So, today's question, class -- is this innovation, or lazy writing? Is it new, or is it just different? And, perhaps most important, should it be a first resort, or the absolute last?





*Later still, in NAMOR, I rejuvenated Jackie and the issue became moot.

† MAN OF STEEL was a reboot, which is something else.

Lazy, different, last. I see it as akin to urinating on the stories that were written before. I guess it would also depend on whether or not I liked those past tales though.

Pete

A very important point, in this context. I think at once of those fans who decry retcons, for instance, while fiercely defending retcons that happened before they were readers. The "everything you know is a lie" approach should, if used at all, grow from the internal logic of the work -- Roger Stern's approach when he undid Steve Gerber's totally illogical "life history" of Steve Rogers -- and not merely serve the whim of the latest creative team.

I think that used in moderation, and infrequently, this device can be effective to tell / retell / retool a story. The key would be to use it judiciously, so I would vote for the "absolute last" or close to it resort. A constant turing over of origins or key elements of a character building story would get tiresome but a well written reveal / enhancement can be fun reading.

Onward and upward. 

I'd agree with most of the previous posts - it all depends on how logically the twist is handled and whether or not I liked the previous story.

The Steve Gerber/Roger Stern situation in Captain America that JB mentions is a perfect example. In that case, Stern jettisoned the unnecessary baggage that Gerber had added to the character's origin. Same thing with how J.M. DeMatteis handled the "Snap" Wilson history of the Falcon.

In both cases, these writers provided logical solutions to what I perceived as problems created by previous writers.

Of course, this all is a matter of taste, I suppose. I'm sure there may have been fans who prefered the Gerber version of Cap's origin or fans who liked Steve Englehart's vision of the pimped-out Falcon. 

And on an unrelated note, I would second Ronald's recommendation of Brian Lumley. If you like horror in the Lovecraft tradition, he's a great read. 

The "everything you know is a lie" approach should, if used at all, grow from the internal logic of the work

****

This I think is related to the idea of being faithful to the essential elements of the original concept in as much as a work's internal logic has to start somewhere. In that sense, innovation in line with fundamental character-consistency is always welcome. The original Latin innovare meant "to renew."

I don't necessarily mind these kinds of stories, provided that AT THE END the STATUS QUO is returned...and that the stories aren't done TOO often.

I agree that it is a wee bit, actually, more than a wee bit, lazy to engage in this type of storytelling (and there are those who have made a career out of it!), because it shows a lack of respect for actually doing the research that needs to be done in order for you to do your job as a writer.

Imagine if the close cousins to the comic book, COMIC STRIPS, did this when creative teams changed on classic characters.  The adventure strips would have even LOWER circulation than they have now.  Imagine in every time a new writer/artist took over the PHANTOM and everything we'd known is a lie was the mantra, how readers would FLOCK from such storytelling.

I was re-reading a DICK TRACY collection last night, and in it DIET SMITH is providing Tracy with the newest wrist technology (the Two-Way Wrist Genie).  In the strip, Diet makes mention that Tracy had received the Two-Way Wrist Radio in 1946 and the Two-Way Wrist TV in 1964 (I think I have the years right) and you know what...it didn't matter that when this story was published in 1986 that Tracy would have had to have been pushing 65 (and doesn't look it!) in order to have received the original Two-Way Wrist Radio!  It was almost a throw-away line.  It didn't interfer with the story.  Max Collins and Dick Locher just continued on and told the story at hand.  They didn't have to retcon Tracy into some other place and time to make the "timeline" work.

It was either Denny O'Neil or Dick Giordano who once said, in an interview, that "continuity is a tool", use it when you need it to tell the story at hand.  I wish more people would heed that advice.  I would add one thing to that, though, "do no harm".  No matter what you are doing, you ought not do any harm to the characters and/or the mythos.

MPH

So, today's question, class -- is this innovation, or lazy writing? Is it new, or is it just different? And, perhaps most important, should it be a first resort, or the absolute last?

I think it depends JB.  To this day I think the Alan Moore reinvention of Swamp Thing was one of the most brilliant things I have ever read, as well as Peter David's vision of the Hulk involving Bruce Banner's father and the multiple personalities angle he came up with.

That didn't actually contradict anything we already knew. It shoveled a HUGE set of coincidences in Banner's backstory, but it didn't actually contradict. Thus, something on a different plane from "everything you know is a lie".

I don't think it's a 50/50 could be good, could be bad sort of thing.  I think unless an "everything is a lie" story is told by a really talented writer**, it doesn't work.  It reads to me like taking the easy way out; "Everything you know is a lie, so I'm tossing out 30 years worth of characterization in five pages and here's my work, which is really the truth!" If that's the case, go write your own story with your own characters and write the characters you want to write instead of imposing your will on established characters just so they become more interesting for you to write.

**I'd also add the caveat that it would have to be their story, characters and all, to begin with so that they could lay the groundwork for an "everything you know is a lie" story.

Seems to me that in nearly every case, the internal logic of the characters and such are ignored so as to tell "Good Stories".

Therefore, it is lazy writing, unless the "everything is a lie" approach actually does jive with what has come before, so as to seem like an "Oh, yeah! Now I get it!" moment for the reader (as opposed to the reader saying "What the--?!?!" and getting out the pitchforks and effigies as a result of damage done to their favorite character).

BIRTHRIGHT didn't take the everything you know is a lie route. That was intended more as a re-boot.

Maybe you're thinking of the RETURN TO KRYPTON arc. Reportedly suggested by Walt Simonson, this story said that the Silver Age Krypton was the true Krypton and that the MoS version was a facade.

Wasn't that story done during a period of heavy Silver Age DC nostalgia that seeped into many books?

It always seems to come back to the core concepts. If the "everything you know is a lie" notion wrecks core concepts, then is it really worth doing?

Of course, Lee and Kirby themselves changed the whole Blake/Thor relationship by revealing that "Blake" was a lie!

Seems to me that with reboots piled on retcons which are buried under still more reboots, the characters tend to get buried alive.

The key is going back to the beginning. Lee and Kirby's FF. Lee and Ditko's Spider-Man. Kane and company's Batman. Go back and examine the roots, then find a way to interpret (not reinvent from scratch) those roots for modern audiences, while still being faithful to the original concepts.

What builds a stronger marriage? Fidelity to one's longtime spouse, or a string of hot-but-short flings with vapid supermodels?

Matt Linton wrote: For me, "everything you know is a lie" depends almost entirely on how I feel about the end result.  JB used it (if I remember correctly) to bring Iron Fist back from the dead in Namor and I thought that was brilliant.  Others, like the idea that Donald Blake was just a fictional construct, I don't like, because I feel the book lost something important when Thor no longer had that identity.

Starting with your second point first, Matt, I'd say you were spot on.  Donald Blake's "demotion" may not have been an epic 32-part miniseries with a die-cut cover, but the simple act of making him a non-person sure makes reading those old Thor issues something less than they were.  But I'd have to disagree that bringing back Iron Fist was an EYKIAL, to the extent that Iron Fist was returned but remained Iron Fist, remained Daniel Rand.  To REALLY cock up Iron Fist would be to reveal that he had ALWAYS been a H'ylthri.  Oops, cat's out of the bag.

EDITED: typos

EDITED AGAIN: Horrible mis-abbreviation of thread title.  Next edit planned for 1st quarter 2007.

THOR #159 is the Lee/Kirby "reveal."

If my memory serves, only the first two JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY issues with Thor featured Blake as the "real" person. By the third, the Norse pantheon was already introduced. So, Lee/Kirby gave the lie to their initial concept quite early.

It was the increasing reliance on mythology, however, which got fans wondering where Thor had been all those years, and whether someone else could have inherited his powers, had they but found the hammer (and been worthy). Eventually Stan and Jack answered these questions -- tho not, I feel, as well as might have been hoped. Don Blake as a construct created by Odin took away some of Thor's humanity, and a vital backstory structure.

FOO on my poor, poor mind.

So, was the making of Don Blake "unreal" fan-driven?

<<Reportedly suggested by Walt Simonson, this story said that the Silver
Age Krypton was the true Krypton and that the MoS version was a
facade.>>

I find it hard to believe that idea came from Walt Simonson.

*****************

That was the premise of the storyline but at the end, it was  (spoilers?)

the Silver Age Krypton that was the lie.

Birthright, to me, seems more of a reboot, albeit on a much smaller scale than Man of Steel.   Certain aspects of Superman's past were changed (Krypton, his history with Lex Luthor), while much of the history (like the marriage to Lois) remained the same.  The aspects that did change, though, just replaced the old continuity; there was no attempt to reconcile it with the old continuity.

...which unfortunately led to stories which contradicted previous stories, which then leads to Infinite Crisis, which was supposed to clear up continuity issues, but then leads to 52, which leads to discontinuity with the "one year later" titles, which then...

Glenn Greenberg: Re: Walt Simonson's "Silver Age Krypton"

I don't have it handy to look up at the moment but there's reference to this in the round-table discussion in The Krypton Companion (if anyone has their copy and can quote from the revelant passage please feel free. If I've mis-remembered I'd like to know.).

When did they use  "everything you know is a lie" in Hawkman? After Hawkworld they removed the Silver Age version continuity. (Though I guess the original plan for that series might qualify) Then used reconns to explain who that guy with wings in JLA was. Currently Hawkman is the Golden Age version and the Hawkworld version is dead.

EYKIAL is simply a tool, and while it shouldn't be the FIRST option for a writer, it doesn't necessarily need to be the last -- I agree with a lot of people that the end result and how well it's used it a big part of if it's "okay" - having it come some from strong logic is good -- but I think one big key is that a writer has to work for it as much OR MORE than any other tool.  Alan Moore's lauded Swamp Thing shows a lot of work -- that he KNEW each footstep he was retracing and turning in another direction whereas too often writers now seem to throw out a New History dismissing the past as an excuse for not having to LEARN the past of the character(s) they are being paid to work on.

"When did they use  "everything you know is a lie" in Hawkman? After Hawkworld they removed the Silver Age version continuity. (Though I guess the original plan for that series might qualify) Then used reconns to explain who that guy with wings in JLA was. Currently Hawkman is the Golden Age version and the Hawkworld version is dead. "

I think the revilation that "Hawkman was really a thangarian spy posing as Carter Hall's son" counts as a "What you knew was a lie"

My contention must be a small one, as no one has taken up the banner, but the Iron Fist reveal was basically a re-insertion of IF into continuity, but not an EVERYTHING reversal.  Perhaps I am splitting hairs.  I WOULD characterize the return of Jean Grey as an EYKIAL, but not of Jean Grey, but of Phoenix, if that clarifies anything.

We still agree on Thor, though, so I must not be ALL bad!  :)

QUOTE: One of the few times I've enjoyed such a story was the revelation of the League's Black Canary was not the original but her daughter. It didn't contradict anything we'd seen outright but actually made use of continuity and the past stories in a way that it made sense while retaining their power and intent.

The contradictions were that she was referred to as being an older woman (someone in her late 40's at the youngest) when she was actually a woman in her late 20's and she repeately pushed Green Arrow away because she was still in love/mourning her husband (actually her father).

After she made the jump to Earth One, they made sure that the reader knew that she was the original Black Canary in every way.  Revealling that she was a younger, different woman was pretty jarring to me as a reader.

Return to Krypton Spoilers...

Return to Krypton was written by Jeph Loeb, Return to Krypton II, which retconned the first one was written by Geoff Johns. I believe Johns and Loeb are friends, but Johns surely likes to retcon everything done by Loeb's Silver Age influenced nostalgia.

*************

I think in this case the whole storyline, or at least the ending of Return to Krypton II, was worked out at the beginning.  I seem to remember JB commenting after Return to Krypton II finished that DC had told him at the very beginning that Krypton was not truly being changed by that storyline.  JB kept quiet until the storyline finished so as not to spoil the ending for everyone.

I do think it is a device and even like stores that don't use this particular one, some work and some don't.  I would like of the Vision/Human Torch falling into this category and working.  While it wasn't originally introduced that the Vision was the Human Torch, it had been long established and accepted that he was.  When that "lie" was revealed, it certainly worked to reinvent the Vision and bring back a long gone character.  Still, it didn't feel like a last resort or even a "writer's ego", it just seemed like good, fun story-telling.

I also don't see the lie in Birthright.  That felt more of a reinvention of the younger generation just as many of the advances in Superman's kryptonian heritage were over the years of the Silver Age.

One the other side, I didn't care for some such as Cable really being Scott and Maddie's kid.  I personally didn't think it was necessary, though I am sure some people out there may have loved that.

So,RObbie, it would have been okay had Gwen slept with Norman and then had gone back in time and ended up giving birth the a human boy who was then flung far into the future where he grew up with a technorganic virus that ended up turning him into an android upon adulthood but who found a way to sneak back in time but shot to the late 1930s with no memory so that when he was found by Professor Horton who realized the miracle of science he had on his hands and decided to claim it as his own till he reacted with our atmosphere and burst into flame but decided to use this power to fight Nazis as the Human Torch, that would have been okay?

(See, I can admit that "everything you know is a lie" doesn't always work)

EYKIAL looks like a Biblical name.

I liked the Don Blake character.  Didn't Marvel try going back to "a doctor becomes Thor" when the series was restarted with John Romita, Jr. as the artist? 

I thought it was more like the Demon where Thor became the man because the original died trying to save Thor.  I can't remember for sure because it didn't hold my attention for long.  A closer example may have been when Eric Masterson became Thor and retained his consciousness.

Candy-Coated Avatar courtesy of Anthony J Lombardi

One of the worst cases I saw of EYKIAL was during Bill Mantlo's tenure on Alpha Flight and in particular his treatment of James MacDonald Hudson.

Mantlo tried to enforce the idea that Mac had less than noble motives for forming AF, that he was responsible for the torture of Wolverine and his transformation with the adamantium, and he was a seriously flawed and at times evil person who used whatever was necessary to achieve his goals.

This all despite the evidence that had been shown to the contrary.

i do not think it is right to make stories that are lies. they always said you should not tell lies and if these writers are making stories from lies then maybe you cant trust them anymore and that tells me the same thing. i don[t know.

Pure gold.  Keep up the good work.  I don't trust anyone who tells me a story that isn't true.  :)

> BIRTHRIGHT didn't take the everything you know is a lie route. That was intended more as a re-boot.

Time was altered by the events of Superman 200 and a new timeline -- the Birthright timeline -- resulted.  Nothing was revealed to be a lie ... things were just changed via reboot.

> Maybe you're thinking of the RETURN TO KRYPTON arc. Reportedly suggested by Walt Simonson, this story said that the Silver Age Krypton was the true Krypton and that the MoS version was a facade.

The RETURN TO KRYPTON  Kypton was a construct of Brainiac's design.  It wasn't "true" at all and it didn't supplant anything in continuity or *reveal anything as a lie."  IT was a lie, in fact.

_Frank Robert

QUOTE: EYKIAL **** Isn't he one of the Eternals?

I was thinking he was a Deviant.

I think sometimes you serve the book best by saying "It's only a comic book" and doing what needs to be done. Peter Parker was called "Peter Palmer" at some point in his origin issue. One way of dealing with that is to manufacture an entire second character with his own separate backstory and retcon  him into that world, carefully explaining how one got confused with the other with the obsessive forensic detail of Perry Mason just before the end credits.

Another way to go: acknowledge that it was a dumb mistake and pretend it never happened. Why waste time?

Imagine that back in the Nineties, an increasingly-desperate writer tried to save his book from cancellation by announcing that a character with 40 years of continuity was actually a gay vampire doppelganger controlled by aliens. It got cancelled three issues later regardless. Now it's ten years later. A new writer has a terrific idea for this character. Should he solve the Gay Alien Vampire Robot problem, or just assume that (a) almost nobody knows about that stuff, and more importantly (b) nobody cares?

Refusing to acknowledge past history is often just a lame, lazy way of avoiding having to come up with ideas. But sometimes, it's just the right thing to do.

And sometimes these charcaters mean something to someone. There are a lot of people who went...huh ? Vision ? Um ok....hes a robot again when WCA came out. And others who SCREAMED Byrne messed with the heart of the Avengers. Ethier way Byrne went through and researched all the orgin tales that had been told and made one cohesive story out of it. Would have been a lot easier to say,,,hey let's have She Hulk kill Hawakeye to sell some books...we will always find a way to bring him back later....it's just a comic book.

Some charcater is always someone's favorite, and just cause the writer doesnt care about them, doesnt mean they should get to write like they dont care about them. Every character has a backstory that someone at some point int heir life thought about and contributed to it. And to say....its onoly a comic book and no one cares about this guy anyways is just more lazt writing to me.

Actually, James, I would even venture to go as far as saying, if the writer doesn't care for "his" characters he should move along and writing something else... He'll probably enjoy it more, and it's more respectful to the readers who might very well care.

Simply put and following one of JB's oft-quoted rules of thumb (originally handed him down from Stan Lee) about writing stories ABOUT specific characters rather than writing a story and throw the character into it, the writer needs to appreciate and care about the character at least to the degree that he/she can find and/or coax forth the stories that grow out of the characters. As opposed to pushing existing characters into STORIES that the WRITER wants to tell and leaving the readers wondering whatever happened to the character and what the heck that character is doing in that setting.

In that sense, I think the best occasions of "Everything You Know is a Lie" (I refuse the Deviant acronym) are made by good writers who care about the characters, as opposed to people who is just trying their damnedest to leave a "significant" mark.

My penny.

Candy-Coated Avatar courtesy of Anthony J Lombardi

Andy wrote: ...Should he solve the Gay Alien Vampire Robot problem, or just assume that (a) almost nobody knows about that stuff, and more importantly (b) nobody cares?

What I see as mistakes, are mostly the opposite, like when a totally nonsense episode with the the Spider-Man Clone, was brought up again in a never-ending Saga that was supposed to be as impressive as The Death of Superman, and the truth is nobody cared about the clone. It's important to spot what's part of the character's mythology and what's not. That he lost his love interest Gwen Stacy is, but that he once changed his name to Peter Palmer is not or even met a clone in the 70's is not either, it's just a 70's funny comic.

But what's more important here, I have noticed, by writing some comics myself, is that the people who lied, for example in the story about Aunt May's death, are from now on just liars. They don't need a speech baloon anymore, to me they can just write LIES all over it. What's sad about Spider-Man and even Superman after Birtright is that the writers can themselves become such liars. Who cares about reading another first Superman confrontation with a new villain if the already have "met" in Smallville? Or who will believe it, if Aunt May or Mary Jane dies in the next issue of Spider-Man, raise a hand.

I don't see BIRTHRIGHT as a EYKIAL or a reboot (never cared about the whole "SUPERMAN 200 changed the continuity" story), but only as a way to relaunch the character re-telling his origin for a new generation of readers (a new generation who I don't see anywhere).

The one true EYKIAL was "Return to Krypton", which restored the classic Krypton for the post-Crisis continuity... But something didn't work, because one year later or so "Return to Krypton II" erased it all ("It's all Brainiac's fault!").

The same set of tools is available to writers both good and bad. "Everything you know is a lie" is one plotting tool. It can be misused, overused, badly used... that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad tool, just one that's been used badly. Unfortunately, when one writer uses it well, a number of lesser writers feel compelled to do "their spin" on the same idea... and almost invariably screw it up, along with whatever character is in their keeping.

(This doesn't even get into how great stories are almost always wrecked by this particular cliche, just because some dickhead wants to steal some part of that glory for himself. "See? I told this story RIGHT after all these years! [original creator] *wishes* he'd thought of what I did!" Yeah right-- go back to flipping burgers, jerk.)

"Everything you know is a lie", to me, works best when it undoes some element of continuity that messes up too much to let lie. If somebody wrote (for instance) that Steve Rogers is a "pre-mutant" or that the Punisher is an amnesiac Eternal-- THAT would be deserving of a "lie" reset. I would be less eager to see it used to establish entirely new backstory or "hidden truths" for any character, because that opens up very larges cans of worms...

Uh JB...I always thought that Spitfire's powers were restored by the second blood transfusion, That you did in Namor.  The Marvel website states it that way (which is written by fans and approved by Marvel Moderators)...

QUOTE: During the 1950’s, Spitfire’s super powers had waned significantly and, eventually, completely disappeared.

...And...

QUOTE: Later, Jacqueline was approached by Namorita, who needed help rescuing Prince Namor the Sub-Mariner and the Human Torch from the latest incarnation of the Nazi villain, Master Man. Jacqueline was reunited with Captain America and Union Jack. In attempting to rescue their ally, Jacqueline raced in the path of a bullet meant for Namor, discovering the last remnants of her super-speed. She was mortally wounded, but after another emergency blood transfusion from the android Human Torch, Jacqueline's metabolism returned to superhuman levels and her Spitfire powers reactivated. A side effect of her returning powers caused her to become young again, as she reverted to the body of a 16-year old.

There doesn't seem to be a mention anywhere online of her having her powers after 1950-ish, until you restored her youth.

Dana

Candy-Coated Avatar courtesy of Anthony J Lombardi

You're right, Joakim-- a writer just starting out would be better off sticking with the basics and not trying for Advanced Plotting 505 right off the bat. It takes a lot of work, which seems to surprise most people, to craft a story worth reading.

Anything that affects a character's backstory in a significant way should be approached like plutonium: dangerous and capable of causing a huge explosion.

Joakim wrote: One might point out, however, that narrative like any other craft requires not only talent but practice, and people without a modicum of both should probably leave the heavier devices in the drawer until they've mastered the basics.

I don't know if "the lie" is a heavy device, but it might look like it, when it's badly wrtten. Writing so that it looks as if it was easy to write it is what I would call real heavy duty.

Andrew wrote (excerpt)...a writer just starting out would be better off sticking with the basics and not trying for Advanced Plotting 505...

I have never heard of such a 505, but what I would guess happens if a writer sticks his head in the dangerous 505 and can't handle it, would be if we experience what I would call, perhaps it's wrong but "false anticipation", for example when we buy the next issue to find out "let's se what the boys have come up with this time!" instead of the correct thought which should be "I wonder what will happen to Spider-Man". This thread is probably evidence of this error, much more than "the lie".

It's a "ret-retcon".

A bad, smelly retcon is a "ratcon".

An angry, ring-tailed critter is a "racoon".

My point about the way they brough Bucky back....

It was really just a continuation in certain ways of the way Roger tweaked Steves past in his Captain America run (as I think was mentioned by JB earlier in this thread) because they used the same method.

We all know Bucky died in the North Atlantic because that was what Steve remembered. They just gave a workable reason for why he remembered it incorrectly.

Here is another example (for those of you that remember it).

Way back in the very early days of West Coast Avengers, it came about that Simon Williams really WAS guilty of embezzlement before he bacame Wonder Man. Up until that point the story was that Simon's brother Eric (Grim Reaper) was the guilty one. Simon reveals to the world that he simply lied about it all, and comes clean

Good or bad?

The one thing I liked about the story that brought Bucky back was that Brubaker left a very big Undo button for later writers, in that the cosmic cube was a major element of that storyline. It's child's play for the next writer to go "No, that isn't really Bucky, but a Cosmic Cube replica!"

If you are going to make a huge change to the status quo, keeping a back door open is only the right thing to do.

Now it's more like, "  Everything you know is a bad idea that sounded really good at the time but now hangs like a greasy smudge on the window pane of comics. " 

Next issue: "the Windex cometh" !

Issue after that one: "What the? More smudges? "

EYKIAL is a powerful tool with the potential to harm more than help.  Whether it is a good idea depends a lot on the context.  It should not be used on strong characters that are popular.  It should be reserved for cases where 1) the original creative team intends it to be a long term plot for a character they created, 2) team books with a long standing character that is somewhat bland or under utilized and the idea is intended to rejuvenate them, and 3) failed characters that never connected with an audience who might be salvaged and given a prolonged identity.

It should be rare, and an escape hatch should be received in case the entire thing blows up in our face.  There would be very few writers I'd allow to use this as a plot, if I was an editor.

Candy-Coated Avatar courtesy of Anthony J Lombardi

Ed Love wrote: Matt, there's quite a bit of difference between what Brubaker is doing and what DC did post-crisis. Reboots recognize past continuity in stating a clean slate and new start. Whereas something like Brubaker's work here is basically saying that all past portrayals of Bucky were wrong including the one by the character's creators.

Ed, when did you stop reading CAPTAIN AMERICA with Brubaker as writer?  I've gotta say, I'm with Matt L. on this one.  You are insisting that what Brubaker is doing is giving a big old finger to the original creators of Cap and Bucky, but that's not what he's doing at all.  In no way is he telling them they got their story wrong and working off hubris to tell it right.  Love it or hate it, I believe Brubaker has told a compelling story with "Winter Soldier".  It's not nearly as big a leap as you want to make it out to be to get the Bucky we've known to the Bucky we see today.  I also think your read on him is wrong.  Brubaker didn't create a Bucky as a guy that does the dirty work while Cap stays clean.  That was just one story of Bucky coming into his own during a time of war...a war where Cap has, on any of a number of occasions, killed enemy combatants. I don't think it's Brubaker's intention at all to show Cap as squeaky clean and Bucky as the killer.  Most of what Bucky learned to become the Winter Soldier was after what we thought to be his death.  Brubaker went to great pains to show this in a montage sequence that caught us up on how he became who he is now.  That's why I ask when you stopped reading the title.  If it was an issue or two into the story, then I'd understand your position, although say it was terribly uninformed, but if it was 15 or so issues in, then I'm left wondering if we're reading the same title at all.

I am curious about that same question.  All we know about Bucky's death is based purely on assumption.  Cap never saw Bucky dead and no body was ever found. All that is done here is open possibilities to new stories by reviving a character that probably didn't need to be dead to begin with.  At the same time, the writer did build a backdoor into the story should it need to be undone.

Why should Aunt May or the Human Torch be revived and Bucky stay dead?

John Byrne wrote: The death of Bucky gives birth to the "new" Captain America -- the thoughtful warrior who came out of the ice into a strange new world. It is what transforms him from a Timely character to a MARVEL character.

Interesting.  I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm still not clear on how Bucky's death makes Cap more thoughtful.  To me, what made him a Marvel character was the "stranger in a strange land" element, which would have happened whether Bucky died or not.  The explosion still occurs, his motivation to stop his best friend still happens, throwing Cap into the ocean to be frozen for a number of years.  He's a thoughtful warrior because of the accident that results in putting him in suspended animation and that forces him to later confront a world he doesn't know, and not as a direct result of Bucky's death.  In other words, to me, Steve Rogers is still Steve Rogers; the skinny kid who tries to enlist in WWII, is rejected and then accepts entry into a program that is supposed to create one of an army of super soldiers, only to end up being the only one due to the murder of the scientist who created the serum.  He fights for everything that America represents that is good and noble.  I'm just not sure how Bucky's death and subsequent resurrection would change any of that, unlike Uncle Ben coming back to life or Superman's parents being found to be in a state of perpetual suspended animation.

IMO Bucky's death has been used over the last few decades much the same way Jason Todd's death was used with Batman - to give the hero a good ol' dose of guilt.  That's all well and good and can serve a purpose, but I don't see it, in either case, as an indispensable part of the character.  Bucky could simply never have been mentioned again after Cap was unthawed, and IMO he'd be pretty much the same guy.

Brubaker really surpassed all my expectations with the WS arc, and I already held his work in high regard.  His Cap read to me like the "real" guy - he was thoughtful, had a very quiet strength, wasn't afraid to kick a little tail if it needed kicking, but never took that violence lightly.  IMO it's the best Cap since Gruenwald's run, and maybe since Stern/ JB.

Bucky was a symbol of the era of the Timely Captain America. His death was the catalyst that turned Timely Cap into Marvel Captain America (by giving Cap that 60's Marvel twist--guilt, tragedy, and pathos).

When Cap wakes up in Avengers # 4, he's lost everything--his partner, his life, his time. But he still manages to pick up himself up, and begins to create a new life for himself.

I don't know how much of this Stan and Jack thought out when they killed off Bucky. Most likely they just wanted to get rid of a character who was such an obvious Robin clone. Kid partners were not the thing, at Marvel. But whatever their reasons, they forged a whole new character for Captain America. One that is in no way served by a "return" of Bucky in any form.

Not so, Matt. Had Bucky lived, Cap would have had a reference point in the "strange lande". They could have faced its mysteries together, either with a young Bucky who had also been frozen (as this was originally portrayed), or a Bucky was was by then older than Cap, and who would have gone from protege to mentor.

As he was resurrected in WS, Bucky is far from a reference point for Cap.  His return doesn't remove the "stranger in a strange land" concept, any more than Namor's presence damages it.  If anything, it's even harder for Cap to know that there is another survivor of that era, but that his mind has been toyed with such that he ISN'T a reference point.

Ed Love wrote: But, yeah, other than it's the same character, he didn't change a thing from the original stories.

Nice that you can debate this without being snarky, Ed.  Really appreciate that.

Bringing Bucky back from the dead was a huge mistake. Bucky's death served as not only a source of guilt for Captain America, but it also served as a motivation. It personalized the war on evil that Cap has been fighting all his life.

The classic Lee/Steranko issues as well as the 1980s run of DeMatteis/Zeck probably are the best examples of how important Bucky is to the Cap mythos. I do see Bucky's death as an indispensible part of the character.

Also, Brubaker apparently has taken great liberties with Bucky's background. Sure, Cap & Bucky killed enemy soldiers in combat - it was a war, after all. But making Bucky some type of secret assassin strikes me as Brubaker wanting to play the tired old "Let's use comics to bash the U.S. government" hand that so many of today's writers love. I didn't like it in Civil War and I don't like it here.

Finally, I have to ask, "Why now?" Writers and artists have been producing Captain America stories for more than 40-plus years since Bucky's death. No one - Stan, Englehart, Kirby, Gerber, Stern/Byrne, DeMatteis, Carlin, Gruenwald, Waid etc. - decided to resurrect Bucky before now.

I'm sure the idea crossed the minds of every one of these creators, but they decided it wasn't the right thing to do. That should tell you all you need to know.

I have some trouble with the notion that Cap needs to have his war on evil personalized.  If there's any hero out there that would fight The Good Fight just because it's The Right Thing to Do, it's Captain America.

Well... or Superman.

Guilt doesn't drive Steve Rogers, Greg.

+++++++++++++++++

I didn't say it did.

Bruce Buchanan wrote: Bucky's death served as not only a source of guilt for Captain America, but it also served as a motivation.

Although I can understand where JB is coming from re: Bucky being alive is a touchstone for Cap, I can't get behind the idea that Bucky's death is a motivating factor for his being Captain America.  For the sake of argument, had Cap been revived by the Avengers and later told that Bucky did, indeed, survive, would Steve Rogers have stopped being Captain America?  I can't see that at all.  I don't think guilt motivates Cap in the way Uncle Ben's death, due to the selfish act of Peter Parker, motivates Spider-Man.

Bringing Bucky back from the dead was a huge mistake. Bucky's death served as not only a source of guilt for Captain America, but it also served as a motivation. It personalized the war on evil that Cap has been fighting all his life.

I have some trouble with the notion that Cap needs to have his war on evil personalized.  If there's any hero out there that would fight The Good Fight just because it's The Right Thing to Do, it's Captain America.

Well... or Superman.

_________________

I'd certainly agree with that. But to me at least, it does humanize Cap to know that he lost someone so close in the line of duty.

It also provides great opportunities for those lump-in-the-throat moments when the Red Skull, Baron Zemo, etc. taunts a helpless Captain America about his fallen partner. It makes you want to keep reading until Cap breaks free and punches the villain in the mush while saying something like, "And this one's for Bucky!"

It also provides great opportunities for those lump-in-the-throat moments when the Red Skull, Baron Zemo, etc. taunts a helpless Captain America about his fallen partner. It makes you want to keep reading until Cap breaks free and punches the villain in the mush while saying something like, "And this one's for Bucky!"

I think those kinds of moments are still possible.  Cap is now left with the realization that Bucky has been alive, and has been suffering, for the last sixty years.  That's a pretty heavy load for anyone to carry around, much less a "weight of the world" guy like Cap.

I agree with Matt, here. Bucky's return has been captivating and well-written. I don't think Brubaker is using Bucky to tell Brubaker-stories or stories which "bash" the United States government.

I'm not saying that Stan and Jack are hacks or got something wrong, but rather that they closed a window when they killed Bucky off-panel. I don't think that Bucky should stay dead just because Stan and Jack wrote the issue in which it was revealed he was killed, especially when Brubaker's arcs are probably more gripping than any story I've read that dealt with Cap solely as a "Man-out-of-time"

…reviving a character that probably didn't need to be
dead to begin with. 

***

Stan and Jack got it wrong again! Those hacks!
Why did anybody ever give them work?

*****

You know that isn't what I said or even implied.  But then nobody is ever perfect all the time.

Understand, I'm not in the camp who thinks Brubaker is trashing Captain America - I don't. I just think he's wrong about this one.

Cap is a soldier and a living embodiment of the old adage that "No one hates war more than a soldier." Bucky's death reminds him of the price that has to be paid when you fight the good fight. It's a battle he's willing to fight, but knowing that he lost a buddy makes him all the more sympathetic to the reader.

Again, I can see the temptation to do this story - it's guaranteed water cooler talk among comics fans and I'm sure it's boosted sales. But the fact that 40+ years worth of Captain America creators chose not to do it should serve as a red flag.

I just don't think Bucky's death is needed for that sympathy.  I think it is there regardless.

Bucky is the pivot on which this turns. His death underscores Cap's isolation, and gives him his own "kryptonite" in the form of the guilt he carries, not over having fought in a war, or the realization that war is "bad", but because he failed to save his dearest friend. This is the crucible, and out of it comes the Cap who joined and eventually led the Avengers.

QUOTE: Bucky is the pivot on which this turns. His death underscores Cap's isolation, and gives him his own "kryptonite" in the form of the guilt he carries, not over having fought in a war, or the realization that war is "bad", but because he failed to save his dearest friend. This is the crucible, and out of it comes the Cap who joined and eventually led the Avengers.

And all of this is still there, with Bucky's "resurrection."

For all Cap - or most anyone else, for that matter - knew, Bucky was dead when Cap was thawed out.  Learning that he isn't dead was a recent event, leaving intact the various' characters assumptions and reactions over the years regarding Bucky's death.  As such, Cap goes through that same crucible, still comes out the Captain America of the Avengers.

And, that guilt at not being able to save him is still present...if Cap had saved Bucky, he wouldn't have been in a position to have been found and transformed into the Winter Soldier and all that entails.

The Bucky situation is less a matter of "Everything You Know Is A Lie," than "You Just Didn't Know Everything That Happened."

I am saying though when you take a character...say like the Orginal Human Torch...and bring him into modern day comics...don't you have to play the everything you know is a lie card to make him fit ? I am saying that Jack and Stan killed Bucky for a reason...a very valid reason to bring him to the present day. And I just think it is silly to play everything you know is a lie...until NOW and that lie was a lie..but what that lie about a lie was a lie...

For Lee and Kirby, building the foundations of what would be the "Marvel Age" just such a thing was needed for Cap. Remember, these were guys who had seen the character lose direction at the end of the War. Cap floundered his way thru a half-hearted series that ultimately ended its publishing life as a horror mag. So Stan and Jack wanted to give Captain America a purpose that brought him into alignment with the age into which he was being reborn, but without presenting him as a whole new character, as they had with the Human Torch.

*******

I don't know if Stan or Jack realized the inherent brilliance of reviving Cap, a by-the-book patriot, in the sixties. Cap had only been asleep for a generation, so to awaken in the era of Civil Rights to see his "children" questioning the government and burning the flag lends an added poignancy that having him awaken in 2000 doesn't.

Which got me to thinking...

Back then, WWII wasn't that long ago and Cap was a little more akin to Rip Van Winkle. As time goes on, though, Steve Rogers is going to seem more and more like Buck Rogers because, in order to keep him eternally youthful, his time spent on ice will have to increase if his WWII origins are to be adhered to. As a result, the man out of time element will become even more extreme and the generation gap will widen, perhaps even to the point where he awakens into a world where he won't even recognize the most basic devices.

Maybe in fifteen years his revival can be retconned as being due to global warming...that's why Namor was pissed at the eskimos. I cringe. 

Also, how does he view a character like the Black Widow considering he missed the cold war in its entirety? Which brings me to the question...is her history tied to the Soviet Union still?

Sorry for the segue, but I can't muster much enthusiasm for the Bucky re-retcon debate. I always considered Cap to be brought into alignment with the period when he reformed a team of young rebels/villains (Hawkeye, Quicksilver, and Scarlet Witch), molding them into Earth's Mightiest Heroes.

*Edited for grammar and punctuation.

So, today's question, class -- is this innovation, or lazy writing? Is it new, or is it just different? And, perhaps most important, should it be a first resort, or the absolute last?

****

It was an innovation the first few times it was done.  In particular, I enjoyed it with Alan Moore's Swamp Thing and Miracle Man.  After that, no longer new or innovative, it became lazy writing.  I'd rather not see it anymore, especially in the current climate of writers pissing on earlier writer's work.

(Hello, everyone.  First post!) 

I have to admit, the 'Everything you know is a lie' phenomenon was to big an obstacle for me to get over with the Bucky/Winter Soldier stuff in the current Captain America run.  I tried and tried not to prejudge the storyline, early on, based on the fact that *I* didn't like the idea of Bucky being alive.  I told myself to ride out the six issue arc and see. 

That arc led into the next and into the next (it's almost like they *want* you to keep buying these books...) and Winter Soldier kept showing up and/or being referenced.  And each time that happened, a part of me screamed "but Bucky shouldn't be alive at all!" 

And whether that was reasonable of me or not, it 'took me out' of the story, and I couldn't maintain willing suspension of disbelief.  I was too hung up on the mental 'office politics' I was engaged in regarding the return of Bucky. 

So in a case like this, I resent the usage of EYKIAL far too much to look past it and enjoy the story (or not) on its own merits. 

Welcome aboard, Scott. I totally agree about Bucky.

You know, I was wondering how Marvel would handle the Black Widow's Cold War roots. Unlike most characters, her origin is specifically rooted in a particular era, but that era ended 17 years ago.

Early issues of the Fantastic Four had Reed and Ben serving during World War II. That's easily ignored without altering the characters one bit. But how do you have a Black Widow without acknowledging she's a former Soviet spy? Seems to me that's a pretty central part of her character.

The slow aging deal is probably the solution that involves the least amount of change to the character, so it works for me.

Well, because the Russians are no longer the Evil Empire.

I don't know how old you are, Wallace - I apologize if I'm telling you something you already know. But for decades, the Soviet Union wasn't just a rival - it was the enemy. People in the U.S. honestly feared a nuclear showdown with the Soviets. In its own way, it was just as scary as modern-day terrorism.

A key component of the Black Widow's character was her past as a Soviet spy. She wasn't just a mysterious foreigner - she used to be on the other side. Now, she never was evil - I think this was Stan Lee's subtle way of making the point that the Soviets were people just like us.

But she was a Soviet and in the Cold War era, that meant something. It made it hard for some heroes to trust her, yet it also pointed out that she was brave and independent for defecting. Being a former operative for Putin & co. doesn't carry that same weight.

I completely agree, Ed. Most of these retcons are things that never needed explaining or reworking in the first place. Like you said - if certain things bother you, just don't mention it. I'd say that approach would work with 95% (or more) of these retcons.

But I do think the Black Widow's origin is the rare example of something that legitimately needs addressing. Unlike with most of these other facts (i.e. Reed and Ben in WWII), her past as a Soviet spy is a critical component of who she is as a character.

  I don't think guilt motivates Cap in the way Uncle Ben's death, due to the selfish act of Peter Parker, motivates Spider-Man.

++++++++++++++

Certainly not. However, Bucky's death gave Cap's character a new "hook" for the Marvel Age--his guilt over his inability to save his partner, coupled with his being a man out of time, made him a tragic (but no less heroic) character. Of course, being Captain America, he then moves on to build a life for himself in the strange new world he's been dropped into, and quickly adapts.

The huge success of Cap's revival is a testament to this great new twist on an old character.

Cap became a solid link to Timely/Marvel's past (as Namor was when he first reappeared in FF # 4). The character from the Good Old Days, interacting with the new characters created in the 60's. A character who had been there from (almost) the start of the superhero genre, and who, by having lost everything and awakening in the present, could serve as a living link to that past, while still blazing a trail to the future.

If Cap and Bucky had both been revived, and nothing had changed in terms of Cap's characterization, Cap wouldn't really have fit into the deeper, more complex Marvel of the 60's. And, given the meteoric rise and fall of the Batman tv series that occurred shortly after Cap's revivial, Bucky probably would have been seen by most people as an even more blatant Robin rip-off than he already was.

Although I agree with a smattering of what you write above, Greg, read Todd's post up thread.  Bucky, even now as the Winter Soldier, wasn't revived/resurrected at the same time as Cap.  That's crucial.  He was only discovered to be alive after a period of time in which Cap went through all of those emotions you speak of.  In no way is Brubaker writing a story in which Cap knew Bucky was alive shortly after he was pulled out of the ocean.  He's writing a story where Cap, with all of his guilt over not saving his best friend and being a stranger in a strange land, is still the same guy we saw in AVENGERS 4 and beyond.  In fact, the guilt of Cap not saving his friend is still there now, even after he's discovered that he's alive, because he couldn't save him from being manipulated by an evil man for decades.  I'm compelled to point out that Bucky fought this manipulation, as Matt L. has mentioned up thread, so it's not as if he's accepted his current role without question.

In short, I don't really see where you have a point as you have presented it above, Greg.  Bucky/Winter Soldier has come to light after an unspecified time in which Captain America was pulled from the ocean and entered the MU of today.  The events did not happen side-by-side, so I don't see how it affects the character of Captain America as you present it.

It still feels like closing an important door to me. Even if I can't quite articulate why. That must suffice.

Fact of the matter is, now that Bucky has returned (something decades' worth of writers said would never happen), all bets are off. Anything goes.

Again, though, I come back to the point that in more than 40 years, no other Captain America creator has tried to bring Bucky back.

And don't tell me it's because they didn't think of it. A storyline revolving around Bucky's shocking return is the most obvious trick in the world to boost short-term sales and get people talking. I bet every single creator who has worked on the book in that time thought about resurrecting Bucky, but decided against it. That, in and of itself, tells me this is a bad idea.

On the one hand, superhero comics are all about fantastic concepts, and resurrections fall into that vein, but on the other hand, resurrections have been so very, very overdone. Death in comics has no meaning at all anymore. If a character (usually a beloved character) dies, everyone knows that another writer will come along in a few years (or even a few months) and find a way to bring that character back.

Bucky was a key player on the list of characters who should Never Be Resurrected Under Any Circumstances (barring dreams, hoaxes, "What If?" scenarios, etc.). Other members on the list have include Thomas and Martha Wayne, Jor-El and Lara, Ben Parker, Gwen Stacy, Norman Osborn, etc.

Others, like Jean Grey and Elektra, fell into that category, but were yanked out of it pretty quickly after their deaths.

Personally, I think that when a death plays a vital role in shaping a character's origin/history/revamp (as with the Waynes and Bucky), or the death serves a key purpose in a very important/respected story (as with Gwen Stacy), those deaths should be respected, and not cheapened with a resurrection.

To bring back a character...

1. ... who has been dead for decades (as opposed to the usual, "The Joker appeared to die at the end of his last battle with the Batman, but we instinctively know he'll come back soon" scenario), and...

2. ...whose death played an important role in shaping the future of another, more important character...

...feels wrong to me.

I bet every single creator who has worked on the book in that time thought about resurrecting Bucky, but decided against it.

+++++++++++++++

As has been discussed here before, JB and Roger Stern considered it, too. I'm sure it would have been a fantastic story, but they were right to drop the idea. Some lesser writer would inevitably have taken the ball and ran with it in the wrong direction.

From the FAQ:

Did JB ever consider bringing Bucky back?

Other members on the list have include ... Gwen Stacy, Norman Osborn, etc.

I wouldn't have added these two to the list.  A Gwen revival (i.e. the Gwen clone) was done mere months after the original bridge death event.  Norman being a villain, can be revived any number of times.  There's nothing "fundamental" about them remaining dead, unlike Thomas and Martha Wayne, Uncle Ben or Bucky; whose deaths are part of major origin stories and provide motivations to their main characters.

Just to clarify again, Greg...

1. ...has apparently been dead for decades.  Based on the information at hand, most everyone - characters and readers alike - drew the conclusion that Bucky was dead.  Which leads to...

2. ...who's apparent death still has the same effect, as that other, more important character, still believed that Bucky was dead until very recently.  Or, are you suggesting that the revelation that Bucky wasn't dead after all made Cap say, "Dang.  All those life experiences and decisions that I made since I was taken out of the ice are gone.  Time to party on, dude!"?

Who determines what stories can't be told, though? Bucky returning undermines nothing that has come before it. In fact, I would argue that Captain America's grief over Bucky's death hasn't been an issue in the comics for twenty years. Perhaps to readers in the sixties and seventies, Bucky's death defined Cap, but Bucky's presence hasn't really colored Cap's title since...well, since I've been alive. Maybe you'll argue that this is a problem with the writers: that they're writing Cap off-model and forgetting that which effectively makes him relatable. Instead, I'll argue that since Bucky hasn't made an appearance in sixty years, the only way to make the Cap-Bucky relationship relevent, or to introduce the character to a new generation, is to actually have the character return.

Comics are like a landscape.  Rather than tell stories that will add to that landscape, writers today are content to turn over every rock on that landscape; looking for little tidbits left behind by previous writers, that they can use. This will continue until there are no more rocks left to turn over.  Then the landscape itself is ruined.

Nuff said.

I wouldn't have added these two to the list.  A Gwen revival (i.e. the Gwen clone) was done mere months after the original bridge death event.  Norman being a villain, can be revived any number of times.  There's nothing "fundamental" about them remaining dead, unlike Thomas and Martha Wayne, Uncle Ben or Bucky; whose deaths are part of major origin stories and provide motivations to their main characters.

++++++++++++++

Which is why I said, "or the death serves a key purpose in a very important/respected story ". And Gwen's revival fell under the "hoax" category, basically.

1. ...has apparently been dead for decades.  Based on the information at hand, most everyone - characters and readers alike - drew the conclusion that Bucky was dead.  Which leads to...

2. ...who's apparent death still has the same effect, as that other, more important character, still believed that Bucky was dead until very recently.  Or, are you suggesting that the revelation that Bucky wasn't dead after all made Cap say, "Dang.  All those life experiences and decisions that I made since I was taken out of the ice are gone.  Time to party on, dude!"?

++++++++++++++++

1. In 1964, Bucky WAS dead, no question about it. Any other interpretation is the result of retcons.

2. We'll see. For future readers, a characterization "door" that was open for decades has now been closed.

Image 1: "Bucky is dead. I'm sad."

Image 2: "Bucky is alive! Party on, dude!"

isn't it debatable that Bucky's death detracted to this landscape and that his return actually added to it?

********

I think it would be pretty hard to find anyone on this board who might agree that the events of Avengers #4 (where Bucky's death was revealed) led to any degradation of Captain America as a character or story.

On the other hand, reviving Bucky this long after the fact, strikes me as being just too "easy" a story idea.  You've no doubt read other posts on this board which tell how writers resisted for years, any notion of bringing back Bucky.  It isn't as though Brubaker had this sudden brainstorm: "Wow, we could bring back Bucky! The fans will go wild!"  This thing is also taking place just a couple of years after DC revived Jason Todd.  So, I'm quite inclined to think that rocks are just being turned over, nothing more.

I agree.

Cap's rebirth in Avengers # 4 added new layers and ideas to an old character. It was a fresh coat of paint, as opposed to chopping at the foundation.

Bucky's return is merely the exhumation of a character whose most important act was dying. Thus, the only truly useful thing the character did has been negated, and a core concept of the reborn, Marvel-era Captain America undermined.

Of course, the mantra of M***** these days seems to be "undermine, undermine, undermine".

un·der·mine
tr.v., -mined, -min·ing, -mines.

1. To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation: Water has undermined the stone foundations.
2. To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly; sap: Late hours can undermine one's health.

That's just what these kinds of situations are about: mining away at the past, regurgitating, cannibalizing.

The actual process of CREATION is all but extinct these days. Instead, creators take the easy route by turning over every old rock they can find. It is far easier to twist and corrupt another writer's ideas (and present them as a "great new twist" on an old concept) than it is to create something wholly original.

1. In the minds of Lee, Kirby, and the characters themselves at that time, Bucky was dead. Four decades' worth of writers agreed (even if some, like JB and RS, toyed with a notion of bringing him back). That's good enough for me.

(And, important note here--in the context of JB and RS' proposed storyline, Bucky would NOT have been hale and hearty. His pathetic condition would been the basis of a tragic reunion used to explore Cap's character in a deeply profound and emotional way.

As opposed to bringing Bucky back as a hale and hearty cybernetic assassin working for the enemy. Ahem.)

"There wasn't a body" is still a cheap excuse for the resurrection of a character who was absoutely intended to be dead at the time, and whose death served a key thematic/storytelling purpose that informed the direction Cap went in for decades to follow. Anyone looking for a loophole will eventually find one, or create one.

2. I suggested nothing, except that we'll have to wait and see.

This is turning into a fascinating discussion. On other boards, it would have degenerated into petty squabbling and name-calling by now. Kudos, gang!

As opposed to bringing Bucky back as a hale and hearty cybernetic assassin working for the enemy. Ahem.)

******

Is that what they've done?  Eww!  It's even worse than I thought. :)

1. And, with the information available, that was a perfectly reasonable assumption.  Whether intentional or not, however, Lee & Kirby constructed that available information in such a way as to leave an "out" for someone to bring Bucky back in.  That possibility was there.  That others chose not to avail themselves of the possibility, regardless of how long that window of time was, does not eliminate that the possibility was there.

(Equally important to note regarding your aside...when first recovered, Bucky's physical condition was somewhat comparable to the proposed Stern/Byrne scenario.  Now, you can argue whether or not the execution of the story - no pun intended - generates the same impact as the proposed/aborted one would have, but - aside from doing the impossible and comparing a story that was expanded to the point of publication to one that was not, thus working purely on hypotheticals to reach a conclusion as to which was "better" - that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish than whether Bucky could/should have been revealed to be alive.  Even to go so far as to comparing the merits of a published story with one that appears to have been abandoned almost as quickly as it was conceived, both stories would be proceeding from the conclusion that Bucky's survival was most definitely possible.)

"There wasn't a body" may (or may not) be a "cheap excuse," but it's a fairly common staple of serialized fiction.  And, I again point out that the "key thematic purpose" that you mention is still fulfilled, particularly given that the revelation of Bucky's survival was - for both readers and Cap - recent.  I'd agree that, had we seen in, say, Avengers #10 that Bucky had survived and was a mysterious character lurking around the fringes of the MU, but Cap remained unaware, it could present - from a reader perspective - problems with seeing Cap develop as he did.  On the flip side, it could have generated as much or more pathos.  (Joe Q. Reader: "Cap!  You can't blame yourself for Bucky's death!  He's ALIVE!")  We can't say for certain which it would have been, since it didn't go down that way.  Perhaps you're right when you say that anyone looking for a loophole will eventually find one, or create one.  If the loophole's there to be found, as often as not, it's by design.  And, as noted earlier, whether by design or by accident, Lee & Kirby seem to have left one where Bucky's "death" was concerned.  By that same token, it would appear that Brubaker has left a loophole of his own, even if only by having the Cosmic Cube involved in the restoration of Bucky's memories.

2.  Then I don't see where a "characterization 'door'" has been opened or closed with Bucky's return.  The development of Cap's character during the period in which he believed Bucky to be dead is still intact.  The character point of Cap feeling that he'd failed his junior partner is, likewise, still intact...only the specific nature of the failure has changed.

Not to mention that, as noted above, Brubaker's own loophole(s) remain, allowing for the previous status quo to be restored if it's deemed to be necessary.

At this point, I don't think it is necessary.  When I first heard of Bucky's return, I was firmly in the, "You've GOT to be kidding me!" camp.  But, it prompted me to track down the first few issues and give 'em a try.  Within the next couple of days, I was caught up on the series (about 14 or so issues at the time).  The foundation of Brubaker's story is sound.  Whether it's a story to everyone's liking is certainly without doubt, because there'll always be someone displeased with any story.  Whether it's "right" or "wrong," "good" or "bad," that's up to each individual's tastes and preferences.  But "possible."  Witout a doubt, it's possible.  And, it's also - to bring it back full circle to the topic - not really an example of "everything you know is a lie," but rather "you just didn't have all the info."

That's what I thought when I first heard about it, Darren.  Then, I read it.  And realized that it wasn't...it was, in fact, better than I thought.  Being a subjecting thing, though, YMMV.  :-)

What is 'YMMV' ?   Never seen that one before.

1. And, with the information available, that was a perfectly reasonable assumption.

+++++++++++++

Stan Lee: "Let's see...I'm the writer, and I'm going to kill Bucky. Since I'm writing his death into the story, then I can reasonably assume he's dead based on that available information. Can't I?"

Or, was Stan wrong?

2.  Then I don't see where a "characterization 'door'" has been opened or closed with Bucky's return.  The development of Cap's character during the period in which he believed Bucky to be dead is still intact.  The character point of Cap feeling that he'd failed his junior partner is, likewise, still intact...only the specific nature of the failure has changed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Before, Cap had lost his friend and Partner. Forever. He felt guilty about not being able to save him, and maybe even guilty about having a young partner to begin with.

Now, Bucky is alive, and can perhaps be rehabilitated. Cap may have failed in a different way, but he now has a chance to regain that which he thought lost forever.

Anyway, Todd, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. But, I appreciate your calm, well-articulated points (no points to Rankin, though), and thank you for the spirited debate.

"On the other hand, reviving Bucky this long after the fact, strikes me as being just too "easy" a story idea.  You've no doubt read other posts on this board which tell how writers resisted for years, any notion of bringing back Bucky.  It isn't as though Brubaker had this sudden brainstorm: "Wow, we could bring back Bucky! The fans will go wild!"  This thing is also taking place just a couple of years after DC revived Jason Todd.  So, I'm quite inclined to think that rocks are just being turned over, nothing more."

Actually, Darren, Bucky and Jason Todd were both fully returned to life the same month and, if I recall correctly, even the same week!

Greg, I can see your points about how Bucky represented a connection to a past that was sundered and could never be remade. However, I don't feel that Captain America has ever had an interesting supporting cast. Nick Fury and Dum Dum Dugan, while interesting and his friends, as other people have pointed out, very much serve as a connection to his WWII origins, failing to represent or further the "man-out of time-theme". Also, isn't his present girlfriend the daughter of a woman he loved in WWII, and isn't she also, essentially, a connection to his past? Few writers have introduced a new supporting cast into Captain America's book--a supporting cast that wasn't harkening back to the books WWII origins (Bernie Rosenthal [?] is the only exception that I can think of). Personally, I would argue that its difficult to create a supporting cast for Captain America and even more difficult to create one with staying power. Like Batman, I don't think a love interest would make much sense in light of their "crusade" and, again like Batman, most of his friends are members of the Avengers (Batman's peers mostly being in the JLA). The character doesn't really lend himself to having much of a social life and I don't feel that a secret identity makes an iota of sense for the character: maybe these are my shortcomings as a reader. I could, then, even agree that Brubaker took an "easy out", bringing back Bucky instead of creating a supporting cast from which to have drama spring from.

However, as the teams that have made the effort of creating a supporting cast (and the supporting cast that has stayed through the decades only serve as links to tether him to who he was in WWII) have, I would argue, failed to make any impact or continuing emotional resonance. And since anything introduced is, I would argue, incongruent (Steve Rogers as a comic book artist?!)--I feel that it makes sense for Brubaker to take the unexplored route, as "cheap" or obvious as it may seem, instead of going down a road which I would argue has failed many times previously for the character.

If this is poorly articulated or nonsense, then I apologize. 

I wonder if and when that Captain America movie ever gets made, in which he's revived from suspended animation, if fans will be outraged that the character has been ruined because no mention is made of his dead teen sidekick from WWII.

This thread sparks a fascinating question: If a character dies off-panel is the window automatically open for their return? By this rationale, the window is closed on characters like Phoenix, Gwen Stacy, and Guardian unless there is some chicanery at work. However, this would mean the Buckys and Uncle Bens would be fair game. I didn’t read the Doom Patrol’s original series. Did they die O.P.?

EYKIAL (particularly when it comes to resurrection) is always a tough bag. We arbitrarily accept it when it suits our desires. I hated hated hated Aunt May’s death. I think it was pointless and brought too much angst and darkness to the Spider-Man mythos. But, hey, it was the 90s. When she was brought back from the dead, I readily accepted it. Why? Was it because I bought that Peter Parker wouldn’t be able to tell that the woman who died in his arms was, in fact, an actress and not his mother figure? Ask anyone whose mother died in their arms if they wouldn’t be able to tell it was an actress and you’d be either laughed at or socked in the jaw.

I wanted May to come back, so I bought it hook, line, sinker…I damn near bought the whole bait & tackle store.

On the other hand, I didn’t accept Jean Grey’s return despite the fact that there was a higher level of artful deception. The popular body-swap resurrection a.k.a. the “It wasn’t me,” ploy works like a charm every time. It was done with Professor X and the Changeling before I was born. I accept it in this instance because at the end of the day, I’d rather Xavier be alive than dead.

Why not Jean, then? Well, I really, really liked UNCANNY #137…that’s why. I was 9 years old when I read it. It blew me away. It redefined Cyclops in a fresh and interesting way, helping to grow the character. I didn’t like the fact that this development eventually grew him straight into early retirement married with a kid to someone who happened to look EXACTLY like his lost love, though. Still, we were already on that path even if we weren’t 100% happy, and the whole Madelyne-Pryor-abandoning-your-wife-and-child behavior that resulted after Jean’s return was an even sadder day for the character. Better she had stayed dead rather than placing Scott in a lose/lose situation while sullying what is generally considered THE best X-Men story of all-time.

I've been avoiding posting in this thread because its so hard to judge the topic completely because the EYKIAL idea has been used to such mixed results over the years. But I'm now feeling compelled to put my 2 cents in.

  EYKIAL should not be used if it takes away a vital point of what made the characters who they are to begin with. Uncle Ben not having died would be a perfect example.

 As far as the Bucky controversy goes...first of all, I'm a little prejudiced because I like the writing in the current Captain America series. If it wasn't being done well, I might not like it so much. However, as far as Bucky's death being the motivation that Cap needs, I don't think this is the case. Cap was already a costumed hero before Bucky died. I don't see much reason that his tendency towards heroic acts wouldn't continue after his thawing out even if he didn't believe that Bucky had died.

Where are people getting this idea that Bucky's death is a motivation for Captain America? Not from me, that's for sure!

Bucky's death gave cap guilt, anguish, loneliness, and pathos, but not motivation. Captain America is heroic because that's who he is, not because, "Bucky would have wanted me to be heroic. I have to do it for Bucky!", or some other such nonsense.

Candy-Coated Avatar courtesy of Anthony J Lombardi

I liked the Soviet Super-Soldiers, too, but I haven't heard of them being used lately. They had a good storyline in the Avengers back in the early 1990s, as I recall.

The earlier point about Captain America not having an interesting supporting cast is perhaps true. During the Stern/Byrne and DeMatteis/Zeck runs, there was a concerted effort to build a supporting cast and secret identity for Steve Rogers. That's when we first saw Bernie Rosenthal and the rest of the gang at Steve's Brooklyn apartment building. One of the tenants was a Holocaust survivor whom had been rescued from a concentration camp by Captain America. I thought that was a pretty good supporting cast.

However, Mark Gruenwald had a different vision for the character. He believed that Cap's focus on "the mission" would effectively preclude any type of private life out of uniform. So Cap quit his job as a commercial artist, moved out of his apartment and became a full-time adventurer. The civilian supporting cast quickly faded away; in the Gruenwald run, most of the supporting characters tended to be other costumed types.

I'm not sure either approach is right or wrong. Heck, I liked 'em both. But it does make for an interesting debate about how Captain America should be written.

Please re-read in context with the very next sentence, Greg:  "And, with the information available, that was a perfectly reasonable assumption.  Whether intentional or not, however, Lee & Kirby constructed that available information in such a way as to leave an "out" for someone to bring Bucky back in."

Never said he was "wrong."  Simply that he constructed the information we were provided in such a way as to not rule anything out.  That construction may have been intentional...may not have been.  Being "right" or "wrong" doesn't figure into that.

QUOTE: Before, Cap had lost his friend and Partner. Forever. He felt guilty about not being able to save him, and maybe even guilty about having a young partner to begin with. Now, Bucky is alive, and can perhaps be rehabilitated. Cap may have failed in a different way, but he now has a chance to regain that which he thought lost forever.

An interesting take on it, and I can see where you're coming from.  While enjoying the story, the cynic (or is it the realist?) in me just can't see that happy ending happening, though.  Even if Bucky's rehabilitated, I'd expect some twist to blunt the happy ending.

QUOTE: Anyway, Todd, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. But, I appreciate your calm, well-articulated points (no points to Rankin, though), and thank you for the spirited debate.

Back atcha, Greg.

After all, we never saw Uncle Ben's body, either. In fact, given the much more discrete fashion of storytelling in the Silver Age, there are a whole lot of dead bodies we never saw. All candidates for resurrection?

Problem with today's comics, in too many cases, is that any idea that's tossed out is considered fair game, so long as the writer can "tell a good story".

Bucky dies...

"certainly Brubaker's arcs are not comparable to "Superman is a pedophile"."

Not in practice, perhaps, but certainly in principle.  The principle being "some things are just bad ideas, no matter how well done they are".  I think that's a perfectly valid concept, especially in the context of pre-existing characters and their audience.

Mike

"I just fail to see the point.."

The point being that a story can be extremely well written, but still just be a bad idea.  The classic example I've come up with is someone writing a Star Wars novel, where someone discovers that Luke and Leia had a one-night stand after The Battle of Yavin and uses that to blackmail them into doing bad things.

I don't care how well-written it would be, a Star Wars story about unwitting Jedi incest is a bad idea.

Mike 

Candy-Coated Avatar courtesy of Anthony J Lombardi

Brad, I'm clearly a bit biased on the matter, but I'd have to say that the answer to your question would be, "No."  While I'm sure Cap would be doing his best to bring Radar back in from the proverbial cold, the connection between him & Bucky is much closer...more personal.

No, I do not believe it would have been at all possible to do a story with anyone other than Bucky. Again, who from Captain America's past would have made sense? And Brubaker did one better by doing something I've never seen done before: deeply exploring the Bucky/Cap relationship. Since I've read very few of the golden-age Cap stories, I'm at a loss to describe their relationship. Was it pseudo-father/son, like Batman and Dick Grayson? Was it mentor/protege, more like Batman and Tim Drake? Was it partners? Best friends? If it was best friends, how did Captain America feel about entering the fray with someone ten years younger than him at his side? Brubaker did, what I would call a deep nuanced examination of their friendship, and Bucky returning made Steve Rogers reevaluate and mourn for the loss of that friendship more than, I would argue, James Buchanan Barnes' death ever did.

I can see the Luke/Leia one-night stand as a somewhat valid point of comparison, but there's nothing subversive in the story that Brubaker's doing. There's no pedophilia or incest. It's deepening Captain America's heroism, exploring Bucky's heroism, and is adding to the mythos as opposed to subtracting from them, or adding in something "vile" or "adult."

QUOTE: I would also guess that this has done away with any guilt Cap felt over Bucky's death and turned him rather cynical and reluctant to trust others close to him again.

I'm glad you mention this is a guess, Brad.  Because it's a wrong guess.  As noted before, it hasn't done away with Cap's guilt...he still feels that he failed Bucky.  It hasn't "turned him rather cynical and reluctant to trust others close to him again."  In fact, he's actively trying to reconnect with Bucky...to help Bucky face whatever demons he has.  (And, right now, Bucky doesn't want that help - he still can't even bring himself to face Cap.)  If anything's caused a cynical/mistrusting turn in the character (and I'm not sure that such a turn is present), it's not the Winter Soldier storyline, it's Civil War.

Did someone say they were?

Greg, I was in the same boat, going into the storyline (heck, into the series as a whole) knowing about the Winter Soldier "hook."  I wish I hadn't, but, hey...whatcha gonna do, right?  I also couldn't do anything about already knowing the "punchline" (if you will) to Citizen Kane the first time I saw it.

In some ways, though, I feel that it may go a long way towards proving - to me, at least - the strength of the story.  That is, I went in, knowing the hook and being skeptical of it, and it still not only worked, but won me over and changed my initial reaction to the very concept of Bucky's return.

Brad, maybe I should articulate why I feel that the scanrio you presented, the introduction of a new character, fails to work.

Would the Phoenix saga have been better if they introduced a new character named Phoenix, built her up for ten issues, then had the Dark Phoenix saga for ten issues after that? Some might say that it would work better, leaving Jean Grey's character alive, unchanged, and "unharmed". Note: I'd be the first to tell those people that they were wrong. That the Dark Phoenix saga, like the Winter Soldier, hinges on it being a character who is familiar and whose change and ultimate death or rebirth will have a major emotional impact on the audience.

I think you can even compare the Winter Soldier to the Dark Phoenix story. A character, who is arguably crucial to the formula, becomes controlled by forces greater than themselves and becomes a villain. Both ultimately, after they happened, radically shifted the tones of their respective books. If it's wrong for this to happen to Bucky, who returns, instead of Phoenix, who dies, isn't that logic a bit...wonky?

Quick, some idiot tell us that would be "a good story"!

Except Jean hadn't been dead for 40 years before she became Phoenix. In fact, her death was the climax of the Phoenix storyline.

****

I have to equate Jean's return years later in FF/Avengers/X-Factor similarly to the Bucky scenario.  She sure seemed dead when she was blasted to ashes in 137.  Definitely a EYKIAL.  Bucky's death just endured much longer.   Of course, what has happened to Jean over the years since her return is...well..I am not sure since I am not really sure when she is dead or alive these days.

And, unless this is a key element in establishing that the whole thing is a hoax, what possible purpose is achieved by rewriting Bucky's death with the snagged sleeve?

For the resurrection of Bucky to work, we must accept that the story as originally told was wrong. For the Jean/Phoenix switch to work, we must merely accept that the original story was incomplete. Very different.

And you also never see the body or see the character pronounced dead.

I'm realizing here that much of the problem probably comes from the fact that a lot of you did not read AVENGERS 4 when it was first published. You came "late" to the story of Cap and Bucky, and there was no Big F**king Deal about it. When I was a teen, reading that issue for the first time, I had no idea who Cap and Bucky were, yet the story still resonated with me, because I had never seen anything like it. "Robin" dies?? Holy Cow! (Same with Phoenix. Beaten to death now. Originally, one of the BIGGEST BFDs ever to come down the pike.)

JB, I agree with you. The Phoenix and Dark Phoenix saga only work best because it is Jean Grey. I agree completely. But the character is changed to such an extent, become so far removed from Jean, that the accusation could be made: "why not just create an alien avatar instead of having this student, whose life is grounded on Earth, become one." Again, I would disagree with this sentiment, and I'm sorry if I'm sounding or acting dense. I also feel that The Winter Soldier works because it is Bucky who comes back, a character with an unbroken connection with Captain America. I also 100% agree with you that part of this problem is the present readership not having read Avenger 4 (which I have) or not having read it when it came out. But how do you make the impact of that issue resonant to a readership over forty years removed from that title's publication? I would argue that the only way to show the emotional resonance of that issue is what Brubaker did--bringing the character back!

"Making history" here used in the sense of "never been done before". Can you say that about the resurrection of Bucky? Had no character ever come back from the dead before?

Kurt was a lowly fanboy when he suggested this very clever way of bringing back Jean Grey.

But, then, true heroism is not something many modern comicbook writers -- or readers, apparently -- really understand, is it?

It's something of a paradox, isn't it? Bucky is "crucial" to the Captain America mythos as long as he stays dead. A resurrected Bucky is, effectively, a whole different character, with a whole different impact on Cap's life.

Winter Soldier, hinges on it being a character who is familiar and whose change and ultimate death or rebirth will have a major emotional impact on the audience.

how much of an emotional impact will there truly be on an audience who never really knew this character.  he's been dead 40 years.  the emotional impact is on Cap, not us.  that's why introducing a different character would work.

If no one minds my chiming in on this...

The point is not the emotional impact of Bucky, but that of Captain America.

I've not read Captain America, or any M***** for that matter, since the mid-80s.  However, as a kid in the 70s until that time period, Captain America was a reading staple for me.  I had never read his WWII adventures, but knew of Bucky through the flashbacks and exposition being presented in the "modern day".  The magic of those stories were that they managed to convey the character's heroism and his importance in Steve Rogers' life, both as friend and as the one who Captain America failed to save.  In a sense, the ghost of Bucky hung over the stories even if he wasn't mentioned.  His death became an integral part of Captain America's mythos.

While the reader may not have an emotional connection to the character of Bucky, chances are they do with Captain America.  Knowing what Bucky meant to the good captain, especially when that relationship is being revisited through the span of years of stories, would give story like Winter Soldier (which I have admittedly not read) have the weight it is purported to have. 

Replacing Bucky with another character whose continuity is retroactively shoe-horned in with the Captain's would not work because there is no previous acknowledgement or connection between Captain America and "unknown sidekick". 

In some cases, a character can become interchangeable.  But emotional relevance can only happen if there is an established, empirical emotional bond between the characters.  Even in absentia, Bucky and Captain America had that resonance. 

Perhaps this type of story would work if the two characters were wholly original to the story, i.e. being showcased for the first time at the same time.  Captain America does not fall into this category given his publishing history.  As such, using a wholly original character and retroactively establishing a history with Cap to try to attain the same resonance would be an exercise in futility.

But, then, true heroism is not something many modern comicbook writers -- or readers, apparently -- really understand, is it?

__________________

Beyond the issue of resurrecting Bucky, this is one of my problems with the storyline to begin with. Not only is Bucky back, but he's a killer and it turns out he's been an assassin all the way back to WWII.

I almost could understand if Bucky came back and still was portrayed as a hero. The scenario of him being brain-damaged in a veteran's hospital would have been much more palatable. I still wouldn't have liked it or agreed with it, but I could've accepted it far more than this.

Part of what attracted me to comics in the first place is the notion of "good guys." Now, it seems like far too many writers want to deconstruct heroes and turn them into morally flawed characters. I see this storyline in that vein. Bucky no longer is a hero - he's now an assassin. It's hard to redeem a character after that.

Paul...I wasn't suggesting a character retroed into Cap's past.  I meant a character newly introduced into Cap's present, developed for several months, wears the Bucky suit for a while, gets "killed" and "brought back" then is revealed for what he/she really was.  Could present the same impact for Cap and doesn't rewrite history.

Let's use Jason Todd as an example...how long was he Robin.  5 Years?  How long was that in comic time?  Months?  A year?  Yet his death had a lasting impact on Batman (until he was brought back too).

How about Frankie Rae...she was part of Johnny's life for what, 10-15 issues.  Her departure had an emotional impact on him, and every time I see Nova I'm reminded of that.

There are ways to do things creatively without changing what is already written.  In many cases more creatively than I have suggested.

Granted.  But who's return would have the greater emotional impact?  Jason Todd's or Bucky's?  In a way, your argument dovetails into my point.  Bucky's death has a connotation of being being more "sacrosanct" or verbotten; an effect  Jason's return lacks, at least to me.  Mayhap this has something to do with the fact that Jason was originally conceived as a replacement (or conceptual clone) to Dick Grayson as opposed to a wholly "original" character like Bucky.  Captain America and Bucky have been associated with each other practically since the proverbial "day 1".  Todd only fifty some years after Batman's first publication date (wasn't he introduced at the commemoration of said anniversary?).

Nevertheless, a writer can write a story that can impact Captain America.  The question is does it impact the reader?  Jason may have been around from '83 - '89 in publishing years, but his return arc happens almost twenty years later.  If it has the degree of impact that the Bucky returns does, its only because sufficient time has passed between the "death" and the "rebirth" to imply that Jason's death was being considered, if not treated, as "sacrosanct".  I imagine that in Jason's case if this story had taken place shortly after his death, there would have been no impact whatsoever (and the contrived "Superboy Prime Punch" doesn't help matters either).

I don't read Fantastic Four and have no knowledge as to the "Frankie Rae" character, so I cannot answer that particular comment in any fashion.

Edited to include source post.

<<For the resurrection of Bucky to work, we must accept that the story as originally told was wrong. For the Jean/Phoenix switch to work, we must merely accept that the original story was incomplete. Very different. >>

Assuming that panel on page 10 of the thread to be the original origin, then I see more than enough 'wiggle room' for a Bucky resurrection.

Written in a fast paced, confusing moment of crisis, do we really expect Steve Rogers tumbling through the sky to a watery grave to have kept his eye fixed on Bucky the entire time? The drone could have rolled, he could have been facing the other way, the explosion could have stunned him. Honestly theres any number of reasons that work if you want them to.

Perhaps most importantly, the whole sequence is not an impartial third person telling of the story, its written in first person - its Steve Rogers interpretation of events. Frame 2: Bucky on a drone, Frame 3: Steve Rogers reaction shot.. the reader doesnt even get to SEE the explosion.

I see more incomplete than wrong here.

Perversely,  the re-told version shows far more detail including the explosion, and does leave me wondering how Bucky survived.

Nice try, but it's not the "switch" that pokes a big hole in Moore's version of Swamp Thing's origin. It's the fact that we saw Swamp Thing turned back into Alec Holland by Arcane. If we accept Moore's version, we have to ignore the first Arcane story -- and every story connected to it. That makes a bit of a mess out of Swamp Thing "continuity", doesn't it?

And the Allies lose their newest weapon. How's about this for a small "rule" of debate? You don't get to pick just the part that fits your argument. You have to take the whole shebang. And when you do, you're argument explodes just like that drone.

So, the "fake reality" of comics lets us play fast and loose with something like "radiation", but not with something quantifiable, like an explosion. It's sort of the raygun/real gun scenario. I can shoot you in the head with my atomic mind zapper and the audience will have to accept that whatever I tell them happens is what happens. But if I shoot you in the head with a .45…

You know you're in trouble when the "solution" to a problem is to pile on the coincidences.

This is the chief problem with Moore's EYKIAL approach: no consideration was given to the ripples it caused thru the SWAMP THING mythos.

***

Nice try, but it's not the "switch" that pokes a big hole in Moore's version of Swamp Thing's origin. It's the fact that we saw Swamp Thing turned back into Alec Holland by Arcane. If we accept Moore's version, we have to ignore the first Arcane story -- and every story connected to it. That makes a bit of a mess out of Swamp Thing "continuity", doesn't it?

===================================================

If we are to take Moore's "origin" as being what Swamp Thing really is then why when Arcane changed him back didn't he just turn in to a big pile of swamp vegetation. This is one of the major holes I can see in this story.

So, ask yourselves -- when a retcon is introduced, does it fit into what we know (even as off-camera, never before seen moment), or do we have to make excuses for it?

As in ALPHA FLIGHT, when I brought back Mac Hudson in a way that clearly contradicted the circumstances of his death. The intent was to create in the readers, come the reveal, an "Ah ha!" moment, not a "Huh?" moment.)

==========================================================

This was one of the things I didn't like about Fabian Nicieza's run on the book when he took that plotline and did turn it in to how Mac was eventually brought back even down to the being part machine due to being melded with his suit.

Still it was a lot quicker and simpler than how they brought Sasquatch back from the dead.

"some sort of trauma triggered his/her latent metagene"

Shades of "Highlander: Endgame!"

if this is indeed intended to be a hoax, then the details that do not jibe with the original telling can be seen as set up for the reveal to come.
*****

THen why ruin it for everyone else who is enjoying the ride?

Although I did admit that I'm enjoying the current Cap storyline, I do think in general that the "contradicting " of old stories is not a good idea. The very simple reason is this: These characters, especially the major "archetypal" ones, meaning Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Cap, the FF, etc etc. were created well enough that they've managed to last 40, 50 or 60 years. They are durable and adaptable and lend themselves to so many possible stories that it seems almost pointless...and certainly lazy to have to keep mining and redoing the past. Just tell stories dammit!

"Also, do writers need to be held to task for everything which contradicts a story published over forty years ago, especially when a large portion of comics' readership has likely never read the issue? Can't we just accept it as Brubaker retelling it for a new, younger generation?"

If, as people have said, the Winter Soldier story only works with Bucky...why shouldn't Brubaker or another writer be expected to adhere to the fact and spirit of the original?  If a point of continuity is so central to your story, why should it be okay to exploit it without any regard for it's importance?

Mike

QUOTE: Also, do writers need to be held to task for everything which contradicts a story published over forty years ago yes, i think they do.  if you have a Captain America story to tell that doesn't fit Cap's history then you DON'T have a Captain America story.  So either create your own character to tell the story or tailor your story to fit Cap's history. You can update a character's origin without changing it.  See Spider-Man: Chapter One.

In fact, last night, I did a quick pass over the issues in question, and Brubaker's story acknowledges within itself, in internal logic, that we're getting additional information about the moment of Bucky's alleged demise.  Over the course of several issues, Cap finds himself remembering details about being captured by Zemo.  In the panel immediately following the Brubaker/Epting retelling of the drone scene posted a few pages back, Cap acknowledges that he didn't previously remember Bucky getting stuck.  Through the course of the story, he finds himself questioning what is and isn't true about the facts he's just now recalling.  Are these details real?  Are they result of the storyline's villain using the Cosmic Cube in what the Falcon refers to as a "major mind-$#@&?"  Are they Cap subconciously trying to alleviate some of the guilt he feels about failing Bucky?  He likens it, at one point, to an accident victim who, at first, doesn't remember anything between getting in the car and waking up at the hospital.

So, clearly, we actually aren't dealing with a story that "doesn't fit Cap's history."  It has, in fact, been tailored to fit Cap's history and to account for apparent contradictions.

Except that, even in "Marvel Time", it's been years since he came out of the ice, with nary so much as a whisper of a hint of a suggestion that his memories of Bucky's death were anything but accurate.

Unless Stan got it wrong, of course.

How does that "ruin" anything?

But -- if a writer choses to reference previous material, then it is that writer's responsibility to respect the previous material.

"Why not tell a new story, with new characters,and leave the previous continuity as it is?"

Yes! That would solve all these "debates" about what is being done to established characters. If you want to deviate from "traditional" characterizations, create new characters. If you want to tell stories in "real time", create new characters. If you want to use "real science" as the basis for superpowers, create new characters. Problem solved! But don't fuck with what has worked so well for decades! 

++

THen why ruin it for everyone else who is enjoying the ride?

***

How does that "ruin" anything?
*****

Well, to be honest, its very much like the man who sits in the audience of a magic act pointing out to everyone how the illusion works.

And… how is it "like" that?

QUOTE: Except that, even in "Marvel Time", it's been years since he came out of the ice, with nary so much as a whisper of a hint of a suggestion that his memories of Bucky's death were anything but accurate.

And those memories are still accurate...the story acknowledges that he did not remember this detail until recently (while revisiting the installation where it happened, to be precise), and what we've seen prior takes us up to the added moment.  Additionally, people do go years without recovering lost memories, if they ever do.  This is, of course, assuming that the recovered "caught sleeve" memory is accurate.  As noted earlier, the veracity of the additional details can be called into question, within the context of the story.

That, to me, make perfect sense.  Both you and David have pointed to something I hadn't really given much thought to with regard to bloating the moments prior to detonation.  I'm still on the fence about Bucky's resurrection being a bad thing for the character of Captain America, but I can certainly see the logic presented above for his survival in the first place.

So it's not "It's gonna blow!" (…pause…) BOOM! It's "It's gonna blow!" BOOM!

****

Okay, I understand what you are saying.  Brubaker certainly took liberty with that instance.  What I am trying to get across, is that a couple of members seem to equate the Bucky's sleeve is stuck line that Brubaker inserted somehow changes anything about the story, Bucky or the fact Bucky is a hero equally in both versions of his death.  This part of the Bucky mythos is, with this scene, realtively unaffected by Brubaker's frivolous line regarding the sleeve.

(As in ALPHA FLIGHT, when I brought back Mac Hudson in a way that clearly contradicted the circumstances of his death. The intent was to create in the readers, come the reveal, an "Ah ha!" moment, not a "Huh?" moment.)

*************

JB, during the month or two from when you brought Mac Hudson back before the big reveal, did you get much mail from readers pointing out the contradiction, saying it should not have been possible?  Did many readers figure out what you were doing?

I hate to keep coming back to this Greg…but it does.  In the original version he chose to stay with the plane.  In the new version he was stuck

****

Read the two pieces again, Brad.  Both instances Bucky knew the drone was gonna blow.  There really was nothing left to do.  THe had basically already accomplished his goal by accidentally tripping the booby-trap.  The drone was going to not make it's destination whether Bucky had time to get off or not.  I just need to know how this makes Bucky less heroic?  How this changes Bucky? 

For the resurrection of Bucky to work, we must accept that the story as originally told was wrong. For the Jean/Phoenix switch to work, we must merely accept that the original story was incomplete. Very different.

+++++++++++++

Your ability to get right to the creamy nougat center of matters like this one never ceases to amaze, JB.

Since "everything that happened in the original" happens in the second version, this is the same scene, right?

Brad Teschner wrote: there's a huge difference between taking out people in combat and taking out people in their sleep.  one is kill or be killed...the other is more akin to pre-meditated murder.

Between enemy combatants during a time of war?  I don't agree.  Bucky was on missions with Cap where they infiltrated Nazi army barracks.  During a time of war, I think both scenarios you paint are kill or be killed.  It's just who gets the jump first.

I have no problem accepting that Bucky (and Captain America, for that matter) killed enemy soldiers during combat. It was a war and they were soldiers.

But like Brad said, I view that as different from murdering people in their sleep or being a professional killer who secretly does Cap's "dirty work." That strikes me as far more premeditated and cold-blooded - and certainly not appropriate for a comic book superhero.

It does seem to me that this storyline makes fundamental (and unnecessary) changes in the Captain America mythos and the Bucky character in particular.

However, if this turns out to be an elaborate hoax, I take back all of my criticism! 

Coming soon...

It will be revealed...

...that The Burglar killed Ben Parker because Ben had previously killed The Burglar's wife in a hit-and-run accident.

...that Professor Yinsen was actually in league with Wong-Chu, and was placed close to Tony Stark so he could obtain the secrets of the weapon Stark was told to build (which turned into the Iron Man armor). Yinsen's death was faked, and he will soon return to battle Stark in his own Iron Man armor.

...that the Kingpin is actually Matt Murdock's father, and that he arranged for Jack Murdock's death because they were rivals for the affections of Matt's mother.

...that Franklin Storm did not actually die, and was bio-engineered by the Skrull empire to become Galactus (whose cosmic powers are mostly Skrull trickery/illusions). Further, it will be revealed that Galactus' destruction of the Skrull homeworld was a hoax designed to keep secret the fact that "Galactus" is really a Skrull agent.

...that Rick Jones was actually a U.S. government agent assigned to cause Bruce Banner's transformation into the Hulk (after having kidnapped Banner, altered his DNA to make this tranformation possible, and then wiped his memory of these events), and who sabotaged various attempts to cure Banner because the government wanted to capture the Hulk and turn him into a living weapon.

Now, can anyone honestly say that extreme examples like this don't fall into the "Bucky" camp of, "See--or invent--a loophole, then go hog-wild with revisionism"?

Yup.  I don't equate the quite frankly absurd storylines you propose above with what Brubaker is doing in CAPTAIN AMERICA.  Honestly.

The last few were (intentionally) absurd, yes. But don't tell me that the first few might not be under consideration by some hotshot writer. They fall into the same basic vein. Those are stories I can see happening someday.

After all, until recently, Bucky was most assuredly Never Going To Come Back.

And now, he's back.

To me, that means all bets are off, nothing is sacred, nothing is off-limits, and anything goes.

The storylines you just "proposed" would drastically alter the personalities of Uncle Ben, of the Kingpin, of Rick Jones. The Bucky thing, whether or not Bucky's survival is a good idea, does not really drastically alter the personalitiy of Cap.

++++++++++

The personalities of Ben, Fisk, Rick, etc. would be altered, yes. So why are you  suddenly talking about CAP's personality with regards to the Bucky story (without mentioning changes to Spider-Man, Daredevil, and the Hulk up above)? Following your line of thinking, Bucky's personality had been drastically altered.

What's your point, there?

(And no points to Rankin.)

Greg, your examples make sense to me. I don't see them as any different that the Bucky resurrection scenario. It does indicate an unfortunate turn toward "Nothing is sacred/all bets are off."

However, I'm not sure this debate, respectful as it has been, is going anywhere. Some of us believe this storyline represents a fundamental change in the Captain America mythos. We don't like it and won't be swayed otherwise.

Others don't see it that way - and that's fine. I doubt they will be convinced to change their minds, either.

Ah.

I have to say, there's a lot of Bucky-passion here.

What was this thread even about before it got hijacked by Bucky?

Maybe we should try and get back to the previous topic instead of running around in circles, eh?

If you can say that with a straight face, I don't think you have a very good fix on who Cap is.

Yes.. that part of it makes sense...and on that point I agree, Greg and JB. What I meant was that it didn't change the 1964 to just-before-the-Bucky-thing-Cap. That was what I saw as the fundamental difference in the examples that you made, Greg. Revealing Uncle Ben as a drunk driver would retroactively make Peter's gentle, kind uncle into an irresponsible asshole.

   Maybe I'm not having much success expressing why it was different in my view, but for some reason they just seemed like two different types of examples.

But how does Bucky's ressurection change Cap's character? It doesn't retroactively change Cap's personality and Cap is still someone who wants to save his best friend, which he was before Bucky came back.

David, that's what I meant. It very well could change Cap's personality now, but since Brubaker hasn't finished the story...who knows? My point was that I don't see how it retroactively changes Cap. Apparently, I didn't make that clear enough when I first said it, and hope I've clarified it subsequently.

  Bucky's ressurection changes Cap's history, but not his personality pre-revelation. 

Revealing Uncle Ben as a drunk driver would retroactively make Peter's gentle, kind uncle into an irresponsible asshole.

++++++++++++

But it would make him "flawed" and "realistic", and thus a better, more complex character.

Right?

Well  the story does change who Bucky was. He's no longer Cap's kid sidekick and Army camp mascot. Who through skill, pluck and determination won that role. Now hes an Special Forces operative assigned to Cap to do the "dirty work". Once Cap was more like a father figure or older brother to Buck. Now they are contemporaries. So every thing we know about has changed. It was a all a lie. I guess a special forces operative is more "realistic" than a kid sidekick. But it also sucks the fun out of comics.

QUOTE: Well, I think the drift still pretty well represents the topic, to a degree.  The point of contention that's led to the close examination of the Bucky/Winter Soldier storyline/reveal stems from whether or not it's an "Everything You Know Is a Lie" or "You Just Didn't Know Everything That Happened."

It depends on which aspect of the Winter Soldier you want to focus.

If it's the revelation that instead of being an useless sidekick, Bucky really was highly skilled, cutthroat, special forces operative, then it falls into EYKIAL.

If it's his subsequent return from the grave, then it's no more EYKIAL than the revivals of Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Superman, Jean Grey, Colossus, Magneto (all 16 times) and about 3/5 of all Marvel Characters.

You know what,JB? Maybe I'm wrong about it the whole thing. The more i think about it, this could be a case of me just trying too hard to like the story, since I really didn't want to admit that Cap has gotten as screwed up as, say, Spider-Man has recently. Its the same as the way I really tried to overlook the problems with the LOTR movies, but after i while I just couldn't and now I despise the films. 

  I thought that post of mine here that you responded to yesterday might have been misunderstood due to a fault in the way i phrased it, but maybe I haven't thought it through enough.

  Also, I think part of what I said might have been an emotional reaction to Greg's intentionally absurd idea of Uncle Ben Parker being "retroactively " made into a drunk driver. That idea hit a nerve with me and actually made me cringe!

   Anyway, if I had been writing Captain America, i certainly never would have thought of resurrecting Bucky. I don't think its really a good idea. I think its just been a case of me trying to overlook it due to the fact that more often than not I like Brubaker's writing.

Candy-Coated Avatar courtesy of Anthony J Lombardi

No problem, David.

The other observations that I made last night while taking another pass through (and selecting pages to scan) didn't even require me to scan the pages.  They're back there on page 10 of this thread, in the two pages showing part of how Bucky was transformed into the Winter Soldier.

First, a specific line:

QUOTE: They told me he was on a plane which exploded, but I doubt this.  He must have leaped before the blast.  From the appearance of his wounds, he was in close proximity to a small explosion, but perhaps twenty feet away, already falling to the water below.

From my experience with Brubaker's work, on this and other titles, I think that this line, coupled with the sharp focus given with the (contradictory) "snagged sleeve" moment indicates that we still don't have all the answers here.  I don't think Brubaker's sloppy enough to both claim that Bucky was stuck to the drone and have a doctor claim that the wounds indicate he wasn't.

The other point that I don't think even really "clicked" to me when I first read the story or when I made my initial pass through it a couple of nights ago:  On that same page, the doctor establishes that Bucky was indeed dead when his body was retrieved...that he was revived, much to the doctor's astonishment, but suffered severe brain damage, making his transformation into the Winter Soldier all the easier.

The one clear contradiction of what's gone before is Brubaker's establishment that Bucky was appointed as Cap's partner, as opposed to stumbling upon his identity.

Which brings me to a hypothesis:

We've not seen the endpoint of the story, and there's still a factor at play here.  My hypothesis is that it's all tied in to the restoration of Bucky's memories via the Cosmic Cube.  Cap used the cube, telling him to, "Remember who you are."  Overwhelmed by the flood of memories from both his lifetimes, Bucky stated that he wished Cap had let him die, then crushed the Cube.  Is it possible that this action, rippling backwards under the Cube's power, is responsible for the apparent contradictions both within this run and between this run and previous stories?

(edit to correct quote formatting)

Brad Teschner wrote: R.I.P. James Buchanan "Bucky" Barnes (1941 - 2006)

A sure sign a person hasn't read what they're criticizing is to get the dates wrong.  If you really wanted to declare the date of his death via resurrection, you'd have put 2004 (the year Brubaker started on the title) not the year you found out about it (2006).

Also, I think part of what I said might have been an emotional reaction to Greg's intentionally absurd idea of Uncle Ben Parker being "retroactively " made into a drunk driver. That idea hit a nerve with me and actually made me cringe!

+++++++++++++

I never said he was drunk in my scenario.

On that same page, the doctor establishes that Bucky was indeed dead when his body was retrieved...that he was revived, much to the doctor's astonishment, but suffered severe brain damage, making his transformation into the Winter Soldier all the easier.

The one clear contradiction of what's gone before is Brubaker's establishment that Bucky was appointed as Cap's partner, as opposed to stumbling upon his identity.

Which brings me to a hypothesis:

We've not seen the endpoint of the story, and there's still a factor at play here.

+++++++++++++++++

Try hugging a ton of explosives sometime, and then we'll see how much of your corpse is left to be "revived"!

Even if the story has not ended, it's really unfair to both new and longtime readers to have it drawn out for a long period of time.

The result is that older fans get upset during this period because they think such changes are permanent, only to eventually discover that they will be undone months (or even years) later.

Better to wrap up such a story in a limited amount of time. No more than a year, tops. It's far worse to (apparrently) cut a swath of damage through a mythos, then have a bunch of unrelated stories follow it for months (or years) after, then have a story "fix" things by saying, "Just kidding!".

And, of course, if a solution to this thing is forthcoming, people will ask whether  that was the plan all along, or if the creators decided to backpeddle due to a perceived negative reaction (with the creators merely claiming it was the plan all along to fix things).

Or, as with the Gwen Stacy mess, such controversy could be swept under the rug completely, without any efforts made to address it (after "Sins Remembered", there's been virtually no mention of the whole ordeal in the Spider-Man books, as I understand it).

Try hugging a ton of explosives sometime, and then we'll see how much of your corpse is left to be "revived"!

*****

Again, quoted from the book:

They told me he was on a plane which exploded, but I doubt this.  He must have leaped before the blast.  From the appearance of his wounds, he was in close proximity to a small explosion, but perhaps twenty feet away, already falling to the water below.

Quoted from the book (Avengers # 4):

"It seems like only yesterday,--but it was more than twenty years ago that my teen-age pal, Bucky--and I--while acting as security guards at an E.T.O. army base--tried to stop an explosive-filled drone plane from taking to the air!"

"And if they fail, America loses one of its newest weapons!"

Small explosion? I strongly doubt it. And, even applying the retconned "twenty feet away", such an explosion would still cause some serious damage.

Of course, in the original story, Bucky was still holding onto the plane when it blew.

The "Winter Soldier" should look more like this:

Greg Kirkman: Even if the story has not ended, it's really unfair to both new and longtime readers to have it drawn out for a long period of time.

The result is that older fans get upset during this period because they think such changes are permanent, only to eventually discover that they will be undone months (or even years) later.

I wonder how many people were whining like this when Mark Gruenwald did an amazing 18-issue story arc with a replacement Captain America.  Issues 332-350 were some of the best comic books stories I ever read.

The bottom line is, someone is always going to be upset because you can't please everybody.  I'm one of those older fans you speak of, Greg, and I'm not upset.  You are.  And so it goes...

QUOTE: Try hugging a ton of explosives sometime, and then we'll see how much of your corpse is left to be "revived"!

Greg, that's really disengenuous of you.  Please keep in mind that we're referring to the doctor's notes in this instance...the same notes that I quoted just a few lines before, in which he states that, while told the victim (Bucky) was on a plane that exploded, he disputes this conclusion precisely because there is so much "corpse left to be revived."  This goes to show us that Brubaker has considered these elements.  Also, as I mentioned later in the post you reference, based upon my previous experience with his work, I don't think these apparent discrepancies as the result of sloppy writing, but as intentional elements that we're intended to key in upon.  To what ultimate purpose, I can only speculate, but I still don't feel that they're mistakes...rather that they're something that's supposed to be noticed.

QUOTE: Even if the story has not ended, it's really unfair to both new and longtime readers to have it drawn out for a long period of time.

And, there's a very good chance that I might ultimately agree on this'n, depending on how long it takes to get to the "real" endpoint (if, indeed, I'm correct in surmising that we haven't yet).  However, that's an entirely different discussion than whether Bucky's return coulda/woulda/shoulda been done.

QUOTE: Better to wrap up such a story in a limited amount of time. No more than a year, tops. It's far worse to (apparrently) cut a swath of damage through a mythos, then have a bunch of unrelated stories follow it for months (or years) after, then have a story "fix" things by saying, "Just kidding!".

And, another degree of agreement from me, here.  There has been a certain amount of derailment "thanks" to Civil War.  That's something I can most definitely let slide.  Given that the architects of CW constructed the story with Cap as the head of one of the two opposing factions, there was little or no way around having that storyline spill over into his own book.  That said, though, I wouldn't say the stories that followed were entirely unrelated.  Let's take a look:

• #1-6 - "Out of Time" - The Winter Soldier storyline is really a subplot in this one (even if Marvel did collect the first six issues under the title "The Winter Soldier"...the title of the next storyline), with the reveal that the Winter Soldier might be Bucky coming at the end of the storyline, and coming to the fore for the next.
• #7 - A stand-alone issue focusing on Nomad, who met his fate in the "Out of Time" arc, and filling us in on what had happened to him since we last saw him (in Thunderbolts?) until "Out of Time."
• #8-9 - "The Winter Soldier" parts 1 & 2.
• #10 - A "House of M" crossover.  As with CW, I'm not going to fault Brubaker for having to take part in a company-wide crossover event.
• #11-14 - The rest of "The Winter Soldier," climaxing in the restoration of Bucky's memories, and his disappearance following same.
• #15 - Another stand-alone, bringing the Red Skull's daughter back into the mix and reviewing her history.
• #16-17 - A two-parter against Crossbones & Sin (following up on what we saw in #15).
• #18-21 - "Twenty-First Century Blitz" Winter Soldier is a continuing subplot, going after Lukin, who'd been his most recent "controller," even as recently as "Out of Time" and "The Winter Soldier."
• #22-24 - Civil War crossovers.  See above.

I'd say that, truth be told, it doesn't seem like it's been that long to me.  But, in the interest of honesty and fairness, I didn't start going back and picking the series up until around the time #14 was coming out.  So, I read just over a year's worth of the book over the course of 2-3 days, and read in "real time" for the next three issues.  Likewise, due to finances, I just read #'s 18-24 last week.  So, I'm admittedly potentially a poor judge of whether or not it feels drawn out or not.

And, you're absolutely right that some people will question the motivations and plans of the creative team.  There's no way around that...happens with most every storyline, whether it's "controversial" or not, and moreso with "controversial" storylines.  I even seem to recall some of that questioning going on around the time #14 hit the stands.

QUOTE: Of course, in the original story, Bucky was still holding onto the plane when it blew.

Of course, in the original story, we cut from a shot of Bucky holding onto the plane to a reaction shot of Cap as it explodes.

Now, if you want to say that in Brubaker's retelling, Bucky was still on the plane...from Cap's recollection, that was the case (see the page I reposted).  At the same time, those same pages show Cap calling his recollections of the events into question, and based upon the doctor's notes in the Winter Soldier file, there would appear to be good reason for Cap to do so.

Some fans were upset, Greg, but I think most of us realized that Steve Rogers eventually would be back in uniform as Captain America. Heck, the fact that he never really disappeared from the comic should've been Clue #1.

I thought the John Walker-as-Cap storyline was fantastic. At the time, Cap (Steve Rogers) had been getting flak from some fans for being too goody-goody. Blood 'n' guts heroes like Wolverine, the Punisher and Frank Miller's Batman were in vogue at the time and Cap's strong moral values and aversion to senseless violence make him appear wimpy to some readers.

What Gruenwald did was give fans what they wanted - a "grim & gritty" Captain America, only to show how that kind of man is destined to crumble under the weight of being an American icon.

Gruenwald's point was that fighting skill or physical power doesn't define Captain America - integrity, nobility, courage and compassion defines Captain America. Just a great storyline.

If the "Bucky Returns" storyline turns out to be a swerve, I take back all of my criticism.

I also like the Walker-as-Cap storyline, because it proved that only Rogers could be Captain America.

+++++++++++++++++++++++=

Of course, in the original story, we cut from a shot of Bucky holding onto the plane to a reaction shot of Cap as it explodes.

Now, if you want to say that in Brubaker's retelling, Bucky was still on the plane...from Cap's recollection, that was the case (see the page I reposted).  At the same time, those same pages show Cap calling his recollections of the events into question, and based upon the doctor's notes in the Winter Soldier file, there would appear to be good reason for Cap to do so.

++++++++++++++++++++

Still, the new story seems to be saying that original story was wrong, and retcons inserted between the panels of that story "prove" it.

Didn't we agree to disagree?

QUOTE: Still, the new story seems to be saying that original story was wrong, and retcons inserted between the panels of that story "prove" it.

Key word there would be "seems."  Seems to me, though, that it isn't saying the original story was wrong.  The original story was quite clearly told from Cap's POV.  The newer story is predicated on that, with the suggestion that Cap may not have recalled everything.  Likewise, as shown in the pages I posted this morning, it also suggests that he may have recalled everything, and that the new recollections are false.  (In fact, the details of how Bucky's body was recovered by the Russians jives more with the original than the "snagged sleeve" scenario, which I think is significant.)

QUOTE: Didn't we agree to disagree?

Sure.  But I can't help that you responded to another one of my posts.  ;-)

"Try hugging a ton of explosives sometime, and then we'll see how much of your corpse is left to be "revived"!"

So is it a copout or a cheat, ridiculous or unbelievable, Greg, each time the Joker gets shot through the heart, caught in a crumbling castle, blasted with explosives, or a variation of any of those happening all at once?

Greg Kirkman, You're right...you didn't say "drunk," you said "hit and run"

  My apologies.

  I must have been having a bad day when I responded to that post.

It is nice to see people so passionate about comics, old and new.

Keep it up!

So is it a copout or a cheat, ridiculous or unbelievable, Greg, each time the Joker gets shot through the heart, caught in a crumbling castle, blasted with explosives, or a variation of any of those happening all at once?

+++++++++++++++

Name one instance where one of the Joker's (always temporary) "deaths" has:

1. Caused a profound effect on the life/psychology of the Batman, or any other supporting character;

2. Been a key factor in an important/memorable/popular storyline that shaped years of stories that followed (The Dark Knight Returns notwithstanding).

mr. kirkman i don't think mr. reed wants us to say the points anymore. please i would not want there to be trouble and usualy you are very good. thank you.
++++++++++++++++++

Pick one and run with it, friend.

http://www.mylanguageexchange.com/Learn/English.asp - http://www.mylanguageexchange.com/Learn/English.asp

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=1 0365&cn=208 - http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=1 0365&cn=208