GREEN LANTERN CORPS # 43

[SebastianPiccione]

Title: GREEN LANTERN CORPS # 43
Rating:
Publisher Website: DC Comics (http://www.dccomics.com/dccomics/)

Writer: Peter Tomasi
Pencils: Patrick Gleason
Inks: Rebecca Buchman w/ Tom Nguyen & Patrick Gleason
Colors: Randy Mayor
Number of pages: 32
Price: 2.99
Color: Color
Safety Content Label: T+ TEENS AND UP - Appropriate for most readers 13 and up, parents are advised that they might want to read before or with younger children.

Reviewer Comments:
Ok, I waited as long as I could. I figured 1- Scott usually likes to reiew the GL books, and 2- I wanted to give people time to read it, because... There be spoilers ahead!

This issue was simply amazing. After last issue's heroic death of Kyle Rayner, the Corps alteranatively falls apart and comes together. Guy loses it. And not just in the cliched, berzerker rage of comic tradition, this is a heartfelt, gut-wrenching, emotional breakdown. He and Kyle were the two humans working and living together on a world of Aliens. They'd become really good friends over the 42 previous issues of this series. Plus, without Kyle's torch-bearer days, there would be no corps in the first place. Guy comes undone, and as the cover depicts, Vice's red ring seeks him out like a fly on honey.

Meanwhile, to further twist that emotional knife, Tomasi has Soranik, desparate to save her fallen lover. The juxtaposition of Soranik's anguished love scenes and Guy's blinding rage scenes are fantastic. Plus, watching the Corps. pull together to swat black rings away from kyle's dead fingers was a nice touch.

If you're so bold..
Several of the best scenes involve Red Lantern Guy, Including Guy versus the black lantern babies and Cryb...yeah..talk about "the cradle will fall". Jeesh
And yes, Ye of "I knew they'd kill Kyle now that Jordan's back" whining, it turns out True love DOES conquer all, and with the help of a Star Saphire, Soranik's love is able to revivie Kyle, in a rather touching and surprisingly un-cheesey scene.


A great series all around, and a FANTASTIC issue in particular. Go read it, and follow this series. NOW, SOLDIER!

[ScottWilliams]

I was as torn with this issue as I was with the last one.

The fact that he was brought back to life kind of cheapens his death to me. His death was handled very gracefully and if I'm to see one of my heroes die in a comic, giving his life in an attempt to save his friends is probably the best way a hero can die. Bringing him back is bitter sweet as now he'll be back in the title but his death seems a bit less meaningful.

On a side note somewhat unrelated, I've never been too hot on him with Soranik, I liked him with Jade better. The mentorship he got from her father Alan Scott (my namesake) was a cool kind of passing the torch relationship that I liked about his earlier stories as well.

[SebastianPiccione]

You're a tool.

The fact that the ENTIRE CORPS rallied to keep the rings away, the fact that Guy was so crushed by his death that he lost it to the power of Rage, plus the fact that Soranik and his love was that real and that powerful...

This story doesn't CHEAPEN Kyle, it was the ultimate in homage and respect to the character.

And you can't whine when he dies and then still whine if he comes back. Ya gotta pick one. Trust me, my favorite character has been dead for like six years. They keep trying to get me to buy into some bullshit about how bringing him back would cheapen his death. HELLS NO! He's not making the choice to come back, so it in NO way effects his decision to sacrifice himself for the greater good. It only cheapens it if you say he knew he'd be resurrected.

Imagine this, a fireman rushes into a burning building to save a kid. He rescues the kid, but dies from smoke inhalation. The EMTs show up and revivie him. Are you saying he's no longer a hero because he's not dead?

Really?

[ScottWilliams]

You're a tool.

The fact that the ENTIRE CORPS rallied to keep the rings away, the fact that Guy was so crushed by his death that he lost it to the power of Rage, plus the fact that Soranik and his love was that real and that powerful...

This story doesn't CHEAPEN Kyle, it was the ultimate in homage and respect to the character.

And you can't whine when he dies and then still whine if he comes back. Ya gotta pick one. Trust me, my favorite character has been dead for like six years. They keep trying to get me to buy into some bullshit about how bringing him back would cheapen his death. HELLS NO! He's not making the choice to come back, so it in NO way effects his decision to sacrifice himself for the greater good. It only cheapens it if you say he knew he'd be resurrected.

Imagine this, a fireman rushes into a burning building to save a kid. He rescues the kid, but dies from smoke inhalation. The EMTs show up and revivie him. Are you saying he's no longer a hero because he's not dead?

Really?

Now, now, let's not resort to name calling. It doesn't set the right example for the readers... idiot. :p

It doesn't cheapen the character, it cheapens the story. If every single hero in comics is resurrected then deaths in comics for any reason lose their value. Either kill a character or don't, that's all I'm saying. This perpetual death and resurrection in comics is the rule instead of the exception.

[SebastianPiccione]

First LMAO at the name calling line! :D

Second...Dude, I HATE the death loses it's meaning argument. Why can we all suspend our disbelief enough to accept interspecies alien armies with magic rings as "meaningful" but resurrection is just cheap and silly.

The issue ends with the arrivial of a sentient planet wearing a ring, fer crissakes!

You know what I think "cheapens" a story? Expecting readers to accept the fact that Alien bad guys have names that sound like words with bad connotations in English! I mean, really? Despero, Sinestro, and Atrocitus? Why not heroic aliens named Nyceness, Benevelance, and Charitous? LOL

[ScottWilliams]

Whether you hate the argument or not, it doesn't lose its validity. There is no point in killing characters if their deaths have no lasting ramifications (i.e. they actually stay dead).

Now I'm not saying that bringing characters back to life can't be entertaining or that great stories can't be told in doing so, all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be done on a constant basis. I'm sure with your constant lobbying at the front door of DC Comics even Ted Kord will be brought back eventually.

[SebastianPiccione]

The argument has no validity. In a shared Universe of character/properties with 20 to 80 years of history, no one writer or editor should be able to say This character is dead-dead, and can never be used again, save for flashbacks and time-travel stories.

I realize you can never please every fan, but you know what...if a character is dead and out of circulation you will NEVER please ANY of their fans. Continuity and "meaning" of stories aside, it's just bad business.

[ScottWilliams]

The argument has no validity. In a shared Universe of character/properties with 20 to 80 years of history, no one writer or editor should be able to say This character is dead-dead, and can never be used again, save for flashbacks and time-travel stories.

I realize you can never please every fan, but you know what...if a character is dead and out of circulation you will NEVER please ANY of their fans. Continuity and "meaning" of stories aside, it's just bad business.

Whether it's good for business or bad for business has no bearing on whether a story is good or not. A story can be good and still bad for business. Point in case, the story of Romeo and Juliet is one of the most well known stories ever written. Both of the main characters die. Shakespeare could write no future stories with Romeo and Juliet because they were dead, thus it was "bad for business", yet it is still one of the most well known stories ever written.

If Shakespeare had written a resurrection story about how love conquers even death then the first story would not carry as much weight as it currently does. Because it CHEAPENS it. It's not a hard concept to grasp, I know if you try real hard you can do it. Stop coming up with excuses as to why it doesn't detract from the story and just accept the facts my friend.

In a shared Universe of character/properties with 20 to 80 years of history new characters could be introduced and writers could build on their history instead of resurrecting every swinging Tom, Dick and Harry and falling back on the creative powers of their writing predecessors.

DC has been good at passing the torch from one generation to the next, they've done it with the Bat Family, the Flash Family, the JSA, Green Lantern. The problem lies with those writers who refuse to move forward and imagine new characters and stories and instead go back and rewrite continuity or resurrect characters from the past.

Don't get me wrong, there can be some great stories written in doing so but why not write great stories about new characters? Half the fun in reading comics (at least for me) is watching a character or team grow.

[SebastianPiccione]

In a shared Universe of character/properties with 20 to 80 years of history new characters could be introduced and writers could build on their history instead of resurrecting every swinging Tom, Dick and Harry and falling back on the creative powers of their writing predecessors

Except that if those writers were any good, they wouldn't have needed to KILL off the existing characters in the first place. You want "weight"? Then stop reading stories about aliens and men in tights who fight crime.
This isn't a matter of "not letting go" or "not accepting new characters." I accept new characters just fine. I don't understand the killing of the classic characters just to introduce a new one. You want to introduce a new GREEN LANTERN, fine, there's an entire damn corps of them, why kill Hal and the rest of the corps just to introduce Kyle? You want Kyle to be a GL, give him a damn ring. Done. The sell out isn't in bringing the original characters and proving how much can be done with them, the sell out is in throwing away everything that WAS done just to try something new. New and old can coexist just fine. Otherwise, it'd be like disney coming in and buying Marvel, only to say "We want to things our way, so we're going to drop all these books and start over with our own thing."


If Shakespeare had written a resurrection story about how love conquers even death then the first story would not carry as much weight as it currently does. Because it CHEAPENS it. It's not a hard concept to grasp, I know if you try real hard you can do it. Stop coming up with excuses as to why it doesn't detract from the story and just accept the facts my friend.
Unless the POINT of the entire story was to illustrate the power of love and the miracle and magic of two people finding true love. It only cheapens the story if the original point was, "Look, people die."

That's it...you asked for it....

When Jesus was resurrected in the Bible, did that "cheapen" the story?

Remember, it's Christmas, so think before you answer! :D

[ScottWilliams]

Except that if those writers were any good, they wouldn't have needed to KILL off the existing characters in the first place. You want "weight"? Then stop reading stories about aliens and men in tights who fight crime.
This isn't a matter of "not letting go" or "not accepting new characters." I accept new characters just fine. I don't understand the killing of the classic characters just to introduce a new one. You want to introduce a new GREEN LANTERN, fine, there's an entire damn corps of them, why kill Hal and the rest of the corps just to introduce Kyle? You want Kyle to be a GL, give him a damn ring. Done. The sell out isn't in bringing the original characters and proving how much can be done with them, the sell out is in throwing away everything that WAS done just to try something new. New and old can coexist just fine. Otherwise, it'd be like disney coming in and buying Marvel, only to say "We want to things our way, so we're going to drop all these books and start over with our own thing."


Unless the POINT of the entire story was to illustrate the power of love and the miracle and magic of two people finding true love. It only cheapens the story if the original point was, "Look, people die."

That's it...you asked for it....

When Jesus was resurrected in the Bible, did that "cheapen" the story?

Remember, it's Christmas, so think before you answer! :D


You're killing me here. How can you not see that you make no sense whatsoever?

If Shakespeare were to have written a Romeo & Juliet Part II where they were resurrected, no matter what the point of the second story was it would STILL detract from the first story because what he did with the first story wouldn't matter anymore. Romeo and Juliet is supposed to have the tragic ending. That's what made it iconic.

The story in the bible of the resurrection falls into the religious atmosphere and doesn't exactly follow the same rules as regular fiction however that story was written to show that even though he was all powerful he chose to take on man's form just so he could make the sacrifice. He then assumed his original form and went back to heaven to play ping pong with his dad.

But yes, if you really want to know, I think it does cheapen the sacrifice if you know you're going to come back anyway. I'm not saying that being mutilated by a cat of nine tails and crucified wouldn't suck no matter what reasoning you had behind it, but you can get through anything if you know you will make it through it. (For him it was basically his way back to heaven after taking on his role as a man on earth.)

On a side note, I don't really see how "Jesus could be tempted to sin just like man is" if he knew without a shadow of a doubt that heaven and God the father existed whereas the rest of us are simply forced to just believe and have faith.

Don't get me started on religion though or I'll never shut up. :p

[tiggerpete]

look, Blackest Night is all about how the line between life and death has become permeable, none of the dead people, or the people who died in the event, are guaranteed to be dead at the end, at the same time, none of the living people are guaranteed to be alive at the end. So no matter who dies and who lives, nothing is going to be permanent until the end of Blackest Night, which I think will give new permanence to Death, and at the same time shuffle
the rosters of both the living and the dead, which I believe will result in there being very strict rules on how a character can return if they are dead (Kyle was dead for about 5 minutes, same as a lot of people who flatline in a hospital and are then resuscitated, and he did have a whole corp defending him and one of the best surgeons in the galaxy to try and help) I agree that death is cheap, and that people come back all the time, but if you think of the people who died, how many knew that they would come back? I am not talking about writers and editors who knew when a character was coming back well before when they died, I am saying all of the heroes who sacrificed their lives to protect the innocent (however they died this seems to be a constant, even if you have to extrapolate out their circumstances, it all boils down to protecting people) did so without the slightest idea that they would be brought back to life, their ultimate sacrifice is not contingent on whether their friends manage to resurrect them. Look at Barry Allen, he disappeared into the speed force defending the universe from the anti-monitor, which many consider to be the ultimate heroic sacrifice, current retcons have shown that the speed force doesn't exactly equal death, as it is another plane of existence. just like how Superboy-Prime survived for 20 years in a parallel dimension, so did Barry Allen, does this mean his sacrifice before the anti-monitor is meaningless? No, Barry didn't know the first thing about what the speed force is (Wally was the first to deal with it directly in his series) so for all intents and purposes, he was giving his life. not only that, but he returned just to save the universe again, in my mind, his is the ultimate example of meaningful sacrifice, is his original sacrifice cheapened? maybe, but that has more to do with the passage of time and the fact that death has transformed into a gimmick, therefore IMO if a character is handled right and the writers don't retreat to death as a crutch in story writing (countdown is a perfect example, there were so many meaningless deaths that I didn't care when people were dying, and that is a real tragedy) then when a new writer comes on, they don't have to erase all of the mistakes of the previous writer.

I agree with Seb, you don't have to kill everyone off just to invent a new character, sometimes you can just invent a character and go with it, seeing how it fits into continuity, and not pissing off the fans of the old.

In short, when used correctly Death still has meaning, when used correctly, so does resurrection. Blackest Night is all about the cheapening of both, and we just have to wait to the end to see what happens.

[SebastianPiccione]

Wow, Chief. So you're saying that the writer's point is irrelevant to the story? Seriously?

Yes, A resurrection would would change the effect of ROMEO & JULIET, and would lose it's impact as a TRAGEDY, but if the original point had been NOT to tell a tragic tale, but an uplifitn story of love conquering all, in which an angel decended from the Heaven's, chastised the rival families for their blindess and hate, and then restored the young couple to life, placing them in charge of the families, for a united era of peace and goodwill, it could have been an EQUALLY powerful story, just of a different kind.

And MY main point here, is that if Kyle Rayner puts himself in mortal danger, and dies to save others, but is then ressurected, HE is STILL a true hero and his deeds are still as noble as they get, for he did so truly believing he would dies and that would be it. The resurrection came from an outside source and he had no prior knowledge of it.

The message put into a story by an author and the message a reader takes away from it are not always the same thing, but each is valid to a point. So, if I were grading you based on the LANGUAGE ARTS benchmark of "FINDING THE AUTHOR'S PURPOSE", you just failed. :D

Now, if Wolverine takes a bullet for a fellow X-men, "dies' and is back up by the end of the issue, it DOES lose something, because he KNEW he'd heal and be fine, hence it is NOT a big deal.

Now, I won't tell you how to jump out of planes and keep democracy safe, you don't tell me the limits of literature, eh? :D

This is fun, Chief. :)

[SebastianPiccione]

look, Blackest Night is all about how the line between life and death has become permeable, none of the dead people, or the people who died in the event, are guaranteed to be dead at the end, at the same time, none of the living people are guaranteed to be alive at the end. So no matter who dies and who lives, nothing is going to be permanent until the end of Blackest Night, which I think will give new permanence to Death, and at the same time shuffle
the rosters of both the living and the dead, which I believe will result in there being very strict rules on how a character can return if they are dead (Kyle was dead for about 5 minutes, same as a lot of people who flatline in a hospital and are then resuscitated, and he did have a whole corp defending him and one of the best surgeons in the galaxy to try and help) I agree that death is cheap, and that people come back all the time, but if you think of the people who died, how many knew that they would come back? I am not talking about writers and editors who knew when a character was coming back well before when they died, I am saying all of the heroes who sacrificed their lives to protect the innocent (however they died this seems to be a constant, even if you have to extrapolate out their circumstances, it all boils down to protecting people) did so without the slightest idea that they would be brought back to life, their ultimate sacrifice is not contingent on whether their friends manage to resurrect them. Look at Barry Allen, he disappeared into the speed force defending the universe from the anti-monitor, which many consider to be the ultimate heroic sacrifice, current retcons have shown that the speed force doesn't exactly equal death, as it is another plane of existence. just like how Superboy-Prime survived for 20 years in a parallel dimension, so did Barry Allen, does this mean his sacrifice before the anti-monitor is meaningless? No, Barry didn't know the first thing about what the speed force is (Wally was the first to deal with it directly in his series) so for all intents and purposes, he was giving his life. not only that, but he returned just to save the universe again, in my mind, his is the ultimate example of meaningful sacrifice, is his original sacrifice cheapened? maybe, but that has more to do with the passage of time and the fact that death has transformed into a gimmick, therefore IMO if a character is handled right and the writers don't retreat to death as a crutch in story writing (countdown is a perfect example, there were so many meaningless deaths that I didn't care when people were dying, and that is a real tragedy) then when a new writer comes on, they don't have to erase all of the mistakes of the previous writer.

I agree with Seb, you don't have to kill everyone off just to invent a new character, sometimes you can just invent a character and go with it, seeing how it fits into continuity, and not pissing off the fans of the old.

In short, when used correctly Death still has meaning, when used correctly, so does resurrection. Blackest Night is all about the cheapening of both, and we just have to wait to the end to see what happens.

Impressive. Pete made his point so much clearer in one post than Scott or I have in like eight.

Way to show us up, Pete! :D

[tiggerpete]

its probably just a fluke :D

[ScottWilliams]

Wow, Chief. So you're saying that the writer's point is irrelevant to the story? Seriously?

Yes, A resurrection would would change the effect of ROMEO & JULIET, and would lose it's impact as a TRAGEDY, but if the original point had been NOT to tell a tragic tale, but an uplifitn story of love conquering all, in which an angel decended from the Heaven's, chastised the rival families for their blindess and hate, and then restored the young couple to life, placing them in charge of the families, for a united era of peace and goodwill, it could have been an EQUALLY powerful story, just of a different kind.

And MY main point here, is that if Kyle Rayner puts himself in mortal danger, and dies to save others, but is then ressurected, HE is STILL a true hero and his deeds are still as noble as they get, for he did so truly believing he would dies and that would be it. The resurrection came from an outside source and he had no prior knowledge of it.

The message put into a story by an author and the message a reader takes away from it are not always the same thing, but each is valid to a point. So, if I were grading you based on the LANGUAGE ARTS benchmark of "FINDING THE AUTHOR'S PURPOSE", you just failed. :D

Now, if Wolverine takes a bullet for a fellow X-men, "dies' and is back up by the end of the issue, it DOES lose something, because he KNEW he'd heal and be fine, hence it is NOT a big deal.

Now, I won't tell you how to jump out of planes and keep democracy safe, you don't tell me the limits of literature, eh? :D

This is fun, Chief. :)

Ok, you're right... if you were arguing a totally different debate. This moved from Kyle dying and being resurrected in one storyline by the same author a few posts ago. I was pointing out that death and resurrection in comics have become so common place that any death in general has lost a lot of meaning to the fans, because we know they will eventually be back. Whether it's in the next issue or ten years from now, ninety percent of the time they're coming back. That detracts from the "He's dead Jim" factor.

I was arguing that adding to a story by resurrecting a character in a story later down the line detracts from the original story. Hence, my use of Romeo and Juliet as an analogy. If Romeo and Juliet Part II was written, the original Romeo and Juliet wouldn't be as sad - the AUTHOR'S PURPOSE.

Maybe I should jump out of airplanes and teach literature. :p

[tiggerpete]

Maybe I should jump out of airplanes and teach literature. :p

at the same time? :P

[ScottWilliams]

at the same time? :P

Are you triple dog daring me? :D

[SebastianPiccione]

You won't! You won't!!

[tiggerpete]

Are you triple dog daring me?

thats right I am skipping the double dog dare, whachou gonna do 'bout it sucka?