas. They are a huge part of the Marvel solicits every month. I've never bothered to check one out or discuss them, but it shows Marvel is doing other things.

Marvel also has a kids line, complete with an adaptation of their TV show, Super Squad (or something). Again, I don't know much or care much about it, but it exists.

The only thing Marvel doesn't have is a Vertigo. But even there, they have something: they have the Icon imprint, which is like their own Image Comics. And that has a wide range of genres and themes. It also has some really great comic books: Criminal & Incognito, Powers, Kick-Ass, Casanova, various artsy stuff by David Mack and so forth. Not quite on Vertigo's level but its not trying to be Vertigo.

I'll also (sadly) give you this awful prophecy. One day, someone high up at DC Entertainment will realize the Vertigo books aren't great seller and somehow let the wolves into the Vertigo village--and Didio and the rest will love every second of it. And on that day, Vertigo will die. But hopefully Karen Berger will be snatched up by a smart publisher like IDW or Dynamite or Image or someone, and all of the writers & artists with any sense of loyalty and dignity will follow her and it can continue without the DC logo. Do I want that to happen? Never. Will it? Probably.

I do give Marvel props with the novel adaptations. As well as the Stephen King stuff they have been doing...it's definately a step towards better things for them.

One of the main thing I hope that DC is going to do with the big three (Didio, Johns and Lee) in power now is that one voice will not be pushing one vision. That there will be a mixture of elements from all three.

I too fear for the long term safety of Vertigo, but as long as Berger is there...I don't see that changing any time soon. I thinnk they're afraid of her at this poin t. If/When she ever leaves though, God help us all.

Also, regarrding the feeble attempt of Marvel to produce a kids line...a handful of comics does not a sub line make.

Marvel had a great idea with the Ultimate Universe, and should have done something like that for kids...a line of their popular heroes in stories (new stories, not just retellings of the stuff we've all read and can actually give our kids to read) that are more age appropriate.

DC could use to do this as well. While they have a wider kids comics selection, it is kinda dissappointing in some ways as well. There is some stuff that is good, but there should be a Justice Leage featuring the big 7 going on that any 7 year old can pick up and read.

I realize that financially it would be near impossible to carry two versions of everything, but an anthology title with rotating features would work for both companies.

Personally I think every single Superman comic produced should be accessible to 7 year old and 45 year olds at the same time. DC is missing the boat in a huge way--the character basically sells himself as part of pop-culture; they just need stories everyone can read.

Superman shouldn't be fighting rapists, fundamentalists and communists.

Talk about years and years of screwing it up.

Ideally, Spider-Man should be the same way.

They have a book where the hero(ine) is accessible to all ages. She fights madmen and interplanetary villains, not rapists or psychotics. But you don't like what GrayPal are doing with Power Girl.

I agree in principle, but I want to point out that I *do* like the edgy political tone of Golden Age Superman, and so I wouldn't want it watered down so you couldn't have that.

Well, I need it to actually be good too.

Yeah, and I think a fine balance could be struck.

This conversation actually reminded me of a comment you made a long time ago Eryk about how the Captain Marvel franchise could be the perfect vehicle to capture readers who also liked the Harry Potter franchise. But instead, DC has tried to tie it in further to DC continuity and crossovers and load it with run of the mill superhero tropes.

You're not exactly disproving the "too much credit" idea, here, Des. Yes, as a very hands-on EiC, Joe Quesada definitely gets ultimate credit or blame for storylines being pushed on the Marvel Universe; that's his job after all!

Bendis is a writer, so it's not technically in his job description. And yet, like Johns (who wasn't an executive 'til recently), Bendis's storylines are the fodder for front-burner storylines and crossovers. Despite what separate things may have been going on in the Marvel U (War of the Hulks, cosmic titles, X-titles), if you ask any observer what Marvel's been all about the past year or so, they'd say "Dark Reign" in a heartbeat. Dark Reign spun off from Secret Invasion and had his New and Dark Avengers titles in the eye of the storm.

Any measure of influence would have to give Bendis high marks as a writer at Marvel. I'd have to say this is the most influence any single writer has had over Marvel's overall direction since the days that Stan Lee wrote about a million books! And Bendis doesn't even have to write very many (as you pointed out) to wield that power! Joe Q saw what Bendis could do with the foundering Avengers franchise saleswise and gave him more and more say in Marvel's overall creative direction.

Whether that makes for "good" comics is in the eye of the beholder. I think it doesn't feel like the Avengers, Dev doesn't and I'm sure lots of others feel the way we do. The X-titles still sell like gangbusters, as always, no matter who's writing them, it seems--does that mean they're any good? I'm sure many are enjoying these books, but I'd also wager that many are following them because they feel they have to in order to keep up with what are essential books to Marvel's current creative direction.

I respect you and any others who are enjoying the Bendis/Quesada era at Marvel, but I'm not. I did pretty much what I said I would when I went to my CBS yesterday: I told my comic book guy to drop every single Marvel book I had on my pull list except for Fantastic Four, Punisher Max and the upcoming Amadeus Cho mini-series Prince of Power. There's a chance I'll buy some of the titles I'm dropping off the shelf here or there, but they're not guaranteed my $4 anymore.

Yeah, you can't really underestimate the effect Bendis's stuff had on the rest of the Marvel U. Suddenly, too damn many people knew Spidey's secret identity because of his Avengers affiliation, which I think laid the groundwork for the cheap publicity stunt/travesty that was Spidey's public unmasking during Civil War. (Again, I realize Millar wrote that). Which directly lead to a certain deal with the devil...and everyone knows the rest, I'm sure.

Brubaker's stuff on Cap was pretty insular for a while, too, until Civil War and its aftermath. From what I've read, Bru never intended to kill off Cap until it was "suggested" he do so. Bru did pretty well with it, obviously, but I think the longterm negative effects of this decision have begun to show up as this monumental 'event' (like Spidey's unmasking) was undone a short time ago. I think left untouched and devoid of the sensationalism, Bru's story would have been stronger in the end--though admittedly, the sales probably wouldn't have been as high.

Again, though Bendis didn't write Civil War, it was a natural outgrowth of Bendis's darkening of the Avengers corner, and I'm certain it had his full approval and cooperation.

And as I've said, when Invincible Iron Man started becoming synonomous with Dark Reign, it absolutely obliterated what had been an enjoyable experience for me during the first contained arc.

It was the catalyst, but it's what came after that really destroyed the Avengers. As you said Spider-man and Wolverine don't belong. Ever. Being Avengers fundamentally undermines what those two characters stand for. And they are there for one reason only: marketability. That's it. Let's put our two most marketable characters in the Avengers. Period.

Moreover, Bendis changed the team's tone completely to match the kind of stories he was comfortable with telling. The Avengers were serving Bendis, rather than Bendis serving the Avengers. That's just laziness.

So Bendis was interested in writing the kinds of characters he was comfortable writing to serve the kinds of stories he was comfortable writing. Darker, edgier, fringier characters. I can't argue that he's done wonders with Luke Cage, but like Spidey and Wolverine, he just doesn't belong there.

After Disassembled, the gutsier move would've been to create a new team with a new name and launch from there. Leave the Avengers name behind, establish a new thing to take its place, and, like it or not, at least no one could complain that he wasn't telling Avengers stories if he wasn't calling it that.

I know...calling it something else would've been a lot less marketable. Well, in contrast, the Ultimates reinvented the Avengers concept, called it something else and did quite well for itself. So there!

It doesn't matter that Bendis and Quesada may have had a x-year plan to do what their about to do and relaunch Avengers with a more recognizable and classic lineup. The damage has been done. Spidey and Wolverine are still there. And I'm reasonably sure that Bendis will write it mostly the way he is comfortable writing it--which is all wrong for a title calling itself the Avengers!

Guys, guys, guys. Bendis putting his favorites on the team is something almost every Avengers writer has done including Kurt Busiek, Roger Stern, Steve Englehart and Roy Thomas!

Fact: Marvel fans in the mid-60's thought adding Hawkeye, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch to the line-up was a hugely stupid decision! (My father was one)

Fact: Marvel fans in the late 60's thought adding Black Panther to the line-up was Roy Thomas doing whatever he wanted to do and not keeping it the Avengers.

Ms. Marvel? Namor? Mockingbird? All of these characters were on their own for years and eventually became members.

Do I like Spidey and Wolverine in the Avengers? No. But there is precendent. That entire arguement rings false for me. This is nothing new. This is a tradition in comic books in general.

As for Bendis--again, I think you give him too much credit Lardy. Civil War was Millar's thing and you don't hesitate to rope him into it. Sure, I bet he was at the editorial retreats and said "wow, great idea!". But he can't take credit for it. You compared him to Stan Lee on the previous page--that's way over the top! Bendis certainly doesn't have as much control as Jim Shooter did in the 80's. Or Roy Thomas after Stan.

Bendis has about as much control as Englehardt did in the 70's and Stern did in the 80's. And I admit, that's a lot. But he's not on par with the EiC's.

Saying Bendis is responsible for the Dark Reign stuff in Iron Man is like saying: "Damn you Claremont and your stupid Mutant Massacre! I had to sit through two issues of Thor fighting mutants in the sewers!". Claremont didn't make Walt Simonsin do that--Walt did it himself. Bendis can't be blamed because Matt Fraction figured he could boost sales by participating in Dark Reign. I could see extending the blame to Tom Brevoort or Joe Q, but there's no vicarious liability that extends sideways; it only can go up.

This is not the same comic community as the 80's Cobie. Fact is, Bendis' stories did pretty much force writers to pay attention and play along, or else their comics became "not important" to the main Marvel Universe. To say otherwise is naive. Pak got away with the Hulk because he was on another planet, and then came back with a singular mission that meant he (Hulk) wouldn't really give a damn about what was happening to the rest of theswe people...most of whom he wanted to pummell anyway.

Geoff did this as well with BN, but on a lesser scale. Some books participated and got a boost, some did not. It really seemed like more creator choice, but not in a few cases (JLA being one.)

I don't agree with this at all! Every writer does that on every title!

Frank Miller changed the tone of Daredevil completely when he did his run.

Grant Morrison has changed the tone completely on every title he's ever written.

Walt Simonson did the same on Thor. Alan Moore on Swamp Thing? Steve Gerber on...everything he ever touched? Jack Kirby on...everything he ever touched?

Every writer whose ever had a great run on a title that is original and iconic, took chances and changed the tone to meet the stories they wanted to tell.

I know you were a fan of Busiek's Avengers and while I liked it, I have to say that too much of it was mired in nostalgia for the old days. Those days have come and gone though. You have to move forward and take risks. I understand from a subjective viewpoint that what Bendis did is not yours and Dev's cups of tea. But I think your criticisms aren't 100% valid.

Writers cannot be constrainted by this ambiguous sense to adhere to "the spirit of the Avengers", when 50% of the history of the Avengers has not adhered to the original spirit. The Avengers boiled down to its original 16 issues is the blueprint. The rest of the history are just chapters along the way.

I think perhaps thats where Johns differs from so many others and gets at why some of us fans prefer one method to the other. Johns I think feels the need to restore the comic book industry to 1982 and then go from there. Other writers feel the need to just write from their first issue with the notion that everything changes hereafter and then goes from there.

There is a fine line with paying respect to the past. Because where you guys say Johns does that, I say so often he screws it up; his idea of the past is wrong, because the past isn't one consolidated, tangible thing. Green Lantern after #50 in the late 60's is a different Green Lantern from the early Silver Age. If Geoff wants to respect the past, he can't pick and choose what parts to respect. But he does that. So sometimes he gets it right, like with GL. Sometimes he gets it wrong, with Flash and the Legion.

Why even play that game. The past, like I said, is in complete conflict with itself. Thor by Roy Thomas is in total conflict with Thor by Walt Simonson and both took place in the 80's. No writer should feel hamgstrung to "restore" Thor to the glory days of Walt and claim they are respecting the past. It's their duty to move forward and tell the best stories they can and to take risks. Even if it changes the tone.

Asfar as characters coming into the Avengers, very true...but they kept telling Avengers type stories with them. Most of the character entries (aside from the Hawkeye/Quicksilver/Witch one) were not wholesale tear down change the whole lineup at once type deals...and there were usually story reasons other than "well, they happened to all be there at this time, so they're the Avengers now."

Well, that isn't Bendis' fault because his stuff sells. From interviews with various writers, its clear that Marvel never forces another writer to participate in a crossover if they don't want to. Those days of the 90's are done with.

You can blame Marvel editorial and marketing for pushing his stories so strongly. You can blame the other writers for jumping at the chance to be included. You can even blame the fans for focusing so intently on Bendis-driven stuff. But Bendis is just writing the stories he wants to write.

He can't walk over to Jeff Parker and tell him to put Osborn in Agents of Atlas. There has never been a case reported where Bendis has pressured anyone to do that. And in this era of the internet, it would surely be out there.

The thing about respecting the past/moving into the future is that you can do both. Bendis Sh#$ on the past (my opinion) and then said "this is what I want to do."

Fans loved his take, I get that, and those same fans would be bitchin up a storm if someone had come in and done the same thing to Bendis' stuff before he was done with his stories. Like Otie said, break it down and form a new group if you want, and let someone else take the Avengers name and run with it. Bendis is good at street level stories...great at them, and that's where he should focus with characters that he loves (because that's where most of them operate.

The JLI gets slammed a lot for not being the Justice League, because they did not have the big guns on the team...I get that, and I understand this argument as well. New Avengers is a pretty good read (at least what I've read of it), but it isn't the Avengers to me. At all.

I doubt that he's putting a gun to anyones head (that's JQ's job )
But I'm sure at their summits that it is discussed how each book can benifit by joining in, and how they could join in.

DC does the same thing, I'm sure.

At the very least, I'm sure there are phone calls made to see if people want "in" on the latest mega event.

The funny thing is that 1982 is actually the year that a six-year old EDE started reading comics.

I remember there was this hip young hero named Firestorm in the Justice League. He was in the process of establishing his own groovy new rogues gallery in his own series, with characters like Killer Frost and Slipnot.

The Teen Titans became the New Teen Titans, and added a bunch of new characters, at least a couple of whom brought with them elaborate back-stories that had to be explored. In particular, Raven brought with her a bunch of baggage concerning the demon Trigon which the Titans got embroiled with, and Starfire had all these intersteller connections, which soon brought the Titans in contact with the Vega system, which was also being explored in the Omega Men series.

I remember when Batman quit the JLA and formed this completely new team called the Outsiders, which consisted of some more obscure existing characters and some completely new folks like Geo-Force and Katanna.

I was a big fan of All-Star Squadron, and I remember this really cool issue in which this team called Infinity, Inc. showed up and their was this mystery about who they were. It turned out that they were the time-travelling kids of the JSA, and pretty soon they had their own series and were battling groups like Helix.

This all iconic stuff from my childhood, and it was all *new* stuff. I could probably list a lot more examples (and I didn't even touch Marvel stuff).

The point is that I don't think there's very much iconic and *new* being introduced in comics at the moment. There's a lot of reverting things back to suppposedly iconic incarnations of the past, but I have to wonder if writers/readers in the future will have anything from 2010 to look back at and say "Hey, that's really the classic era of Comic X, let's make it look like that again!".

Des, Des, Des...

As someone whom I know to be a comics historian and especially knowledgeable about things Silver Age to now, I'm a little disappointed that you threw those examples at me. Did you think I didn't consider those instances?

Of course Avengers writers are gonna infuse characters they're interested in writing! You can look at ever super-team book and find examples of that! But none of those examples were marketing decisions by any stretch of the imagination! (in fact some were risky) Without a doubt that's what the inclusion of Spidey and Wolverine is and was all about!

And Namor was definitely a case of a character who didn't belong, like Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Dr. Strange and possibly Spider-woman (particularly the way she was portrayed) didn't. Hawkeye belongs, but Clint Barton as Ronin does not. But there's a difference between putting one risky character in the mix and absolutely populating the lineup with them!

When the whole Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch/Hawkeye thing came about, the title was still very new (#16?), so it's difficult to say that the whole Avengers concept was set in stone at that time. In any case it wasn't very long at all 'til the characters who left started returning. Bad example, I'd say.

There's ALWAYS room for new blood in the Avengers, and I'm okay with a few of those choices being on the risky side. But to do that essentially to the whole damn lineup?!?! Not cool, man. Not cool.

Bendis changed everything that we ever expected in a flagship Avengers book to make it unrecognizable from what came before. If fans enjoy that, I can't argue with them. But as a longtime Avengers fan, I feel confident saying that what he's been writing ain't the Avengers more than superficially.

So...I'm assuming your dad likes what Bendis has done?

I acknowledged completely that Civil War was written by Millar. I'm not suggesting that Bendis ghost-wrote it or anything. But I'm sure it was done with his full cooperation. I'm sure that his books were among the most affected and was THE most influential in laying the groundwork for it. And I'm certain that he has taken point on the crossover direction since CW ended while Millar has since been almost completely absent from Marvel U (other than the FF thing).

Okay, he's not on par with the EiC's, BUT as a non-executive, it's the most influence by a single writer (who, yes, was also an executive)at Marvel since Stan Lee. The other writers you mentioned were influential, but this is a different era. Very little of what Stern, Engelhart, etc. did can compare to Bendis. This was before all the Big Banner Crossovers really existed or, in Stern's case, were mostly in their nascient phase.

When you look at how Bendis can write so little but influence so much, I think the Stan Lee comparison ain't as crazy as it sounds. Stan had so much influence on Marvel's direction because he wrote almost everything at one point or another. Bendis doesn't have to do that but STILL wields so much influence on Marvel's direction because he clearly has Quesada's ear! Bendis has Quesada's ear because he has proven he can sell comics. Nothing talks like money to someone running the show!

Yes, the Stan Lee comparison is an exaggeration, but it helped to make my point. Even though Bendis doesn't wield nearly as much power as Stan, he may be the first to be on the outer fringes of Stan's radar range, at least, at Marvel.

Maybe you'd buy a Chris Claremont comparison a little better? Perhaps that's more apt. The more I think about it, what Claremont did in his heyday was more analogous to what Bendis is doing. There's no question he blew up the X-Men's marketability saleswise like no one ever had. And as it snowballed, it began to affect other titles more and more outside his wheelhouse. That's when the quality started taking a nosedive as well, actually.

Yeesh! You don't think someone told Matt Fraction when he took the book that Tony Stark was going to be a centerpiece in what was to come in Dark Reign and that it would color what he was writing in the series for a long time? This wasn't dumped on Fraction; he knew what he was in for. I read enough early interviews where he alluded to the "next storyline" just as the series started to know better.

Was it Bendis who told him this? No, I'm not saying that. But with Bendis's influence on the creative process and helping to shape the storylines, he gets a share of the blame.

I think Chris Claremont one is a good one and I can agree with that. We might not agree on whether its good or bad, but certainly that fits.

I still don't buy into Bendis receiving the blame for Osborn's appearances in Iron Man, Agents of Atlas and all those other titles. It simply isn't his fault that Marvel editorial takes his ideas and promotes them to the fullest so other writers are glad to jump on the bandwagon.

Regarding what you say about marketing being a factor where in the past it wasn't. I'll first beg to differ and then give you credit where credit is due. First, I think marketing has always been a factor on who is in the Avengers line-up and the line-up of any team. *But* I will agree that marketing is a much bigger factor in this era than any other era previously. I certainly agree 100% that its the reason Spidey & Wolverine are in Avengers. So yes, you're right about that.

As I'm trying to figure out where the fine line is between where you and I differ in our opinions, I guess it comes down to I'm not all that surprised by it. Superman and Batman are in JLA for the same reasons--they weren't always like that in the beginning years. They were left out of the JSA as well. Eventually it became clear to keep them involved for sales. Now its become systematic to have them join, exit, rejoin, etc. since. Your argument will of course be: but that’s always been what the JLA has been about and not what the Avengers have been about. I would say that’s not 100% true and the Avengers started out the same way and the big 3 returning again and again paralleled this. Whereas Iron Man, Thor and Cap’s popularity has grown potentially less pervasive than it was in the 60’s, Batman and Superman have remained in that prominent position. Therefore, Marvel has reverted to its original line of thinking from the Silver Age and again tried to install its top selling characters onto the team, only this time, those characters are not the same as they were then.

That’s really only a logical viewpoint. Do I like it? Not really. Am I bothered by it? Obviously not as much as you and Dev. But the key is I’m not surprised by it. The Avengers don’t seem very Avenger-ry to you guys. But the Avengers is not like the X-Men (to me), in that there is a host of characters off in their own corner of the Marvel Universe. The Avengers is not a family title (to me), like the Teen Titans. The Avengers are the equivalent of the JLA in the Marvel U. And the 80’s happened (the rise of the X-Men and Wolverine), and the 90’s happened. The Avengers has to take that into account. The line-up can’t forever be Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Hank, Jan, Hawkeye, Wanda, Vision, Herc, Black Widow, Black Panther. It has to evolve and so does the MU in general.

I can tell we’re not going to agree on this, so I think I should rest my case here and see what anyone else has to say. Like I said, I’m not thrilled Wolverine and Spider-Man are members of the Avengers. But its not a deal breaker or anything for me. When Cable joins the Avengers in 5 years, I’m not going to drop it then either. (Deadpool is too far of course )

PS - my Dad has not read an issue of the Avengers since Perez was the artist the first time around. His idea of a good Avengers line-up is Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Giant-Man, the Wasp and *maybe* someone like Black Panther or the Vision.

I still don't buy into Bendis receiving the blame for Osborn's appearances in Iron Man, Agents of Atlas and all those other titles. It simply isn't his fault that Marvel editorial takes his ideas and promotes them to the fullest so other writers are glad to jump on the bandwagon."

So when the Superman writers elected Lex Luthor as President, nobody else at DC had to pay attention to a character in prominent position of power. They were just jumping on a bandwagon when a major villian (that at least should not have been dead) achieves a pinnacle of power?

You honestly do not think that the powers that be at the very least suggested to everyone to see where they can fit him into the storylines to try to boost sales?

My last thought on Bendis Avenger line-up is this. I remember them (BMB and JQ) saying something to the effect of that they were going to put their most popular characters in the Avengers, just like DC does with the JLA. Except, it turned out that it was Cap, IM, Spidey, Wolverine and a bunch of characters that Mr. Bendis likes to write.

JLA is usually a big gun type book, whereas the Avengers always seemed more about a family feel. Throwing the mmost popular kids in the playground together was a marketing tool...from their own mouths. DC admite this as well with the JLA...nothing overtly wrong with it...but JLA has always been a top gun book. Avengers changed that in little more than a year into the book. Then they became something else. I don't mind offshoot characters in the Avengers, I loved the stuff with Black Knight, Sersi, and others. Some of those characters work better than others.

I can see this turning into almost another type of discussion at this point, about what these teams are really about, and who should be on said teams...

Claremont is a great parallel. Someone who came on a book and made wholesale changes that most fans loved. Great.

Now let's add in another book or two, give the original team their own book, split the team into two books...etc. Now lets have a crossover...now a crossover with everyone else. Now lets reboot all the books with number 1's...

Except, they did it this time in the matter of months instead of years.

Does not mean it's a good idea.

I'd have to concur wholeheartedly with the lack of the "new" in our Big Two comics, Edie. I've said before that the sameness/illusion of change record we're stuck on is largely about marketability and is even moreso since comics became such a force in the movie industry. It doesn't help that new characters struggle to get past a few issues before being cancelled. So the challenge is to tell good, entertaining stories essentially without really changing anything in the longterm.

So the challenge is to inject more character and try to freshen up the concept a bit, maybe expand the mythologies. Geoff Johns does that very well with the properties he writes. The emotional spectrum, as I've said, seems obvious in retrospect, but it was Geoff who came up with the idea. It's probably the freshest thing I've seen done with one of the more (arguably) higher tier concepts in recent memory. He also writes the best damn Sinestro I've ever read! I'd argue it's the definitive Green Lantern run already, with only O'Neil and Adams being the only others in the argument. All this without having to completely reinvent the concept and tear down everything that's gone before. Yes, there are some retcons, but nothing that disrespects what had gone before, IMO.

But really, what this era will be remembered for in history is the stunning work being done with creator-owned comics. There's plenty of innovation and ground-breaking stuff going on in that realm, if not the Big Two's universes.