Well, maybe I do. Donner's story was completely discontinuitous with the current universe. General Zod is dead in regular DC universe, right? Well in this story arc Superman had never met him before.

Has DC moved the story to a seperate, new and inconsequential mini-series or something? I should just go to the DC website shouldn't i?

http://tinyurl.com/2m5sh8

What is most distressing is at the bottom, DC shows the lineup for the following two months during which the comic reverts back to Busiek.

So they have two separate, Intertwining story arcs on the same book??

What a bunch of carp! (intentionally left misspelled.)

I get this hilariously "blistering" response post telling me how there was a book about an adult Tom Sawyer as a secret service agent called TOM SAWYER DETECTIVE, and that my Mom is a slut. I take the high road and post back, "Of course my Mom is a slut and she said you had a little dick and an atrophied nutsack and couldn't get it up anyway....And that unlike you, I've actually read Tom Sawyer Detective, which was about a teenage Tom and Huck clearing Tom's uncle of a murder charge." Moriarity e-mailed me and said the guy was LOEG producer Don Murphy, which sort of made me embarrassed.

No, ALICE was children's lit for the time. Almost all great children's lit, as Carroll's books are, can be enjoyed by all ages. But up until about the 1980s, at some point people became adults. They didn't have to pretend that kid lit was never for kids. And a lot of comic book types only know ALICE from what Alan Moore has told them.

Which brings me to Alan Moore and this stuff. With LOST GIRLS, if you criticized it you got every comic nerd fighting censorship against art and literature (even though they wouldn't have said shit if the art was on a museum wall or the literature was in a library and failed to contain sequential art). But my main objection, as was fellow @$$hole Dave Farrabee's, is that we've seen Alan Moore retread classic literature and characters for about a decade and a half now, and the schtick is getting old. Warren Ellis did it better in comics and Phillip Jose Farmer pioneered the ideas.

Here's what I don't get and don't want to get about a T&A WONDERLAND: why? Okay, T & A has always been a big part of comics. It's important in comics. It's important in fantasy. The target audience is men. It's always been young men more than kids, because GI's in WW II, the big one, were guys like us who read comics. They kept reading comics into the EC days and the Marvel black and white days. So, why WONDERLAND or OZ, or some bullshit like that? I wanna see Mary Fucking Poppins get nasty?

Yer man enough for T & A and you wanna read it in a Victorian children's story? Kinda sick. Put it in a crime story. An espionage story. A war story. A sword and sorcery story. A space opera. But grow yerself a fucking Y chromosome.

Modern education includes morality; therefore the modern child seeks only entertainment in its wonder tales and gladly dispenses with all disagreeable incident. Having this thought in mind, the story of 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' was written solely to please children of today. It aspires to being a modernized fairy tale, in which the wonderment and joy are retained and the heartaches and nightmares are left out

But apparently that's not good enough for McFarlane.

Although that Dorothy statue is a "little" hot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D ivorce#Statistics (I know, I know, it's Wiki, but it looks like it's citing some good sources)

I'm joking of course. My point in citing the statistic is that I doubt it has anything to do with an earlier facing of adult issues by children. Children face adult issues all the time: theft, fighting, playing doctor, etc., and always have. Look at the Little House books -- there is some seriously dark stuff happening in them. But they still maintain a cynicism-free demeanor.

I think in the end, everyone wants to be 'cool'. It became cool to be self-referential, culturally hip and cynical over the last couple decades. Frankly, I think it's because people were ultimately embarassed by the 70s. Since they lived in the 70s, the only way they could deal with that fact was to attack it ... but they couldn't attack it directly (like they could the 50s) because then they'd be attacking themselves. Thus, the subtle attack of cynicism.

It's not that they're Hostel 2 'dark', but more 'stuff children shouldn't have to deal with' dark. Back then, you were allowed to be a child, but you had to be a mature child. Today's children are trying to be immature adults. There's a huge realm of difference there.

I think most of us are just tired of it. It's been done before. Many times. Many, many times (granted, sometimes it was Fan Fic, but still). Heck, wasn't Lost Girls originally published in the 80s?

The list is long and far better people than me have cited far numerous sources and I'm tired but let's see: Dracula as a repressed woman's sexual fantasty. Mr. Hyde as Dr. Jeckyll's (never can spell that one, ain't gonna look)repressed homosexuality, and all that damned opium everybody got to smoke in everything from THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD to Sherlock Holmes, who also shot up cocaine, etc.

Personally, I think we oughta move on to another repressed time, like the 1950s or something.

This is the core of my response to Psynapse: the Victorians may have been stereotyped as repressed (even by themselves), but there is countless evidence it didn't work: Jack the Ripper didn't kill milkmaids, you know. And as Camille Paglia points out, there was a definitive rise in homosexuality in Victorian Times.

Therefore, those who think that Victoriana needs to have abundant sex as a counterpoint to the original Victorians really need to do a little more study of the period.