TOP 10 DC DEATHS OF ALL TIME

[Matt Lazorwitz]

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/top10dcdeaths.jpg" hspace=10 align=left>Written By: Raul Grau, Jon Hancock, Matt Lazorwitz, Jordan T. Maxwell, Dylan McKay
Edited By: Matt Lazorwitz
Additional Graphical Assistance: Al Harahap

As much as a character can be judged from what they did in life, it is as important to see how they died. And while death in comic books is at best impermanent, a good death story is still something that grabs a reader. We remember how a favorite character died, or the shock when the last character you expected to die did. And a good death can move you in a way other stories will not.

From across all the branches of the comics published through DC, heroes, villains, and anti-heroes have died. While this list is only ten, there are many others that have made readers cry, scream, and lust for the blood of the creators who perpetrated it. Hopefully, we've hit the ones that hit you the hardest.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#10 Superman (Clark Kent)

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/10t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left"> As chronicled in: Superman (2nd series) #75
Writer & Artist: Dan Jurgens

“Sometimes I despair the world will never see another man like him.” For many, the death of Superman was a shameless ploy to sell more comics, but whether it is or it isn't, the death of Superman did forever change DC comics, and quite possibly North American culture. The question is simple: if Superman is mortal, then what does that mean for everyone else? The fallibility of the superhero most closely associated with infallibility represents a cultural shift to a world that acknowledges that it cannot be saved by an outside force, that any chance at salvation comes not from without, but from within. Superman is oft considered to be a fictionalization of the second coming of Christ, and even if he is not, he is definitely an avatar for ideals, Truth, Justice and the American Way. For much of Superman's existence he fought against the antitheses of the ideals upon which he is built, be it the greedy and corrupt who would counter Truth and Justice, like Lex Luthor, or alien overlords who would crush the American way. What is interesting is that what finally did Superman in does not qualify as either of those, for the opposites of Superman could not exist without the ideals that Superman represents, and, as such, could never destroy him. Doomsday killed Superman. Doomsday does not represent lower ideals such as greed or lust for power. Doomsday is the absence of ideals, Doomsday is destruction and chaos. Which is why the follow up, dealing with how the DCU copes with the tragic loss of Superman is so important. If salvation is to come from within, we as a people must hold within us, and fight for the ideals with which Superman held, and in doing so, preserve the ideals which he fought so valiantly for. In a world where superman is fallible, we cannot simply be ordinary people in an ordinary world, because in a world without Superman, “ordinary's just not good enough today.”

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#9 Robin (Jason Todd)

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/9t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As Chronicled in: Batman #428
Writer: Jim Starlin
Artist: Jim Aparo

2005 seems geared to be a fantastic 70th birthday for DC. The icing on the cake is DC Countdown. An event which has been advertised by Batman carrying the body of a young...well I'd assume it's a bloke but we're not to be guessed. The image haunts many though due to its legacy. Following the Crisis, Batman's new Robin was changed from the bland carbon copy he had been before into a street kid with an attitude.Jason Todd became the kind of kid that you see in shops and roll your eyes at their rebelling against the system. If he had been written in the 21st centruy he'd be wearing a leather trench coat and black lipstick. Eventually Jason found that he wasn't the orphan that he had always believed he was. In reality his mother was somewhere in the Middle East, working as an aid worker. Unfortunately, Jason wasn't the only link that his mother had with the Bat family. The Joker was extorting his mother, a scheme which Batman and Robin were quick to pick up on. However, Batman told his ward not to pursue the Joker alone, knowing the danger. Instead Robin was his annoying, impetuous self and charged off after Joker. And there the story could have ended. What made this death so amazing, beyond the fact that it was ROBIN being killed off, was that DC didn't know if he was going to die. Only the fans did. In a landmark move, DC let the fans phone in to decide whether Jason would die. In a space of two days, Jason Todd was executed by a margin of 28 votes. $15 would have kept him alive. Jason's death was powerful because it truly removed any last vestige of innocence or emotion that Batman allowed himself to have. The current Batman depends on his icy attitude, his removed demeanour, his ridiculous levels of paranoia. All of that can be traced back to Jason's death. A death that was moving to read, vital to one of DC's biggest character's development and a startling example of how rabid fanboys can be.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#8 Jenny Sparks

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/8t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As chronicled in: The Authority #12
Writer: Warren Ellis
Artist: Bryan Hitch

Jenny Sparks wanted to change the world. Born on January 1st, 1900, Jenny was the spirit of the 20th century, the living embodiment of the era. Unfortunately, that meant that unlike the other super powered children born on that day, she had an expiration date. The end of the 20th century would mean the end of its living spirit as well. Jenny knew this and accepted it... And as an extraterrestrial entity that had created the Earth ages ago, the closest thing the planet has ever seen to God, slowly approached bringing septic death and destruction with it, Jenny prayed there would be enough time for one last great adventure. For years, she had tried to find her purpose. She wed alien princes and fought off invasions, dined with poets, scientists and heads of state, fought crime, took on corrupt politicians and tried to form superhero teams to help her change the world. Each endeavour failed and fell apart. Now, from the ashes of Stormwatch, she had gathered a new and powerful team with one goal: to make the world a finer place to live in. They were called the Authority and in the face of the looming apocalypse, they stood as the last line of defense. And as the clock ticked down to the turn of the century, in the last few moments of December 31st, 1999, Jenny came to the creature's brain and discovered her purpose at last as she used her powers over electricity to fry it like a serial killer on death row in Texas. She collapsed amongst her friends, dying as the century drew to a close and made them promise to keep up the good fight. Jenny had saved the world. And more, through her team, she had finally changed it as well...for better or worse. And so on January 1st, 2000, a baby was born in Hong Kong with power to change the world of the 21st century. Because nothing ever truly dies.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#7. Everyone with a Y chromosome...except for an English major and a monkey

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/7t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As chronicled in: Y the Last Man #1
Writer: Brian K. Vaughan
Artist: Pia Guerra

It struck quickly and without warning, its effect as swift as its cause was mysterious. The plague swept the Earth and every male organism on the planet suddenly began to bleed from every orifice and keel over, dead. It lasted for only a few seconds...and in those few seconds, the world changed forever. Political and religious institutions were left leaderless. Planes with dead pilots crashed around the world. Industry and commerce screeched to a halt. The streets were piled high with rotting corpses and the women were left to fend for themselves. Some tried to rebuild society and restore order, some tried to merely adapt and live their lives, and some went crazy and became roving bandits and murderous cults. Whether the cause was mystical, chemical or biological did not matter. The men were just as dead. And so the stage was set for one of the greatest dramas the comic book medium has ever seen as the two surviving males...Yorick Brown and his pet monkey Ampersand...crawled from the wreckage to find Yorick's lost girlfriend on the other side of the globe. And hopefully save the world along the way. As Yorick and Ampersand quest across the country with their companions, Agent 355 and Dr. Mann, the story not only follows their wayward adventures, but also takes a long hard look at society as well, examining gender and identity in politics, religion, psychology, sexuality, theatre, culture...the effects of having no men around, of a world crawling towards extinction. Half the world died that fateful day...but a great adventure and social commentary was born.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#6 Dream I (Morpheus)

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/6t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As Chronicled in: Sandman #69
Writer: Neil Gaiman
Artist: Mark Hempel

Morpheus, the Lord of Dreams, was one of the Endless, the beings who are more than gods, who live forever. But what happens when one of the Endless needs to die? Dream had commited the unpardonable sin of spilling the blood of family, and so was set upon by the Eumenides, the Kindly Ones, the Furies of old. And after spending much of his power to fight them, Dream knew he could not win. And so he went out into the Dreaming and waited for them to arrive. And they did, but also Death, Dream's sister. Telling the Furies to leave, Death had one last talk with her brother, about the past and about responsibility, before she looked at him with her usual sweet sad eyes, and said, "Dream, take my hand." And as he did, one aspect of Dream died, and another was born. Fans had been following Dream, with all his weaknesses, all his foibles, for 69 issues, and finally he had reached an end, and one the readers had slowly but surely watched him head towards. The death of Dream is important because it marks a moment previously unheard of in mainstream comics. A creator had chosen to kill a character he had created for a publisher, and the publisher allowed it. No takebacks, no quickie resurrection. Dream was dead. Thematically, the death of Dream is important as it caps off the idea of change that runs through Sandman, that stories can morph, can alter, but they are the truths that will never really die.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#5 Sue Dibny

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/5t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As chronicled in: Identity Crisis #1
Writer: Brad Meltzer
Artist: Rags Morales

Being the wife of a superhero cannot be easy. For the non-powered spouse, life consists of nagging worry, washing spandex, and the constant risk that you might be killed for the sake of a little character development. Significant others are supporting characters, trotted out occasionally to flesh out their husbands' world, but that was never true of Sue Dibny. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership, and Ralph and Sue were the only supercouple composed of true equals. For over thirty years of stories, wherever Elongated Man went, there was his wife, not cowering in his shadow, but getting her hands dirty alongside him. Sue solved her share of mysteries, foiled her share of villains, and wisecracked with the best of them. They were the perfect couple, and it took a critically acclaimed crossover to tear them apart. Identity Crisis took the time to introduce Sue to a new audience, retelling her story to make readers care about her life, before bringing on her death. We saw Sue at her best, and then, just a few pages later, we saw her frightened, bloodied, and hideously burned. The added details of her then pregnancy and past rape were almost inconsequential, because the emotional center of the League was gone. The DC universe went collectively into mourning, and the real world went collectively insane, simultaneously saddened by the loss of a fictional character they had never met before and outraged by her treatment. However, in death, Sue made more impact than most do in life, with her tragic end sparking the frantic hunt for the killer, and the subsequent drama igniting sales charts. But readers of Justice League Europe already knew the specialness of Sue, long before her death made her a star... albeit, a fallen one.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#4 Rorschach (Walter Kovacs)

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/4t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As chronicled in: Watchmen #12
Writer: Alan Moore
Artist: Dave Gibbons

Superhero fiction is based upon the premise that the individual is wiser than society. Once a person chooses to mask his appearance and battle crime, he is blessed with greater clarity, allowing him to preside over matters of morality, and dole out punishments appropriately. Watchmen explored this masked man philosophy, and introduced Rorschach, a vigilante so focused that he makes the Punisher look like a slacker. For Rorschach, there is no question, or doubt, or uncertainty... there is simply right and wrong, good and bad, and bad must be stopped at any cost. At the bottom of the world, the remaining heroes of Watchmen were faced with a difficult decision- allow one of their own to keep a secret that cost three million lives, or tell the world, destroying a fragile new peace. The others rationalized and questioned, deciding ultimately that peace was of greater value than truth, but not him... not Rorschach. In his monochromatic mindset, something bad had been committed, and while he could not physically punish the criminal directly he could tell the world what he knew. Another former ally stood in his way, powerful enough to kill him with a stray thought, but Rorschach defiantly stood his ground. He knew the right course of action, and he could not stray from the path, even if it meant his death... and it did. For Rorschach, there were no gray areas, no compromises, no life beyond his beliefs. His death was horrific, but it was certainly not shocking, because that was the moment he was born for. He did not want to die, but he had to, because, in his mind, he knew better than to live in a lie.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#3 Thomas and Martha Wayne

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/3t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As chronicled in: Detective Comics #33
Writer: Bill Finger
Artist: Bob Kane

Until long after they died, readers never got to know Thomas and Martha Wayne. To this day, they aren't the best fleshed out characters you'll ever encounter. They were, of course, the parents of young Bruce Wayne. Thomas was a doctor. Martha did charity work. They were, from all accountings, good parents, even if Thomas did work a bit too much. And in one night, in one tragic moment. Everything changed. Walking home from a showing of The Mark of Zorro, the Waynes decided to take a shortcut home. And in that alley along Gotham's affluent Park Row, they met a mugger. And when Tomas tried to stop him from taking Martha's pearls, shots were fired. And a little boy was left alone in the world. The death of the Waynes reverberates because it is the keystone moment in the origin of one of the greatest of comic book heroes, Batman. Without their death, without that tragedy, Batman would be, at best, a very different character, and at worse, not have been at all. Also, the death touches something in us all. The idea of losing both your parents is something that few people can readily entertain, and moreso in one tragic night. You feel a certain sense of loss, and a definite sense of empathy for the young victim, and it adds a level of understanding to the often gruff Batman.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#2 V

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/2t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As chronicled in: V for Vendetta
Writer: Alan Moore
Artist: David Lloyd

From even before his first bombastic attacks on the fascist Norsefire regime, V had set a game in motion, manipulating people and events on a scale both great and small with sadistic glee and a flair for the theatrical. The dominoes were lined in a row and only at the end could anyone see the grand picture he was constructing...or rather destroying as he wiped the board clean of what did not work, what oppressed the personal liberty and responsibility of the people in the hopes that they could then build something better, something freer. Of course in the new world he envisioned, he himself would be obsolete and unnecessary. And so like any great actor, he opted to leave the stage with a grand gesture. Inspector Finch had come to understand V's mindset and hunted him down to his underground lair, just as V had planned for him to. The gaudily dressed terrorist then forced Finch's hand by throwing his trademark knives and purposefully missing. In self defense, Finch shot back. V stood, seemingly unharmed, and tipped his hat at Finch. "Ideas are bulletproof," he told him. "Farewell." And he disappeared down, down, down into the depths of his Shadow Gallery, leaving a trail of blood behind him like some grand signature scrawled across all his works. Finally coming before his assistant Evey who he had freed from the bonds of slavery placed upon her by society and her own mind, he collapsed and with his final words told Evey that she must discover who lies behind his mask, but she must never remove his mask. As his corpse lay there, the same macabre grin staring out at the world with dead eyes, Evey imagined removing the mask several times...only to find in each scenario in her mind that anybody V COULD be was too small, too insignificant. The idea was more important than the man. And as V himself had once said, anarchy wears two masks: the destroyer and the creator. That's when Evey knew who was behind the mask, who it had to be. She gave her hero and mentor a Viking funeral in a subway car loaded with roses and plastique, one final explosion from the destroyer...and then Evey donned the mask of V, the mask of anarchy, the mask of the creator to help rebuild the broken world. V the man could fall to bullets and die. But V the idea was bulletproof and would live on...just as he'd planned all along.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

#1 Flash II (Barry Allen)

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/top10dcdeaths/1t.jpg" hspace=10 align="left">As Chronicled in: Crisis on Infinite Earths #8
Writer: Marv Wolfman
Artist: George Perez

The world of superhero comic books is a world of heroism, and there were few who better exemplafied this than Barry Allen, the silver age Flash. Barry was a good guy, who did his best to help people simply because it was the right thing to do, and who had been rewarded for his heroism by being given happiness. He had moved into the Thirtieth Century, to live out his time with Iris, his one true love. But this time was to be fleeting. Taken by the villainous Anti-Monitor, Barry was pulled into the thick of the Great Crisis. And when the Anti-Monitor prepared to use a powerful weapon to aid his goal of destroying everything, Barry did his best to stop it, though he knew he would die. And stop it he did. Barry ran a race through time, reliving the greatest moments of his own heroic career, and buying the rest of the heroes of the DCU enough time to defeat the Anti-Monitor. This is the greatness of Barry Allen’s death: he ran into it full on. There was no ambiguity in his death, it was a purely selfless and heroic act. He lived as and he died as one. Barry has not returned from the dead, but has been a testament to what a hero can be. Barry was the hero whose first appearance marked the beginning of the Silver Age of DC comics, and with his death things changed. The Silver Age officially ended, and a new, darker age began. But left to watch over this new world was a patron saint, Barry Allen, whose great sacrifice would always be remembered, and who would always shine a light, like a bolt of lightning.

<center><hr width=75%></center><br />

And, that,as they say, is that. The end of the 70th Anniversary of DC Comics celebration. We here at the Comix-Fan staff hope you've been amused, learned a little something, or at least had a good time telling us how dumb we all are. And let's hope for another 70 years of DC Comics.


Dream, Thomas and Martha Wayne, Flash: Matt Lazorwitz
Robin: Jon Hancock
Jenny Sparks, The Men in Y, V: Jordan T. Maxwell
Sue Dibny, Rorschach: Raul Grau
Superman: Dylan McKay
Contributors: Raul Grau, Jon Hancock, Matt Lazorwitz, Jordan T. Maxwell, Dylan McKay
Editor: Matthew Lazorwitz
Columns Editor: Joel Phillips
Editor in Chief: Al Harahap
Co-Publisher: Brian Wilkinson
Publisher: Eric J. Moreels


<center><font size="1">All characters, titles, and likenesses thereof ™ © <a href="http://www.dccomics.com" target="_blank">DC Comics</a> or its licensors,
and are used without permission, not for profit. All other content © original author and <a href="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan" target="_blank">ComiX-Fan</a>.</font></center></div>

[Anand Khatri]

Awesome that Rorsach was mentioned. Great lists guys, but I think the Death of Superman isn't really special. It never had a big effect in the long run, IMO.

[CrazyFool83]

Honestly think Rorshach and Jason Todd should be higher, and take off the men in Y the Last Man (Or Martha and Thomas Wayne, both simple origins of stories and nothing more) and put in SuperGirl, the other key Crisis Death.

[Ovid]

The added details of her then pregnancy and past rape were almost inconsequential

Nonsense. The added details prove that what might have been what you described - the death of the emotional centre of the League - was in fact written as a cheap piece of titillation. She couldn't just die. Oh, no. She had to be pregnant as well. Oh, yes, and wait. She'd been raped in the past too.

The rest of the list is v. good, though. Good to see Rorschach on there and Barry Allen at no.1. The Y: The Last Man entry was inspired. It would just never have occurred to me. :]

[Ken Boehm]

Rorshach should be #2, because he was the only great thing about Watchmen. Super cool conservative he was... :D

Barry #1 is a given, because there would be no DC verse wiythout his death.

But Sue Dibny? Meh. What about Donna Troy or when WW "died" in Crisis (being reverted to clay) ? That caused a bigger fit than Sue did.

[Anthony Lucynski]

Awesome that Rorsach was mentioned. Great lists guys, but I think the Death of Superman isn't really special. It never had a big effect in the long run, IMO.

I dunno about that. It brought Superboy, Steel, Doomsday and others into a permanent spot in the DCU. It also made it known that, yes, Superman can die, and everybody from common thugs to the heroes of the JLA know this now, and nobody takes anything for granted as far as Supes goes since he "died".

What could of been a cheap marketing ploy kicked off Funeral for a Friend, Reign of the Supermen, and countless subplots to be explored through Superman's books and launchings of new solo series and team efforts.

Now, I don't know if it belongs in the top ten, per say, but I will not casually blow it off as a non event.

Anthony L

[nightwing]

how could you not include the death of Supergirl? hers was probably the more memorable of the 2 major deaths of Crisis (the other being Barry Allen). of all deaths, she was one who truly went out as a hero. the cover alone to that issue with a grief-stricken Superman carrying Supergirl's lifeless body should be worth a mention, as its had many homages.

[Ken Boehm]

how could you not include the death of Supergirl? hers was probably the more memorable of the 2 major deaths of Crisis (the other being Barry Allen). of all deaths, she was one who truly went out as a hero. the cover alone to that issue with a grief-stricken Superman carrying Supergirl's lifeless body should be worth a mention, as its had many homages.

Barry saved the entire DC Universe(s). To say that Supergirl is a more heroic death is just wrong. DEAD wrong *rimshot*.

[Greg Reeves]

I loved these Top - things. I learned so much from all of them. Makes me want to start picking up DC...

Can someone explain Supergirl's death, in detail? I'm curious.

[Alex Guillen]

rorshcac's death was great, he knew that the world didn't need so many sacrifices and that the needs of the many don't overlap the need of the few but he was just too much for him to know what happened and continue to live in a world injust in his view.
Dream's death was also great especially because his beloved sister had to take him away and I guess alittle of the world died when he did and no one could replace or fill his role like him.
The bets one on the list? V. Awsome, especially because men die but their ideas don't.

[LordofDreams]

I think that the death of Morphous should be higher. I have never felt such an emotional conection to a character.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

Honestly think Rorshach and Jason Todd should be higher, and take off the men in Y the Last Man (Or Martha and Thomas Wayne, both simple origins of stories and nothing more) and put in SuperGirl, the other key Crisis Death.

origins of very important characters and stories. the death of the men in Y the Last Man established a new world order and has allowed Vaughan to not only tell one of the best stories in the medium, but touch upon some truly great social commentary as well. and the death of the Waynes is not just the origin of Batman, but a highly intense and iconic emotional beat in the history of one of pop culture's most well known figures. christ, just look at the repetition Miller uses with the moment in Dark Knight Returns. Supergirl's death was well written and a great moment...but it didn't really serve much beyond just being well written and a great moment.

Nonsense. The added details prove that what might have been what you described - the death of the emotional centre of the League - was in fact written as a cheap piece of titillation. She couldn't just die. Oh, no. She had to be pregnant as well. Oh, yes, and wait. She'd been raped in the past too.


i have to disagree. the rape, in my opinion, is an entirely separate issue from the murder so i'll address them separately. the pregnancy to me was not cheap, but an element to heighten the tragedy of not only her death but Ralph's reaction to it. Establishing this great high in his life...a loving wife, a great career, a baby on the way...only to have all of that stripped away. the fact that they didn't harp on the pregnancy element in a melodramatic way makes it less about titillation to me and more about it just being an element of the tragedy. As for the rape...in order to bring the characters to the point where they were willing to basically lobotomize Dr. Light, there had to be incredibly high stakes at play. The emotional intensity had to be at a level that having him merely smack her around a bit wouldn't do. The violation of his mind had to be catalyzed by something...a violation on his part for them to respond to. It would have been cheap if Meltzer hadn't dealt with the emotional reality of those very real situations. but the aftermath of each was handled so brilliantly that the murder and rape didn't feel cheap or exploitative at all to me.

that said, thank you for the praise on the Y entry. :)

Rorshach should be #2, because he was the only great thing about Watchmen. Super cool conservative he was... :D

you...you ARE kidding, right? he was a fascist sociopath...not someone to be admired. and the only great thing about Watchmen? i just...i don't...there aren't words to describe my confusion over that statement.

[Ken Boehm]

you...you ARE kidding, right? he was a fascist sociopath...not someone to be admired. and the only great thing about Watchmen? i just...i don't...there aren't words to describe my confusion over that statement.

And Ozymandias is someone to be admired? Yeck :P . I never said I admired Rorschach, but seeing things in black and white aren't necessarily bad things. And refusing to accept the fact that a bad guy, in all sense and purposes, is able to just walk away from his punishment is something I root for (because he shouldn't). And I'm all for giving vengence to rapists and people who cut up little girls. Sorry, that's just me.

I didn't like Watchmen mainly because of the ending. You get all that buildup and then what? That sense of futility at the end is something I don't read comics for. Speaking of Watchmen, why didn't those 3 million deaths at the end make the list? They were some important deaths, stopping war and all.

[Mithril Man]

Sue Dibny ahead of Dream ?????

There are no words.... :cuckoo:

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

And Ozymandias is someone to be admired? Yeck :P . I never said I admired Rorschach, but seeing things in black and white aren't necessarily bad things. And refusing to accept the fact that a bad guy, in all sense and purposes, is able to just walk away from his punishment is something I root for (because he shouldn't). And I'm all for giving vengence to rapists and people who cut up little girls. Sorry, that's just me.

no, i don't think Ozymandias should be admired. hell, the entire point of Watchmen to me was that none of these people should be admired...feared, pitied, sympathized with...but not admired because there wasn't a genuinely heroic one in the bunch. and yeah, seeing the world in just black and white is a very bad and dangerous thing to me. an inability to compromise, even for a greater good, is not something i think should be emulated. It limits the ability of an individual and of society to adapt and interpret and be open to change. One person deciding what is right and what is wrong with no room for ambiguity, and then choosing to enforce that decision on everyone else through fear and violence...no, i don't think that's any better than manipulating people's fears and killing hundreds of people to bring about peace. but considering the world was on the brink of a nuclear holocaust, and is instead turned towards peace and reconciliation...yeah, i'd have to side with Ozymandias as the lesser of two evils (though as i've said elsewhere, i find Manhattan's Zen detachment most appealing...things are what they are. i dig that).

and no, i don't believe in vengeance, particulary if it's meted out by one psychologically sick man...but not really if it's meted out by the government either. i believe in justice, which is something entirely different.


I didn't like Watchmen mainly because of the ending. You get all that buildup and then what? That sense of futility at the end is something I don't read comics for. Speaking of Watchmen, why didn't those 3 million deaths at the end make the list? They were some important deaths, stopping war and all.

you get all that build up and then one of the best and most smartly constructed endings. You get tragedy and futility, but a sense of hope and renewal as well. Rorschach's sociopathic moral absolutism won't allow him to go on in the world, and Ozymandias' ego and failure to be as smart as he thinks may yet bring his "perfect world" down around him. the two lovers wind up together on a new adventure, Manhattan moves on to the next phase of whatever he may become...perhaps God. our villains and bastards are forgiven but not forgotten and the ending is left to chance and interpretation. Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come...they feature the kind of cynicism i like best. The kind that's laced with hope and a certain romantic quality. sure, the world is a screwed up place and everyone in it sucks to one degree or another...but there's always a way to make it better and it's a world worth fighting for.

[Sandoz]

It was a pleasant suprise to see V make the list, and be ranked so high too. V for Vendetta tends to be overshadowed by Watchmen (so I was also pleased to see him beat Rorschach), but the blurb did a good job of ecapsulating the greatness of the character and his death.

[darkcypherlad]

Wow, good list. I'm glad you put Barry Allen at # 1--truly, there was no memorable death than his.

I do agree with Ovid about the whole Sue Dibny/rape/pregnancy issue. To me, Meltzer was just piling it on and milking the tragedy for all it was worth. It IS enough that she is simply murdered. After all, Ralph and Sue were one of DC's most stable and loving couples. To me, they represented a foundation that reminded me a lot of Reed and Sue over at Marvel (and not b/c Ralph and Reed share similar powers). To add on the rape AND pregnancy showed that Meltzer didn't really know the true dynamics of their relationship and to compensate, he added them for pure shock value. What resulted was the complete eradication of Sue as a character. Now, she is defined simply as a victim b/c of the details of her rape and pregnancy.

f you had to include an Identity Crisis death, why not mention the death of Tim Drake's father? That was far more moving than Sue's, if not as important to the story. Hmm, I think I just answered my own question there...

As for the death of Supergirl, well, let's just say the cover of the issue in which she died was memorable but the actual death itself pales in comparison to what's on the list. The editors were right to leave her off.

Now, this is my own personal choice, but I would have included Krypto's death. As a dog lover and Krypto fan, I was really moved by his passing. Oh, stop laughing. :P

Other notables:

-Lightning Lad's sacrifice in "Legion Lost"
-The death of the Joker in Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns"
-Captain Marvel's demise in Kingdom Come #4.

Keep it up, gents!

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

again, the rape had nothing to do with the death so i see them as two separate tragedies. it wasn't like she was raped and killed in the same night. hell, it wasn't even in the same issue. and the pregnancy didn't seem like shock value to me since...well...i wasn't shocked. just saddened. so no, i don't see the claim that it was all just shock value. mere shock value would just have the events standing on their own...Meltzer followed up with the emotional impact of those events and therein lies the difference. otherwise, any plot twist or tragedy in comics is merely for "shock value." it's become an overused phrase in the industry of late and really lost all its meaning for me.

and while Drake's death was moving for me...well, the death itself wasn't that moving. it was the suspense and build up to it as Batman and Robin raced there to stop it that really moved me. Sue's death made me cry...and i had no idea at the time who the hell she was. THAT is a moving death.

[Greg Reeves]

Sue's death made me cry...and i had no idea at the time who the hell she was. THAT is a moving death.
Ditto. I just happened to get the first two issues of Identity Crisis. I don't read DC in general, but I couldn't help but get alittle choked up...

[raul grau]

Nonsense. The added details prove that what might have been what you described - the death of the emotional centre of the League - was in fact written as a cheap piece of titillation. She couldn't just die. Oh, no. She had to be pregnant as well. Oh, yes, and wait. She'd been raped in the past too.
I see that Jordan has already responded, but since I wrote the entry in question, I thought I would throw in my two cents as well.

Ovid, I strongly disagree with you. If Meltzer had written a series in which Sue was beaten with a crowbar, then blown up, then had her back broken, and then was finally allowed to die, five issues later, when Doomsday sat on her, that would have been cheap, meaningless, and intended purely for shock value. What he did was kill a character, a character who I had been a fan of for a couple of decades, in a brutal and emotionally charged fashion... that is called drama.

To add on the rape AND pregnancy showed that Meltzer didn't really know the true dynamics of their relationship and to compensate, he added them for pure shock value.
darkcypherlad, I do not see how you could have read the bulk of IC #1, where Meltzer describes in great detail what makes their relationship unique and special, and then say that he did not understand the Dibnys.

What resulted was the complete eradication of Sue as a character. Now, she is defined simply as a victim b/c of the details of her rape and pregnancy.
How has her pregnancy become a defining factor in either her life or death, when it was only ever mentioned in a pair of panels in one issue? However, I do believe that you are being a bit melodramatic... just look at JLA: Classified #4 to see Sue as she was, and how we can all choose to remember her.

- Raul

[Dylan McKay]

The Y: The Last Man entry was inspired. It would just never have occurred to me. :]

Thanks.

*Jordan may have written the great entry, but I was the one who originally nominated it for contention.

As for Superman, I was one who really campaigned for it and wrote the entry, for me, it isn't the actual death that matters in that case, it was a stunt, but the unintended consiquence of the stunt. When you pull a stunt like that with an icon of the stature of Superman, it ripples through the national consciousness, and it is that effect, not the actual comic, that makes Superman deserving.

[bravelybravesirrobin]

Despite my general apathy towards V for Vendetta (it's good but highly flawed imho and Moore agress with me) I was pleasedto see V's death rated so highly. It's probably the highlight of the entire series cementing the idea that ideas are more important than individuals and turning a rather goofy Dr Phibes rip-off costume into a powerful symbol of anarchy and political movement.



Also I half expected Death the character to show up in the top spot, because she's by far the msot interesting death D.C. have ever published.

[evilomar]

Its kind of funny that the death of Superman was the reason I stopped reading DC comics, and the death of Sue Dibny was the reason I stopped reading DC comics again. I thought the death of Morpheus should have been higher on the list though, and yes Jason Todd should always stay very dead!

[darkcypherlad]

Hmm...it seems Sue Dibny's death is still a controversial topic. Great! :D

To Jordan Maxwell: To say that Sue's rape had NOTHING to do with her death is at best, naive, and at worst, wrong. The three are inextricably linked to one another. Meltzer made sure of that when he made Dr. Light and later Jean Loring the focus of attention.

And as for her pregnancy being used as shock value: isn't a bit of a coincidence that she learns she's pregnant right before she bites the big one? I don't believe she was actively trying to conceive a child with Ralph. If it had been a major plot point BEFORE IC, then I would agree with you. HOWEVER, it wasn't, so Meltzer created it just to make her death all the more tragic.

As anyone who has ever been linked to a violent crime can attest, it IS enough that she was murdered. To throw in an unborn baby like that just reeks of desperation from a writer who wanted to maximize the impact of his foray into comic book writing by being as blunt as possible. It worked, but at a disadvantage to Sue and, IMO, to DC as well.

And if that sounds "melodramatic" Jcknite, well, then dress me in Edith Head and call me a drama queen!

In response to your response (yikes that sounded awkward), was the relationship between Ralph and Sue unique or simply a stock relationship that could have included any two people from the DCU? Meltzer has said in previously published interviews (look at his interview with Diamond International online) that in conceiving IC, he initially wanted to use "big" characters (he doesn't specify) before settling on our Sue. That leads me to believe (and I think this is a logical assumption) that he created the IDEA of Sue's death before he even though of using Sue. So, in following this logic (and yes, you'll probably think it's twisted), her death, and indeed her representation in IC # 1, isn't organic to her integral character. The Sue I saw in that ish could've been ANYone. Meltzer could have easily substituted Jean Loring for Sue and Ray for Ralph and the relationship STILL would've worked. So yes, I DO think Meltzer didn't quite "get" the dynamics of Ralph and Sue's relationship. To me, they were like Nick and Nora Charles, and he made them look like Ma and Pa Cleaver.

You ask how has Sue's death defined her character when it was only in a couple of panels in one issue? First, you're looking at the actual comic, and not the impact said comic had on the DCU and fanboy sites such as this one. Secondly, well, you've answered your own question by participating in this forum. We're only talking about Sue because of her death. I have yet to see a feature spotlighting her roles as wife and JLI member (Top 10 DC Spouses, perhaps?) You can disagree with me on everything I've said up to this point, but can you really saw Sue isn't defined now by what happened to her in IC # 1? Her death has totally obscured what she has done before.

You point to JLA: Classified #4. Thanks, because that supports my main assertion. The author of that particular book knows Sue well. After all, he had a hand in writing her in the old Justice League/JLI/FKATJL series. He has said in an interview (I forget which one) that he didn't particularly like what happened in IC # 1 and despite her death, was sticking with his "version" of Sue that Meltzer chose not to use when he killed her off. In the series I just mentioned, Sue was never portrayed as a victim; rather, she was an active participant in her husband's superheroing activity. In IC, she became a victim three times over: as a murder victim, as a rape victim, and as a victim of losing her baby. And that's why I object to her death. Not because someone decided to kill off a well-established character. Hey, I'm all for that. But to totally change her character just to maximize the shock value (yes, shock value--despite its overuse in an industry in which I have no part of it, I think it applies here) is indicative of the lack of knowledge and love for the character and medium Meltzer has chosen to work in. I don't care how many times he professes his love for the Silver Age Green Lantern; his work in IC has spoken for him. And it's not geek love I feel, from him, but desperation and contempt for a character that has been soiled by his misogynistic tendencies. Has anyone ever read his non-comic book work? His fiction is littered with them! And now, he has transformed Sue into something she's not: a victim.

<whew> Ok, that ends my rant.

[Ovid]

Sue's death made me cry...and i had no idea at the time who the hell she was. THAT is a moving death.

No, that is the writing of the manipulative, tear-jerking variety. They don't call it tear-jerking for nothing. I'm sorry, but if you had no knowledge of the character previously and are still moved to tears, it's because you are being played.

[Phasmal]

you...you ARE kidding, right? he was a fascist sociopath...not someone to be admired. and the only great thing about Watchmen? i just...i don't...there aren't words to describe my confusion over that statement.

I admire anyone willing to die for their beliefs.

[bravelybravesirrobin]

I admire anyone willing to die for their beliefs.

You admire suicide bombers?


I can't really get behind any admiration of Rorscharch, he's a very deep and interesting character and his death was fantastic and rich in symbolism, social commentary and dramatic function. But functionally the guys a faschist and even a noble faschist is a faschist and faschist's shouldn'e be people we admire. In fact I don't think we should admire anyone in Watchmen.

[James Groves]

Can i just point out that the term 'hack' is against the rules. So please edit it accordingly. Otherwise it's wp's!


Moving on...

Great list... very well written... and i disagree with none of the choices.

What i DO disagree strongly with though, is the idea that Meltzer's use of pregnancy was anything other than a cheap emotional device to make the death of Sue Dibny more tragic. It's exploitative. There was no reference to Sue trying for a baby previously, nothing. Yet, just when it's revealed she's gonna be sleeping with the fishes...BAM...she was pregnant. Cuz that makes it even more dramatic, of course. As a society it doesnt take just a plain old murder to make us feel sorry for her, no, we need rape...yep, that's getting us into the tearful mood...not enough? Too desensitised are you?...this'll get you going..she had an unborn child as well - 2 for the price of one!! :$ :$ There's no way the consequences of this can be fully explored. It was to shock, to provoke and, depending on how your sensitive your moral core is, it either disgusted you or moved you. Either way, it did it's job, which was the only point Meltzer brought pregnancy into the event for.

And darkcypherlad, great points. Said it better than me. :)

And Jordan, you say Meltzer followed up with the emotional impact of those events. How did he follow up the subject of pregnancy in IC? Where did he go into detail regarding this subject? I havent got the issues to hand (threw them away waiting for the TPB) so if i've missed something then please point it out. Nothing other than segments which deal with the pregnancy mind you.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

Hmm...it seems Sue Dibny's death is still a controversial topic. Great! :D

To Jordan Maxwell: To say that Sue's rape had NOTHING to do with her death is at best, naive, and at worst, wrong. The three are inextricably linked to one another. Meltzer made sure of that when he made Dr. Light and later Jean Loring the focus of attention.

no, it's entirely correct. the two events occurred independent of one another. Ralph THOUGHT Dr. Light was the one who killed Sue because of the rape and subsequent lobotomy. that proved to be completely untrue. so they are only linked by his grief stricken theory on her death. the crime of her murder had the unintended side effect of revealing both her rape and the lobotomy. such is often the case in stories of this genre...the investigation of one crime leads to the uncovering of other unrelated crimes.


And as for her pregnancy being used as shock value: isn't a bit of a coincidence that she learns she's pregnant right before she bites the big one? I don't believe she was actively trying to conceive a child with Ralph. If it had been a major plot point BEFORE IC, then I would agree with you. HOWEVER, it wasn't, so Meltzer created it just to make her death all the more tragic.


something being a coincidence doesn't make it just for shock value. yes, of course Meltzer wrote the pregnancy to make the death more tragic and to intensify Ralph's reaction to the death. no one's arguing that. but that doesn't make it cheap or just for shock value. otherwise any tragedy in fiction that has another element of tragedy within it is written as such. again, Meltzer explores the emotional impact of the event, he gives it context, so by the very definition it can't be just shock value.

No, that is the writing of a manipulative, tear-jerking hack. They don't call it tear-jerking for nothing. I'm sorry, but if you had no knowledge of the character previously and are still moved to tears, it's because you are being played.

so...if a writer is able to effectively produce an emotional reaction in his audience, both a complete novice like myself and a long time fan like Raul, then he's manipulative and we've been played? oooookay....

and for the record, we don't use the word hack around here. it's considered a personal attack on the creator. not to mention, particularly in this case, totally inaccurate. a hack is a writer who does his work just for the money with no interest in the artistic value or enjoyment of the work itself. Meltzer is a highly successful novelist, so if he's doing a low paying job like comics just for the money...well, then being manipulative should be the least of his worries. in other words...drop the name calling. next time it's warning points.

I admire anyone willing to die for their beliefs.

so you're also a fan of terrorists who fly planes into buildings and Palestinian suicide bombers? Nazis were pretty willing to die for their beliefs too. sure, dying for a belief can sometimes be an admirable thing...but i think the belief has to be worth dying for, otherwise they're just a chump.

What i DO disagree strongly with though, is the idea that Meltzer's use of pregnancy was anything other than a cheap emotional device to make the death of Sue Dibny more tragic. It's exploitative. There was no reference to Sue trying for a baby previously, nothing. Yet, just when it's revealed she's gonna be sleeping with the fishes...BAM...she was pregnant. Cuz that makes it even more dramatic, of course. As a society it doesnt take just a plain old murder to make us feel sorry for her, no, we need rape...yep, that's getting us into the tearful mood...not enough? Too desensitised are you?...this'll get you going..she had an unborn child as well - 2 for the price of one!! :$ :$ There's no way the consequences of this can be fully explored. It was to shock, to provoke and, depending on how your sensitive your moral core is, it either disgusted you or moved you. Either way, it did it's job, which was the only point Meltzer brought pregnancy into the event for.

when did it become a crime for writers to make something more dramatic? yes, it's there to provoke...to elicit an emotional response on the part of the reader and to deepen the emotional impact the event has on the character. so what? does anyone call Shakespeare cheap? because that's one of his favorite tricks. how about the Greeks? they'd heap on the tragedy, one after the other...it's not enough Oedipus kills his own father, no, he has to sleep with his mother and have children by her, bring a plague on to his own people, see his mother/wife commit suicide, gouge out his own eyes...and then later have his daughter killed for defending him. what a cheap, exploitative hack that Sophocles was...:rolleyes:


And Jordan, you say Meltzer followed up with the emotional impact of those events. How did he follow up the subject of pregnancy in IC? Where did he go into detail regarding this subject? I havent got the issues to hand (threw them away waiting for the TPB) so if i've missed something then please point it out. Nothing other than segments which deal with the pregnancy mind you.

see, if he'd harped on the pregnancy throughout the story, THEN it would have felt cheaper to me. like he has to keep drawing your attention back to it. but look at the state of grief and anger Ralph is driven to. that's the effect of the tragedy of losing both his wife AND his unborn child on him. just losing his wife...yes, it's tragic, yes, it's a loss. but it was a risk they both took by being in this life and having their identities public. the loss of the child deepens his grief, guilt and suffering over it so that he can barely keep himself together...and we follow the path of that grieving to his inevitable acceptance at the end of the story (or complete mental breakdown, depending on how you read that scene). so no, you don't have to go into detail or have Ralph give some grand soliloquiy about his suffering. just watching him bear the natural weight of his dual tragedy is enough for me. i'm reminded of the film Seven, at the end when Brad Pitt has the gun to Kevin Spacey's head, going back and forth on whether or not to kill him because Spacey has killed his wife. There's a point where he can be brought back from crossing that line...until Spacey reveals that she was pregnant as well (admittedly, a fact we the audience were privy to beforehand so it's not EXACTLY the same kind of emotional beat). And suddenly Pitt goes cold, and Morgan Freeman as his partner trying to stop him realizes there is nothing in the world now to stop him from pulling that trigger. The loss of a wife is one kind of emotional impact...but the loss of a child, and an unborn one that you don't know about until you've lost it, is another. Meltzer needed Ralph in a particular emotional state, and in response to have the other heroes in a particular emotional state, for the story to work. so no, it doesn't feel cheap or exploitative to me. it feels like a good writer and storyteller who understands how to play emotional and psychological beats with his characters and his audience.

[Itsjake]

Ranking these is hard, but excluding Supergirl while including Sue Dibny is hard to fathom. For myself, I'd put Morpheus' death at or near the top.

[Wolverine]

agreed. great list. I was suprised not to see supergirl's on it but whatever

[Robb Welch]

....Elektra any one? Hell. Hal Jordan anyone?
Aunt May? Any of the oh hell no one cares.

[Big Steel Pete]

Says DC deaths, buddy.

[trinh]

Nonsense. The added details prove that what might have been what you described - the death of the emotional centre of the League - was in fact written as a cheap piece of titillation. She couldn't just die. Oh, no. She had to be pregnant as well. Oh, yes, and wait. She'd been raped in the past too.


the emotional center of the league?

hardly anybody knew her.

i don't know why sue dibny was listed above jason todd.

the whole point of IC wasn't even about sue dibny. it was about the mindwipes.

[Robb Welch]

Says DC deaths, buddy.
yeah. good lord what the hell am i talking about?

[Anand Khatri]

i don't know why sue dibny was listed above jason todd.

the whole point of IC wasn't even about sue dibny. it was about the mindwipes.

Actually I think Sue Dibny's death was more important because a villain :bleep:ed with a family member who was NOT a superhero/heroine (because the team is also like family) while Jason Todd died in the line of Duty. Sue Dibny didn't do anything to anybody.

[raul grau]

the emotional center of the league? hardly anybody knew her.
Sue might not have been around much during this current JLA era, but she was omnipresent with the Justice League Europe/International, and was a regular in the Justice League of America days. Throw in Formerly, and Sue has been with the League for the majority of its history.

i don't know why sue dibny was listed above jason todd.
Personally, I would put Sue over Jason, because as obvious as it was by page 10 that Sue was going to die, there was absolutely nothing shocking about Jason's death... I should know, I called to vote for him to die. :)

You ask how has Sue's death defined her character when it was only in a couple of panels in one issue?...We're only talking about Sue because of her death. I have yet to see a feature spotlighting her roles as wife and JLI member (Top 10 DC Spouses, perhaps?) You can disagree with me on everything I've said up to this point, but can you really saw Sue isn't defined now by what happened to her in IC # 1? Her death has totally obscured what she has done before.
Well, actually I said that her pregnancy did not define either her life nor her death, because it was only referenced in a couple of panels, and could not have been the impetus behind her murder. That said, I hope that Sue is not now and forever going to be known simply as 'the chick who died in IC', and that her current higher profile and natural curiosity might actually inspire people to pick up JLE, Formerly, and her other, living appearances.

As for not seeing any features that highlighted Sue prior to her murder, you would have, if only the rest of the staff had gone for the Top Ten JL Members X-Ten that I pushed for last summer... Sue was right there on my list, but so were the Ray and Dr. Fate, so I would have been creamed in the voting. ;)

You point to JLA: Classified #4. Thanks, because that supports my main assertion. The author of that particular book knows Sue well. After all, he had a hand in writing her in the old Justice League/JLI/FKATJL series. He has said in an interview (I forget which one) that he didn't particularly like what happened in IC # 1 and despite her death, was sticking with his "version" of Sue that Meltzer chose not to use when he killed her off.
Well, I interviewed Keith Giffen last month, and he said that he enjoyed Identity Crisis, but it was just not how he would have written it. The only difference I see between the Sue of IC and the Sue of Classified is that the Sue of Classified is alive and has better one-liners. In IC, she was not shown to be anything less than what she had been before, and all of her actions (the birthday mystery surprise, the playful affection for Ralph) were entirely in keeping with her established character.

Also, I am of the opinion that just because something terrible has happened to you does not automatically make you a victim.

- Raul

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

Actually I think Sue Dibny's death was more important because a villain :bleep:ed with a family member who was NOT a superhero/heroine (because the team is also like family) while Jason Todd died in the line of Duty. Sue Dibny didn't do anything to anybody.

actually, even more disturbing was that it wasn't a villain at all...i won't go into too much detail in case some people haven't been treated to the beauty of IC, but damn that's some fine storytelling.

[Ovid]

so...if a writer is able to effectively produce an emotional reaction in his audience, both a complete novice like myself and a long time fan like Raul, then he's manipulative and we've been played? oooookay....

Apologies for my previous post. It's been edited. The point I was (very badly) trying to make was it doesn't take a good writer to elicit extreme emotional responses. How do you differentiate between a sentimental airport novel and a classic?

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

well, i'd like to think i'm not a middle aged housewife who can be moved by shoddy and poorly written emotional beats. i'm a college educated actor and writer who almost decided to become a high school English and drama teacher. so i'd like to think i have a discerning taste when it comes to "good" writing and "bad." to me, Meltzer's work here was effective without being cheap or exploitative and worked the emotional beats just right. was there a shock element to it? of course. but it didn't stand alone as the reason for the moment, the emotional impact was followed upon and the story was good. so to say it was merely for "shock value" is, in my opinion, a misnomer and a grave disservice to a great story and writer.

[Tio Marco]

HUH?

Superman's (planned as) temporary, publicity stunt death made the list and Supergirl's tragic sacrifice in Crisis on Infinite Earths didn't make the list? :eek:

Seeing Kara being scorched by the Anti-Monitor and truly being DEAD was something no one expected (regardless of the posters and cover images). After all, no one really dies in a comic....

[Kent Miller]

I agree with a lot of the list, and the rest I'm indifferent about. The entries I really like are Morpheus, and in retrospect Flash was a great and obvious choice. As a new fan of V (the book, not necessarily the guy :)), I'm glad his 'splosive death made the list.

[NMBradbury]

Think Dream should be higher, that really moved me when I read it, probably moreso than the Death of Sue (which I still think was really well-written). Maybe the higher place is because Sue is fresher in the mind? I can't really comment.

My reaction to Rorshach, throughout Watchmen and at his death, was pity, because the reasons he did these things were, I shudder to say it, valid. I'm obviously not agreeing with him, but Moore (and Gibbons, a vastly undermentioned contributor) did a really good job of explaining why he did these things and what his motivation was, even if it wasn't a motivation I share. The psychiatrist issue was so powerful I actually had to put the book down and take a break (I usually read things all the way through in one sitting).

And saying noone in Watchmen is to be admired is wrong, IMO. The people on the street, like the newsvendor who tried to shield the child, and of the heroes, the Nite Owls weren't as utterly maladjusted as the others and Dreiburg in particular was the character I found myself empathising with.

[bravelybravesirrobin]

good point about the people on the street. I don't think we're meant to admire Dreiberg or Hollins because they're losers really. Hollins ends up with a few stories and had some fun and is a great guy but he never achieves anything as a hero. Dreiberg ends up with less, lives alone, longs for comfort and friends (especially outside the super hero community) and was a kind of fanboy to start with. We empaphise with them because they have "normal" viewpoints (ditto Sally) whereas ozymandias, rorscharch, the comedian and manhattan are all extremes. We also empaphise with them because their both of them comic book fanboys, just like the reader. I'm not sure I would say Rorscarchs' view was "valid" as you put it but I think I understand and agree with where your coming from. It's more that Moore constructs the character's so no viewpoint is "wrong" and none of them is "right". Much like real life.

and your right about Gibbons being under-rated. But by and large his genius is in story telling and the intricate themes and parrallels he produces. He certainly has a major hand in creating character's (the designs, expressions and body language for example) but in most discussions of character's it's going to be Moore's influence (their actions and the words in their mouths) that is more predominant.

[Paul Shinn]

Nice list. Satisfies my fascination with the macarbre.

[Ovid]

Hollins ends up with a few stories and had some fun and is a great guy but he never achieves anything as a hero.

And in comparison to what the 'heroes' do achieve, just getting stories and having fun makes Hollins a winner, imho!

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

not to be a nitpicky fanboy or anything, but his name is Hollis, not Hollins. and yes, i'll recant and say that he is one of the few people i genuinely admire in Watchmen. :)

HUH?

Superman's (planned as) temporary, publicity stunt death made the list and Supergirl's tragic sacrifice in Crisis on Infinite Earths didn't make the list? :eek:

Seeing Kara being scorched by the Anti-Monitor and truly being DEAD was something no one expected (regardless of the posters and cover images). After all, no one really dies in a comic....

as dramatic as it was, Kara's death had no real long lasting effects other than there not being a Supergirl anymore. and even that's been undone now. twice! Superman's death on the other hand had a mass amount of crossover into the mainstream with everyone stopping to take notice. it was like a pop culture event. and even though the death itself was undone, it did have some lasting effects on the comics themselves.

[Thaddeus Hettle]

you...you ARE kidding, right? he was a fascist sociopath...not someone to be admired. and the only great thing about Watchmen? i just...i don't...there aren't words to describe my confusion over that statement.

The man died for his ideals, and faced that death with courage.... he is every inch a hero, and it's a tragedy he is condemned for simply not embracing shallow liberal affectations.....

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

The man died for his ideals, and faced that death with courage.... he is every inch a hero, and it's a tragedy he is condemned for simply not embracing shallow liberal affectations.....

the man died because he was unwilling to compromise even a little regardless of the consequences. he didn't face his death with courage or nobility, but with the natural death wish that he'd been carrying forever. i don't see anything particularly heroic in his character. i don't condemn him for not being a liberal. honestly, i could care less about his politics. you don't hear me condemning Hawkman or Barry Allen, both of whom are typically considered to be right wing conservative type characters. his character is a condemnation of the kind of excessively violent sociopath that is often at the core of the kind of vigilante characters he is meant to reflect. he is compelling and complex, not admirable and heroic and his death is the final result of his uncompromising moral absolutism that couldn't allow for a single shade of grey in his deluded black and white world view. tragic, yes. heroic, no.

[Thaddeus Hettle]

the man died because he was unwilling to compromise even a little regardless of the consequences. he didn't face his death with courage or nobility, but with the natural death wish that he'd been carrying forever. i don't see anything particularly heroic in his character. i don't condemn him for not being a liberal. honestly, i could care less about his politics. you don't hear me condemning Hawkman or Barry Allen, both of whom are typically considered to be right wing conservative type characters. his character is a condemnation of the kind of excessively violent sociopath that is often at the core of the kind of vigilante characters he is meant to reflect. he is compelling and complex, not admirable and heroic and his death is the final result of his uncompromising moral absolutism that couldn't allow for a single shade of grey in his deluded black and white world view. tragic, yes. heroic, no.

I was kidding on the square about the liberal thing.... but look, Rorschach did die, essentially was executed, for standing on his principals and refusing to compromise. You could probably find thousands of examples of people like this throughout history who have been enshrined for their martyrdom.

But underneath that veneer of stolid heroism, they had their own insecurities and idiosyncracies too. Everyone has them, people are just pretty much bundles of vanities and insecurities.....

As far as I can reason, there IS no greater purpose or puppet-master pulling the screen. It would be nice to think we're on the verge of coming together in a great wash of love and brotherhood in the Super-Context, but looking at the world tells me otherwise. If there is a puppet master, he doesn't seem to like people very much.

So what I think that boils down to is that the universe is a blank slate. You have to determine your own ideals, and then it's doubly important you stand by them, because there is no higher authority then your own will: so it's really all anyone has, in the end.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

no, it's more important to stay and fight than to die. the fact is that Rorschach couldn't see any possibility between staying quiet and compliant with Ozymandias' plan or blabbing about the whole thing and ending world peace, bring the planet back to the brink of nuclear holocaust. Manhattan couldn't allow him to endanger that peace, regardless of how wrong the actions were to get there. and so Rorschach was faced with another choice...either change and realize there are levels of complexity and ambiguity at work here but you can STILL do good without undoing the good that was done (no matter how evil the actions to get there...understand, i'm not justifying Ozymandias' actions here. but they DID work). He could've continued to stand as a protector of the innocent and abused on the streets. with his intimate knowledge of Ozymandias and his plans, he could ensure that Ozy goes no further, doesn't try to take over the world or anything. he could have still done good in the world, but he couldn't allow himself to make the compromise or that change and so chose death. i don't consider that heroic at all.

[Dylan McKay]

I pity Rorschach, I don't admire him...

[Lisa Charly]

I'm so glad V made it that high up. I thought his death was brilliantly executed, both literally and thematically, and fit the sense of 'passing the torch' to Evey perfectly.

[Gabriel-JC]

I think that biggest problem with Sue here is that... well rarely anyone cares.
I seen her around, mostly as a tag-along, i read the issue where she died, and while a very moving issue I was left pretty much "so what". It was pretty much like when in X-men they kill some random mutant, that while he appered for a long time was simply no one important. Sure there might be a small but faithfull fanbase but really, if you gathered 100 random DC readers atleast 70 of them wouldn't know who you talking about. She left no big impact in the comic book industry, her death was nothing new, nothing special, just a well written dramma.
On the other hand deaths of Sandman and Todd truly changed comic book industry. Even death of Superman changed things drasticly.
I apploud all other choices but Sue was just not big impact.

And to put in my two cents about Rorschach.
In a world where childkillers go free on lack of evidences, and where justice depends on how good a lawyer you can get I wouldn't mind having Rorshchack walking around.
Putting child killer, who feeds his dogs with child's body in nice comfty jail cell, with tv priviledges and three sqare meals a day, on my expence, is somehow unfitting punishement.
And I speak from personal experiance. when I was 11 I had a friend who's dad was a money changer. A man walked into thier house, killed my friend's mother on the door, with a knife, his father in his office with a gun, then got afriad kids saw him, walked into kids bedroom where my friend and his 7 year old brother were hiding under blankets and slit their throughts. All that for 4000 dollars american.
Becose of procedural mistakes he could not be charged for most of it, he got seven years. He was out by year 2000.
if Rorschak was there to remove that man i would be out there cheering him on.
But thats just me, I guess you are more comfortable with childkillers walking in your midst.

[Dylan McKay]

I may be part of that small group, but I view Sue as the single coolest superhero wife in all comics...

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

I think that biggest problem with Sue here is that... well rarely anyone cares.
I seen her around, mostly as a tag-along, i read the issue where she died, and while a very moving issue I was left pretty much "so what". It was pretty much like when in X-men they kill some random mutant, that while he appered for a long time was simply no one important. Sure there might be a small but faithfull fanbase but really, if you gathered 100 random DC readers atleast 70 of them wouldn't know who you talking about. She left no big impact in the comic book industry, her death was nothing new, nothing special, just a well written dramma.
On the other hand deaths of Sandman and Todd truly changed comic book industry. Even death of Superman changed things drasticly.
I apploud all other choices but Sue was just not big impact.

i highly disagree. first of all, on the minor point that Jason Todd's death really changed anything about the comic book industry. Sandman, i can give you slightly but more because in allowing Gaiman to kill Dream and end the series, they showed a great deal of respect and latitude to a creator who didn't own the characters or book he was writing.

secondly...well, the random sample i've taken has been somewhat smaller than 100, but almost every hardcore DC or at the very least Justice League reader i've talked to (including one who hasn't read a current comic in almost a decade) has expressed a great deal of emotional impact over her death. i know of plenty on staff with an attachment to her, and plenty of friends in my "real" life with the same. I had no attachment to her. and i was still emotionally impacted by the death. i think perhaps YOU don't have much attachment or recognition for the character and are supposing that position of others with no real proof to back it up other than that supposition.

i think the analogy of killing a random anonymous mutant in the X-Men universe is faulty. it's more akin to Moira MacTaggart's death in impact...and its superior in execution (no pun intended).


And to put in my two cents about Rorschach.
In a world where childkillers go free on lack of evidences, and where justice depends on how good a lawyer you can get I wouldn't mind having Rorshchack walking around.
Putting child killer, who feeds his dogs with child's body in nice comfty jail cell, with tv priviledges and three sqare meals a day, on my expence, is somehow unfitting punishement.
And I speak from personal experiance. when I was 11 I had a friend who's dad was a money changer. A man walked into thier house, killed my friend's mother on the door, with a knife, his father in his office with a gun, then got afriad kids saw him, walked into kids bedroom where my friend and his 7 year old brother were hiding under blankets and slit their throughts. All that for 4000 dollars american.
Becose of procedural mistakes he could not be charged for most of it, he got seven years. He was out by year 2000.
if Rorschak was there to remove that man i would be out there cheering him on.
But thats just me, I guess you are more comfortable with childkillers walking in your midst.

no, i'm more comfortable with a system of due process and rule of law rather than one man's arbitrary morality being imposed violently upon any individual he sees fit. is the system perfect? no. my father went to prison for seven of a ten year sentence for a crime he didn't commit because of the people he associated with, a public that has been brainwashed into thinking that anything to do with drugs is somehow automatically "bad" and "wrong," and a federal government with its head up its ass in a fake "war on drugs." Meanwhile, those who take lives (murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc.) and those who ruin lives (corporate CEOs) are allowed off on technicalities and loopholes. But as many flaws as there are in that system, i see infinitely more in one deranged man holding himself up above the law and imposing his own flawed will on to everyone else as he sees fit with no checks and balances, no accountability. If there were to be such a thing as vigilantes and superheroes in this world, i would much prefer those who could prevent crimes or in lieu of that bring crimes to light and help the system along than to have a demented sociopath wandering around with carte blanche to drive a cleaver into the skull of whomever he views as "guilty," if for no other reason than the possibility that the supposed criminal he is "punishing" may very well be innocent.

as for the ludicrous notion that prison is somehow a lax social club with three square meals a day and big screen color TV...nonsense. My father was pretty much in one of the most minimum security prisons imagineable. and even still, those TV privileges you're so hung up on consisted of twenty to fifty convicts at a time hanging out in a room with a small screen TV, watching whatever sporting event or movie the guards decided on. Those three square meals a day (heaven forbid we actually FEED people) were some of the most sub par concoctions with little to no nutrional or flavor value whatsoever, so that the best option was to scrounge up whatever food you and your friends could find and try to make your own spread. The guards would exercise their own frustrated impotence and limited authority over the prisoners under their charge in the most condescending and dehumanizing of ways. This, for a group of offenders whose average crime against society involved having the wrong amount of weed or cocaine on them, or selling those amounts to businessmen (who copped a plea, ratted everyone they could out whether they were guilty or not and walked free...a local realtor here in Texas was the "kingpin" of the operation my father was implicated in. he hardly served a day and his commercials still run on the airwaves). The best entertainment they could find was to read, lift weights or on one particular occasion spend five hours watching a spider spin his web. They are deprived of contact with family and friends save a few hours on the weekends. Families are torn apart. Jobs are lost. If they're lucky, they can rebuild their life when and if they get out. But that stigma is always upon them. What would you do, cut all criminals off from the outside world? Starve them? Shove them in a rotting cell and forget about them save for some moldy bread and a tin cup of water? Whatever their crimes, they are still human beings and have rights. Treating them inhumanely does nothing but turn them inhuman. My father has a saying he's fond of...now that he's out, during his time in prison and before that when he was a lawyer (a lifelong goal he'd achieved through diligent study, ambition and extreme intelligence...and because of the injustice done to him, he can no longer practice law after his years of study and service). I'm not sure of the original source...Victor Hugo, perhaps, or Clarence Darrow. Anyway...it's this: "people are sent to prison AS punishment. Not FOR punishment." Just something to think about before you start calling for every criminal to be thrown in solitary or strung up in the town square.

[Ovid]

And to put in my two cents about Rorschach.
In a world where childkillers go free on lack of evidences, and where justice depends on how good a lawyer you can get I wouldn't mind having Rorshchack walking around.
Putting child killer, who feeds his dogs with child's body in nice comfty jail cell, with tv priviledges and three sqare meals a day, on my expence, is somehow unfitting punishement.
And I speak from personal experiance. when I was 11 I had a friend who's dad was a money changer. A man walked into thier house, killed my friend's mother on the door, with a knife, his father in his office with a gun, then got afriad kids saw him, walked into kids bedroom where my friend and his 7 year old brother were hiding under blankets and slit their throughts. All that for 4000 dollars american.
Becose of procedural mistakes he could not be charged for most of it, he got seven years. He was out by year 2000.
if Rorschak was there to remove that man i would be out there cheering him on.
But thats just me, I guess you are more comfortable with childkillers walking in your midst.

I come from a part of the world where vigilante justice rules (except they call themselves 'volunteers'), and it's no paradise. These people make up the law as they go along. Yes, drug dealers (including people who deal a bit of hash) end up maimed or dead, and your life is fine so long as you obey the rules set down by the organisation and can be very good if you have a relative or friend within it. But if you're not local, or you're black, or Jewish, or gay, or display signs of 'weird' behaviour like, say, reading 'Satanic' comic books, then at the very best you'll be tolerated. But you can bet that no crime againt you will ever be 'investigated'.

You're also assuming vigilantes always get things right. They don't. They're as prone to 'procedural mistakes' as a justice system, if not more so, and they can't be held accountable. In Britain we recently experienced anti-paedophile riots. The mob burnt a woman out of her home because she was a paediatrician and the vigilantes were too dumb to know the difference. In my home town the construction of a concert hall turned up bodies of people who'd 'disappeared'. No-one knows why they were disappeared, or which individuals did it. They might have been child-killers, but they might just have angered the wrong person. The question is not whether I want child-killers walking in our midst, but how many innocent people you're willing to see suffer and/or die in the future to avenge a crime, however horrible, that's already in the past.

[Gabriel-JC]

First to Jordan.
about Sue you make my point yourself. you say every HARDCORE fan. Well belive it or not pretty much ONLY hardcore fans even know who she is. And yes I don't think that something that only affects hardcore fans is really relevant to comic books as whole.

about vigiliantes.
You see you say you are more comfortable with a system of due process and rule of law. I would be too, if we had it. We don't. We have a system that is strung up by lawyers. System in which childkillers walk the streets becose police officer didn't have a warrant to walk into house while pedophile was killing the child. We have system in which people like your father, who didn't do anything wrong, end up in jail as long as corporate chief who ran over two 4 year old girls in the park, while drunk, and then ran away from the scene. THATS where we live. And yeah if sytem worked I'd be happy to live in it. As it is I'd like to have Rorshchak around. Then criminals would have to be afraid of something too. As it is people who should be afraid of walking the streets, and should be afraid of "law" is you and me.

on jails.
well since i had someone in jail too, namly my uncle, I'll describe what i saw. TV privlidges i talked about were two rooms for about 25 people with wide screen tv, much better then the one i have at home. Plus every saturday in exercise gym they would have a movie projection, not the latest hit i'll admit, but move that is about month old.
Food they got, while not great I'd hardly call horrible. Brakefast was light, mostly some bread and butter and marmelade (small packets, not big enough for large men i'll admit) but lunch i would hardly refuse myself, they had a big kitchen with fresh vegetables every day and meat every two days. Dinner was mostly heat up lunch.
So while not great, and it wasnt, please go ask nearest homless or a minimum wage worker if he/she would like to eat like that every day.

Ovid
I understand your point, and I do agree with it pretty much. I would be probably first to get it in the mob rule since I'm the weird guy out. But I was not saying I'd like a world where vigilantees rule, I am well aware what would that be like, I was saying I would feel comfortable in a world where Rarshchak lived. In comic we see him make mistakes but we see him hurting people I really don't mind hurt. Criminals, murderers, crime lords, petty crime bosses. People who make world that much a worse place. Not simply people who are diferent.

[Ovid]

Ovid
I understand your point, and I do agree with it pretty much. I would be probably first to get it in the mob rule since I'm the weird guy out. But I was not saying I'd like a world where vigilantees rule, I am well aware what would that be like, I was saying I would feel comfortable in a world where Rarshchak lived. In comic we see him make mistakes but we see him hurting people I really don't mind hurt. Criminals, murderers, crime lords, petty crime bosses. People who make world that much a worse place. Not simply people who are diferent.

But my point is that you would have no control over Rorschach. What you see as different, he would see as criminal (as conservatives see homosexuality, for example), and what he saw as criminal, he would hurt. Sure I would love to have vigilantes as they are in the comics exist in real life (although I'd probably go for Superman), but comics are a fantasy. Real vigilantes don't automatically share most people's ideas of what is criminal. Even where they do, their mistakes aren't trivial. Only last week a man here in Britain was beaten to death by vigilantes for being a paedophile. No problem there, from your point of view. Except that he wasn't. It was a case of mistaken identity. Those vigilantes should have been more careful when they went hunting, and they should be held accountable for any mistakes. But we already have vigilantes who are careful and accountable: we call them the police.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

First to Jordan.
about Sue you make my point yourself. you say every HARDCORE fan. Well belive it or not pretty much ONLY hardcore fans even know who she is. And yes I don't think that something that only affects hardcore fans is really relevant to comic books as whole.

and if you'd read the rest of my post, you'd see that i as a non-hardcore fan, and plenty of fellow readers who'd rarely picked up a DC title before Identity Crisis, were likewise moved by Sue's death. so, no, i never said it affects hardcore fans only. just that they had a notable reaction to her death because of their past relationship with her, and plenty of us who didn't still had a very strong and potent reaction. i think if a character's death can have that kind of emotional effect on readers who've never even heard of her before, it's a pretty strong contender for a top death.


about vigiliantes.
You see you say you are more comfortable with a system of due process and rule of law. I would be too, if we had it. We don't. We have a system that is strung up by lawyers. System in which childkillers walk the streets becose police officer didn't have a warrant to walk into house while pedophile was killing the child. We have system in which people like your father, who didn't do anything wrong, end up in jail as long as corporate chief who ran over two 4 year old girls in the park, while drunk, and then ran away from the scene. THATS where we live. And yeah if sytem worked I'd be happy to live in it. As it is I'd like to have Rorshchak around. Then criminals would have to be afraid of something too. As it is people who should be afraid of walking the streets, and should be afraid of "law" is you and me.

we do have it. what you're talking about are the exceptions, not the rule. for the most part, the system works. is it infallible? no. i never claimed it was. but it has a lot more going for it than a masked vigilante deciding what's right and wrong and enforcing that arbitrary decision upon others with extreme and unnecessary violence. criminals or not, they are still citizens and they have rights. and if a police officer saw a pedophile killing a child, he'd be allowed to intervene in the same way if a police officer sees your stash of weed when you open the door he's allowed to come in without a warrant. if the crime is in plain sight, they are more than empowered to intervene. and as someone with family and friends in the legal profession, i really have to take issue with your stance that the system is somehow strung up by lawyers. Lawyers have a job to do, to prosecute alleged criminals as well as defend them and they are obligated to do their best at this. mistakes are made a lot, it's true. but it's the best system that's been devised in human history and leagues ahead of sociopaths in masks breaking people's arms and feeding them to dogs. which is all well and good for an escapist power fantasy or compelling psychological drama, but not all that handy for a system of law.

also, you earned yourself some warning points for your rather inappropriate comment above as well. you can make your argument without accusing the "ritch" of sodomizing the legal system...


on jails.
well since i had someone in jail too, namly my uncle, I'll describe what i saw. TV privlidges i talked about were two rooms for about 25 people with wide screen tv, much better then the one i have at home. Plus every saturday in exercise gym they would have a movie projection, not the latest hit i'll admit, but move that is about month old.
Food they got, while not great I'd hardly call horrible. Brakefast was light, mostly some bread and butter and marmelade (small packets, not big enough for large men i'll admit) but lunch i would hardly refuse myself, they had a big kitchen with fresh vegetables every day and meat every two days. Dinner was mostly heat up lunch.
So while not great, and it wasnt, please go ask nearest homless or a minimum wage worker if he/she would like to eat like that every day.

and be away from their friends and family, have every hour of their life dictated to them by patronizing and spiteful guards, risk rape in the showers and being stabbed in the cafeteria or courtyard for saying the wrong thing or looking the wrong way at the wrong person. yeah, i'll go ask them that. regardless of their crimes and/or convictions, they still have a few rights. one of those being no cruel or unusual punishments. it's a little something called the Bill of Rights. you might've heard of it. my family was torn apart. my father can't practice law, vote or own a gun amongst other things. all told, i'd say being able to watch a movie every now and then and being fed three square meals a day is a small concession.


Ovid
I understand your point, and I do agree with it pretty much. I would be probably first to get it in the mob rule since I'm the weird guy out. But I was not saying I'd like a world where vigilantees rule, I am well aware what would that be like, I was saying I would feel comfortable in a world where Rarshchak lived. In comic we see him make mistakes but we see him hurting people I really don't mind hurt. Criminals, murderers, crime lords, petty crime bosses. People who make world that much a worse place. Not simply people who are diferent.

it's not exactly like Rorschach made the world a better place. in fact, i'd go so far as to say he made it just that little bit worse. i would not want to live in a world where paranoid right wing sociopaths are free to enforce their own ultra violent morality on anyone they please with no system of checks and balances and no accountability. Just because he's a fascinating and compelling character doesn't make him a good person or put him in the right.