s h o t g u n r e v i e w s

By Troy Brownfield
4.16.02

"We have the technology.
We have rebuilt Dr. Randy Lance.
Better. Stronger. Faster."

Free Comic Book Day: I just wanted to open this time with a brief note about Saturday, May 4th, Free Comic Book Day. Nearly every major comic company is participating in this venture (the day after "Spider-Man" opens) in an effort to attract more people to the field. Each company has selected a book (or books) with the purpose of attracting readers. Marvel, for example, is offering a version of "Ultimate Spider-Man" #1. DC is offering the kid-friendly "Justice League Adventures". And so it goes. This is a great idea, and is being supported by ads on the Sci-Fi Channel.

If you're a fan already, I'd recommend grabbing a free book and giving it to a friend who is not a reader. Convert with literature, just like the Mormons. If you aren't a fan, there will never be a better time to look in and see what comics are about. If you happen to try a book and not like it, don't throw it away; pass it on to someone else.

With the vanishing of spinner racks and the shrinking of rack space at the local grocery store (hell, with the disappearance of the local grocery store), it gets harder and harder for young readers to find their way to comics. By and large, the companies lack the funding to advertise on TV, and dunderheaded FCC regulations keep them from promoting comics during the very shows on which they're based (that's right; even an announcement as simple as "Follow the Justice League in DC Comics" is banned by rules that were meant to "protect" kids from the toy-driven cartoons of the '80s).

Kids deserve a chance to get into comics more than anyone. An adult can drive him/herself to the comic shop. An adult can look up various interest points online. If kids don't have a gateway, they won't be fans. And kids should read comics that are targeted for them. Comics DO help with your reading. Comics DO expand your vocabulary. Comics DO broaden your knowledge of science and history through plot points. Kid-driven comics DO have general reinforcement about the concepts of right versus wrong. I will never be convinced that comics are anything but beneficial for kids simply because I read them as a kid. They sure as hell improved my reading, expanded my interest in things like science and mythology, and made me appreciate art on a different level. Reading comics didn't stop me from reading great literature, seeking out interesting films, or obtaining an advanced degree. If anything, they pushed me toward all of those things. Other kids should have that chance. And on Saturday, May 4th, you can give it to 'em for free. You can't beat that.

A Behind the Music Thought: You ever notice how so many big rock bands end up alienated from their front men? I'm thinking especially of bands like Styx and Journey here. For all intents and purposes, these are the guys who wrote the bulk of the material, represented the band in the press, and lead them on stage. They often based the material on their own personal lives, and often faced disdain from band members who didn't want to do "romantic" or "popular" material. Inevitably, for one reason or another, these guys are booted or part ways over quibbling. Then the rest of the band goes on touring with a replacement guy they easily control, playing these songs that they claimed to hate while collecting money off of a guy that they couldn't wait to get rid of.

What really intrigues me is the question of why this story is so common. Is it human nature to be so jealous of a person who attracts more attention, causing you to want to turn on that person? Sometimes the complaints are centered around the fact that the songwriter makes the most money in the band; one would then wonder why the other guys didn't step up and write more songs or at least try to collaborate.

This isn't to say that front men are totally innocent. Sometimes they can be controlling, and I honestly think that comes from the fact that they are often the "visionary" of the band. If you're writing the material and steering the ship, naturally the issue of control comes close to home. Sometimes people, like the rest of the band, don't want to lead, and conversely, they also refuse to follow. And what are they left with? Touring state fairs, slogging out the same songs from thirty years ago while the guy who came up with the stuff tours with orchestras or sits at home and collects royalty money anyway?

Who wins in those situations? VH-1, I guess.

A Coda to the Above: I'm almost, but not quite as, intrigued by how certain other bands manage to stay together. Aerosmith basically disintegrated in a morass of personal animosity, creative issues and substance abuse a couple of decades ago. Somehow they pulled it back together, had a great run in the '80s, and still manage to be a large act. Granted, their best creative days are behind them, but they can still hang out, do the stuff, be entertaining, and occasionally convert new fans.

Look at the Stones; it's almost the same. Mick and Keith have fought a lot, but are still the core of the band. KISS had their original line-up splinter for 16 years before reforming, yet the Simmons/Stanley core never departed. Perhaps the "duos" and "cores" are able to stay together because, despite differences, they appreciate that force within one another. Perhaps Tommy Shaw and the rest of Styx resent Dennis DiYoung not for anything he did per se, but for the fact that they don't necessarily have the "that" which he had. It could be that's why Steve Perry and his ilk have to hit the bricks, but Gene and Paul can look at each other at the end of the day and say, "Hey, we've both got something special here."

Maybe the secret to a great band is the visionary force, and the secret to an enduring band is the visionary "core". It's an interesting notion, and one worth exploring if you're plunking out songs in the garage.

The Middle East: With the exception of advocating the occasional whacking of a dictator, I don't get into the whole Middle East issue too much. It's just so damn delicate, and people are ready to take offense on all sides. When you've got thousands of years of bad blood, a couple of power lunches between politicians ain't gonna solve much either.

I can honestly say that I've never been given a good reason why there can't be some kind of Palestinian homeland. The problem is there are too many volatile individuals on both sides that keep screwing up the process. Some say that Arafat supports the suicide bombers; some say he doesn't. Hell, he finally issued a statement against them, but I doubt that stops much of anything.

Maybe the real problem here, as with racism in the U.S., is that old people with old ideas are the ones in charge. I'm not saying we hand over the bargaining to twelve-year-olds, but I am saying that there's just waaaaay too much personal friction between sides for anything to get settled. We may slap a big "peace accord" sticker on this week's piece of paper, but by next year it'll be worth as much as that hot dog wrapper you threw away at your last ball game.

The U.S. may be trying to help, but how do you wade into a conflict where certain Arab newspapers print stories claiming that the Jews need the blood of children for Passover rituals? How do you overcome twenty centuries of killing over which invisible bogeyman is greater? How the hell do you tell both sides that they're being pains in the ass and to knock it off?

It's just like a high school squabble between buddies. Someone's gonna have to choose sides. With the U.S., they're really always going to fall on the side of Israel. That's all well and good, but I hope that it doesn't ever come to the point where American troops make an intervention in the middle of all that. I know we've had troops in Beirut and so forth, but I'm talking armed conflict. You see, with Kuwait we could at least say it was for oil. With Panama, we could say we were fighting drugs. With Afghanistan, it was about fighting terrorism. I honestly don't see a way where we could enter that conflict without acknowledging that what we were really fighting was Islam. Maybe we could justify a bout with Iraq if there were enough 9-11 evidence. But as for the rest of the region, can the land of the free and home of the First Amendment really do that?