When do books go from being Bronze age to being modern?

[FFB]

Did Miller DD, Miller DKR, and Moore Swamp Thing really change the other comics though? I didn't notice any dramatic change in Spider-Man or FF or any of the other big series after these milestones. That's the point I am making.

 

I disagree...the grim and gritty style made in into most all titles in the late 80s/early 90s. The tone of the reguilar titles shifted. Extremely violent villains were mostly the norm. Joker crippling Batgirl. Venom and Carnage being two examples from the Spidey titles. Punisher became much more bitter and violent than depicted in the past. In fact, many anti-heroes surfaced during this time. Established heroes' ethics were more loose. All as a result, primarily, of DKR in my opinion.

 

Jim

 

It's possible that you were reading different titles than I was during the 1980s. Of the titles I was reading, Spider-Man was fighting the Frog Man, the Spectacular Spider-Kid, and a bunch of suburbanites (ASM#267 -- "When Cometh the Commuter!") in the mid- to late 1980s. This is the time period we should be talking about, not the late 80s and early 90s. The FF had a dark storyline here and there (the Hate Monger stories, mainly), but I don't think it's accurate to say that the mood of the title or of any title overall was any darker than it was during the early to mid-1970s.

 

Venom and Carnage came years after Miller DD and Moore Swamp Thing. In the case of Carnage, we're talking a decade after Miller and almost a decade after SOTST#21. I view them both as "Image Age" villains, not Copper Age villains, even though Venom was created before McF left to start Image. The defining books (in ongoing series) of the Copper Age to me were Stern/Romita Jr.'s Amazing Spider-Man, Byrne FF, Simonson Thor, and Perez Teen Titans. Those were not dark and gritty stories overall.

 

I agree that Punisher did change as a result of Frank Miller's treatment of him in DD. Following his few appearances in DD, the Punisher mini-series really redefined the character and gave him more depth and Marvel did a good job of keeping that momentum going for a few more years with the Punisher's ongoing series. That short stint in DD during Miller's first run gave us a glimpse of what he could be and Marvel ran with it. The same thing happened with Wolverine (deepening of his character) except that interestingly, after the Wolverine miniseries Wolverine actually became less violent and more of a human being for a period of time, until the Image Age theme of "kill everything that moves in the goriest way possible and then strike a person_without_enough_empathyin' pose" took over.

 

I think you are giving too much credit to DKR for anti-heroes, violence, and loosening ethics in comics. Those things have happened gradually since the 1960s, just as ethical standards have become looser overall in American culture since then. DKR was a step along the way, not the catalyst that started the whole thing IMO.

 

The ultra-violence that we saw in the early 1990s was more a product of creators wanting to use shock value to sell books than it was an homage to the darker tone of Miller's DD/DKR or Moore's Swamp Thing. Those were one-dimensional stories by undertalented creators who were trying to use gore to mask their mediocrity. They had nothing in common with Miller DD/DKR or Moore Swamp Thing, and in fact, I view them as something of a slap in the face to Miller and Moore, who showed everyone what could be accomplished in comics only to watch a bunch of hacks lower the bar back down to where it had been in the mid to late 1970s.

 

Part of what would help focus this debate about ages would be to talk about what defined each age. What were the core features of the industry and characters in each age? Once we've defined the characteristics better, I think it would be easier to talk about which books were catalysts for the changes in characteristics, and from there, perhaps come to a more concrete agreement about where each age started and stopped (or started shifting and stopped shifting, if it happened gradually). I know you've spent a lot of time thinking about this Jim, so I'd be interested in hearing what you and anyone else has to say about the defining features of the ages (particularly bronze and copper).

[Zonker]

Gold-- first super-powered men in tights

 

Atom-- teen rebels without a cause + nuclear paranoia = parental backlash

 

Silver-- the big, colorful superheroes return , but CCA limited

 

Bronze-- the first really self-conscious comics-try-to-grow-up movement since the Code. "Relevance." Sword and Sorcery pitched to an older crowd that read the 1960s Conan paperback book re-releases. Horror comics return to the 4-color medium (many of the late-1960s DC mystery books were still quite tame). Comics creators start to adopt literary pretensions, congratulating themselves with ACBA "Shazam" awards for GL/GA, Conan, Swamp Thing, Manhunter.

 

post-Bronze-- death of newstand distribution leads to-- on the one hand-- a pandering to the Direct Market super-hero fan base, resulting in multiplicity of X-Men, Spidey, Batman, Superman titles; and-- on the other hand-- a further extension of writing for adult sensibilities from creators like Moore, Miller and Howie Chaykin.

 

I tend to agree the post-Bronze period should be split into a pre-Image and post-Image period, corresponding to the boom and bust cycle of the late 1980s & early 1990s, but I think we're still too close to that period to have much of a perspective, and I'll leave the details of that to others.

 

One admitted weakness of the above division is what to do with those 1968/69 books you've mentioned: there certainly are the seeds of Bronze Age stuff in Neal Adams' Deadman and Brave & Bold, Steranko's Nick Fury, the revisionist Western Bat Lash, and the aforementioned late 1960s Mystery Books (HoM, HoS, Witching Hour).

[awe4one]

DKR had a huge affect on the "grim and gritty" tone of comics in the late 80s. Not as a homage but publishers trying to replicate the success of the mini. They saw dark stories sold very well. The Punisher mini is a perfect example. Sure, Miller laid the framework for the character in DD but the mini took it to another level. The Punisher became the prototype anti-hero and the writers relished that aspect.

 

DD never wavered from his Miller roots even though subsequent writers weren't as talented. But the Miller DD model never caught on in other titles because, frankly, nobody really cares about the character except a small-devoted fan base. DKR used a similar formula with an Icon and people noticed. Big difference and relevant when talking Ages.

 

After DKR:

 

Venom was introduced and become arguably the most cold-blooded villain in the Marvel stable and had Spider-Man questioning his own ethics.

 

Sabretooth would follow the cold harded formula.

 

Ghost Rider was reintroduced with the Spirit of Vengeance angle in full force.

 

Punisher became the one of the most popular characters at Marvel.

 

The X-Men became a rogue group.

 

The Joker killed Robin and crippled Barbara Gordon/Batgirl.

 

Batman: The Cult is released.

 

And there are more but I think that's enough for now. Of course, your correct about hacks just trying to shock the audience. And it would only get worse as we entered the early 90s and the start of Image. But I'm not sure DKR wasn't the spark that started the comics down this path.

 

As far as Ages, I'd like to add this to the Bronze discussion...

 

There were two distinct, different vibes going on between Marvel and DC in the late 60s and early 70s. And as a result, I agree the Bronze Ages started at different times between them.

 

DC saw Marvel rushing past them and knew they had to do something to boost readers. So DC took chances. Deadman. Horror. Batman. Green Lantern. Clever cover layouts. Grabbing Kirby. These were only a few of the many things DC was doing during the timeframe in an attempt to boost readership. In fact, this was one of the best creative periods for the company ever. In my opinion.

 

I have no problem with O'Neill/Adams Det #395 starting the "DC" Bronze Age...

 

Marvel, on the other hand, turned their characters over to new writers that grew up reading the Lee stories. Thomas, Wolfman, Conway, Steranko, Wein, Friedrich, and others marshaled in a new era for Marvel. Gone was the stilted phrasing and over the top scenarios in favor of more grounded stories. There was a confidence in the stories and the Marvel Universe, laid out by Lee in the 60s, became more cohesive. It was a great collective effort before falling off it rails in the late 70s.

 

This new era seemed to start in earnest with the publication of Conan #1 so that would be the start of the "Marvel" Bronze Age in my eyes...

 

It's getting late...I may follow-up with my thoughts on the start and end of Copper tomorrow if I have time...

 

Jim

[jbud73]

You're going to kill me for this, but yes. I don't think the silver age began with Showcase #4. I think the silver age began with FF#1. FF#1 marked a dramatic difference in the very nature of comic book superheroes and in the way that superhero tales were told. I'll likely convince no one but myself with this argument, but it's what I believe.

 

You Marvel Zombie -

 

Scott I tend to think that combinations of what you and Tim are talking about are at work in the beginning of the Copper age. The age is not entirely predicated on market forces, or universal changes in the medium - but combinations of both. I may give more emphasis to the art and story driven angles but they are not the only catalysts.

 

When I think of Copper I think of the slogan "Comics Aren't Just for Kids Anymore" and while its true that the Efforts of Miller and Moore among others did not have complete trickle down, they were the basis from which the ethos of the Copper Age manifested itself. It was a gradual process until it could be argued that "Comics Are Not for Kids at All" But the seeds are sown in SOTST 21, the Wolverine mini and New Teen Titans - which would get very adult.

 

Scott, the reason you may not identify so much with the story and art driven changes of the Copper Age is because I believe that Copper was a DC resurgernce, or a DC catching up and then surpassing Marvel in terms of innovation etc.

[FFB]

You're going to kill me for this, but yes. I don't think the silver age began with Showcase #4. I think the silver age began with FF#1. FF#1 marked a dramatic difference in the very nature of comic book superheroes and in the way that superhero tales were told. I'll likely convince no one but myself with this argument, but it's what I believe.

 

You Marvel Zombie -

 

Scott I tend to think that combinations of what you and Tim are talking about are at work in the beginning of the Copper age. The age is not entirely predicated on market forces, or universal changes in the medium - but combinations of both. I may give more emphasis to the art and story driven angles but they are not the only catalysts.

 

When I think of Copper I think of the slogan "Comics Aren't Just for Kids Anymore" and while its true that the Efforts of Miller and Moore among others did not have complete trickle down, they were the basis from which the ethos of the Copper Age manifested itself. It was a gradual process until it could be argued that "Comics Are Not for Kids at All" But the seeds are sown in SOTST 21, the Wolverine mini and New Teen Titans - which would get very adult.

 

J, describe what you mean by "the ethos of the Copper Age." By this, do you mean the "Comics Aren't Just for Kids Anymore?" Ironic, since you and I were both kids at the height of our comic reading at the time. I am not sure I understand what you're saying though.

 

As for SOTST#21, it's a good story, but not all that different from horror titles that came before it. Moore redid ST's origin in an interesting way, showing us that the Swamp Thing wasn't actually Holland, just a mass of plants that had absorbed Holland's knowledge and thought it was Holland. A creative rewrite to be sure, but no "darker and grittier" than any other DC BA horror I've read and I didn't see similar themes used in DC's other titles in the few years that followed. How did it influence what came later?

 

Scott, the reason you may not identify so much with the story and art driven changes of the Copper Age is because I believe that Copper was a DC resurgernce, or a DC catching up and then surpassing Marvel in terms of innovation etc.

 

It isn't like I didn't read any DC during the copper age. I read Teen Titans, the Batman books (including DKR), Byrne Superman, and at the end of the copper age, I was reading Green Lantern and a bunch of other stuff that DC put out. I didn't like them as much as I liked the Marvel titles, but I still read and enjoyed them.

 

Also, I do acknowledge that there was a change in story and art during the copper age and haven't said otherwise. What I am saying is that I think that there is some overemphasis being given to the influence that DKR and Swamp Thing had on the medium as a whole. Most superhero titles got better during the copper age when compared to the late 1970s at least, but they didn't necessarily get any darker or grittier. Punisher became more developed, but not necessarily grittier or darker than he had been before. We just didn't know anything about him before the miniseries. Sabertooth was used more (esp. at the end of the copper age), but he was still a psychopathic killer in the early 1980s (see early appearances in Power Man & Iron Fist). The big change with Sabertooth was pitting him against Wolverine and fleshing out his backstory. He didn't get more violent.

 

As for other titles getting darker or grittier, Superman didn't, Spider-Man didn't, FF didn't, Green Lantern didn't, and the list goes on and on. I view the improvements to the stories in the copper age as having more to do with Jim Shooter's high editorial standards at Marvel from 1978 to 1987 and DC's infusion of top talent during this era than I do any direct influence from Miller and Moore.

 

One thing that also characterizes the copper age that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the rise of Marvel's "creator royalties" system put in place by Shooter. I think that this had as much as anything to do with the across the board improvement in those titles. I don't know if DC had a similar program. Does anyone else know?

[FFB]

DKR had a huge affect on the "grim and gritty" tone of comics in the late 80s. Not as a homage but publishers trying to replicate the success of the mini. They saw dark stories sold very well. The Punisher mini is a perfect example. Sure, Miller laid the framework for the character in DD but the mini took it to another level. The Punisher became the prototype anti-hero and the writers relished that aspect.

 

DD never wavered from his Miller roots even though subsequent writers weren't as talented. But the Miller DD model never caught on in other titles because, frankly, nobody really cares about the character except a small-devoted fan base. DKR used a similar formula with an Icon and people noticed. Big difference and relevant when talking Ages.

 

 

Good stuff, Jim. This is the kind of dialogue I was hoping to see.

 

After DKR:

 

Venom was introduced and become arguably the most cold-blooded villain in the Marvel stable and had Spider-Man questioning his own ethics.

 

True, but my recollection is that he was a late-copper age creation and his cold-bloodedness didn't really take root until after the start of the Image era.

 

Sabretooth would follow the cold harded formula.

 

As I mentioned to Jason, I think Sabertooth was already a vicious killer at the end of the bronze age. The main difference with Sabertooth is that he got pitted against Wolverine and woven into Wolverine's backstory and became hugely popular for that reason. More depth for the character and more popular, but I don't think he was any more vicious.

 

Ghost Rider was reintroduced with the Spirit of Vengeance angle in full force.

 

I remember when Ghost Rider hit the stands and yes, it was a huge hit. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that there was nothing else like it on the stands at the time, and the Javier Saltares/Mark Texiera art was perfectly suited for the book. I don't get a real DKR feel from the book, however, although I guess you could say that Marvel reinvented Ghost Rider in the same way that DC reinvented Batman in DKR.

 

Punisher became the one of the most popular characters at Marvel.

 

Yep. For good or ill, he did.

 

The X-Men became a rogue group.

 

Haven't they always been a rogue group?

 

The Joker killed Robin and crippled Barbara Gordon/Batgirl.

 

OK, but this reminds me of the Green Goblin killing Gwen Stacy.

 

Batman: The Cult is released.

 

I have to admit I never read this mini.

 

And there are more but I think that's enough for now. Of course, your correct about hacks just trying to shock the audience. And it would only get worse as we entered the early 90s and the start of Image. But I'm not sure DKR wasn't the spark that started the comics down this path.

 

At the time, it seemed to me that publishers realized that rapidly increasing recent back issue prices were driving speculator demand for new issues. So in order to increase sales, every new issue had to have something special about it -- a Wolverine/Punisher/Ghost Rider crossover, a first appearance of a "hot" new villain, someone getting stabbed/crippled/mangled/choked to death on own vomit, a gatefold hologram/foil etched/embossed/glow-in-the-dark/perfumed cover, and preferably a combination of all of the above.

 

These things sounded the death knell for the copper age as much as anything to me, where the quality and focus on the characters that defined the beginning and middle of the Copper Age were suddenly taking a back seat to immediate sales numbers.

 

Obviously, DKR had nothing to do with any of this garbage. What DKR did was show the publishers that it was OK to change major characters in a drastic way as long as it was done well and thoughtfully and appealed to readers. Publishers did this to other characters following DKR, with varying results.

 

As far as Ages, I'd like to add this to the Bronze discussion...

 

There were two distinct, different vibes going on between Marvel and DC in the late 60s and early 70s. And as a result, I agree the Bronze Ages started at different times between them.

 

DC saw Marvel rushing past them and knew they had to do something to boost readers. So DC took chances. Deadman. Horror. Batman. Green Lantern. Clever cover layouts. Grabbing Kirby. These were only a few of the many things DC was doing during the timeframe in an attempt to boost readership. In fact, this was one of the best creative periods for the company ever. In my opinion.

 

I have no problem with O'Neill/Adams Det #395 starting the "DC" Bronze Age...

 

Marvel, on the other hand, turned their characters over to new writers that grew up reading the Lee stories. Thomas, Wolfman, Conway, Steranko, Wein, Friedrich, and others marshaled in a new era for Marvel. Gone was the stilted phrasing and over the top scenarios in favor of more grounded stories. There was a confidence in the stories and the Marvel Universe, laid out by Lee in the 60s, became more cohesive. It was a great collective effort before falling off it rails in the late 70s.

 

This new era seemed to start in earnest with the publication of Conan #1 so that would be the start of the "Marvel" Bronze Age in my eyes...

 

I am inclined to agree with you about this. For as long as I can remember, Marvel and DC have taken turns trying to copy the other's success when something big has worked for the other. It makes sense that the bronze age for each would start at a different time. I don't know that I could pin the start of the BA down to a specific issue, but I agree that it started around Conan #1. My mental cutoff point is the point at which cover prices switched to 20 cents, but that's just because it's easier.

[THE_BEYONDER]

One thing that also characterizes the copper age that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the rise of Marvel's "creator royalties" system put in place by Shooter. I think that this had as much as anything to do with the across the board improvement in those titles. I don't know if DC had a similar program. Does anyone else know?

 

I think this is a key element to the defining of ages.

 

Take Byrne for example; He was a " GOD " back then. I feel you can get a pretty good feel for the ages by simply observing what he was working on.

 

I think X-MEN 141-142 represents an end to an era , and it all began anew when Byrne took complete control of the FF.

 

Obviously his work is only a reflection of the ages, but he was arguably the best at the time.

[Aman619]

As to the violence level of 80s heroes. I remember the big question mid-80s was whether or not Wolverine had actually killed some badguys off panel in an XMen issue in the 140s. There were debates in many stores I went to. This was at the same time that the heroes were getting darker. But I dont remember if this was before or after DKR. It was Miller work that I associate with ratcheting up the violence level a bunch of notches.... particularly Bullseye gutting her on the cover of issue '18X' where he killed her.

[FFB]

As to the violence level of 80s heroes. I remember the big question mid-80s was whether or not Wolverine had actually killed some badguys off panel in an XMen issue in the 140s. There were debates in many stores I went to. This was at the same time that the heroes were getting darker. But I dont remember if this was before or after DKR. It was Miller work that I associate with ratcheting up the violence level a bunch of notches.... particularly Bullseye gutting her on the cover of issue '18X' where he killed her.

 

He didn't gut her on the cover. That was an interior panel. The cover doesn't tell you who won.

[Aman619]

As to the violence level of 80s heroes. I remember the big question mid-80s was whether or not Wolverine had actually killed some badguys off panel in an XMen issue in the 140s. There were debates in many stores I went to. This was at the same time that the heroes were getting darker. But I dont remember if this was before or after DKR. It was Miller work that I associate with ratcheting up the violence level a bunch of notches.... particularly Bullseye gutting her on the cover of issue '18X' where he killed her.

 

He didn't gut her on the cover. That was an interior panel. The cover doesn't tell you who won.

 

ok right, the gutting cover was someone else right?

 

do you remember that Wolverine thing? it was at the end of the time of "innocence" where a hero could actually kill a bad guy. Up to then, only Punisher (and Joker) killed people but they were villains. Then in DKR, Miller turned old Bats into a ruthless tough guy.

[Zonker]

As to the violence level of 80s heroes. I remember the big question mid-80s was whether or not Wolverine had actually killed some badguys off panel in an XMen issue in the 140s. There were debates in many stores I went to. This was at the same time that the heroes were getting darker. But I dont remember if this was before or after DKR. It was Miller work that I associate with ratcheting up the violence level a bunch of notches.... particularly Bullseye gutting her on the cover of issue '18X' where he killed her.

 

He didn't gut her on the cover. That was an interior panel. The cover doesn't tell you who won.

 

ok right, the gutting cover was someone else right?

 

do you remember that Wolverine thing? it was at the end of the time of "innocence" where a hero could actually kill a bad guy. Up to then, only Punisher (and Joker) killed people but they were villains. Then in DKR, Miller turned old Bats into a ruthless tough guy.

 

Did Batman kill anybody in DKR? It's been a while since I read it. The "bad guy" (no spoilers here ) does die in #3, but I remember reading that as a suicide that would be blamed on the Batman.

[Aman619]

I was thinking that too when I wrote earlier. I dont think he killed anyone, but he was more ruthless than in the past incarnations. Or maybe Millers command of his gritty style and powerful art made it seem that way. Hanging that guy off a roof to get infomation was a powerful scene...

[shadroch]

The Wolverine scenerio being discussed was him offing a Hellfire Club guard in 132 or 133.

The Punisher started as a killer,switched to using mercy bullets, then reverted back.

Venom,as introduced in SWs#8 and for the first few years, was a far cry from the blood thirsty villian he evolved into.

In A Death In The Family,it wasn't so much that The Joker was portrayed differently than earlier issues,the big difference was his plan worked,for once. While The Killing Joke was pretty shocking,is it really all that much more violent than the much earlier Joker Fish arc?

[Aman619]

the shock in Killing Joke was twofold: that it was Barbara Gordon who was crippled, and that Joker just shot her at point blank range... rather than some elaborate trap and plan for torturing her. So Overall I agree, Joker had been killing people since his first appearances and again in the late silver/earlyBronze age Adams/ONeil stories.

[shadroch]

For me,the shock of the Killing Joke was that it was Barbara Gordon and not Robin that was

attacked. I had had dinner with Bob Wayne and a bunch of retailers a couple of weeks before,and he strongly hinted that something really nasty was coming and to be careful who we sold the book to.

It was one of very few books that DC did not send out advance copies of,and I must say I was taken aback by the story.

[PovertyRow]

Good post, Mike. I have always believed that the ages should be defined more by changes to the industry itself (the coming of the CCA in the 1950s, Marvel's breaking loose from DC's distribution agreement in 1968, the beginning of the direct market in 1972, Seuling's loss of relative exclusivity in the direct market in 1979, the rise of the miniseries in the early 1980s, the departure of the superstars for independent publishing in the early 1990s, etc.) than by the happenings of any one title or the movings of any one creative team or artist. It would be almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle at this point, but I think that these industry-wide changes in the way comics were made and distributed had a lot more to do with defining an era than individual happenings on a given title or with a given creative team.

 

Thanks, Scott. I agree 100% on your last ideas regarding putting too much emphasis on individual happenings or a given team. Sure, that may be an area that could create a key or semi-key, but establish a genre?

 

I appreciate your stance on the industry and the impact of such on ages. For me, I lack your depth in SA and BA etc. My only real area of in-depth knowledge is Atom Age. Sure I can rattle of key issues and important artists and writers etc from other ages, but ha ve not really studied them the way I have Atom Age.

 

I think that is why my perspective is as it is - more an impact/reflection of society as being an age definer. I was heavily into films a lot longer (15 or more years longer) than I have been into comic books. The whole social/political take I have on comics I derived initially from film, and I tend to extend that to comics.

 

Regardless, the more I think about it, the less likely any one book has the right to define an age, with the possible exception of Action 1. But even there, as I said, we have the whole crime vs WW2 thing happening.

[divad]

Uh, this WAS a good post . . .

[divad]

Good post, Mike. I have always believed that the ages should be defined more by changes to the industry itself (the coming of the CCA in the 1950s, Marvel's breaking loose from DC's distribution agreement in 1968, the beginning of the direct market in 1972, Seuling's loss of relative exclusivity in the direct market in 1979, the rise of the miniseries in the early 1980s, the departure of the superstars for independent publishing in the early 1990s, etc.) than by the happenings of any one title or the movings of any one creative team or artist. It would be almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle at this point, but I think that these industry-wide changes in the way comics were made and distributed had a lot more to do with defining an era than individual happenings on a given title or with a given creative team.

 

Sorry, but I don't believe that any of this analysis is relevant or interesting . . .

[awe4one]

the shock in Killing Joke was twofold: that it was Barbara Gordon who was crippled, and that Joker just shot her at point blank range... rather than some elaborate trap and plan for torturing her. So Overall I agree, Joker had been killing people since his first appearances and again in the late silver/earlyBronze age Adams/ONeil stories.

 

This is in response to all in this thread because I don't have much time right now...

 

It was much more than that...

 

Not only did he shoot Gordon at point blank range, he did so to take pictures to show and torture Commissioner Gordon...

 

The act itself wasn't where the shock came, it was the methodical manner and reason for the act. It was brutal and shown as so. That's the difference between prior acts and this one. Moore laid out the act piece by piece. It was the most brutal act I'd ever seen in a comic up to that point. I have read a fair number of Joker stories in Batman but never one that showed the Joker this maniacal. In my mind, the story redefined the character and I've never looked at the Joker the same since. And, appropriately or not, I continuely flashed back to DKR while I read it.

 

After I finished reading it, I spent awhile thinking about whether these type stories were what I wanted in comics. I like my comics as escapist entertainment. I like good against bad and a tidy clean-up by the hero in the end. If I wanted to read about real life, I could go back to work, read the paper, or grab a non-fiction novel. I'm not looking for the next literary breakthrough. I'm looking to be entertained for 15 minutes a pop. And, I don't like to read about anti-heroes or brutal acts played out clearly on the page, plain and simple. Take it off panel and I'll bite...

 

I saw a lot of what I didn't like creep into the comics after DKR and alot of what I liked left and in some cases have never returned. I didn't notice this pre-DKR...

 

Jim

[sterlingcomics]

For me,the shock of the Killing Joke was that it was Barbara Gordon and not Robin that was

attacked. I had had dinner with Bob Wayne and a bunch of retailers a couple of weeks before,and he strongly hinted that something really nasty was coming and to be careful who we sold the book to.

It was one of very few books that DC did not send out advance copies of,and I must say I was taken aback by the story.

 

Despite being out of comics for a while, I remember the intense hype for it. I still have the original issue, and the shock of the story lived up to the hype. Thanks for taking me down memory lane.