Monday, July 06, 2026
Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen by Jack Kirby: Book Review
Sunday, May 31, 2026
Superman: Exile: Book Review
Wednesday, May 27, 2026
Superman: The Triangle Era Omnibus Vol. 1: Book Review
Friday, January 23, 2026
Superman (2025 film)--Movies that I've Half-Watched
Thursday, February 29, 2024
Superman: Reign of the Supermen: Book Review
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Superman: Funeral for a Friend: Book Review
Saturday, September 03, 2022
Thursday, March 04, 2021
As long as I'm breaking my own rules by posting about random stuff, here is a link from cracked.com:
4 Ways 'Death Of Superman' (Accidentally) Changed Pop Culture
In particular, I found myself identifying with point number 1:
It Created A Whole New Generation Of Obsessive Readers
To quote from the article:
The story starts with Superman fighting a bunch of sewer mutants created by a secret genetic experimentation facility who had teamed up with some alien warriors that got stranded on Earth during a recent invasion and now planned to take over Metropolis. None of this has anything to do with Superman's death. In fact, everything in this comic seems specifically designed to stump anyone who only knows Superman from TV or the movies. Why is Lex Luthor a red-haired young Fabio with an Australian accent? Why does Supergirl turn into putty upon being punched?
...yep, yep, yep, that describes me perfectly. I remember being confused by all of these things when I first picked up this comic collection.
The article continues:
To a lot of readers, these and more details are just frustrating -- but to hundreds of thousands of others, they were endlessly fascinating.
Yes, again, that was me. The Death of Superman was my first entry into DC comics, and I was fascinated to discover how many plot threads were running around in the background. I had no idea what was happening, mind you, but this kind of story-telling fascinated me and I wanted to know more. The article continues:
Unlike other famous comics like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, the overall "Death" saga didn't exist in a vacuum -- it was the nexus point for years of plotlines. The current Superman continuity (which had started in 1986) was secretly one big, messy story, and if you dug through the older issues, you could put the puzzle together and see how it all fit by yourself.
...well, yeah, that's what you had to do in the 1990s. Nowadays, of course, you'd just go straight to Wikipedia to find out what is going on. But back then, there was no Wikipedia, so you'd just have to go back to the comic book store and find the back issues. And gradually, the more comic books you found, the more the pieces of the puzzle started to fit together.
...but of course, nowadays we have Wikipedia. And so, from Wikipedia, I've learned that most of the Superman plotlines that fascinated me in the 1990s were actually leftover from the Jack Kirby's run on Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen in the 1970s. (The back issues in my local comic book store seldom went back as far as the 1970s, so this is something that I would have never known if it weren't for Wikipedia.)
...but I know it now. In fact, a few years ago, I wrote a whole blog post on it.
Interesting Random Facts--How Jack Kirby Characters from the 1970s Figured in the Superman Comic books of the Early 1990s
Friday, April 24, 2020
Video version of an old post (as I explained about HERE)
For the original post, see:
http://joelswagman.blogspot.com/2007/07/justice-league-of-america-superman.html
Thursday, May 25, 2017
At some point, we've all heard the complaint. "Superman is the most boring character ever. Why would I want to read about a superhero who's practically invincible?"
It's true. And yet, despite this, Superman has remained popular ever since the 1930s. Which is no easy feat. (Think of all the other pulp fiction heroes from the 1930s and 40s who are no longer marketable today: Tarzan, Dick Tracy, Little Orphan Annie, Flash Gordon, etc, etc, etc.)
So why do people keep reading Superman comic books?
The answer to that question probably changes from decade to decade, but when I was reading Superman comic books, in the early 1990s, I found the supporting cast was more interesting than Superman himself. In fact, the supporting cast was the main reason why I bought Superman comic books when I was a teenager.
Back when I was reading these comic books in the early 1990s, I had no idea where any of these characters came from. (Back in those days, before the Internet and Wikipeda, it was a lot harder to be a geek.)
But in the years since, I've learned their history, and it turns out just about all of the supporting characters from the Superman comic books in the 1990s were created by Jack Kirby in the 1970s.
io9.com tells me that it's Jack Kirby's 100th birthday this year, and that both DC and Marvel have celebrations planned. So after seeing that article, I thought I'd do an interesting random fact on the supporting characters that Jack Kirby created for the Superman series.
Jack Kirby is most famous for having worked with Stan Lee at Marvel, and co-creating most of the iconic Marvel superheroes. (Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, X-Men, Captain America). But in the 1970s, Jack Kirby grew dissatisfied with Marvel, and went over to DC.
At DC, Jack Kirby was given control of several comic books, and allowed to launch his own project which he called The Fourth World (W), which was intended to one big epic story spread out over several comic book titles. ( The Fourth World is another topic in and of itself. See this article: Kirby’s Fourth World Gambit for more information)
As a launching off point for his Fourth World series, Jack Kirby was given control of on of the Superman books, Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen (W).
Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen was at the time one of DC's weakest books, and there are conflicting stories about why this book in particular was given to the great Jack Kirby. One version is that Jack Kirby boasted he could take the worst selling book and single-handedly turn it around into one of the best selling ones. One version is that Jack Kirby requested he be given a weak book so that nobody would lose their job. One version is that this was DC's way of pre-emptively snubbing Kirby and keeping him in his place.
But, once Jack Kirby began his run on Jimmy Olsen, he immediately began packing it full of strange and bizarre characters, starting in issue 113 in October, 1970.
After The Fourth World project was cancelled, these characters largely fell into disuse. But they were brought back into the post-Crisis Superman world in the late 1980s by in Superman Annual 2.
And they remained a staple of the Superman comic book world through the 1990s. (When I got to reading the Superman comics).
By the time I got to reading the Superman comic books in the early 1990s, these characters were all fully integrated into the Superman story-line.
So who were these characters?
Well, first of all keep in mind that Jack Kirby had a tripped out imagination. So all of these characters are incredibly bizarre, and some have convoluted stories.
If you're a certain kind of geek, the fact that these characters are so bizarre and weird just increases the fascination with them.
If you're not....well, then this probably isn't your cup of tea.
Back in the 1940s, Jack Kirby had created a comic book team called "The Guardian and the Newsboy Legion" (W).
The Guardian had no superpowers, but he had a big gold shield that he used to clobber back-guys with--he closely resembled Captain America (who Jack Kirby also created). The Newsboy Legion were a gang of boys newsboys who solved crimes in their spare time.
When Jack Kirby brought these characters back in the 1970s, he had them working at a top secret cloning facility, known simply as The DNA project or "the project".
When this concept was brought back in the 1980s and 1990s, it was renamed Project Cadmus (W). The name comes from the Greek mythological hero Cadmus, who created a race of new men from dragon teeth (W).
By the time of Project Cadmus, the Newsboy Legion are all grown up, and they are now the scientists who are running Cadmus's projects.
But... the younger versions of themselves are still running around Cadmus as well, because the Newsboys cloned themselves. (Actually when Kirby originally re-introduced these characters in the 1970s, the younger newsboys were the sons of the originals. But in the post-Crisis 1980 and 90s, they had been ret-conned into being exact clones of the originals).
There's probably a thin line between a genius idea and a really stupid idea, but when I was 14, I thought this was so bizarre it was cool. You had the adult version of these characters, and kid versions, both appearing in the same comic book. How insanely stupid, and yet incredibly bizarre, was that!
Tonally, the newsboy legion (a bunch of boys running around solving crimes) belonged to a different era of comic books. They came from the era when comic books were a lot more kid friendly in the 1940s, and they were out of place in the dark gritty 1990s. But in a way, that made them all the more bizarre, and all the more interesting. Here was a relic from the 1940s comic book era running around in the Superman comic books of the 1990s.
The Guardian himself (W) was also still around, although he was also a clone of the original (which explained why he wasn't an old man at this point, and could still run around doing superhero stuff).
I always thought the Guardian was really cool as a kid. For one thing, he was essentially just another version of Captain America and his shield, and I always thought Captain America and his shield were really cool. But I also thought it was strange that the Guardian was a superhero in his own right, and yet was stuck as just a supporting character in the Superman comics. That added another element of fascination to the whole thing.
Another Cadmus staff member was Dubbilex (W), who was a mutant creation of Cadmus, and had telepathic powers (Dubbilex was also originally created by Kirby in the 1970s, but featured prominently in the Superman comic books in the 1990s).
Cadmus had a created several mutants known as "D.N.Aliens" (aliens created by mutating DNA) who lived underground in a society called The UnderWorlders. Some of the Underworlders were friendly and helped the good guys, but some of them were violent mutants, and often they would get out of control. (W)
The Underworlders could be violent, but they were also victims of Cadmus's maltreatment, so they could also be sympathetic characters.
The original founder of Cadmus was a mad scientist named Dabney Donovan (originally created by Jack Kirby in the 1970s, and like all the rest of these characters updated again in the 1980s/90). (W) When these characters were re-introduced in the 1980s, Dabney Donovan had been replaced by the US Government, and was in hiding.
By the early 1990s, Dabney Donovan had been replaced by Paul Westfield, an unscrupulous government beauracrat.
Paul Westfield is actually the one person on this list who was not a Kirby creation. Writer Dan Jurgens created Westfield in 1991 (W).
This added a layer of moral ambiguity to Project Cadmus. The Guardian, the Newsboy Legion, and Dubbilex were all good guys, but they were frequently working on morally dubious projects because their boss wasn't always good.
Now that I'm older and a little more sophisticated, I realize this kind of story is pretty cliche, especially in comic books. (Recently Marvel's been doing the same thing with Agents of Shield--good guys stuck inside a corrupt organization). But when I was 14, this seemed like pretty complex stuff, man, and it really fascinated me at the time.
Paul Westfield's himself had some moral complexity to him. Although his character changed from issue to issue (depending on who the writer was) he usually wasn't so much straight up evil as he was Machiavellian. He wanted what was best for the world in the end, he just thought that the ends justified the means.
A perfect example of his character is when we find out that in Vietnam, he had killed his commanding officer in order to save the rest of his men.
Again, from the perspective of adulthood, all of this seems pretty trite and cliche. But this seemed like heady stuff at 14.
In 10th grade, it certainly felt like none of the literature I was reading at school was giving me characters this complex.
Dabney Donovan was always lurking in the shadows planning his revenge on Paul Westfield, which added extra drama to the Superman comics in the early 90s.
Until after years of build-up, one day in 1993 Dabney Donovan finally struck, and that was the end of Paul Westfield.
In Kirby's original version in the 1970s, the Cadmus project was run by a group of super-intelligent hippies known as the Hairies (W)
A faction of the Hairies were a bicycle gang known as the Outsiders,
They lived in a tree house village commune on the outskirts of Metropolis.
These characters were also brought back in the 1980s and 90s. They didn't appear quite as often as The Guardian and Cadmus, but they would show up from time to time in the early 1990s Superman comics.
Like the Newsboy Legion, these characters fascinated me in the 1990s precisely because they were so tonally distant from everything else that was happening. They were a relic from the 1970s, and they were completely out of place in the dark gritty comics of the 1990s. And yet, here they were.
And there were more Kirby characters popping up in Superman comic books in the 1990s: Morgan Edge (W), Intergang (W), Dan Turpin (W), et cetera. But I don't have time to talk about them all, so I think I'll end things here.
One Final Addendum...
Whisky Prajer recently commented about Carl Barks comics that "they're not as much fun to re-read as they are to remember (alas)."
And, alas, I've discovered the same is true with Superman Comic books and the Jack Kirby characters. Or for that matter, most superhero comic books.
About 10 years ago, I actually went through the trouble of special ordering a lot of these comic books by mail, including The Fourth World Ominibus series (W) in which Jack Kirby first debuted these characters.
It was expensive, but I had been feeling a little bit down at the time, and I wanted to treat myself to some escapist entertainment.
I couldn't even finish reading it.
The thing with a lot of comic books is that the concepts and stories are fascinating in the abstract, but the medium is so juvenile that none of the stories really get developed. The pictures are very visually appealing, but there's so much picture that the story doesn't have many lines to get developed. And half of every issue is always taken up by a fight scene.
It catches your imagination when you're 14, definitely. And the general ideas stay in your mind for years afterwards, leaving fond reminiscences of how fun and bizarre those storylines are. But it's a mistake to go back in your 30s and try to read these comic books again.
That warning aside, if anyone does want to risk it, pretty much all of these comics can be read here.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Justice League of America: Superman--The Never-Ending Battle by Roger Stern
(Book Review)Monday, July 03, 2006
Two Different Thoughts
First:
Congress
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain
The Behavior of Congress for the past few weeks has been even more idiotic than usual: debating an amendment to ban flag burning, ban gay marriage, and the problem of violent video games. If you’ve been watching “The Daily Show” lately, they’ve been doing a good job of satirizing this, but I want to add my voice of disgust.
There is apparently a widespread belief in Republican circles that poverty, business regulations, health care, and environment is all the job of the private sector, and it’s the government’s responsibility to regulate what video games you buy and making sure gay people can’t get married, and protect the flag. I just don’t understand this. And I suspect the founding fathers are rolling in their graves. We don’t send these guys to Washington so they can debate about whether or not we have too much liberty. They’ve got more important things to do.
I know I’ve gone on similar rants before, but this is one thing I’ve never understood. As this old Tom Tomorrow cartoon shows, Democrats can sometimes fall into the same fallacy, but the last 6 years have been safely Republican.
Superman Returns
I saw “Superman Returns” the other night with my family.
As with any summer blockbuster movie, this has been getting more than its fair share of ink. (Imagine if we paid that much attention to what Congress was doing!) But I want to throw in my two cents.
I’ve heard a lot of talk lately from certain people about how lame Superman is: how Superman is too powerful so that his adventures not even interesting, or how he is too perfect so that he doesn’t have any of the necessary human faults necessary to sustain human interest.
There’s no doubt that Superman is outdated. You could argue that Batman is cooler because he doesn’t have any superpowers. Or you could say Spider-man is cooler because he has a lot more real life type problems. And you’d be right. But you’d be missing the point.
Superman is the closet thing we have to an American legend; an American equivalent of King Arthur or Joan of Arc or what have you. If you doubt it, just see how much name recognition Davy Crockett or Daniel Boone or whoever have overseas. But people in every country of the world recognize Superman immediately. To say Superman is the most famous comic book character ever would simply be stating the obvious.
To my mind, the Superman story is a lot like the Trojan War. The concepts behind the Trojan War became outdated centuries ago. (A ten year war over a woman?) And yet every generation feels the need to try their hand at retelling it. Remember how excited some of us got when the Troy movie came out?
Superman’s the same way. Sure his story is not 3000 years old, but 70 years is a long time for a comic book character. How many boys today have lunch boxes with “The Lone Ranger” or “Flash Gordon” or “Dick Tracy” etc.
The challenge is in reinventing this American icon for a new generation. Its also part of the fun. Sure, Superman’s godlike abilities make it hard to write a suspenseful story, but it can be done. You just have to pit him against an equally skilled villain, like Doomsday or Lobo, or Brainiac in the comic books. Or you focus on the subplots and relationships instead, like in the TV show “Lois and Clark”.
The point is it can be done. All that being said...
This new Superman movie really sucked eggs. Kevin Spacey was good as Lex Luther, but there was absolutely no plot to speak of. The ending was melodramatic, drawn out, and just symbolic enough to be pretentious. (Pretentiousness is the kiss of death for any comic book adaptation.) Matt Lind has a good post going further into some of this symbolism.
Too much of the movie revolved around Superman flying around or posing against the backdrop of dramatic music. Everyone’s glad to see Superman back on the silver screen, but there’s a limit to what the audience should have to put up with for the sake of nostalgia.
Useless Wikipedia FactThe Beatles' "Revolver" is often cited as one of the greatest albums in pop music history. In 1997 it was named the 3rd greatest album of all time in a 'Music of the Millennium' poll conducted by HMV, Channel 4, The Guardian and Classic FM. In 1998 Q magazine readers placed it at number 2, while in 2001 the TV network VH1 placed it at number 1. Revolver was also voted the best album of all time in the Virgin All Time Top 1,000 Albums . A PopMatters review described the album as "the individual members of the greatest band in the history of pop music peaking at the exact same time", while Ink Blot magazine claims it "stands at the summit of western pop music".
Link of the DayTen Lessons from the Criminalization of Dissent
Superman Returns: Movie Review (Scripted)





























