The Other history of the D.C.

[Rend20]

2. All of that stuff with Garth is NOT made up either. It's all straight out of Teen Titans (version 1) #51.

I don't think I completely agree with that.

The whole Garth punching Robin deal that was referenced happened in the arc that spanned issues #28/29 of that run. During which, I believe Garth was a judgmental jerk who called all the other Titans chickens because they took a vow not to use their powers after feeling responsible for a person's death. Dick was just trying to keep the peace when Garth decked him.

Garth then proceeded to storm off and got himself into trouble where the Titans ended up helping him. He then went back to being a jerk because they wanted to stick to their vow.

In the arc that went from issues #47-50, the Titans didn't do anything to cause Garth's condition as far as I recall? That was Garth's own insecurity, and when he brought up how he felt inferior, all the other Titans were supportive of him. So while Roy did call him a coward, it was immediately forgotten and Garth said the same thing about everyone else earlier in the run.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

This was another great issue. I'm so happy to see Mal and Karen get some LONG overdue spotlight.

As DC's first black (super-)hero and super-heroine, they deserve much better than the shabby treatment they've received over the years.

This was a great counter-point story to last issue too. Jeff lost his wife and family and even his sense of self to make it as a hero; whereas Mal found happiness and success as a husband, father and business-owner, but got kind of left behind as a hero. I'm happy for Mal (and that final page of his was beautifully written) but man, he had a sad journey.

Obviously, a lot of that sadness is due to behind-the-scenes/editorial decision-making so I guess it was inevitable, but still interesting, that this issue would be a lot more "meta" than the last one. That whole indictment of the "Jericho" fiasco was cleverly written and packed a powerful punch. I wonder if Marv Wolfman and Neal Adams have read this issue and appreciate Ridley's spin on that moment in DC history?

I'm not sure I understand why some people are critical of the inclusion of the Atlanta baby murders story? First of all, it's obviously all from Karen's point of view, and as last issue demonstrated and this issue explicitly spells out, the narrative of this series is not to be taken as 100% gospel. So we don't know that Batman or Superman or whoever weren't actually investigating that crime. And secondly, even if they weren't, that's no indictment of them as heroes. Super-heroes can't be everywhere (especially a totally other city like Atlanta) and we know there are loads of crimes and killings like this one that occur in the DC Universe. It's just weird to me that people are fixating on this one event when the series has been filled with other real life events like the Munich Olympics Massacre and the anti-busing riots.

It's interesting that both issues have had little interludes about Supergirl. We know that Ridley originally intended to devote a whole issue to her so I wonder if her story will be sprinkled throughout the rest of the issues instead.

Man, the art in this series has been so good too. Such great use of negative space and panels. Not to mention all the great references to older covers and artwork.

I hope this series does well sales-wise (although I imagine it will probably do better as a collected trade).

My issue with including the Atlanta murders is that it's a repeat of the exact same unfair beat that was played in the first issue with the Munich attack, but even worse because the Atlanta thing dragged on for months and months. Also, unlike the whole ragging on John Stewart thing from last issue, this never got exposed as untrue.

This book has been absolutely great so far. If they can stick the landing it's something that I would like to hand to new readers again and again as a gateway into the larger DCU.

However, I likely won't be doing that if every single issue takes a real life tragedy and uses it as a cudgel to smack fictional white superheroes over the head with because they did nothing to prevent it. Again, it's a strawman argument that weakens the vital lessons that this book is pointing out.

[Jcogginsa]

You know I can see how Ridley’s take on Superman could be off putting but I think we have to look at it in a certain way. First this story is not about Superman, with the first two issues all we really get is our POV characters talking about two specific moments involving Superman. In fact it could be argued that these are just the specific characters projections onto the Superman and that it’s to to be treated similarly to how Black Lightning treated John Stewart until he actually got to know him, as a personal thought of the character only. We aren’t in Superman’s head in these scenes or understanding how he feels so it’s going to come off weird to us that read and like Superman.

Another thing though is that I think Ridley’s idea of Superman is human ironically. He’s supposed to be the world’s greatest hero, this perfect symbol of truth and justice, but it’s important to remember that he was raised human so maybe that comes with unaware bias or things he just never considered before and that his kryptonian origins made him overprotective of Kara because as was pointed out he was afraid of a personal loss. So I think Ridley’s point is that superheroes, even someone like Superman, for good or bad are human just like the rest of us.

His Superman is characterized very similar to the Silver Age version, just in a more realistic form.

It simply feels off because the Crisis wiped away a lot of that characterizatio

[Bored at 3:00AM]

His Superman is characterized very similar to the Silver Age version, just in a more realistic form.

It simply feels off because the Crisis wiped away a lot of that characterizatio

Since this is very much rooted as a counterpoint to the Pre-Crisis history, I think it works even if it may not work with the more modern versions of Superman, whose 1950s rough edges have been rounded off substantially

[bat39]

My issue with including the Atlanta murders is that it's a repeat of the exact same unfair beat that was played in the first issue with the Munich attack, but even worse because the Atlanta thing dragged on for months and months. Also, unlike the whole ragging on John Stewart thing from last issue, this never got exposed as untrue.

This book has been absolutely great so far. If they can stick the landing it's something that I would like to hand to new readers again and again as a gateway into the larger DCU.

However, I likely won't be doing that if every single issue takes a real life tragedy and uses it as a cudgel to smack fictional white superheroes over the head with because they did nothing to prevent it. Again, it's a strawman argument that weakens the vital lessons that this book is pointing out.

Just a minor 'correction' (if I can call it that) - the real-world event that Jeff accused the heroes of not intervening in last issue was the Iran hostage crisis. Though the Munich massacre was mentioned early on.

I'm not critical of the inclusion of the Atlanta murders at all. But I do feel that it's a little harder to handwave why the heroes didn't get involved in it than it was with the Iran hostage crisis. In the case of the latter, you could maybe understand the League not wanting to get involved in an international political issue - and for all we know, the US Governmnent expressly forbade them from intervening.

In the case of the Atlanta murders though, there's actually no reason why not a single hero got involved in the investigation - given that most of the superhero community had pretty good relations with law enforcement and many of them were detectives of some sort, or had abilities which could help detectives.

Obviously there are any number of logical reasons why they wouldn't get involved - from being busy to just not having the murders on their radar. But you can understand in this case a bit more why, from Karen's perspective, it felt like they simply didn't care.

His Superman is characterized very similar to the Silver Age version, just in a more realistic form.

It simply feels off because the Crisis wiped away a lot of that characterizatio

I think his Superman is just a very broad 'classic' take on the character - a distillation of the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman and maybe some of the early Post-Crisis Superman. It's a Superman you could see in the Donner/Lester movies, the DCAU, the Lois & Clark show and a few other adaptations/takes on the character.

Which is why its so easy to attach a bunch of critiques people have about 'Superman' in general to the version in this book.

Funnily enough, someone like the original Siegal/Shuster Superman would have gotten a very different reaction from Jeff Pierce, and maybe even Mal Duncan.

I'm interested to see more of how this book tackles Batman. We got to see a bit of it last issue, and from Jeff's perspective, it seemed an awful lot like a toned down version of the 'Batjerk' interpretation of the character. In general, the allusions to Batman seem to be along the lines of a darker Post COIE take. But I'm guessing we'll see a lot more with Katana and Renee Montoya issues - definitely with the latter.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Obviously there are any number of logical reasons why they wouldn't get involved - from being busy to just not having the murders on their radar. But you can understand in this case a bit more why, from Karen's perspective, it felt like they simply didn't care.

This is my problem. I have no problems with the white superheroes being portrayed or as insensitive, clueless or straight up assholes, because that's often how they were written back then, but pointing out how the JLA could have easily ended the Altanta murders then failing to show how that belief was erroneous, as they did with Jefferson's perception of John Stewart being off-base, is a terrible way of proving anything because it's an artificially contrived situation.

[Dred]

Ummm your major two points here about Roy and Garth are flat-out wrong I'm sorry to say.

1. Roy DID make that ******* "second-rate" comment to Mal. And Mal immediately ran off and had his adventure with the Angel of Death. However bad Roy felt for saying it, or threatening to quit the team over it, Mal (and certainly Karen, who is relating that part) were not privy to. The two never even address the issue again although Roy does offer Mal a sort of mea culpa at the end by inviting him to join his band.

2. All of that stuff with Garth is NOT made up either. It's all straight out of Teen Titans (version 1) #51. Garth DID have a psychosomatic breakdown. It WAS caused by his inferiority complex vis a vis the other Titans. And Roy DID call him a "tuna-livered coward" to his face for quitting.

When you are presenting a retrospective piece then the view you project is the one the audience knows. No one except the scant few like us have ever read those old Teen Titans comics, so their first introduction to it is not something you can just waive over by saying Mal and Karen don't know the full story. And yes, the two never address the issue because the writers spent the whole comic making it not an issue and focusing on Mal. Just like they did the prior one. Roy was used as a standin for people who didn't take Mal seriously and he spins on a dime to support Mal.

Garth's breakdown was not caused by the team, the team was incredibly supportive of him, and it was pretty dang explicit that Garth was the one at fault if anyone. Roy's a jerk but Karen and Mal make it out like the entire team was emotionally destroying Garth instead of, you know, trying to help him, encouraging him to talk to them, and encouraging him to stay. Garth turning all of that down because of his own failings is what pissed Roy off because his friend spat on everyone else's concern pretty uncaringly.

I think you're trying to justify intentional obfuscation with some sort of unreliable narrator situation but they're the only narrator and there is no later part that comes in and corrects them, which is the narrative purpose of an unreliable narrator -- to find out their unreliability. There are other things besides those two points, those were just the most apparent and direct. They talk about the "team" deciding they only needed one black person but it was just Raven, a freaking demon woman with no real concept of race relations, creating a team to fight Trigon. Or the reason the team broke up being Roy just decided it, when it was explained they were adults and going to college, which was a group decision. Again, if you're trying to stand on the hill of "unreliable narrator" the writer has to show them being unreliable at some point. But their view of their Teen Titans days is just presented as Mal explaining what happened and Karen saying how the Titans suck because of what they did to Mal. At no point is the unreliability addressed except for when both Mal and Karen are in the story which, sadly, were few and far between then and in this.

That's not to say everything involved in this comic is untrue or unfair. The entire Superman narrative and the Donna Troy wedding narrative are slam dunk observations by Ridley through Karen and Mal -- the grandeur Donna gets for her wedding whereas they just unceremoniously (literally!) marry off the two black characters offscreen and mention it as an aside to the "real" wedding...to Terry Long, a bigger wet noodle than Mal or Karen could ever dream of being. Their getting together should've been a bigger deal because they were both Titans and Karen and Mal expressing their frustration and ostracization about that is excellent storytelling.

I just don't think the story being conveyed is, at all times, honest from Ridley because he's trying to drive a point and damn the context.

Which leads me to:

This is my problem. I have no problems with the white superheroes being portrayed or as insensitive, clueless or straight up assholes, because that's often how they were written back then, but pointing out how the JLA could have easily ended the Altanta murders then failing to show how that belief was erroneous, as they did with Jefferson's perception of John Stewart being off-base, is a terrible way of proving anything because it's an artificially contrived situation.

This exactly. He contrives a point from Karen and Mal's point of view and, unlike the first issue, there's no broach in the topic. It's just laid at our feet like the truth. This lack of depth and onesidedness is why #1 was way better than #2. Both are good, 2 just has a bunch of holes in it it didn't need.

[Vic Vega]

The stuff about Superman's treatment of teenaged Kara has been called out by nearly every fan of Supergirl on the internet at some point. So I've got no problem with
a character in universe calling it out.

It also occurs to me that the Devin Grayson Titans run kind of had the exact same take on Bronze Age Aqualad and Roy.

[lemonpeace]

This is my problem. I have no problems with the white superheroes being portrayed or as insensitive, clueless or straight up assholes, because that's often how they were written back then, but pointing out how the JLA could have easily ended the Altanta murders then failing to show how that belief was erroneous, as they did with Jefferson's perception of John Stewart being off-base, is a terrible way of proving anything because it's an artificially contrived situation.

I disagree. the whole premise if this story is looking at the DC universe through the lens of real societal issues in our world; the Atlanta murders is a valid way of demonstrating that point. in real life the things like the Atlanta murders "just so happen" to fall through the cracks of our justice system all the time. so if we're reflecting real issues in a society where the justice system is reliant on superheros (predominantly white ones at that), then you have to reflect what that looks like and how people, like Mal and Karen, would feel about that as second class citizens of that hero community. and then you examine how you feel about that in real life, as you should. It may be uncomfortable not seeing the people like Superman or John Stewart or any prominent Leaguer in the best light but they are largely icons of the establishment. if we're going to really reflect important and real societal issues with the establishment then the point isn't to just say "man people of color are treated 'shabbily', aren't they?", you have to show what horrorific consequences of these societal fallings actually look like.

even understanding any number of ways this tragedy could go overlooked in a society where the most effective law enforcement are focused on reality crumbling every couple month, Karen and Mal's perspective is still valid. the belief isn't erroneous, any number of heroes could've stopped that murderer but they didn't. that's a fair take. but it's also fair to look outside of that perspective and see how it's there are any number of things that could have prevented that intervention too.

sometimes those of privilege and power, even those with the best intentions, have blind spots or fall short in horrific ways. hell, Mal and Karen could've suited up and done something, but they had their own things in the way. Ultimately I think the point is that, even in a superhero society, there are ways we as a culture could do better. i don't think it's contrived at all, it does exactly what it's supposed to do.

[HsssH]

I disagree. the whole premise if this story is looking at the DC universe through the lens of real societal issues in our world; the Atlanta murders is a valid way of demonstrating that point. in real life the things like the Atlanta murders "just so happen" to fall through the cracks of our justice system all the time. so if we're reflecting real issues in a society where the justice system is reliant on superheros (predominantly white ones at that), then you have to reflect what that looks like and how people, like Mal and Karen, would feel about that as second class citizens of that hero community. and then you examine how you feel about that in real life, as you should.

Then you kinda have to wonder whats even the point of superheroes and why we are reading their stories if they have no impact on actual issues?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I disagree. the whole premise if this story is looking at the DC universe through the lens of real societal issues in our world; the Atlanta murders is a valid way of demonstrating that point. in real life the things like the Atlanta murders "just so happen" to fall through the cracks of our justice system all the time. so if we're reflecting real issues in a society where the justice system is reliant on superheros (predominantly white ones at that), then you have to reflect what that looks like and how people, like Mal and Karen, would feel about that as second class citizens of that hero community. and then you examine how you feel about that in real life, as you should. It may be uncomfortable not seeing the people like Superman or John Stewart or any prominent Leaguer in the best light but they are largely icons of the establishment. if we're going to really reflect important and real societal issues with the establishment then the point isn't to just say "man people of color are treated 'shabbily', aren't they?", you have to show what horrorific consequences of these societal fallings actually look like.

even understanding any number of ways this tragedy could go overlooked in a society where the most effective law enforcement are focused on reality crumbling every couple month, Karen and Mal's perspective is still valid. the belief isn't erroneous, any number of heroes could've stopped that murderer but they didn't. that's a fair take. but it's also fair to look outside of that perspective and see how it's there are any number of things that could have prevented that intervention too.

sometimes those of privilege and power, even those with the best intentions, have blind spots or fall short in horrific ways. hell, Mal and Karen could've suited up and done something, but they had their own things in the way. Ultimately I think the point is that, even in a superhero society, there are ways we as a culture could do better. i don't think it's contrived at all, it does exactly what it's supposed to do.

I definitely see that this is what the book is trying to get across, but this particular instance was a step too far for me because it doesn’t really leave any plausible alternative aside from the entirety of the JLA not giving a **** about the murders of black children and that’s not really acceptable to me because it undercuts the very premise that this is supposed to take place in the DCU.

[lemonpeace]

Then you kinda have to wonder whats even the point of superheroes and why we are reading their stories if they have no impact on actual issues?

sure, that's one way of looking at it, but I see it more as a teaching moment. ultimately, I believe the point of this series is that despite these horrific things and despite maybe not being as good at dealing with these things as we could be, we can do better and find heroism in whatever form and from whatever walk of life. the Atlanta murders may not have been solved as fast as it could've or by superheroes, but ultimately they did stop him. we read these stories because ultimately be believe in their heroism, in spite of their shortcomings, because at their core the good guys always at least try to do the right thing.

[John Venus]

The story is told from Karen and Mal's point of view and it's made clear that they are not omniscient narrators. They don't have all the facts and their own biases colour their perspective.

As we saw with Superman, their initial read on him was incomplete and there was more depth to him than they previously thought. Ridley doesn't have to add a disclaimer for the Atlanta murders, 'oh the heroes were busy, this and that', the narrative is set up in a way that we can come to those conclusions ourselves. We are meant to empathize with Karen's uncertainty. Maybe the heroes were busy and they couldn't be everywhere, maybe some of them did investigate but turned up nothing, maybe they did have blind spot or an unconscious bias, it could have been any number of reasons. Personally, I think leaving that gap for us to fill in ourselves makes it a stronger story.

The Roy stuff was Karen recalling events that she heard second hand. Of course she is going to be angry on behalf of her husband whether Roy apologized or not. Again, it is her perspective. It's not just a look at how these heroes processed all the events happening around them but it also comes with strong emotions and yes bias.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

The story is told from Karen and Mal's point of view and it's made clear that they are not omniscient narrators. They don't have all the facts and their own biases colour their perspective.

As we saw with Superman, their initial read on him was incomplete and there was more depth to him than they previously thought. Ridley doesn't have to add a disclaimer for the Atlanta murders, 'oh the heroes were busy, this and that', the narrative is set up in a way that we can come to those conclusions ourselves. We are meant to empathize with Karen's uncertainty. Maybe the heroes were busy and they couldn't be everywhere, maybe some of them did investigate but turned up nothing, maybe they did have blind spot or an unconscious bias, it could have been any number of reasons. Personally, I think leaving that gap for us to fill in ourselves makes it a stronger story.

The Roy stuff was Karen recalling events that she heard second hand. Of course she is going to be angry on behalf of her husband whether Roy apologized or not. Again, it is her perspective. It's not just a look at how these heroes processed all the events happening around them but it also comes with strong emotions and yes bias.

All this would work for me if the accusation weren’t so damning towards characters we’re supposed to view as heroes. They can be flawed, just as Jefferson, Mal, and Karen were also depicted as being, but having them accuse the JLA of completely ignoring a murder spree that stretched over years without following that up to show how there’s more to the story, like Ridley did with Jefferson’s opinions towards John, breaks the story for me.

Hell, even if the Atlanta murders are being used as a metaphor for the systematic failures that allowed it to stretch on for so long, it doesn’t work because the FBI had over a hundred agents working on this case. Why not show that the JLA did eventually pay attention to the Atlanta murders, but, like the FBI, took far to long to pay attention to it. As written, it sounds like the JLA just sat on their hands and nothing is said or implied to show that this was off base.

[bat39]

The story is told from Karen and Mal's point of view and it's made clear that they are not omniscient narrators. They don't have all the facts and their own biases colour their perspective.

As we saw with Superman, their initial read on him was incomplete and there was more depth to him than they previously thought. Ridley doesn't have to add a disclaimer for the Atlanta murders, 'oh the heroes were busy, this and that', the narrative is set up in a way that we can come to those conclusions ourselves. We are meant to empathize with Karen's uncertainty. Maybe the heroes were busy and they couldn't be everywhere, maybe some of them did investigate but turned up nothing, maybe they did have blind spot or an unconscious bias, it could have been any number of reasons. Personally, I think leaving that gap for us to fill in ourselves makes it a stronger story.

While I kinda get what you mean, the one crucial difference between this and the Iran hostage crisis example from the previous issue is that in the case of the latter, Jeff himself provides some semi-plausible explanations for why the League wouldn't have got involved...even if he doesn't agree with those explanations himself. Here, Karen doesn't give the League the benefit of the doubt at all. It's a minor point...but it makes all the difference.

I suppose one can argue that Jeff simply had a more balanced attitude towards the other heroes than Mal and Karen did I mean, you have Jeff being a lot more understanding of John Stewart and Superman and even Vixen, after initially judging them. In this issue, I think Karen feeling sorry for Superman after Kara dies is about the only time one of them really admits that maybe they judged the other heroes too harshly.