The Heroes in Crisis Murder Mystery *SPOILERS AHOY*

[Bored at 3:00AM]

1: The obvious, is because we read the story. The story told us those deaths were real. Keep it in the context of "why did Wally do/not do X or Y" within the story as presented, and not whether you would have written a completely different story using similar elements.
2: It would not make sense. Where were the real people while the bodies were being discovered, and why would Wally fake their deaths (that is, Wally was still doing the stuff he needed to do so he faked his death to throw everyone off suspecting him)

The story also told us Wally was dead. And then it was revealed that he wasn't because that body was actually a clone.

All that's required is for Booster (who can time travel) and Wally (who is the fastest man alive) to swap out the victims of Santuary with clones at super-speed the moment before Wally's fatal Speed Force explosion, then travel back to the present with them after the events of HiC.

If any of the other convoluted plot machinations of HiC are plausible, why not that?

[cranger]

The story also told us Wally was dead. And then it was revealed that he wasn't because that body was actually a clone.

All that's required is for Booster (who can time travel) and Wally (who is the fastest man alive) to swap out the victims of Santuary with clones at super-speed the moment before Wally's fatal Speed Force explosion, then travel back to the present with them after the events of HiC.

If any of the other convoluted plot machinations of HiC are plausible, why not that?

Well getting a fake corpse to plant is quite simple but at the same time it is implied that they have to break in somewhere to do it. Getting clones of all those other people and swapping them out right at the exact moment Wally is going off and making it so Wally never notices is hard. It has to be done in a way that does not in any way change Wally or anyone else's actions due to the event. In story, from the character's perception, I don't even know if what you are proposing is even reasonable in the moment. When someone kills a bunch of people, do they stop and think "hey, maybe I didn't actually kill them, maybe my future self swapped them out with clones."

And, while King could have decided to go that route and tweaked the story for it to work, it is not the story he told.

I really don't want to go off on a tangent though so that is all I will contribute with regards to changing the story.

My original comment was with regards to the question of why Wally could 'change his death' and not risk a Flashpoint, and the answer was that he never had a death to change since it was always a corpse. Not that we as readers knew it was, but it was revealed to be so. Purely from understanding why Wally did something, not asking why didn't King write something different.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Well getting a fake corpse to plant is quite simple but at the same time it is implied that they have to break in somewhere to do it. Getting clones of all those other people and swapping them out right at the exact moment Wally is going off and making it so Wally never notices is hard. It has to be done in a way that does not in any way change Wally or anyone else's actions due to the event. In story, from the character's perception, I don't even know if what you are proposing is even reasonable in the moment. When someone kills a bunch of people, do they stop and think "hey, maybe I didn't actually kill them, maybe my future self swapped them out with clones."

And, while King could have decided to go that route and tweaked the story for it to work, it is not the story he told.

I really don't want to go off on a tangent though so that is all I will contribute with regards to changing the story.

My original comment was with regards to the question of why Wally could 'change his death' and not risk a Flashpoint, and the answer was that he never had a death to change since it was always a corpse. Not that we as readers knew it was, but it was revealed to be so. Purely from understanding why Wally did something, not asking why didn't King write something different.

I understand that the story is the story, but what my student was pointing out is a pretty logical plot hole.

Would it have been difficult to break into whatever 25th Century place was making clones and swap everyone out fast enough that Wally wouldn't notice? Yeah. So was all the stuff Wally was shown doing in the actual story. But it's certainly no more or less plausible than anything else the readers are expected to buy.

[cranger]

I understand that the story is the story, but what my student was pointing out is a pretty logical plot hole.

Would it have been difficult to break into whatever 25th Century place was making clones and swap everyone out fast enough that Wally wouldn't notice? Yeah. So was all the stuff Wally was shown doing in the actual story. But it's certainly no more or less plausible than anything else the readers are expected to buy.

Except Wally is doing all of that with no witnesses, although I agree the extent of the frame job is a little over the top.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Except Wally is doing all of that with no witnesses, although I agree the extent of the frame job is a little over the top.

He's the fastest man alive trying to save the lives of his friends and fix his greatest regret.

I think Wally could pull it off

That's what superheroes are all about. Doing the impossible to save the day.

[kjn]

They didn't like it. They were confused by how it ended. They didn't get it. It didn't make any sense to them. Like myself, they were expecting it to be some kind of trick or fakeout, but then it wasn't and it just ended. They weren't too angry or upset, but they weren't satisfied. It just didn't work for them.

Now, I find Heroes in Crisis interesting, but that's largely because of its flaws. There are good ideas in there, and it tries to work with stuff that's important, but then it fell apart. I think it'd make a great workshop or interview question for a comics editor, especially if presented in outline format: point out one or more problems with the narrative, and give proposals on how they could or should be handled better.

Now, there are lots of classic works that were badly received at publication, but that turned out to be long-lasting gems. But I really doubt Heroes in Crisis will turn out to be something like that. Its flaws aren't matter of aesthetics or being different. Some might be a matter of taste, but the more fundamental ones are not. Some are also falling on the tail end of narrative devices that are facing heavy criticism and are on the way of being phased out.

I wrote a long post about the (lack of) theme earlier, and that's I think still valid even with the last issue.

The way it was marketed as a murder mystery, but it was most assuredly not written as one. Now, that's partly a marketing thing, but it's something that editors need to think about. And having any form of mystery plot (which it had; it just didn't use it to drive the narrative) when you introduce both VR and time travel is simply a bad idea. Both VR and time travel breaks narration and causality and the normal writer–reader contract to such a degree that they must be at the centre of the narrative if they are to function, not add-ons at the conclusion. That's something that science fiction writers grok, so I don't understand why DC missed that here—remember that early science fiction fans had a huge impact on DC for a long time. I really don't think it's because writing and editing comics is for those writers and editors who couldn't cut it in the science fiction field.

The fridging of Poison Ivy, and the way she became "better" by being killed and then saved by a man. That's not only totally tone deaf, it also goes against the very theme and development of the character during the last 30 or so years. Now, to me it's rather clear that King has no idea on how to write women, but this one picked up some of the most pandering and damaging themes of patriarchy around.

Then there are the sheer number of stuff that's hinted at but simply dropped. Not acknowledged, but simply dropped. The reaction from the larger superhero community to what is effectively a mass shooting. The way the narrative humanises the perpetrator but anonymises the victims. The ethics of publishing and the act of making all those private medical recordings public. What Wally attempted to do, or did, during those five days.

I think it's telling that for a veteran reader many of those issues were apparent rather early on, but it wasn't until you reached the end that novice readers could get that there was something hollow here.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Now, I find Heroes in Crisis interesting, but that's largely because of its flaws. There are good ideas in there, and it tries to work with stuff that's important, but then it fell apart. I think it'd make a great workshop or interview question for a comics editor, especially if presented in outline format: point out one or more problems with the narrative, and give proposals on how they could or should be handled better.

Now, there are lots of classic works that were badly received at publication, but that turned out to be long-lasting gems. But I really doubt Heroes in Crisis will turn out to be something like that. Its flaws aren't matter of aesthetics or being different. Some might be a matter of taste, but the more fundamental ones are not. Some are also falling on the tail end of narrative devices that are facing heavy criticism and are on the way of being phased out.

I wrote a long post about the (lack of) theme earlier, and that's I think still valid even with the last issue.

The way it was marketed as a murder mystery, but it was most assuredly not written as one. Now, that's partly a marketing thing, but it's something that editors need to think about. And having any form of mystery plot (which it had; it just didn't use it to drive the narrative) when you introduce both VR and time travel is simply a bad idea. Both VR and time travel breaks narration and causality and the normal writer–reader contract to such a degree that they must be at the centre of the narrative if they are to function, not add-ons at the conclusion. That's something that science fiction writers grok, so I don't understand why DC missed that here—remember that early science fiction fans had a huge impact on DC for a long time. I really don't think it's because writing and editing comics is for those writers and editors who couldn't cut it in the science fiction field.

The fridging of Poison Ivy, and the way she became "better" by being killed and then saved by a man. That's not only totally tone deaf, it also goes against the very theme and development of the character during the last 30 or so years. Now, to me it's rather clear that King has no idea on how to write women, but this one picked up some of the most pandering and damaging themes of patriarchy around.

Then there are the sheer number of stuff that's hinted at but simply dropped. Not acknowledged, but simply dropped. The reaction from the larger superhero community to what is effectively a mass shooting. The way the narrative humanises the perpetrator but anonymises the victims. The ethics of publishing and the act of making all those private medical recordings public. What Wally attempted to do, or did, during those five days.

I think it's telling that for a veteran reader many of those issues were apparent rather early on, but it wasn't until you reached the end that novice readers could get that there was something hollow here.

It will be interesting to hear what King has to say the next time he's on Word Balloon, where he's generally pretty candid about criticism of his work. When he thinks he screwed up, he owns it.

[Lirica]

Now, I find Heroes in Crisis interesting, but that's largely because of its flaws. There are good ideas in there, and it tries to work with stuff that's important, but then it fell apart. I think it'd make a great workshop or interview question for a comics editor, especially if presented in outline format: point out one or more problems with the narrative, and give proposals on how they could or should be handled better.

Now, there are lots of classic works that were badly received at publication, but that turned out to be long-lasting gems. But I really doubt Heroes in Crisis will turn out to be something like that. Its flaws aren't matter of aesthetics or being different. Some might be a matter of taste, but the more fundamental ones are not. Some are also falling on the tail end of narrative devices that are facing heavy criticism and are on the way of being phased out.

I wrote a long post about the (lack of) theme earlier, and that's I think still valid even with the last issue.

The way it was marketed as a murder mystery, but it was most assuredly not written as one. Now, that's partly a marketing thing, but it's something that editors need to think about. And having any form of mystery plot (which it had; it just didn't use it to drive the narrative) when you introduce both VR and time travel is simply a bad idea. Both VR and time travel breaks narration and causality and the normal writer–reader contract to such a degree that they must be at the centre of the narrative if they are to function, not add-ons at the conclusion. That's something that science fiction writers grok, so I don't understand why DC missed that here—remember that early science fiction fans had a huge impact on DC for a long time. I really don't think it's because writing and editing comics is for those writers and editors who couldn't cut it in the science fiction field.

The fridging of Poison Ivy, and the way she became "better" by being killed and then saved by a man. That's not only totally tone deaf, it also goes against the very theme and development of the character during the last 30 or so years. Now, to me it's rather clear that King has no idea on how to write women, but this one picked up some of the most pandering and damaging themes of patriarchy around.

Then there are the sheer number of stuff that's hinted at but simply dropped. Not acknowledged, but simply dropped. The reaction from the larger superhero community to what is effectively a mass shooting. The way the narrative humanises the perpetrator but anonymises the victims. The ethics of publishing and the act of making all those private medical recordings public. What Wally attempted to do, or did, during those five days.

I think it's telling that for a veteran reader many of those issues were apparent rather early on, but it wasn't until you reached the end that novice readers could get that there was something hollow here.

This is a good post. Definitely puts to words a lot of the problems I had with the series.

I'm also glad you brought up the mystery aspect and the introduction of VR and time travel to it because yeah it's pretty confusing. Even though we now know that HiC #3 and #6 were VR simulations meant to have BG/HQ see HQ/BG 'kill' Wally, it still feels like there's a lot more questions about it. Like when we got Lagoon Boy's perspective and death. Did the readers just see that or did BG see it too? If so, what would make him think that was Harley too? Maybe it's a simple answer, but still lol

[cranger]

This is a good post. Definitely puts to words a lot of the problems I had with the series.

I'm also glad you brought up the mystery aspect and the introduction of VR and time travel to it because yeah it's pretty confusing. Even though we now know that HiC #3 and #6 were VR simulations meant to have BG/HQ see HQ/BG 'kill' Wally, it still feels like there's a lot more questions about it. Like when we got Lagoon Boy's perspective and death. Did the readers just see that or did BG see it too? If so, what would make him think that was Harley too? Maybe it's a simple answer, but still lol

Lagoon Boy is killed by a sharp stick similar to what we see when Harley's hammer breaks in a later issue. It would have been better for the reader if it was explicit that BG saw that, as all we get made clear is that BG sees HQ kill Wally and HQ has some reason to think BG killed everyone. And if that was just some part of the VR that was out of sight of BG/HQ then the reader should not have seen it either.

[Frontier]

The fridging of Poison Ivy, and the way she became "better" by being killed and then saved by a man. That's not only totally tone deaf, it also goes against the very theme and development of the character during the last 30 or so years. Now, to me it's rather clear that King has no idea on how to write women, but this one picked up some of the most pandering and damaging themes of patriarchy around.

King has said he puts himself in the characters he writes, but I always imagine he puts his wife into the female characters he writes (for better or worse).

[Cowtools]

Both VR and time travel breaks narration and causality and the normal writer–reader contract to such a degree that they must be at the centre of the narrative if they are to function, not add-ons at the conclusion. That's something that science fiction writers grok, so I don't understand why DC missed that here

Nice use of 'Grok'

[kjn]

Nice use of 'Grok'

Thanks. It's nice that the use of old fhaaanish (okay, probably middle fhaaanish) is still recognised and appreciated among some fen here; I guess there are more readers of an stfnal bent around. Hopefully even some who recognise the reality of fanac, the hope of egoboo, and the promise of bheer.

[Franny6422]

Didn't want to start a new thread but have a question relating to 'HiC.' For those who state they think it is terrible (for whatever reason) if further down the line it is revealed Wally was indeed possessed/framed/infected, would you then go back and purchase, if you haven't already?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Didn't want to start a new thread but have a question relating to 'HiC.' For those who state they think it is terrible (for whatever reason) if further down the line it is revealed Wally was indeed possessed/framed/infected, would you then go back and purchase, if you haven't already?

In the same way that the later retcon they added to Joan Loring being manipulated by Eclipso didn't make the flaws of Identity Crisis disappear, explaining away Wally West's actions won't fix the flaws of Heroes in Crisis for me because a good story has to stand on its own, even in the context of a shared superhero continuity.

That said, it certainly makes those stories existence within that continuity much more palatable. Emerald Twilight is still a rushed and unsatisfactory story for Hal Jordan fans with the later retcons, but now that crappy story can be used as a stepping stone for a much better and more successful story like Sinestro Corps War.

But I still wouldn't really recommend anyone buy Emerald Twilight or Heroes in Crisis, despite both having some cool stuff in them.

[kjn]

Didn't want to start a new thread but have a question relating to 'HiC.' For those who state they think it is terrible (for whatever reason) if further down the line it is revealed Wally was indeed possessed/framed/infected, would you then go back and purchase, if you haven't already?

That is a solution to a part of the situation—Wally in prison—but it doesn't fix the story nor all the other dead heroes. Even if you go all "it was all a simulation" or otherwise wave all your hands a lot to stitch away the story in its entirety it's not a good solution to the issues here.

First, DC still has published a poor story.

Second, it doesn't wipe away the negative feelings that fen of Wally, Roy Harper, Poison Ivy, and the rest of the dead or poorly characterised heroes has experienced. It is far more likely that it will be received as the equivalent of a horribly prejudiced joke immediately followed by "just kidding". The negative feelings will still be there, and are not magically made OK.

Third, it continues with the issues of the writer–reader contract that already are strained in today's world of comics: the pretence that what is read in the story is real for the characters. That's a huge part for why time travel and VR stories needs to be approached with care, and why "it was all a dream" endings are widely regarded as a copout.

So why should someone go back and read a poor story that handles a character they like poorly when that story has even been annulled by later developments?