Adrian Veidt: World's Greatest Hero?

Alright, so on Monday I may not have been clear. I definitely got a chance to speak my part, but I think I expressed the thought poorly. Simply enough, I actually think Adrian Veidt is actually the most consciously heroic person in the story. I think he's a great guy who uses his massive intellect to solve what was the greatest problem his world's ever seen. However, his logic was somewhat flawed. He assumed that the only way to achieve his goal was the one he used, based on the (true) premise that no one else who was willing to solve the problem was smart enough to do the job.
What he never considered was that intelligence might not be the only criteria for saving the world. As much as it pains me to say it, but sometimes the smartest one is not the best one. On the other hand, he also kind of assumed that the problem needed outside help to be solved. Our Cold War worked out fine, if you recall. Of course there were differences in society, but the end result could have very easily been worked out in less sudden methods; I'm sure someone like Veidt would have had some political leverage.
Of course, none of this is related to my original point. The simple fact is that Veidt had no ulterior motives for doing what he did; he simply thought it was the only way to save the world. He makes no money from this venture, in fact he loses quite a bit of his own. The way he's planned it, no one will even know he's done it; he'll be remembered as "Ozymandias, that one guy who was an okay hero and a decent businessman."
That fact right there is why I'm calling B.S. on the people who compare Veidt to Light from Death Note. If Light's plans succeed he'll be worshiped as Lord and Savior; Veidt wants to be recalled as a guy you wish you were friends with. Yes, they both had God complexes, but Viedt's was more like a surgeon, and Light's was like a fascist dictator.
I guess all I'm saying is that you can't call Veidt a villain. He did only what he thought was necessary to accomplish his goal (saving humanity from an actual threat, remember?), and all the loss of life was tragic to him. He feels more like the Classical tragic hero; did what needed to be done, but his flaws now condemn him to a life of sadness and pain.

American Born Chinese: Some Quick Thoughts

Anybody ever watch the show The Boondocks (yes, based on the newspaper comic) and get uncomfortable at how often they use a certain racial epithet? You know the one; the one I can't even bring myself to type. ABC was kind of like that for me sometimes, with cousin Chin-Kee. I found myself reading those parts kind of fast, and taking my time with the Monkey King more than any other part.
Use of caricature helped with the magical realist atmosphere of the story; I don't know if I'd have been able to deal with Chin-Kee's head popping off to reveal the Monkey King in another style. Also, the Hair of Power would not have looked right.
Did anyone else have the sensation that both Jin and Wei-Chen are essentially lost? Haven't the four years of debauchery spoiled Wei-Chen's chances of becoming an emissary since the test was a full life of goodness? And didn't Jin "forfeit his soul" to become Danny? Not to mention the problems with his grades due to the moving around...
Also, did the infliction of Chin-Kee on Jin (as Danny) seem harsh to anyone else? Sure, he needed to be taught a lesson, but there's evidence that everything he says about Chin-Kee ruining his life are true...

There's more, but like I said; quick thoughts.

Dark Phoenix Saga *Non-DPS Spoilers*

This story has in many ways set the tone for all comics in this franchise right up to today. It was at the time just one link in a chain of major storylines dreamed up by Clairmont, but is now seen as a major point in not only X-Men history, but mainstream comics on the whole. For example, let's look at what pieces are present here:
1) As stated, Wolverine gets plenty of face time, and his multiple homicides are ignored.
2) Cyclops is shown as a competent leader, powerful fighter, and compassionate person, but is not written as doing anything terribly vital.
3) Jean taps into Phoenix powers, dies. Hints at drama with the previous two.
4) There's an emphasis on the growing divide between the Professor and the team, which has only recently become an issue again. Then again, I imagine since he's dead now, it's a bit moot.
5) Lots of people get involved in stories. This is to me the hallmark of X-Men storylines, with heroes and villains from all over showing up, often in unexpected roles.

There are some clear signs of DPS, great as it is, actually not being as good as it could have been. For one, since trade paperbacks were not collected at the time, the recap dialogue is ever-present, since a reader may have missed the last issue (thank Buddha for the modern recap first page). The other is that some plot points reek of editorial mandate, "Quick, we need a character to reach out to that new demographic! Make a disco character!" Oh, the immense fail that is Dazzler, whose name was originally supposed to be "The Disco Dazzler."
Nonetheless, it's a classic story that's earned it place. No wonder this is the fourth time the story's been printed; once originally, once in X-Men Classics monthly, and two printings (at least) in trade. It's kind of a big deal.

Understanding Comics, part 2

Okay, so I've been thinking, reading, and listening to what some of my compatriots have to say about Understanding. And while I'm not going to place McCloud up on a pedestal, I'm also not looking to write off everything he says either. I honestly doubt that it's possible to write a comprehensive theory relating to any media without being pretentious in one way or another. The very act of thinking about art in general terms like this assumes that the thinker can ultimately understand that art completely.
However, it's not the philosophy present in Understanding that ever captured my attention at all. It was the frank, solid examination of things like shape, color, and time in comics that kept me reading, and here, I was hard pressed to find any pretension. The conclusions might be different from what others might have come to, but all in all he's just talking about comics in a scholarly light.
Honestly, from what I've heard about the man and his encounters, it seems like McCloud is simply taking his own theory too seriously. While much of the point of Understanding was for the purpose of taking comics seriously, McCloud apparently has trouble with the idea that not everyone will agree with his theories and concepts wholeheartedly. It's kind of like a large-scale internet forum; there's some good ideas here, but it's too close to everyone's hearts for them to discuss it dispassionately.

Understanding Comics, Part One

I've read Understanding before, years ago, and I was astounded. Not because of what McCloud says in it, but rather because I'd found it in my high school library. My shock was profound; Gilford High, bastion of suburban "normality" and regimented schooling, had this epic dissertation on comics. Of course, they didn't have any actual comics along with it so I could examine them in this new light, which raises some serious questions. Why is it that a text on comics is respectable enough for the library, but not the comics it discusses, when the text itself is told as a comic? I can only guess that the answer is something that would probably depress and infuriate me.
Regardless, I've enjoyed this chance to revisit the text that helped me into my current phase as a comics reader. McCloud's work examines comics by means of storytelling, art, and psychology, with their connection to the work of "sequential art" is the overhead concept which only needs refreshing every so often.
However, while I was entranced by the book when I first picked it up, this time I found I knew enough about the craft to occasionally yearn for more specificity than McCloud gives. As I begin to give serious thought to writing actual scripts and submitting them to companies, I find that Understanding is less about what it takes to create comics, and more about what comics are once they've been created. Then again, perhaps this generality is akin to McCloud's point about icons being more applicable; maybe he's sacrificed specificity to reach the widest possible audience.

Tales from the Farm *Major Spoilers, such as they are*

Spoiler/reflection/theory one: Jimmy is obviously Lester's dad, and is not a brain damaged as he seems at first.
For starters, half of the dialogue in the comic only makes sense if Jimmy is Lester's dad, especially the poignant look after "You and me get along, and you never had any kids." However, the second part only comes into play with that in mind. My thought is that the hit Jimmy took in the NHL was only the last in a series of concussions, which made it dangerous to continue playing professionally, and left him with speech problems and concentration problems. Those of you familiar with football, think Steve Young in recent years. Therefore, instead of a man with the mind of a child playing with a child, it's a man who can't get respect in his home town connecting with his son the only way he's allowed.
Spoiler/reflection/theory two: Arguments for and against alien invasion.
On the first hand, if there are no actual aliens, what the hell happens to Jimmy? Lester may be imaginative, and writing Jimmy out of the story may have been dramatic, but Lester lives his story and wouldn't kill off a real person like that for no reason. This makes even more sense when you consider the Lester hung up his cape, meaning something important happened. Also, he seems as surprised as anyone when he flies or did the trick with the flaming slingshot pellet.
On the other hand, this is a story about people connecting with one another, or failing to, as the case my be, and that means alien invasion is probably out. Also, Lester never uses his powers when anyone other than Jimmy is around.
Seems kind of like a crap shoot to me, so believe whatever you prefer.