I think someone mentioned it on the podcast a month or two ago, but Time & Vine is a must-read. If you are looking for something that is more down-to-earth get this book immediately. There is a science fiction element to it, of course, but in reality this is a comic about life and looking back, through the lens of a winery.
Peter Parker The Spectacular Spider-Man #6 has a pretty big event happen, that is remarkably effective considering the opportunity to do it had been ruined 11 years previously. This makes it much more personal than just a beat in a line wide event.
Spider-Man reveals that he's Peter Parker to J. Jonah Jameson. The entire issue is a conversation between the two that leads to Peter trusting Jonah with his secret.
I didn't feel the same sense of elation and excitement as I did when reading Waid and Rivera’s Daredevil #1. And I didn’t feel the same sense of amazement with the storytelling as I did with Samnee and Waid’s Black Widow #1. But Captain America #695 is a dandy comic, and nicely sums up everything you really need to know about Cap going forward without resorting to a bunch of boring exposition.
Chris’ art, as ever, is totally on point. He’s using a slightly chunkier line than he did in Daredevil, but the art is more open than it was in Black Widow, which is completely the right decision considering the characters. And Matt Wilson does his usual great job with the colors.
Surprised Waid couldn’t find any villain other than what he believes is a relevant foil in today’s culture. Good writing otherwise, but I expect there were far more relevant villains than “white supremists” in 2007. Samnee art was good, but I’m feeling like the flat pop-art is starting to get overdone. YMMV
Surprised Waid couldn’t find any villain other than what he believes is a relevant foil in today’s culture. Good writing otherwise, but I expect there were far more relevant villains than “white supremists” in 2007. Samnee art was good, but I’m feeling like the flat pop-art is starting to get overdone. YMMV
If you look at some headlines from 2006 and 2007 you'll see that if the world had being paying more attention, we might not be in the mess we're in.
If anything the comic plays its topic with kid gloves, Rampart are only presented as supremacists because other characters say they are, though Cap's reluctance to call Rampart Nazis in the 2007 scene, could be read as a commentary on a reluctance to call out Neo-Nazis in the past. (Or Marvel's own attempt to distance Hydra from Nazis).
Compared to the Americops arc in Spencer's Captain America, this is pretty toothless commentary. Sure looks good though.
Surprised Waid couldn’t find any villain other than what he believes is a relevant foil in today’s culture. Good writing otherwise, but I expect there were far more relevant villains than “white supremists” in 2007.
I think the choice of villains mainly had to do with the previous storyline. They’re coming out of a story where Steve Rogers was depicted as a Nazi. A story that received a lot of blowback for obvious reasons. I think the natural choice to follow that up and show that everything is back to status quo is to show Cap fighting against Naz—er, white surpremacists. It allows you to address the last storyline and move on organically rather than through a bunch of exposition.
Samnee art was good, but I’m feeling like the flat pop-art is starting to get overdone. YMMV
I've been feeling like the move to “photorealistic” art and highly rendered coloring in comics is well past overdone for the past decade. There aren't nearly enough Toth-inspired artists out there for my preference.
Samnee art was good, but I’m feeling like the flat pop-art is starting to get overdone. YMMV
I've been feeling like the move to “photorealistic” art and highly rendered coloring in comics is well past overdone for the past decade. There aren't nearly enough Toth-inspired artists out there for my preference.
Agreed more Toth and less Scanner Darkly filter. I really feel like the highly coloring makes a lot of homogeneous comics, even more than the styles. If that makes sense.
Surprised Waid couldn’t find any villain other than what he believes is a relevant foil in today’s culture. Good writing otherwise, but I expect there were far more relevant villains than “white supremists” in 2007.
Surprised Waid couldn’t find any villain other than what he believes is a relevant foil in today’s culture. Good writing otherwise, but I expect there were far more relevant villains than “white supremists” in 2007.
I agree.
“10 Years Ago” in Marvel comic book years is about 50 years ago for us readers. When Cap returned in 1964, the KKK was still making headlines. I can't say if that was what Mark was going for, but I don't see it as being any different than saying Frank Castle fought in the Middle East instead of Vietnam. Unless a specific year is mentioned in a story, I don't take time all that literally in comics that have been around for decades.
There was a recent US News story that estimated the number of KKK members at 3000. Even the SPLC estimates the number between 5000 & 8000. Considering the population on the US, that number is a joke. The KKK is a joke, they're ideology is a joke, and their members can't die off soon enough. I agree with you that using white supremacist is kind of an organic way to come out of the last storyline. It just smacks of beating a dead horse. A dead horse that's wearing clown makeup.
I don't know if it’s beating a dead horse, or trying to make sure a dying horse doesn’t get back up again. Either way, it’s clear this Rampart group is going to be a large part of Mark’s story for a while—probably over the course of, I would guess, the next year. Like I said, this first issue’s story didn’t thrill me, but I enjoyed it well enough. So as long as some other things get thrown into the story pot (we get a new Swordsman next issue), and these guys don't stick around too terribly long, I'm okay with it. I'm in regardless for Chris’ artwork.
I can't say if that was what Mark was going for, but I don't see it as being any different than saying Frank Castle fought in the Middle East instead of Vietnam.
In spite you both you and Brack making decent rebuttals to my feelings about the book, I happen to have a pretty good idea what he "was going for" - since I'm familiar with Mark Waid's social media politics. I'm sticking with original response. I'd be very surprised to learn that he, in fact, couldn't find any other villain to tell this tale.
I submit that white supremacists were not only irrelevant in 2007, they are less relevant today. And in a culture where this kind of prank is causing people to lose their minds, I think many people are tired of identity politics in their comics and would like to see them more as escape entertainment again. I doubt that is the future of this title since I am hearing Ta-Nehisi Coates is taking over Captain America after this first arc.
My two cents. Thrilled for you if it worked for you. Don't get me started on Hulk #700...
I can't say if that was what Mark was going for, but I don't see it as being any different than saying Frank Castle fought in the Middle East instead of Vietnam.
In spite you both you and Brack making decent rebuttals to my feelings about the book, I happen to have a pretty good idea what he "was going for" - since I'm familiar with Mark Waid's social media politics. I'm sticking with original response. I'd be very surprised to learn that he, in fact, couldn't find any other villain to tell this tale.
I submit that white supremacists were not only irrelevant in 2007, they are less relevant today. And in a culture where this kind of prank is causing people to lose their minds, I think many people are tired of identity politics in their comics and would like to see them more as escape entertainment again. I doubt that is the future of this title since I am hearing Ta-Nehisi Coates is taking over Captain America after this first arc.
My two cents. Thrilled for you if it worked for you. Don't get me started on Hulk #700...
Oh, I'm very familiar with Mark’s politics, social media or otherwise. I’ve known Mark since before social media was even a thing. And Mark’s already publicly stated that he was itching to write Cap again so he could have him punch Nazis. I'm not at all surprised he has a group like Rampart as the villains. But that particular statement was referring only to the flashback scene in regards to the date. In other words, Mark could just as easily have had Rampart be the villains without that flashback scene. I think the flashback scene was included to say that white supremacists were a problem back when Cap was brought back in 1964, and they’re still hanging around. Kind of a full circle thing, bringing Cap back to his roots, so to speak. And having the teacher think, at first, that Cap was one of the bad guys was a subtle acknowledgement of the last storyline.
Just read an interview with Mark and Chris, and it looks like these Rampart (formerly named Bastion) guys will just be a three-issue arc that ends with #700. So they won't be around long after all. I figured they'd be lurking in the background for an arc before being the focal point for an arc, but it looks like Mark and Chris aren't being tied to the standard five- or six-issue storyline. Instead they're doing a few one-and-dones, then the three-issue arc. After that, I have no idea. It'd be kind of weird if they only stuck around for six issues, though.
I can't say if that was what Mark was going for, but I don't see it as being any different than saying Frank Castle fought in the Middle East instead of Vietnam.
In spite you both you and Brack making decent rebuttals to my feelings about the book, I happen to have a pretty good idea what he "was going for" - since I'm familiar with Mark Waid's social media politics. I'm sticking with original response. I'd be very surprised to learn that he, in fact, couldn't find any other villain to tell this tale.
I submit that white supremacists were not only irrelevant in 2007, they are less relevant today. And in a culture where this kind of prank is causing people to lose their minds, I think many people are tired of identity politics in their comics and would like to see them more as escape entertainment again. I doubt that is the future of this title since I am hearing Ta-Nehisi Coates is taking over Captain America after this first arc.
My two cents. Thrilled for you if it worked for you. Don't get me started on Hulk #700...
I think it worked even less for me than it did you, it sugarcoats white supremacy by giving it an easily punchable face and having it not do anything remotely resembling real-world white supremacy.
White supremacy does not start and end with the KKK. It's more insidious than that.
For all of Champions' 'How do you do, fellow kids' bad teenage dialogue, at least there Waid frequently recognises that solutions to real world problems are not simple even when you apply superheroes to them.
Between this and the Avengers/Champions crossover Waid's writing has not been at its best of late. Cap at least has more comprehensible visual story telling.
Man, you need to quit hate-reading. It's not good for your blood pressure. Go pet a puppy or something instead. :)
Getting another cat later today, so I’m good.
One might suppose a title with the word “LEGACY” and an issue at number 700 might actually feature the character that got them to issue #700, but it doesn’t. Amadeus Cho is fine in small doses, like in Champions (a better Waid joint than his current Cap run IMO), but this book not only didn’t touch on Banner in any discernible way, it went and re-hashed the Planet Hulk storyline (again), and as i recall, that planet was destroyed(?). Maybe if they made it a buddy-adventure and brought Hercules into this title it would be more fun, but this time Herc is the weaker of the two (he and Cho used to run around together), it might be more interesting.
I expected more from Pak, but Land was about what I expected...
Man, you need to quit hate-reading. It's not good for your blood pressure. Go pet a puppy or something instead. :)
Getting another cat later today, so I’m good.
One might suppose a title with the word “LEGACY” and an issue at number 700 might actually feature the character that got them to issue #700, but it doesn’t. Amadeus Cho is fine in small doses, like in Champions (a better Waid joint than his current Cap run IMO), but this book not only didn’t touch on Banner in any discernible way, it went and re-hashed the Planet Hulk storyline (again), and as i recall, that planet was destroyed(?). Maybe if they made it a buddy-adventure and brought Hercules into this title it would be more fun, but this time Herc is the weaker of the two (he and Cho used to run around together), it might be more interesting.
I expected more from Pak, but Land was about what I expected...
Totally Awesome Hulk was highly enjoyable when it started out. Cho and his sister teaming up to track down and defeat giant monsters... what wasn’t to like? But after Frank Cho left the book, the series seemed to kind of lose its way a bit, and I dropped it soon after, around the time Jeremy Lin showed up. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to bringing Herc back into the book and getting back to having fun with it.
I was really interested to try out The Ruff and Reddy #1, DC’s latest Hanna-Barbera Beyond update. A couple of washed up TV stars from the ’50s trying to make a comeback sounded like a perfect story for Howard Chaykin to write... but I was a bit disappointed. There were some awkward attempts at “mature” humor that felt, to me at least, forced and unnecessary. I do like the basic concept though, and the art by Mac Rey (pencils, inks, and colors) was rather nice, so I'm going to give it another issue and see if it gets better. As it stands now, I can only give it a B-, and that’s not quite good enough to stick on my list.
I finished the first issue. I'm not sure that there were any real attempts at humor.... The art reminded me of Kyle Baker Plastic Man which I liked, and the story was needing something else Overall I was with you on the grade and am probably going to keep getting it.
Re-read the Punisher: Circle of Blood series, from 1986, and really enjoyed it. The bulk of my comics reading this year has included a lot of older stuff, particularly work from the 80s (my personal Golden Age) like this. It really scratched that nostalgia itch I've been looking for in my comics reading. The story was well-written by Steven Grant, with an assist from Jo Duffy, and the art in the first four chapters by Mike Zeck is what you would expect--big, muscular, and brash, with precise inks from John Beatty (just don't look too hard when Zeck & Beatty are asked to draw figures from a distance; it works but isn't as refined as their closer figures)--with a workmanlike final chapter from Mike Vosburg.
I had to smile at Grant having the Punisher say the title of the series, 'Circle of Blood,' not just in the first issue, but once in each of those four issues he wrote. I was also intrigued by the fact that Frank Castle, in this series, worked very hard not to shoot innocents or cops--and I don't believe he did throughout the series. Compared with some of the superhero comics I occasionally dip into, in recent years, it feels quaint, as there doesn't feel like there's such a stark line for heroes in some stories, in order for writers to get across how "real" things are in their narratives.
Not really a comic, but it contains some comic material (mainly Tank Girl), but I got that Jamie Hewlett art book from Taschen. Pre-order got me it for £25.99 and for that price it is an awful lot of book. Better not put it on a shelf above head height.
Beautiful and well laid out, it reminded me of some of the better Japanese animator artbooks I've picked up over the years (Koji Morimoto's Orange is probably the closest comparison). If you like Hewlett for either his comics or design work elsewhere (Gorillaz and his Journey to the West work are covered in detail), you should pick this up.
I was also intrigued by the fact that Frank Castle, in this series, worked very hard not to shoot innocents or cops--and I don't believe he did throughout the series. Compared with some of the superhero comics I occasionally dip into, in recent years, it feels quaint, as there doesn't feel like there's such a stark line for heroes in some stories, in order for writers to get across how "real" things are in their narratives.
To be fair, at least specifically with the Punisher, I think the idea that he does what he does without harming innocents and law enforcement has remained part of the character. I haven't read all of Punisher, but I have read a lot, especially from 2000 onward, and that code of his, as established by Grant, has stayed true. There have been a number of stories where that has been either an obstacle in the story (e.g. in the recent Edmondson/Gerads run when a Delta Force team was sent after him, and he did not use lethal force against them, because he knew they were following orders they felt were just) as well as times when his enemies would use the knowledge of his (partial) restraint against him to set a trap.
It is, of course, a very comic-booky (which is to say, it takes some suspension of disbelief) thing that he could do all of the shooting and explosions that he does and not hurt innocents and first responders, but I feel like over the years they creators of his stories have made a point of that being a stark line for him.
I was also intrigued by the fact that Frank Castle, in this series, worked very hard not to shoot innocents or cops--and I don't believe he did throughout the series. Compared with some of the superhero comics I occasionally dip into, in recent years, it feels quaint, as there doesn't feel like there's such a stark line for heroes in some stories, in order for writers to get across how "real" things are in their narratives.
To be fair, at least specifically with the Punisher, I think the idea that he does what he does without harming innocents and law enforcement has remained part of the character. I haven't read all of Punisher, but I have read a lot, especially from 2000 onward, and that code of his, as established by Grant, has stayed true. There have been a number of stories where that has been either an obstacle in the story (e.g. in the recent Edmondson/Gerads run when a Delta Force team was sent after him, and he did not use lethal force against them, because he knew they were following orders they felt were just) as well as times when his enemies would use the knowledge of his (partial) restraint against him to set a trap.
It is, of course, a very comic-booky (which is to say, it takes some suspension of disbelief) thing that he could do all of the shooting and explosions that he does and not hurt innocents and first responders, but I feel like over the years they creators of his stories have made a point of that being a stark line for him.
Thanks, @David_D. I am admittedly poorly informed as far as the Punisher goes, having only read this series along with the first year or so of his original regular series and the first year of the Ennis run, so I was curious whether this had held true or not. Glad to see it has.
Also, I think its that "comic-booky" aspect that I've been looking for in going back to the 80s well so often, recently.
It is, of course, a very comic-booky (which is to say, it takes some suspension of disbelief) thing that he could do all of the shooting and explosions that he does and not hurt innocents and first responders, but I feel like over the years they creators of his stories have made a point of that being a stark line for him.
The writers’ attempts at sugar-coating the fact that the Punisher is a villain. He’s a sympathetic villain perhaps—most of the best villains are—but a villain nonetheless. No sugar-coating will change that.
It is, of course, a very comic-booky (which is to say, it takes some suspension of disbelief) thing that he could do all of the shooting and explosions that he does and not hurt innocents and first responders, but I feel like over the years they creators of his stories have made a point of that being a stark line for him.
The writers’ attempts at sugar-coating the fact that the Punisher is a villain. He’s a sympathetic villain perhaps—most of the best villains are—but a villain nonetheless. No sugar-coating will change that.
He's a guy who saves people and leaves the world a better place, so I think that makes him a hero to some people. He has held his own against a whole criminal empire, so he also has courage. I think he is best described as an anti-hero, vigilante, and a soldier. Castle gets rid of crime bosses, murderers and other criminals in often permanent ways. He has earned the respect of many heroes, such as Wolverine and Spider-Man. Though he is doing good in the world by getting criminals of the streets, his methods are unorthodox when compared to most other Marvel super-heroes who try to avoid killing at all costs. And when the Punisher kills, he follows a code, of sorts, by only killing those who are deserving of death (in his opinion), especially those who are out of reach of the justice system because of how hard to catch they are.
It is, of course, a very comic-booky (which is to say, it takes some suspension of disbelief) thing that he could do all of the shooting and explosions that he does and not hurt innocents and first responders, but I feel like over the years they creators of his stories have made a point of that being a stark line for him.
The writers’ attempts at sugar-coating the fact that the Punisher is a villain. He’s a sympathetic villain perhaps—most of the best villains are—but a villain nonetheless. No sugar-coating will change that.
He's a guy who saves people and leaves the world a better place, so I think that makes him a hero to some people. He has held his own against a whole criminal empire, so he also has courage. I think he is best described as an anti-hero, vigilante, and a soldier. Castle gets rid of crime bosses, murderers and other criminals in often permanent ways. He has earned the respect of many heroes, such as Wolverine and Spider-Man. Though he is doing good in the world by getting criminals of the streets, his methods are unorthodox when compared to most other Marvel super-heroes who try to avoid killing at all costs. And when the Punisher kills, he follows a code, of sorts, by only killing those who are deserving of death (in his opinion), especially those who are out of reach of the justice system because of how hard to catch they are.
A criminal? Yes, but a villain? Not exactly.
Every Punisher story I have ever read in which a superhero played a role, and I’ve read quite a few over the years, has come across as feeling dishonest to me. In order to write him interacting with superheroes as a peer on any level, the writers must compromise the integrity of those heroes. Why is it that Scourge of the Underworld is treated as a villain—heroes actually try to catch him—while Punisher is treated as an anti-hero? Answer: One is popular enough to star in his own book, TV show, and movies.
Every Punisher story I have ever read in which a superhero played a role, and I’ve read quite a few over the years, has come across as feeling dishonest to me. In order to write him interacting with superheroes as a peer on any level, the writers must compromise the integrity of those heroes. Why is it that Scourge of the Underworld is treated as a villain—heroes actually try to catch him—while Punisher is treated as an anti-hero? Answer: One is popular enough to star in his own book, TV show, and movies.
Why stop at calling the Punisher a villain? Wolverine has gutted scores of opponents, shouldn't he qualify? At the end of the day, the Punisher is a guy that normal law enforcement should be able to handle, but a lot of cops don't want to. Every criminal he puts down is one they don't have to deal with.
I was really interested to try out The Ruff and Reddy #1, DC’s latest Hanna-Barbera Beyond update. A couple of washed up TV stars from the ’50s trying to make a comeback sounded like a perfect story for Howard Chaykin to write... but I was a bit disappointed. There were some awkward attempts at “mature” humor that felt, to me at least, forced and unnecessary. I do like the basic concept though, and the art by Mac Rey (pencils, inks, and colors) was rather nice, so I'm going to give it another issue and see if it gets better. As it stands now, I can only give it a B-, and that’s not quite good enough to stick on my list.
I was hoping for more. I've enjoyed most of the HB line.
Did you read the green lantern/space ghost book? The back up was ruff and Reddy. I'm reading the DC/Hannah Barbera crossovers right now and i kind of feel like they are just advertisements for the series spinning out of the back ups. Read the WB ones instead.
No, I skipped all the DC/HB books. Skipped the DC/Looney Tunes as well. The only HB book I've stuck with is Future Quest. Why, oh why, they haven’t done Blue Falcon and Dynomutt yet is beyond me.
A 70's Bruce Lee'd up Hong Kong Fooey would be awesome, too.
Well, technically speaking, I think all of our comic book superheroes are superantiheroes. :joy: But yeah, it is a matter of perspective. Here's what school once told me:
Heroes achieve a justice by acting within the law and society's code; e.g. cops, lawyers, doctors. Firefighters. But as wonderful as our Avengers and Justice Leaguers are? None of them are deputized/trained/ authorized/licensed to harass crooks, alleged or convicted, or to endanger innocents in doing so, or to interfere in possible pending criminal cases, or to cause property damage in their pursuit of what only they've decided is criminal behavior. As nice as Superman is, even he is a vigilante. But the surgeon who saved a little boy's life? The person who risked his/her reputation to go to court and fight for a civil liberty? The police detective who worked hard to collect iron-clad evidence against a serial killer? My mom, when she saved Halloween by sewing me an armadillo costume? (hypothetically.) Those are what people in our society might freely call heroes.
Antiheroes achieve a justice by acting within their own individual codes, which sometimes runs outside of the law; e.g. the hardboiled private investigators of crime fiction, or our beloved comic book capes, or any Robin Hood-type. These are ends-justify-the-means people. They work in grey areas, but they're confident that attaining justice is worth skirting whatever rules are slowing it. And I get it, it's simply a matter of perspective: someone might say Ra's al Ghul is an antihero, he was (at least originally) trying to murder billions of people, yes, but it was because he believed it was "justice" to stop humankind and overpopulation from derailing Nature's order. Every villain is the hero of his/her own story, right? Granted, I'd then make a case that murdering billions of people seems excessive... and Ra's wanted to rule what was left of humankind... which makes it an even darker shade of dark grey, at least. Like, midnight black lol. But someone like The Punisher? He's like... light charcoal? Depending upon the storyteller. If the only people he's killing are people he and we know are twisted killers themselves? Antihero. But if he's killing innocents along the way, too? Well... yuck.
Comments
Must read!
Chris’ art, as ever, is totally on point. He’s using a slightly chunkier line than he did in Daredevil, but the art is more open than it was in Black Widow, which is completely the right decision considering the characters. And Matt Wilson does his usual great job with the colors.
Good stuff. I hope this gets a nice, long run.
YMMV
And then...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/us-white-supremacist-speaks-at-russian-march-399088.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/
If anything the comic plays its topic with kid gloves, Rampart are only presented as supremacists because other characters say they are, though Cap's reluctance to call Rampart Nazis in the 2007 scene, could be read as a commentary on a reluctance to call out Neo-Nazis in the past. (Or Marvel's own attempt to distance Hydra from Nazis).
Compared to the Americops arc in Spencer's Captain America, this is pretty toothless commentary. Sure looks good though.
I really feel like the highly coloring makes a lot of homogeneous comics, even more than the styles. If that makes sense.
I submit that white supremacists were not only irrelevant in 2007, they are less relevant today. And in a culture where this kind of prank is causing people to lose their minds, I think many people are tired of identity politics in their comics and would like to see them more as escape entertainment again. I doubt that is the future of this title since I am hearing Ta-Nehisi Coates is taking over Captain America after this first arc.
My two cents. Thrilled for you if it worked for you. Don't get me started on Hulk #700...
Just read an interview with Mark and Chris, and it looks like these Rampart (formerly named Bastion) guys will just be a three-issue arc that ends with #700. So they won't be around long after all. I figured they'd be lurking in the background for an arc before being the focal point for an arc, but it looks like Mark and Chris aren't being tied to the standard five- or six-issue storyline. Instead they're doing a few one-and-dones, then the three-issue arc. After that, I have no idea. It'd be kind of weird if they only stuck around for six issues, though.
White supremacy does not start and end with the KKK. It's more insidious than that.
For all of Champions' 'How do you do, fellow kids' bad teenage dialogue, at least there Waid frequently recognises that solutions to real world problems are not simple even when you apply superheroes to them.
Between this and the Avengers/Champions crossover Waid's writing has not been at its best of late. Cap at least has more comprehensible visual story telling.
One might suppose a title with the word “LEGACY” and an issue at number 700 might actually feature the character that got them to issue #700, but it doesn’t. Amadeus Cho is fine in small doses, like in Champions (a better Waid joint than his current Cap run IMO), but this book not only didn’t touch on Banner in any discernible way, it went and re-hashed the Planet Hulk storyline (again), and as i recall, that planet was destroyed(?). Maybe if they made it a buddy-adventure and brought Hercules into this title it would be more fun, but this time Herc is the weaker of the two (he and Cho used to run around together), it might be more interesting.
I expected more from Pak, but Land was about what I expected...
Overall I was with you on the grade and am probably going to keep getting it.
I had to smile at Grant having the Punisher say the title of the series, 'Circle of Blood,' not just in the first issue, but once in each of those four issues he wrote. I was also intrigued by the fact that Frank Castle, in this series, worked very hard not to shoot innocents or cops--and I don't believe he did throughout the series. Compared with some of the superhero comics I occasionally dip into, in recent years, it feels quaint, as there doesn't feel like there's such a stark line for heroes in some stories, in order for writers to get across how "real" things are in their narratives.
Beautiful and well laid out, it reminded me of some of the better Japanese animator artbooks I've picked up over the years (Koji Morimoto's Orange is probably the closest comparison). If you like Hewlett for either his comics or design work elsewhere (Gorillaz and his Journey to the West work are covered in detail), you should pick this up.
It is, of course, a very comic-booky (which is to say, it takes some suspension of disbelief) thing that he could do all of the shooting and explosions that he does and not hurt innocents and first responders, but I feel like over the years they creators of his stories have made a point of that being a stark line for him.
Also, I think its that "comic-booky" aspect that I've been looking for in going back to the 80s well so often, recently.
A criminal? Yes, but a villain? Not exactly.
Heroes achieve a justice by acting within the law and society's code; e.g. cops, lawyers, doctors. Firefighters. But as wonderful as our Avengers and Justice Leaguers are? None of them are deputized/trained/ authorized/licensed to harass crooks, alleged or convicted, or to endanger innocents in doing so, or to interfere in possible pending criminal cases, or to cause property damage in their pursuit of what only they've decided is criminal behavior. As nice as Superman is, even he is a vigilante. But the surgeon who saved a little boy's life? The person who risked his/her reputation to go to court and fight for a civil liberty? The police detective who worked hard to collect iron-clad evidence against a serial killer? My mom, when she saved Halloween by sewing me an armadillo costume? (hypothetically.) Those are what people in our society might freely call heroes.
Antiheroes achieve a justice by acting within their own individual codes, which sometimes runs outside of the law; e.g. the hardboiled private investigators of crime fiction, or our beloved comic book capes, or any Robin Hood-type. These are ends-justify-the-means people. They work in grey areas, but they're confident that attaining justice is worth skirting whatever rules are slowing it. And I get it, it's simply a matter of perspective: someone might say Ra's al Ghul is an antihero, he was (at least originally) trying to murder billions of people, yes, but it was because he believed it was "justice" to stop humankind and overpopulation from derailing Nature's order. Every villain is the hero of his/her own story, right? Granted, I'd then make a case that murdering billions of people seems excessive... and Ra's wanted to rule what was left of humankind... which makes it an even darker shade of dark grey, at least. Like, midnight black lol. But someone like The Punisher? He's like... light charcoal? Depending upon the storyteller. If the only people he's killing are people he and we know are twisted killers themselves? Antihero. But if he's killing innocents along the way, too? Well... yuck.