There have been some serious changes and story developments going on in the DC Universe right now. People are dying, worlds are colliding, and yet when I finished reading the final issue of Trinity War I felt a little disappointed. This isn't to say I didn't love the issue. I enjoyed it, and even became energized from all of the excitement, but I already knew the heroes had lost (or so we think). DC had already told us that they lost in the previous issue. There was no shock because they told me, just like how I know the heroes will come back because DC has already announced new titles after the event. (Yes it is more or less obvious the heroes will return).

So now I know what is going to happen in the comics before I read them because of the many promotions and news releases. Where is the fun in that? Yes, I understand that I still don't know how it happens, but after a while that doesn't matter. I'm beginning to feel that the comic book industry is simply telling their audience the crazy things that are going happen so people buy more books. Sometimes one can predict a movie's ending but how many studios go out and tell the media "Hey, so all the heroes in the movie are going to die, but they'll come back, and maybe, we guess, to have an impact we're going to kill off a character." DC (not that they're the only offenders) telling their readers what is going to happen takes away from the gravity of the situation, and it impacts the reader less from what could have been an intense moment. So I sometimes question how serious the industry takes their stories. I mean, heroes from another dimension are taking over the world. That can be suspenseful. That can be heart- wrenching. Oh but everyone will be okay for the most part. What?

Great television shows such as Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones are always being talked about. Conversations from the water cooler to the locker room are filled with, "What's going to happen next?" or "I can't wait till next week!" People don't know what's going to happen and that in itself drives the need for the story even more.

Of course just shock value by itself is no good. The writing and art should try for perfection, and it's not like comic books are having a drought of great talent (I suppose some could argue against that). Grant Morrison's Batman Inc. shows the artistry between good story and (for the most part) unforeseen ending. I thought Damian's death was unexpected and it became an emotional moment, and definitely more touching than if I would have known he was to be killed.

Now I want to defend DC a bit because I pointed my finger at them for a lot of this blog. They do have many tricks up their sleeves. It's true we don't know what's going to happen every issue, and we still don't know the overarching plot that these creators have planned, but I would still prefer to know even less about what's going to happen. Interviews about what's happening is fun, and sprinkling hints about what may come is engaging. But, telling us what new on-goings are coming out with the characters that are currently "dead"or simply telling us what is going to happen in the hope that we'll buy the issue ruins the fun.

Well, what do you think?

I consider myself a comic book fan slightly more on the fanatic than casual side, but I have only started reading comics three years ago (I'm much younger though than the average comic book reader). The reason I must inform the reader of this is because even though I have read many of the great classics of comic book stories I still am not familiar with every single tiny detail and fact about a character's mythology. I do not completely understand the multi universes that have been built for these characters. These universes are unforgivingly complex to a new reader who has no comic book "guru."

As far as spider-man current reading goes I had catching up to do. I read starting from Big Time but never read the conclusion (Dying Wish); I knew what happened so I skipped the last seven issues and went straight to SSM. Being a somewhat outsider to comics allowed me to appreciate the superior story more than those who literally grew up with Peter. Well, I finally went back and finished reading the Amazing Spider-man #700 by Dan Slott. Mixed opinions are obviously prevalent due to the ending, but there is no need for me to give a review on it other than to say that this is an opportunity to explore Spider-man like never before. The one problem I keep running into while reading SSM is the question of how this is actually working? I mean, the neural patterns thing, okay? I love Dan Slott's writing. He is probably the only one who can handle this tale of Spider-man, but this story brought up a nagging thought of mine. Do writers actually understand how the story they are telling works? Because if they do, they are not making it clear.

I do not expect comic books filled with superheroes and the outer space to be either scientifically accurate or grounded in reality (although that helps to connect to the characters). I do expect much from comic book writing as should anyone. They are regarded no less than television and film, but a television series actually has to make sense and for the most part explain the workings of a new concept. So, is Peter alive? Is he sharing a brain? What are the morality or soul complications? And this is not just about Superior Spider-man. How many times have you read a comic that borderlines ridiculousness because the writer can't explain what is happening. You read it and There is no concrete anything, and the reader just goes along with it. New readers can barely understand Grant Morrison whom I greatly admire, but my goodness, a reader has to really know his $#&t if he reads some of his more complex works. And what about the Green Lantern Universe? That can get so in-depth it loses the joy in reading. Writers had the power to create whatever they wanted, but there was no cap, no ground rules, no thought behind it, and now many comic books cater to a cult following. They have to understand, which in reality most of them do, that serious consideration has to go into adding something new to the universe.

I danced with excitement when I heard about DC new 52 because the promise was that it was new. It meant that writers were going to finally build a new universe, and new readers were finally invited to partake in it (Yes I'm sorry to those who "lost" their favorite characters). This promise did not become a reality. On the Marvel side of the world, I can't even read X-men right now because I'm so far behind. The stories in X-men are alluding to arcs not a year ago, not two years ago, but more than seven years ago. (Also so no one bites me, I'm not discussing independent comics right now, but I do read those as well.)

The main points I want to say is that comic books should be held to a high standard because comic books deserve that respect and so do the writers and so do the readers. It is not a standard that requires each issue to be accesible to a new reader, but a standard where new powers or phenomenon are explained and where after several years it is okay to let some things go. Comics are expensive and people definitely deserve great stories. If a publisher or a writer does not understand what they are writing or cannot explain it, they should reconsider the story.

The suspension of disbelief that readers allow comics is extremely high, and it hurts when writers take advantage of it, especially if they can't explain it why or how some events occur in their stories. Also, a hero has a database of mythology, and just jumping into a comic with a storyline from 1994 without prior information is hurtful to new readers. If this is unimportant to a publisher or to an older reader, then how can they expect a new generation of comic book readers because I know a lot of lost business because of these..issues.

What do you think? I agree I may be taking this problem too far, but isn't there truth to it?