Eddie Trunk and The Salvatore Scale

One of the television shows i find myself watching a lot is That Metal Show on VH1 Classic. This is odd, because i have very little affinity for most of the music they feature on the show (not to say i don't respect it; i just rarely listen to those artists). However, what i enjoy about it is that the show is done by music fans for music fans; the discussions that take place on the show come from a place of passion and excitement, and it is one of the few shows on TV that is all about passion. It's funny, while the internet has become an institution dedicated to anyone being able to express their opinions, TV is still pretty much closed off in that regard. Movies, TV, music, all bring in literally billions of dollars a year for the same companies that own television stations, and yet there are very few shows dedicated to intelligent discussion of these types of media. That Metal Show is a place where people who are fans of hard rock/heavy metal can turn to hear people having an actual discussion about music. This is rare, and should be celebrated.

The host of the show is Eddie Trunk; as a fellow denizen of the Garden State, i have been familiar with Eddie via his radio show for 15+ years. One of Eddie's soapboxes is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame - he feels that the Hall discriminates against heavy music and is run by (my words not his) snobs. He also makes a claim that selling a ton of records should factor in there somewhere.

Now, while i am sympathetic to Trunk's argument, i think we need to pull back a little and discuss what the Hall is, what it is supposed to be, and what can be done to improve it. Let me also say off the bat that i am not trying to bag on Eddie Trunk; he and i simply disagree on some of this stuff (we agree on a lot of it, too), and hearing him recently talk about this got me thinking about this issue.

From the official website, here is what appears to be their mission statement: The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum exists to collect, preserve and interpret the impact rock has made on our world.

First of all, let's call bullshit on this statement. If that was truly the purpose of the institution, then it would be displays on the supposed connection between heavy metal and suicide, or the West Memphis Three, or other academic ideas. This is there to celebrate the landmark people in rock and roll.

Well, sort of.

My first change i would make to the RNRHOF is the name: it isn't just about rock and roll. It is also about funk, doo wop, heavy metal, bubblegum pop, disco, rap, and every other form of popular music invented since 1955. Let's face facts, the name is a misnomer. So, i suggest a new handle for the place:

The Museum of Popular Music, 1955-Present

Sure, it doesn't have the same ring as "The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," but the only way to make people stop saying things like "Grandmaster Flash, yeah, HE'S really rock and roll!" is to change the name. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and we're not going to suddenly un-invite all the artists that don't meet the strict guidelines of what "rock and roll" should mean. Plus, those guidelines change on a whim to support arguments, so who gives a shit. Change the name.

Secondly, there needs to be something more concrete in terms of what it means to be inducted. Let's call this the Buffalo Springfield corollary:

Buffalo Springfield released two albums during its active lifespan, and a third shortly thereafter that was made up of mostly outtakes and doesn't feature the full band on any one song. They had one bona fide hit, "For What It's Worth," and their members went on to form other, more successful bands, as well as influence the growing movement of folk, country and rock music blending together. This whole process, from forming to break up, took less than 3 full years.

And yet, this band is in the RNRHOF, and went in in 1997.

Why are they there? It isn't because they were an unquestionably influential band. They had influential members, but the band itself isn't exactly the Beatles or the Stones. It isn't because they were so popular that they dominated the charts for years - they barely made a blip on the sales radar during their years active. It isn't because the band contained the best work of its members - many members went on to do better stuff afterwards.

No, they are in because they are an answer to a fun trivia question, and because some people are insufferable nostalgists who think they were so important because they exist in the cultural sweet spot of 1967.

But why should any band be in the RNRHOF? I can think of six good criteria, and any inductee needs to meet at least four of these. I present to you, the Salvatore Scale:

1) Their influence can be felt today in more than just a niche sector of the music world
2) They signaled, or were part of, a sea change in the music industry
3) Featured superb musicianship or songwriting ability
4) Well respected by a significant percentage of the critical intelligentsia
5) They were popular to the point of ubiquity
6) They had a career exceeding 5 albums/10 years

No matter what the criteria was, the Beatles and Chuck Berry were getting in (and, actually Buffalo Springfield would be a close call on my new criteria). But let's look at a band that isn't in, and pisses a lot of people off, including the aforementioned Eddie Trunk, and see if they'd get in based on my criteria; let's take a look at Deep Purple.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) No
6) Yes

They're in.

Now, let's look at 2008 inductee John Melloncamp:

1) No
2) No
3) Arguable
4) Arguable
5) No
6) Yes

Melloncamp is out.

See, what this does is it neutralizes the two polar ends of the spectrum: the critic and the fan. If only critics picked who went in, the average person would be flummoxed at the prospect of visiting the John Fahey exhibit. If only fans picked, Bon Jovi would be in, and that may be worse. In fact, let's take those two artists and put them on the Salvatore Scale:

Fahey:
1) Arguable, leaning towards no
2) No
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) No
6) Yes


Bon Jovi:
1) No
2) Yes (albeit a terrible one, hair metal)
3) Arguable, leaning towards no
4) No
5) Yes
6) Yes


That's a no on both. And while i think John Fahey is an amazing, singular talent, he shouldn't be in the HOF. And neither should a band that had a few huge hits with zero substance and who critics loathe.

Now, where Trunk loses me is advocating for people like Bon Jovi or Journey - if these bands have influenced any real segment of the music making population, i don't hear it. They are both known by the general public for less than 5 songs. They are not my cup of meat, but they are fine bands if that's your thing (and Bon Jovi is my wife's thing, much to my chagrin). But i guarantee you, if i read the tracklist to Journey's Greatest Hits to a man on the street, he'd recognize just as many songs from Manfred Mann's Greatest Hits, and no one in their right mind is advocating for Manfred Mann to go in.

As for longevity, i put it last because it is probably tied with the ubiquitous popularity in terms of least important criterion. The Clash weren't a band for ten years, but they are supremely important (and have 5 truly great records). Guns N' Roses, eligible this year, have four full length original albums to their credit, an EP and a covers album. One of the four records came out 15 years after their peak, and only one of those albums is considered a "classic." They don't make the cut for me; if there was a category to induct albums, you'd be insane not to induct Appetite for Destruction. But i think you'd be more insane to put GNR up there as one of the most important bands of all time.

Just because someone sells a ton of records or records for 30 years doesn't mean they are great. To put this in baseball terms, this would be like Roger Marris being in the HOF - everyone knows him because of one stat, but he isn't a HOF caliber player, and it makes the Hall stronger to have him not in there. I would much rather have a Hall of Fame that is harder to get in to (but is fair) than to have Nickelback one day grace the Hall.

I also want to point out that i put songwriting and technical proficiency on the same bullet point, but that i weigh songwriting higher, and anyone who doesn't is a fool. This is why the Ramones are in the HOF and Steve Vai isn't, sans rubric or by the Salvatore scale.

The final point i want to make is that people who don't want to see pop or rap (or funk or whatever) groups go in need to think more broadly about this. I am 29 years old; i don't remember a time before rap music. Even if i wanted to not be influenced by hip hop culture, that would be impossible, it is part of the world in which i live. Run DMC changed music forever with both its original songs and its "Walk This Way" duet with Aerosmith. Madonna is a hugely important cultural figure. Their influence is felt in the "rock" world, like it or not.

And, much like interracial marriages, broad musical tastes produce the most beautiful children. There wouldn't be metal if Bill Ward didn't dig jazz, and Ozzy didn't idolize the Beatles, the Tony Iommi didn't play the blues. This is all part of the cultural soup we're floating in, and should be recognized as such. Sure, it is weird to see Madonna inducted alongside the Ventures, but tell me - who is more important to the music of the 20th century? If you say the Ventures, i'm going to kick you in the face, because you're a no good liar.

Most importantly, the Salvatore Scale gives a way to actually measure what a band has done, and judge it against a rubric. It protects against the snobs that Trunk has a problem with and the slobs that buy Miller Lite. It finds middle ground, and promotes the bands that really do matter. Next year, my favorite non-Beatles band of all time, the Pixies, are up for nomination. I doubt the Hall will recognize them, but let's see if the Salvatore scale vindicates them:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) No
6) If you count Come on Pilgrim as an album (their debut EP), then they have five albums or if you include their reunion tour, they have more than ten years.

Regardless, they are in.

And so, yes, the RNRHOF needs a serious re-evaluation. But to do it based simply on record sales and/or longevity is a slippery slope to having Creed in there one day. And, to quote one of the original members of the Hall, that'll be the day that i die.

Sorry Jay (and the Jays), Verlander should be MVP

My buddy, and rabid Blue Jays fan, Jay Kumar (@koomdogg), tweeted this yesterday:

"Good for Verlander, but I still feel Bautista was more valuable to his team."

The Verlander in question is Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers starting pitcher and both the 2011 American League Cy Young Award winner and the 2011 American League Most Valuable Player. The Bautista in question is Jose Bautista, a formerly meh player who has found his inner Reggie Jackson over the past two years since joining the Toronto Blue Jays.

A lot of people are feeling the way that Jay feels, although some are replacing Bautista with Jacoby Ellsbury of the Boston Red Sox*. Their argument seems to be (and i haven't discussed this with Jay) that Bautista plays every day in right field (or third base), whereas Verlander starts games once every 5 days. His 250 innings don't contribute nearly as much as Bautista's 513 at-bats, according to these folks.

However, i think Verlander is the deserving MVP of the American League, and i will hopefully convince you all that Justin is worthy.

The best way, in my opinion, to judge a position player against a pitcher is my personal favorite statistic, WAR, or Wins Above Replacement. What this means is that, let's say that Albert Pujols blows out his knee on Day 1 of the season, and is replaced by the Cardinals AAA first baseman - how many wins will the Cardinals miss out on because of Pujols's absence? This is done by aggregating all their individual stats and comparing them to the stats of an "average" player out of AAA. It is not a perfect stat, but is a good cross-position tool.

Verlander and Bautista were tied for the AL lead in WAR this year, with 8.5. So, if either were not playing this year, their teams would have lost 8 or 9 additional games (let's round up for this argument). Let's use that to determine the value to both teams:

The Blue Jays finished 81-81, for fourth place in the AL East. Without Bautista, they would have finished 72-90, still good for fourth place. Although Bautista made the team interesting to watch, even during a mediocre season, without him, the Jays would have had almost exactly the same season overall.

The Tigers finished 95-67, first place in the AL Central. If you subtract the 9 wins that Verlander would have brought, Detroit would have finished 84-76, still finishing first in their division.

So, neither player pushed their team into the playoffs. However, the Tigers did make it, and in Verlander's 4 post season starts, his team went 2-2, so he was a wash in the post season.

I think the real judgment here has to come from which player would be harder to replace if he went down. Right field, Bautista's primary position, is a relatively easy position to fill defensively. His offensive prowess would be much harder, but if a few other parts were swapped out, finding 9 wins via offense over the course of a season wouldn't be impossible (although would probably hurt the team defensively).

As for Verlander, premier starting pitcher is maybe the hardest thing to come by in all of baseball. Verlander is durable, strikes out a ton of batters, and doesn't walk very many. To make up 9 wins from the rotation, that is significantly tougher. Plus, if you lose Verlander, there is no guarantee that whoever replaces him will go as deep into games as he does, therefore taxing the bullpen more, which might lead to less wins from the bullpen.

When a starting pitcher gets the ball, he has more control over the game than anyone else on the team. When a starting pitcher is as dominant as Verlander, it is hard to argue that he isn't the most valuable player in the league this year. One way to help this situation is to establish a Willie Mays award - it can be for hitting what the Cy Young award is for pitching, and the MVP can be what it is supposed to be - the award for the player who helped their team the most this year. If that is the case, Bautista is the Willie Mays winner for 2011.

But Verlander is still the MVP.

Sorry Jay.

*Ellsbury may be more valuable to his team than Bautista because he plays a more premium position and adds the component of speed to his game. Although he lacks some of the plate discipline of Bautista. I'd take either on my team.

Round Up Of My Extra Curricular Activities

I figured it was about time i started to collect my recent adventures in contributing to other sites/projects in 2011. So, here we go:

Podcasts:

Expectations (Erin and I are podcasting about our upcoming baby!): Expectations

The Bureau Presents: A new podcast for the Bureau Records that i'm hosting/producing. Episode #1

Completely Conspicuous - Episodes 161, 162, 201

Multiversity Comics: Interviewing Scott Snyder, Interviewing Joshua Hale Fialkov

Feature Articles:

The Waster - Talking Shop With an Improv Troubadour (Bruce Hornsby Interview), Paley & Francis: Ragged is Part of the Charm

Pop Matters - Drifting Together, Drifting Apart: Sibling Relationships on Six Feet Under

Multiversity Comics - Friday Recommendation: New Teen Titans - Games, Friday Recommendations: Shazam! The Monster Society of Evil, The Walking Dead - Cherokee Rose (TV Review), This Month In Comics: September 2011

Music Reviews:

The Waster: Mister Heavenly - Out of Love, Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks - Mirror Traffic, St. Vincent - Strange Mercy, Wild Flag - Wild Flag, Mekons - Ancient and Modern: 1911-2011, Ryan Adams - Ashes and Fire

Comic Book Reviews:

Multiversity Comics: Green Lantern - New Guardians #1, Swamp Thing #3, Animal Man #3, Green Lantern Corps #1, The Red Wing #4 (with Joshua Mocle), Batman #2, Legion: Secret Origin #1, Frankenstein: Agent of S.H.A.D.E. #3, Spaceman #1, Hellboy: House of the Living Dead (with David Harper), The Huntress #2, The Rinse #1, Batwing #1, Men of War #1, Mudman #1, Justice League #3, Wonder Woman #3, Action Comics #2, Resurrection Man #1, Mister Terrific #1, DC Universe Presents #1, Detective Comics #1, Stormwatch #2, The Shade #1, Justice League International #1, Nightwing #2/Red Hood and the Outlaws #2, Teen Titans #1

Holy cow, i've been doing a lot of stuff.

Heartbreaker and Brian Or, A Journey Towards Nashville

Last week, I wrote a piece for The Waster about Ashes and Fire, the new Ryan Adams record. If you read the article, you'll see that i am a bit hung up on Heartbreaker, the first Adams solo record*. As i briefly mention in the article, i was a Freshmen in college when i first heard it, and it was one of the first pieces of "country" music that ever spoke to me. I had no room in my piece to go back and be reminiscent about my first encounters with it, so i decided to blog about it#.

So, let's travel to the future, all the way...to the Year 2000.



Heartbreaker was released approximately three weeks into my stay as a Freshmen at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA, on September 5, 2000. However, i don't think i had heard anything about the album until at least a few weeks after its release. I remember walking downtown to a now forgotten shitty record store (this is before i found Dave's Music Mine or the Record Exchange on the South Side) to buy Hearbreaker. ^

That first semester was a tough one, initially, for me. My two best friends were my roommate Matt and his girlfriend, Lisa. They broke up approximately 5 minutes after i developed friendships with both of them, and therefore, ruined my friendship circle almost as quickly as they formed it. There were other, deeper issues too, but this a blog where i talk about nerdy shit, and no one needs to read about fragile, emo Brian. Let's sum it up as such: I spent a lot of time crying, listening to sad music. Hence, i loved Heartbreaker to death.%

The 2000/2001 school year opened the doors musically for me more so than any other year in my life. I first heard Bitches Brew by Miles Davis; i bought my first Pixies record; Napster was still around and my school had insanely fast internet. But one of the biggest steps i took musically was beginning to appreciate, in some capacity, country music. In fact, if you had asked me in 1999 what kind of music i like, i would have said "Everything but country."$

Now, let's get something straight: when i say country, i don't mean Garth Brooks or Travis Tritt. That is bad 70s pop with exaggerated accents. When i say country music, i mean Hank Williams; i mean Merle Haggard; i mean Patsy Cline; i mean Johnny Cash. But you see, growing up in the 90s in New Jersey, that kind of country music was rarely, if ever, heard. So to me, country meant color blocked shirts, CMT, and hillbillies.

Ryan Adams was the gateway drug to digging into an entire genre of music that i had previously alienated myself from. I heard an honesty in Adams's songs that reminded me of punk rock - they were simply adorned, well written and nothing fancy. I could dig this. Now, granted, this music was just as influenced by rock and roll and folk music as it was country; however the twang, the harmonies, the tempo, it all bleeds country music. Even if this didn't exactly sound like Nashville of 1962, it felt like it. And, at that time, that was close enough.

Sadly, Adams as country door opener is about the only role he has played in my life (and, country music still is not my favorite genre - not even in my top 5). Much to my friend Jeff Meyer's chagrin, nothing else Adams has done has ever spoken to me in the same way. And yet, i own at least 6 Adams records and, as my article states, puts out 4-5 great songs per album. They just haven't hit me in the same way that Heartbreaker did, and so i find myself not thinking much about Adams, except when i'm thinking about how many of his songs sound the same.

---

*Oddly, i have never reached back to his work with Whiskeytown, although i can almost guarantee i would enjoy it. Maybe next year...

#I've been a really bad blogger. I've been a good contributor to Multiversity Comics and to The Water, but a really bad blogger.

^Only three records bought at that store (and, oddly, all at different times, even after i found good stores): Heartbreaker, Hell Below/Stars Above by the Toadies, and Just Push Play by Aerosmith. Guess which record isn't still in my regular rotation?

%Other songs that i either convinced myself were sad, or elicited a melancholy feeling and therefore were in regular rotation: "Stay Forever" by Ween, "Butterfly" by Weezer, "I Stay Away" by Alice in Chains and "Aurora" by the Foo Fighters. So, for me at 18, sad = acoustic guitars.

$A few years earlier, i would have said "Everything but rap and country." Now, i'd say "everything but polka." Still waiting for a polka artist (non-Weird Al category) to blow my mind.

For further great reading on Ryan Adams, check out this post by the AV Club.

Movies I Should Have Seen By Now, Vol. 1: It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

I love things that attempt something new. This may sound silly, but let's consider for a second all the media that we get every day that attempts absolutely nothing:

Reality Television attempts to make money and attract viewers. Innovation is a tertiary, at best, motivation.

Pop Music - for all the praise that Lady Gaga gets, she is really making formulaic pop music. Her presentation might be edgy, but her music is boring as fuck.

Sequels are the most lucrative and most easily green-lit type of film. With the ultra-rare exception that pops up once a decade or so, sequels try and do the same thing as the originals.

I say all of this to say that It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (Mad from here on out) is a pretty bad movie, but a movie that tried something.

At the time of its invention, television was beating the cinema in the battle for people's time and attention. Veteran director Stanley Kramer attempted to buck this trend by making "the ultimate comedy film," one that's scope (literally and figuratively) could never be attempted on television. For that, he succeeded.

A huge amount of top comedy talent was assembled for the film, from contemporary stars to "classic" comedians, and a huge, sprawling story was constructed around finding $350,000 buried under a "giant W."

Now, maybe at the time the comedy was cutting edge or didn't seem cliched, but to my eyes, this movie was nearly 3 hours (yes, 3 hours) full of hackiest comedy ever assembled. I expected the film to be bloated, but it was morbidly obese - every scene was just a bit too long, a bit too on the nose, and a bit too predictable.

Half of the fun for viewers during its initial run was missing for me, and that is the endless cameo spotting. Sure, i recognized Jimmy Durante and Andy Devine (and who could miss the Three Stooges?), but most of the other cast members were either totally lost on me or a case of "who is that guy?" syndrome that left me wondering what was so important about a guy driving a car that the camera wouldn't pan away for a second?

But watching the movie mad me realize that it has been a long time since a movie that was even this successful was made at such a large scale. In 2001, Rat Race was supposed to be the next Mad, but much of the talent was not A-list, and the film wasn't eagerly anticipated by fans of, well, anything. It was pitched as a family friendly film, and therefore couldn't go too blue, too weird, or, ultimately, too funny. That being said, there is a scene involving Jon Lovitz inadvertently channeling Hitler that is very, very funny.

Skip to 5:00 for the part that is actually funny.

But then i got to thinking: what would a grand-scale comedy made up of the Sid Ceasars, Milton Berles and Buddy Hacketts of today look like?

Would it be a Judd Apatow production? (Yay) Or would Happy Madison tackle it? (Boo) Who would star? Could it be anything less than a hard-R? Would you want to see it?

Let me know in the comments.

Two Random Film Related Thoughts

I took today off, as i worked all weekend, and spent most of the day lying on the couch channel surfing. Two things made me pause today:

1) I watched 1/2 of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World and was shocked to find out that it is two hours and forty five minutes long - that is longer than the theatrical release of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which had an intermission during its run in theaters. Look for a post about this movie later in the week.

2) Minnie Driver, then 27, played both a 28 year old and a 21 year old in 1997 (in Grosse Point Blank and Good Will Hunting, respectively). Obviously, 7 years isn't that big of a stretch, but it got me thinking: i wonder what the longest gap between two ages an actor/actress has played in the same year without the aid of makeup/wigs/prosthetics to seriously alter their appearance. I don't have an answer to this, but thought it was an interesting question.

12 Year Old Brian Vol. 1

12 Year Old Brian is a column where i write about things from my childhood that i still sincerely, non-ironically love. This isn't just limited to past experiences, but also current versions of things once loved.

Vol. 1: The DC Comics "New 52"

The new Justice League

Earlier this summer, DC Comics announced that come September, they would be canceling all current series and re-launching 52 series from #1, including Detective Comics (where the DC in DC comes from) and Action Comics, both of which have been running since the 1930s uninterrupted (and both closing in on 1000 issues). Speculation was rampant as to whether or not all current versions of the characters would no longer be in continuity (more on that "c" word in a minute), or whether or not this was simply a marketing tool to get people buying comics again.

Well, it's sort of both.

But first, let's look at that "c" word again, continuity. What makes comic books different from almost all other media is continuity. In theory, from Action Comics #1 all the way through to the last issue of the original volume, a story has been told that continues to grow, adapt and shape the lives of the characters, month in and month out. I say "in theory," because on numerous occasions, the Superman story has been re-shaped, edited, changed, and generally made to suit whatever goal the writer of that particular issue has in mind.

Unlike, say, James Bond films, which people don't expect to tell a linear, point A (Dr. No) to point Z (Quantum of Solace), story. The James Bond played currently by Daniel Craig is NOT supposed to be an older Sean Connery. There is no consistent continuity between these films (at least not in the macro sense. Sure, all the Connery movies are supposed to lead into one another, but once Bonds kept getting younger and younger, the idea that the same dude battled Goldfinger and Goldeneye became ridiculous).

But in comics, there is. Sure, time is slowed down (or else Superman would be pushing 100 and Dick Grayson, the original Robin, would be nearly 70 [as opposed to the mid-30s he is in comics]), but generally the story began with the character's creation and has continued on until present day.

This is a roll of the dice for your favorite characters, because over the course of time various writers will take your favorites down different paths. One of the beauties of comic fandom is that your favorite character might die (mine did), get resurrected (mine did), have multiple versions of different characters with the same name (mine did) and still not be even close to the most confusing character in comics.

I have been, since i was probably 5 years old, a Green Lantern fan. When i say that, i mean a fan of Hal Jordan, the 2nd character to be known as Green Lantern, introducing during the "Silver Age" of Comics (approximately 1955-1970). There was a Green Lantern before him, Alan Scott, who really has no reason to be associated with Hal Jordan other than a name (although some creative writing or, as its detractors call it, retroactive continuity [retconning] has connected them in a relatively pleasing way). With Hal Jordan came the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic organization of crime fighters who, like Jordan and Scott, wielded power rings that could create any image the wearer imagined.

Eventually, Hal Jordan became Parallax, an evil villain who wiped out the Green Lantern Corps, and was eventually defeated by his successor, Kyle Rayner. Who, when absorbing the avatar of willpower, Ion, became so powerful that he resurrected the Green Lantern Corps (including certain popular Lanterns). Eventually, Hal Jordan was resurrected and now there are 4 Green Lanterns that all are from Earth. This doesn't even begin to take into account the other Lantern Corps, the Guardians of the Universe, the Oath, the impurity, or various other things that only me and my nerd brethren care about.

Which is why this relaunch sort of makes sense.

The idea, according to DC Comics, is to simply tell stories again, not stories with so much baggage attached. As i said before, Green Lantern is a relatively simple tale compared to some (you could write a thesis and develop an ulcer trying to trace Hawkman's legacy), and yet to tell you even the simplest version of the story from point A to point B is so mired in muck that i'm surprised you're still reading this. So, if we start Green Lantern over at #1, and just tell stories about the future, theoretically people who don't read comics could have a convenient jumping on point to get into the discussion.

But where does that leave my nearly 25 years of reading comics? Are all the stories i loved gone? Did they never happen? Are they non-canonical, like the Gnostic Gospels ? Have i wasted all of my time reading stories that don't matter?

When i say that the stories may not matter, this leads to two responses in the comics world. Some will say "Of course they matter - they matter to you. No one is going to come in and steal your old comics - you read them, they matter, even if they don't affect what is happening today." Others will say "I've invested x number of years into reading the history of a certain character, only to have it all washed away because sales were down. What gives?"

Personally, part of what i love about comics is that this train started a long time ago, and i'm just along for a part of the ride. There will, most likely, be Superman stories long after i die, and there were Superman stories long before i was born. This is great - if i wanted to, i could go back and read the entirety of a character's creative lifetime, enjoying them through every major event, every crappy arc, every lazy bit of retconning and STILL only be as far in the story as future creators want to take it.

Have you ever read a book you wish wouldn't end? Then read comics, friend.

Or, read Marvel comics now. Because DC is changing. Big time.

The full details are still not out yet, but basically DC felt that a good chunk (all non-Batman/Green Lantern books) of their titles were limping along, either due to poor creative decisions, bad marketing, or just featuring non-worthy characters. So, a big shake up is taking place. All new #1s, lots of canceled books, lots of new books, new characters, old characters returning, and day-and-date digital comics, which means you can buy a comic for your iPad at the same time you could buy it in a store. This doesn't sound like a huge deal, but again, we'll come back to this in a minute.

You may have heard via the main stream media certain changes: Superman and Lois Lane are no longer married and, actually, have never been married. Many of the characters have been de-aged, so instead of someone looking 35, they now look 25. Superheroes have only existed for 5 years* in the new DC universe (henceforth, the DCnU). More ethnic, sexual and gender diversity in the heroes. Yadda yadda.

So what does your resident nerd, and comic book reader since 1987, think about this?

I don't know.

Reason i do like it: More people reading comics is good for everyone. Day-and-date digital sales means that people will be downloading comics on the way to work and won't have to track down their increasingly hard to find/far away "local" comic book store. Certain characters (again, Hawkman) will benefit from a more streamlined approach.

What i don't like: Even if the general public hates a certain story, it is someone's favorite story. Even though certain events still "happened," many won't have happened. I don't like the idea that new fans are always more important than old fans. I don't like a lot of the art i've been seeing, which is very '90s looking (big muscles, big guns, stupid collars). I wish that digital comics were priced according to the digital music model (99 cents instead of the same as the print version $2.99, which is DC's current price).

Ultimately, the question has to be asked, why do you read comics? If the answer is for good stories and art, then hopefully this will be a good thing. If you read comics for nostalgia, then you're shit out of luck. If you're like me and read comics for both reasons, you're very confused.

I could write 40,000 words on this, but i'll end it here (for now). What do you think?

Note: I purposely didn't cover prior reboots or go too deep into retconning because it would bore you to tears. Crisis on Infinite Earths alone could give you an aneurysm.

*Even if they fudge the facts on Batman and say he had even ten years extra hiding in the shadows of Gotham City, there have been 4 Robins with extended careers are Robin, plus time in between each, and years before the first - how can you do that in 15 years?