Why is there all this hate for Identity Crisis?

[DrNewGod]

From what I remember it was reasonably well-liked around the time it came out, but over time the negative aspects and criticism came to the forefront, especially as the entire DC universe became darker as a result of that story.

Funny, as I remember it, the buzz was hugely negative even at the time. Different perceptions I guess.

I remember a lot of interest in the run-up to it, including a lot of excitement about the writer. As I recall it, it didn't take long for a rumble of "WTF is this?!?" to mount into a roar after it's release.

[Jim Kelly]

For people who already formed attachments to these characters, it was off-putting. If you're not familiar with the characters, then I guess you wouldn't feel anything about it. However, surely they wanted the audience to have some attachment so they would have a strong reaction.

I have the book GIVE OUR REGARDS TO THE THE ATOMSMASHERS: WRITERS ON COMICS (2004) with a chapter by Brad Meltzer, "How I Spent My Summer Vacation with the Judas Contract." In that he writes his admiration for how Wolfman and Perez set up Terra and sucked him in as a reader, where he cared about the character, and his intense reaction to what happened to her.

It seems to me that he was trying to do that in IDENTITY CRISIS, but he took a short cut. If he had put in the time to set up a character of his own creation and then paid that off with some sort of reversal of fortune, then he'd be playing by the rules that Marv and George used for their story. Instead, he was counting on the set up of the characters from all the writers of the previous four decades and then reversing their fortunes.

[Hol]

I remember being on the edge of my seat each month. Re-reading the prior months issue a few times before the next one came out. (also re-reading many times after it concluded over the years.)

I thought Meltzer really got the voices to these characters. Especially Wally, Ollie, Carter and Dinah. That is probably my favorite part of IDC and all of Meltzers work honestly. Loved how Wally stood up to Oliver and crew.
I thought the overall plot was really good but not without flaws...but I feel like most stories are flawed.
I think issue #5 with Bruce and Tim racing to rescue Jack Drake was so intense. My stomach dropped when they couldn't get a hold of Wally to save him.
Rags art was amazing.

I don't mind that Jean was made crazy. I had no attachment to her and most of the stories I read with her she was a pretty terrible to begin with. (Sword of the Atom, Power of the Atom)
I also like a darker take on characters sometimes. NOT all the time but I enjoyed it here. I don't like the doom and gloom on a regular basis but once in a while it is ok.

It wasn't a gateway for me. I have been reading DC since 1985.

Different strokes for different folks. I was just curious because, like I said, I had a very different perception of how this series was perceived.

[caj]

For people who already formed attachments to these characters, it was off-putting. If you're not familiar with the characters, then I guess you wouldn't feel anything about it. However, surely they wanted the audience to have some attachment so they would have a strong reaction.

I have the book GIVE OUR REGARDS TO THE THE ATOMSMASHERS: WRITERS ON COMICS (2004) with a chapter by Brad Meltzer, "How I Spent My Summer Vacation with the Judas Contract." In that he writes his admiration for how Wolfman and Perez set up Terra and sucked him in as a reader, where he cared about the character, and his intense reaction to what happened to her.

It seems to me that he was trying to do that in IDENTITY CRISIS, but he took a short cut. If he had put in the time to set up a character of his own creation and then paid that off with some sort of reversal of fortune, then he'd be playing by the rules that Marv and George used for their story. Instead, he was counting on the set up of the characters from all the writers of the previous four decades and then reversing their fortunes.

Great post, Jim.

[Dr. Ellingham]

From what I remember it was reasonably well-liked around the time it came out

Yes, it garnered a huge amount of buzz, and generated both controversy and acclaim. There's a CBR recap article from 2005 that covers the origin of it, and the reaction to it:

The mainstream media spotlight on "Identity Crisis" was explosive. The series was written up in many newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Entertainment Weekly, Spin magazine, the New York Post and even the in-flight magazine for Southwest Airlines.

It was one of the first DC/Marvel comics to garner that kind of publicity / interest in non-nerd media.

But certainly - a fair segment of fans disliked the dark tone, the mindwipes, and the sexual assault - and the "tainting" of the satellite JLAers. I can understand all those complaints. But it's also a heartbreaking, emotional story with lots of great moments as well. It's my favorite of Meltzer's DC work; it's even better than his short Green Arrow run.

The audience that most disliked it, ironically, was the longtime comic fans online. That's where most of the criticism was to be found.

[Vordan]

It is still very well liked just not by the online comic community. It’s fanbase is in the casual readers who picked it up and were intrigued by all the serious topics like rape, betrayal, etc. Personally the first time I read it I enjoyed it because I didn’t know anything about the characters, so for me this was my first intro to guys like Elongated Man. Batman getting mind wiped was a “holy ****” moment for me that shocked. I’ve only soured on it as I read more and more DC.

[Tzigone]

Personally the first time I read it I enjoyed it because I didn’t know anything about the characters, so for me this was my first intro to guys like Elongated Man.

For me, that's another way it's much like Heroes in Crisis. Non-fans will think wow at the "serious issues" (quotation marks because the very unrealistic depictions) and the shocking events. Wins awards. But people who know and care about the characters are more likely call bull and hate it. For me, the most important thing is that characters be in-character, and if they have to be changed to suit the plot, it's a bad story. Meanwhile others (even some who very much know the characters) just don't care if it's at all consistent with prior characterizations and can still think it a great story even if it isn't. Like HiC - the story was decided on and then editorial decides which characters can be used - of course it makes no sense with prior behavior.

Doesn't help that I really don't like "dark." That is not a selling point for with me. Not that I don't enjoy serious stories, but serious and dark aren't the same thing. But if the first thing you have to say about me is that I should watch/read something because it's totally "dark" then I'm probably not interested. For a lot of people, "dark" is a synonym for "good", and it isn't to me. I'm not saying dark can't be good, but being dark doesn't make something good. And I don't have a personal preference for dark, even if it objectively well-done. In small, occasional doses, sure, but not big and not frequent. And I like happy endings. And good characters not being crapped on and made bad people - again, with my own biases, I especially dislike it when it's done to validate or glorify Batman at the expense of other heroes' competence or morality. It's just happened too many times (especially the competence one).

[Hol]

For me, that's another way it's much like Heroes in Crisis. Non-fans will think wow at the "serious issues" (quotation marks because the very unrealistic depictions) and the shocking events. Wins awards. But people who know and care about the characters are more likely call bull and hate it. For me, the most important thing is that characters be in-character, and if they have to be changed to suit the plot, it's a bad story. Meanwhile others (even some who very much know the characters) just don't care if it's at all consistent with prior characterizations and can still think it a great story even if it isn't. Like HiC - the story was decided on and then editorial decides which characters can be used - of course it makes no sense with prior behavior.

Doesn't help that I really don't like "dark." That is not a selling point for with me. Not that I don't enjoy serious stories, but serious and dark aren't the same thing. But if the first thing you have to say about me is that I should watch/read something because it's totally "dark" then I'm probably not interested. For a lot of people, "dark" is a synonym for "good", and it isn't to me. I'm not saying dark can't be good, but being dark doesn't make something good. And I don't have a personal preference for dark, even if it objectively well-done. In small, occasional doses, sure, but not big and not frequent. And I like happy endings. And good characters not being crapped on and made bad people - again, with my own biases, I especially dislike it when it's done to validate or glorify Batman at the expense of other heroes' competence or morality. It's just happened too many times (especially the competence one).

It is interesting that I agree with everything you say here. 100%. I just happen to think the characters in IDC were acting in character.

But yeah HIC? Not even close. Especially Wally. And the plot didn't even make sense.

Some people like to equate dark with quality though. I really dislike the Joker movie. I don't think it is well done and I don't think he ever becomes the Joker. I don't get why the movie gets so much love. I was explaining this to someone and they dismissed my opinion because I love most of the Marvel movies which they consider to be bubble gum/light hearted movies. I also do not think just because something is dark that it means its good.

[DrNewGod]

For people who already formed attachments to these characters, it was off-putting. If you're not familiar with the characters, then I guess you wouldn't feel anything about it. However, surely they wanted the audience to have some attachment so they would have a strong reaction.

I have the book GIVE OUR REGARDS TO THE THE ATOMSMASHERS: WRITERS ON COMICS (2004) with a chapter by Brad Meltzer, "How I Spent My Summer Vacation with the Judas Contract." In that he writes his admiration for how Wolfman and Perez set up Terra and sucked him in as a reader, where he cared about the character, and his intense reaction to what happened to her.

It seems to me that he was trying to do that in IDENTITY CRISIS, but he took a short cut. If he had put in the time to set up a character of his own creation and then paid that off with some sort of reversal of fortune, then he'd be playing by the rules that Marv and George used for their story. Instead, he was counting on the set up of the characters from all the writers of the previous four decades and then reversing their fortunes.

That's a good observation Jim. Also, didn't IDC come out in the same era when a lot of pushback on Fridging was surfacing?

[achilles]

For me, that's another way it's much like Heroes in Crisis. Non-fans will think wow at the "serious issues" (quotation marks because the very unrealistic depictions) and the shocking events. Wins awards. But people who know and care about the characters are more likely call bull and hate it. For me, the most important thing is that characters be in-character, and if they have to be changed to suit the plot, it's a bad story. Meanwhile others (even some who very much know the characters) just don't care if it's at all consistent with prior characterizations and can still think it a great story even if it isn't. Like HiC - the story was decided on and then editorial decides which characters can be used - of course it makes no sense with prior behavior.

Doesn't help that I really don't like "dark." That is not a selling point for with me. Not that I don't enjoy serious stories, but serious and dark aren't the same thing. But if the first thing you have to say about me is that I should watch/read something because it's totally "dark" then I'm probably not interested. For a lot of people, "dark" is a synonym for "good", and it isn't to me. I'm not saying dark can't be good, but being dark doesn't make something good. And I don't have a personal preference for dark, even if it objectively well-done. In small, occasional doses, sure, but not big and not frequent. And I like happy endings. And good characters not being crapped on and made bad people - again, with my own biases, I especially dislike it when it's done to validate or glorify Batman at the expense of other heroes' competence or morality. It's just happened too many times (especially the competence one).

This. You can get away with dark stories with fans...so long as you don't wildly change the characters, (and this one did that to a lot of characters), just to suit your story. Really, IC did damage to most of the characters involved, some of which persists to this day, and it did that damage just in the hope of a one story pay-off, which since Meltzer didn't pull it off, didn't even happen. It's hard to pin down just one thing that was wrong with this story, a whole lot was...but yeah, I can see if you came to it with little to no knowledge of the characters involved, you wouldn't hate it as much as if you came in as a knowledgeable fan.

[Tzigone]

It is interesting that I agree with everything you say here. 100%. I just happen to think the characters in IDC were acting in character.

I simply cannot remotely agree they were in character. There's nothing in the bronze age JL that would have them do such a thing to Batman, IMO, and nothing that would make him less likely to brainwash a person than they would. Plus, Jean...no. Her insanity had specific, physical causes, and her motivation didn't even make sense (which gets handwaved away because of "crazy").

[achilles]

That's a good observation Jim. Also, didn't IDC come out in the same era when a lot of pushback on Fridging was surfacing?

It did indeed, and it hurt this story a great deal, and deservedly so. Fridging in spirit if not the actual thing was a big part of the story when really it didn't have to be. IMO it was a shock value story that didn't work.

[Hol]

I simply cannot remotely agree they were in character. There's nothing in the bronze age JL that would have them do such a thing to Batman, IMO, and nothing that would make him less likely to brainwash a person than they would. Plus, Jean...no. Her insanity had specific, physical causes, and her motivation didn't even make sense (which gets handwaved away because of "crazy").

Well I know the story was based on the bronze age league BUT it is more of the post Crisis version of them and not the original version. These characters all changed post Crisis. Hawkman is literally a different version of the character. So I feel like the Johns Hawkman is depicted in IDC, the Grell/Smith/Meltzer Ollie is depicted and that was certainly the post Crisis Wally West there. (Barry is hard to say because he really wasn't written modern much until Flash Rebirth (Ugh).

In my opinion these characters acted well in line of their post Crisis versions...but I hear what you're saying in regards to the original Bronze Age books. I read tons of pre Crisis stuff but my heart lies from 1986 to 2010.

[Hol]

Oh and I don't know much about Jean Loring (with the exception of her in Power of the Atom and Sword of the Atom) so I have no connection to her or what was done. She is more blank slate to me.

[Tzigone]

Oh and I don't know much about Jean Loring (with the exception of her in Power of the Atom and Sword of the Atom) so I have no connection to her or what was done. She is more blank slate to me.

It's been an age, but I recall that her original insanity was caused because she was kidnapped and exposed to a specific kind of radiation to make her insane. She got healed. But her being a blank slate to you is exactly like people who go into HiC with a blank-slate for Wally.

Well I know the story was based on the bronze age league BUT it is more of the post Crisis version of them and not the original version. These characters all changed post Crisis. Hawkman is literally a different version of the character. So I feel like the Johns Hawkman is depicted in IDC, the Grell/Smith/Meltzer Ollie is depicted and that was certainly the post Crisis Wally West there. (Barry is hard to say because he really wasn't written modern much until Flash Rebirth (Ugh).

The story they tied it to was such a nice story for folks like me (who liked Ollie back before he became a terrible person). Very good story. Hate that it go trashed with IC. I also don't see anything in post-COIE versions of many of these characters that would make them mindwipe Bruce. And wasn't Post-COIE Bruce okay with mind-wiping white martians in one story? I haven't read that one, but I have heard that.

Also, did we see someone else's hands gagging Jean? I've read that, but am not going to look at the issue to check. If so, that's pretty big cheat and unfair to an audience trying to solve a mystery.

Here is someone else's takeDon't agree with all of it, but definitely agree with some.