Adventures Of Superman #596

[bababooey]

Here's a Bleeding Cool article mentioning this Superman issue, I actually stumbled across this when looking up the X-men panel that was mentioned elsewhere.

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/09/11/9-11-in-comic-books-by-ian-mat/

[lightninglad]

USA Today article that was published on 9/26/2001

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/2001-09-26-comic-book.htm

 

"An imaginary image of twin skyscrapers in flames is startling readers of a Superman comic book that hit the stands on Sept. 12, just one day after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The scene in Adventures of Superman #596 shows helicopters circling the bomb-damaged "Lex Corp." buildings in Metropolis while Superman looks on helplessly. The comic also shows other damaged landmarks, including the White House with holes in the roof."

[revat]

USA Today article that was published on 9/26/2001

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/2001-09-26-comic-book.htm

 

"An imaginary image of twin skyscrapers in flames is startling readers of a Superman comic book that hit the stands on Sept. 12, just one day after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The scene in Adventures of Superman #596 shows helicopters circling the bomb-damaged "Lex Corp." buildings in Metropolis while Superman looks on helplessly. The comic also shows other damaged landmarks, including the White House with holes in the roof."

 

that's good enough for me at this point, though I'm not sure it matters either way.

[valiantman]

"New comics NEXT WEEK" listing from September 8th, 2001 has Adv. of Superman #596 in the list.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Adventures$20Superman$20596/hfx.forsale/4ChUUkWCvzc/Hapyir_Ry3AJ

 

The shop is (was?) in Nova Scotia. I don't know if there was any delay in getting comics there.

 

EDIT: Found another one:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Superman$20596$20New$20Comics/rec.arts.comics.misc/DFI3tmi-UA0/Pq2tmzeA2aAJ

 

September 10th, 2001 has Adv. of Superman #596 arriving on 9/12/2001.

 

The conversations that follow in that thread show that SOME stores got their books on time, September 12th. Some did not due to the delays in shipping following 9/11.

 

[valiantman]

According to this post from September 18th, 2001, DC announced that Adv. of Superman #596 would be returnable.

 

It doesn't say there was any kind of recall.

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Superman$20596$20New$20Comics/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/9NKTqqMqMyU/Q4pbKlTKnfgJ

 

I can't imagine there are many shops that would have bothered to return them when they could sell them without any effort.

[Jaydogrules]

"New comics NEXT WEEK" listing from September 8th, 2001 has Adv. of Superman #596 in the list.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Adventures$20Superman$20596/hfx.forsale/4ChUUkWCvzc/Hapyir_Ry3AJ

 

The shop is (was?) in Nova Scotia. I don't know if there was any delay in getting comics there.

 

EDIT: Found another one:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Superman$20596$20New$20Comics/rec.arts.comics.misc/DFI3tmi-UA0/Pq2tmzeA2aAJ

 

September 10th, 2001 has Adv. of Superman #596 arriving on 9/12/2001.

 

The conversations that follow in that thread show that SOME stores got their books on time, September 12th. Some did not due to the delays in shipping following 9/11.

 

Schwing!

 

-J.

[Aweandlorder]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

[Lazyboy]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

 

There's nothing wrong with questioning things, Mr. "DC did the right thing and issued a recall for it."

 

No, they didn't. And why would it be the "right thing" to do?

[Aweandlorder]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

 

There's nothing wrong with questioning things, Mr. "DC did the right thing and issued a recall for it."

 

No, they didn't. And why would it be the "right thing" to do?

 

Are you for real??

 

Go off somebody elses thread Ladyboy

[lightninglad]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

 

Seriously? You post a thread to discuss the book and then get upset when people actually discuss it?

 

The day it was released is certainly relevant to the discussion of the books significance. Obviously Mike Wieringo drew the book months before 9/11, which is remarkable in of itself, but which do think would have had a greater impact on people? People recalling the images of a comic that had come had a week or two prior to the event OR after watching over and over and over the destruction of the towers all morning and afternoon opening their weekly shipment of comics and seeing those eerily similar events depicted in a comic book, all while that imagery is still fresh in their minds? I'd say for those that saw if before it hit the news feeds that would of had to have been surreal.

[RockMyAmadeus]

This book didn't come out on Sept 12.

 

It was published the week of August 31.

 

Close, but not "the day after."

 

I think we can all agree that this is misinformation that you stated as fact.

 

Says who? I don't think "we" can agree to anything of the sort, and you don't speak for anyone but you. What it IS, is CONTESTED information, not "misinformation."

 

You have a chip on your shoulder. You aren't after the truth, but rather, "putting me in my place."

 

I have the USCO information for when the book was published. If you have documented proof....not "what websites say"..by all means, share it. Until then, I'll stick with the USCO.

 

Your only source of proof is a copyright date that you yourself agree is not always correct and your own recollection of events which flies contrary to other site references.

 

 

Yes, I, myself, agree that it is not always correct. That's what being intellectually honest means: acknowledging that there are flaws.

 

However...that said, the USCO is as official as official gets, and just because it contains an error....and only one that I have found so far (that being Superman #75, which was released the week of Nov 20, not Dec 8, as the USCO suggests)...does not therefore mean it has no merit.

 

It is far, far weightier than all of the other "sites" combined.

[Aweandlorder]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

 

Seriously? You post a thread to discuss the book and then get upset when people actually discuss it?

 

 

Im not upset when theres discussion related to a book and its impacts in our society.

I do however get upset when people turn this into a political circus simply to argue and condescend on others words. I understand that this is the internet but - come on!

We all know that this book came out a day after the 9/11 attacks according to the overwhelming majority of reports found online.

To question that would be understandable.

To argue that would be juvenile and counterproductive as it is truly irrelevant to this topic's subject.

This is the most I am willing to "discuss" that part of this topic. If this is what ANYONE took from this post, feel free to start one instead and take that argument over there.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

USA Today article that was published on 9/26/2001

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/2001-09-26-comic-book.htm

 

"An imaginary image of twin skyscrapers in flames is startling readers of a Superman comic book that hit the stands on Sept. 12, just one day after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The scene in Adventures of Superman #596 shows helicopters circling the bomb-damaged "Lex Corp." buildings in Metropolis while Superman looks on helplessly. The comic also shows other damaged landmarks, including the White House with holes in the roof."

 

And as I said, NO books "hit the stands" on Sept 12.

 

The entire nation was at a standstill that day, trying to figure out what had happened, by whom, and why. Commerce stopped.

 

Books were delayed AT LEAST one day that week, possibly more.

 

So, USA today may have the intended release date....but even they aren't accurate as to when it was actually released....assuming it was released that week.

[RockMyAmadeus]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

 

There's nothing wrong with questioning things, Mr. "DC did the right thing and issued a recall for it."

 

No, they didn't. And why would it be the "right thing" to do?

 

Are you for real??

 

Go off somebody elses thread Ladyboy

 

Noobs. So many noobs.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

"New comics NEXT WEEK" listing from September 8th, 2001 has Adv. of Superman #596 in the list.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Adventures$20Superman$20596/hfx.forsale/4ChUUkWCvzc/Hapyir_Ry3AJ

 

The shop is (was?) in Nova Scotia. I don't know if there was any delay in getting comics there.

 

EDIT: Found another one:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Superman$20596$20New$20Comics/rec.arts.comics.misc/DFI3tmi-UA0/Pq2tmzeA2aAJ

 

September 10th, 2001 has Adv. of Superman #596 arriving on 9/12/2001.

 

The conversations that follow in that thread show that SOME stores got their books on time, September 12th. Some did not due to the delays in shipping following 9/11.

 

 

Interesting!

 

"New comics are on the rack in Cincinnati..."

 

From Karl Hiller. I don't know who Karl Hiller is, but I'll assume his post on 9/12 is accurate.

 

As I said, since everything had shut down nationwide, it's interesting that some stuff got through.

 

 

So, now the question is...why is the USCO "off"...?

 

Or....did DC change its reporting regimen between 1992 and 2001?

 

Either way, thanks for the info!

 

(And for those paying attention...this is called "being willing to reconsider a position in light of new evidence.")

[RockMyAmadeus]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

 

Seriously? You post a thread to discuss the book and then get upset when people actually discuss it?

 

 

Im not upset when theres discussion related to a book and its impacts in our society.

I do however get upset when people turn this into a political circus simply to argue and condescend on others words. I understand that this is the internet but - come on!

 

No one has turned anything into a "political circus simply to argue and condescend on others words."

 

If there is contested information...and clearly there is....it's a good thing to bring that out and discover why. Who knows where such a train of discussion might lead?

 

We all know that this book came out a day after the 9/11 attacks according to the overwhelming majority of reports found online.

 

"Overwhelming majority of reports found online" doesn't mean anything if the information is conflicting. The source matters. And "we all" don't know that, either. You can't speak for anyone but yourself.

 

And, as noted, though SOME shops got their books that Wednesday, MANY (most?) did not. So, it would not be accurate to say "we all know this book came out a day after the 9/11 attacks."

 

Accuracy, not "winning the argument", is what matters.

 

To question that would be understandable.

To argue that would be juvenile and counterproductive as it is truly irrelevant to this topic's subject.

 

On the contrary. It's particularly relevant to this book.

 

This is the most I am willing to "discuss" that part of this topic. If this is what ANYONE took from this post, feel free to start one instead and take that argument over there.

 

You aren't the first noob to become upset because a thread didn't go the way you intended it. But that's the nature of starting threads: once you do, they are no longer yours, and getting upset about it is what's actually juvenile.

 

Let's get at the heart of the matter, wherever the truth lies, and not be so concerned with what others choose to talk about.

[Aweandlorder]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

 

Seriously? You post a thread to discuss the book and then get upset when people actually discuss it?

 

 

Im not upset when theres discussion related to a book and its impacts in our society.

I do however get upset when people turn this into a political circus simply to argue and condescend on others words. I understand that this is the internet but - come on!

 

No one has turned anything into a "political circus simply to argue and condescend on others words."

 

If there is contested information...and clearly there is....it's a good thing to bring that out and discover why. Who knows where such a train of discussion might lead?

 

We all know that this book came out a day after the 9/11 attacks according to the overwhelming majority of reports found online.

 

"Overwhelming majority of reports found online" doesn't mean anything if the information is conflicting. The source matters. And "we all" don't know that, either. You can't speak for anyone but yourself.

 

And, as noted, though SOME shops got their books that Wednesday, MANY (most?) did not. So, it would not be accurate to say "we all know this book came out a day after the 9/11 attacks."

 

Accuracy, not "winning the argument", is what matters.

 

To question that would be understandable.

To argue that would be juvenile and counterproductive as it is truly irrelevant to this topic's subject.

 

On the contrary. It's particularly relevant to this book.

 

This is the most I am willing to "discuss" that part of this topic. If this is what ANYONE took from this post, feel free to start one instead and take that argument over there.

 

You aren't the first noob to become upset because a thread didn't go the way you intended it. But that's the nature of starting threads: once you do, they are no longer yours, and getting upset about it is what's actually juvenile.

 

Let's get at the heart of the matter, wherever the truth lies, and not be so concerned with what others choose to talk about.

 

no

 

go play somewhere else

[lightninglad]

[RockMyAmadeus]

This is what happens when somebody posts a thread around here.

Back and forth about stuff that doesnt really matter.

Everyones here just out to prove the other wrong. So pointless

 

Can we move on?

 

Seriously? You post a thread to discuss the book and then get upset when people actually discuss it?

 

 

Im not upset when theres discussion related to a book and its impacts in our society.

I do however get upset when people turn this into a political circus simply to argue and condescend on others words. I understand that this is the internet but - come on!

 

No one has turned anything into a "political circus simply to argue and condescend on others words."

 

If there is contested information...and clearly there is....it's a good thing to bring that out and discover why. Who knows where such a train of discussion might lead?

 

We all know that this book came out a day after the 9/11 attacks according to the overwhelming majority of reports found online.

 

"Overwhelming majority of reports found online" doesn't mean anything if the information is conflicting. The source matters. And "we all" don't know that, either. You can't speak for anyone but yourself.

 

And, as noted, though SOME shops got their books that Wednesday, MANY (most?) did not. So, it would not be accurate to say "we all know this book came out a day after the 9/11 attacks."

 

Accuracy, not "winning the argument", is what matters.

 

To question that would be understandable.

To argue that would be juvenile and counterproductive as it is truly irrelevant to this topic's subject.

 

On the contrary. It's particularly relevant to this book.

 

This is the most I am willing to "discuss" that part of this topic. If this is what ANYONE took from this post, feel free to start one instead and take that argument over there.

 

You aren't the first noob to become upset because a thread didn't go the way you intended it. But that's the nature of starting threads: once you do, they are no longer yours, and getting upset about it is what's actually juvenile.

 

Let's get at the heart of the matter, wherever the truth lies, and not be so concerned with what others choose to talk about.

 

no

 

go play somewhere else

 

No, thank you.

[Lazyboy]

Im not upset when theres discussion related to a book and its impacts in our society.

 

Then please enlighten us on the vast importance of a tiny part of a piece of fiction being almost, kind of, a little bit similar to reality.

 

Even comic collectors don't really care about AoS596 and never have!

 

We all know that this book came out a day after the 9/11 attacks according to the overwhelming majority of reports found online.

To question that would be understandable.

To argue that would be juvenile and counterproductive as it is truly irrelevant to this topic's subject.

 

Only the coincidental timing of an image with two damaged towers makes this issue even remotely notable. So it is very relevant.

 

I'm not arguing against the timing, and some areas having the release delayed is actually irrelevant.

 

In fact, this books eerie resemblance to the events that happened the day before published would seem even scarier had this book been published a week or month before

 

Eerie resemblance? First, Metropolis is a partial analog of NYC, but it is not NYC. Second, I don't remember the part of the story where the Lexcorp Towers (which are not the WTC) collapsed. Third, the towers weren't even hit by anything, let alone airplanes. Fourth, the actual damage occurred in the storyline that ran during the previous three (or so) months. Fifth, I remember Y2K being fairly uneventful in our world, without a future intelligence reshaping NYC and weaponizing the WTC towers.

 

Besides, property damage on a 9/11 scale (or greater) is a fairly regular occurrence in the DCU (and in the Marvel Universe). The same storyline that resulted in that image from AoS596 also saw large-scale destruction in Kansas, with Topeka being the epicenter.