Official Daredevil Fans Against Waid Thread

@tupiaz: You really need to make your mind up as to if you like it or not

@tupiaz: You really need to make your mind up as to if you like it or not

I think he just likes to debate

I haven't seen that many dissenters outside of here in a way that Hulk fans were basically lobbying against Waid for his Hulk run. Unlike his Hulk work, Waid has the critics and some die hard fans on his side so it's not as if it's obvious criticism. Even Tony and Matt on either last week's or the week's before podcast dismissed you critics of Waid's run based on a lack of understanding so I don't think it's quite as general as other times Waid has mucked up.

There is no reason to address me in third person. However yes I do like to debate that is why I'm on a forum to exchange opinions and arguments. I still stand by my argument stated earlier.

@lvenger said:

I listened to one of the recent podcasts in which they mentioned the criticism of Waid's "Daredevil," but they didn't really dismiss the criticism for "a lack of understanding." But we may be discussing different shows--I've only heard a few. In the one to which I listened, they said Waid's DD is a book for people who have never liked DD.

When it comes to online reviewers--as in so many other things--there are always several distorting factors. There is, for example, an unfortunate tendency toward fad-ism. Waid-as-hot-writer becomes a fad meme and everyone just repeats it. This can benefit good creators, but the door swings both ways (perhaps the most amusing example of this was a few years ago when, for two or three years, you'd have thought, from reading internet reviewers, that Tom DeFalco's Spider-Girl was the greatest comic on the market). There's also the dirty little (open) secret that reviewers frequently get free books from publishers for review, a relationship that can be abruptly interrupted if said reviewer begins vigorously trashing said publishers' products. This is part of why you'll virtually never see online reviewers rise up, as a community and mass-condemn any particular bad work. When you see one reviewer after another describe Waid's removal of DD's soul as "a breath of fresh air" and begin to suspect they're all reading from the same script? Keep on suspecting. Another that sort of fits into the "distorting factors" category is one I've already mentioned--a common theme among those who praise his DD work is that the one offering the praise had either never read pre-Waid Daredevil or had never liked it.

The usual caveats: one must always be wary of such generalizations. There are some people who call themselves longtime DD fans who say they like Waid's work and no doubt many who fall into that category but never say a thing one way or the other. Like others here, I've struggled to understand what they see in it. My feeling--there isn't enough actual evidence to even call it a suspicion--is that much of the audience for Waid's DD (after one filters out the die-hards and completists) are merely Waid fans. People who like his work and followed him there (they always follow him--that's in his numbers) or people who only like his soulless take on DD (and would be appalled by the work of any of the other DD writers who worked on the book for more than three decades before Waid).

When it comes to online reviewers--as in so many other things--there are always several distorting factors. There is, for example, an unfortunate tendency toward fad-ism. Waid-as-hot-writer becomes a fad meme and everyone just repeats it. This can benefit good creators, but the door swings both ways (perhaps the most amusing example of this was a few years ago when, for two or three years, you'd have thought, from reading internet reviewers, that Tom DeFalco's Spider-Girl was the greatest comic on the market). There's also the dirty little (open) secret that reviewers frequently get free books from publishers for review, a relationship that can be abruptly interrupted if said reviewer begins vigorously trashing said publishers' products. This is part of why you'll virtually never see online reviewers rise up, as a community and mass-condemn any particular bad work. When you see one reviewer after another describe Waid's removal of DD's soul as "a breath of fresh air" and begin to suspect they're all reading from the same script? Keep on suspecting. Another that sort of fits into the "distorting factors" category is one I've already mentioned--a common theme among those who praise his DD work is that the one offering the praise had either never read pre-Waid Daredevil or had never liked it.

@daredevil21134: Thank you, I would appreciate if you mention my name instate in the future. I didn't think you did to offend me so there is no problem.

This is a problem. However I do think people like. Sites often just only review what the like and don't mention what they don't like. This however is also happening in movie-, game and book industry. It is not a problem that is only existing in comics.

@daredevil21134: Thank you, I would appreciate if you mention my name instate in the future. I didn't think you did to offend me so there is no problem.

This is a problem. However I do think people like. Sites often just only review what the like and don't mention what they don't like. This however is also happening in movie-, game and book industry. It is not a problem that is only existing in comics.

It's like time traveling back in time to see people talk about Superior Spider-man.

This topic started before Superior Spider-man did.

This topic started before Superior Spider-man did.

@tupiaz said:

Yes. My earliest awareness of the problem, in fact, happened years ago with a then-up-and-coming cult movie site that was suddenly spending an inordinate amount of time granting positive reviews to utterly mediocre and even outright bad "mainstream" flicks. I wrote and inquired, and the fellow who ran the site openly confessed that both the positive reviews and their prominence was to suck up to the studios in question in order to get the advance review copies he needed to make the site work. He confessed the movies were shit and that he didn't even like having that material on the site. While I found the practice of giving them good reviews to be appalling, his honesty definitely made me a bigger fan.

@daredevil21134 said:

As Frank Miller discovered, there's a certain tone--call it "pulp noir"--that, overall, is by far the best fit for the Daredevil material. He didn't introduce this so mach as he recognized it as what had worked best and made it the book's status quo.

Over at manwithoutfear a few days ago, the question was raised, what is noir? Writers on film have argued that question for ages; I put together a little montage about it (or, if one prefers, a rant):

"Noir - 'A genre of crime film or fiction characterized by cynicism, fatalism, and moral ambiguity.' American Cinema's oft-quoted rundown: 'stories about life on the streets, shady characters, crooked cops, twisted love, and bad luck. About a darker side of human nature.' Dark romances about omnipresent corruption, dishonesty, sadism, nihilism, evil; full of violence, brooding, existential themes, intense psychological themes, the idea of malevolent fate, crushed idealism, the best intentions often coming to little or naught, and the only good coming at a high price. Urban expressionist fantasies full of gangsters, killers, hoods, racketeers, femme fatales, first-person narratives, crime-ridden back alleys, smoke-filled backrooms, and light filtering through venetian blinds. Tales wherein love is mostly hopeless and often expressed as obsession and aberrant sexuality."

And so on.

Now consider Daredevil from a conceptual standpoint (and here, I'm going to freely paraphrase myself a bit): From his youth, Matt Murdock has lived in a world of constant darkness. He comes from poverty, from a liberal tradition that says you give back to your community if you succeed, and from a community that badly needs him but whose problems he's ultimately helpless to solve. Consider the singleminded will it took for Matt to rise from his circumstances to become both a top-shelf lawyer and, even more extreme, a costumed vigilante who, in entirely mortal flesh, throws himself into the MU. From whence he came is branded on his soul, fused with his DNA--he never forgets. He is his father's son. His father is the guy with too much pride, the tough pug who wanted his boy to be more than just some bum, the fighter who would never quit, the good man who was destroyed by the slimy, sweaty hoods who lurk in the shadows and the business-suited big-shots behind them who profit from corrupting everything. Matt has dedicated his life to a war he can never win against an enemy he can never defeat--his cause was doomed to failure before it even started, and yet he persists. He's the man without fear who challenges those who would make the world a place of fear. The vigilante sworn to serve the law; the angel in the garb of a devil. Ironic and iconic.

That "pulp noir" tone is an obvious, even unavoidable, fit. And it had been there at DD's birth; it's there in the concept and in his origin story, from it's milieu to its wonderfully rendered Bill Everett hoods to the black irony of Matt going through so much to avenge his father only to have the murderer drop dead of a heart attack while almost in reach. The corrupt boxing milieu is a constant feature of the first era of film noir in the 1940s and '50s. If you want to see the story of Battlin' Jack Murdock 15 years before it had appeared in Daredevil, pick up a great Robert Wise noir called THE SET-UP (if you haven't seen it, watch it--you will thank me for the recommendation). Some of Stan's early scripts tap the same vein, particularly his first Owl story (in, I believe, #3--Stan's strongest DD noir excursion) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, his first Purple Man tale (can't remember the exact issue). Unfortunately, Stan quickly came to treat DD as primarily an opportunity to goof off, and this sort of tone would only turn up sporadically in the rest of his work on the book.

Gene Colan, who was a huge movie buff and noir fan, took over the book's art chores with issue #20 and immediately introduced a particularly strong noir tone into the artwork, many years before it would come to be regularly reflected in the writing. His DD was one of wild expressionistic flair, dutch angles and darkness, even while the scripts were mostly just poor man's Spider-Man stuff.

With subsequent writers they weren't always b-list Spidey tales either--the noir themes and elements recurred from time to time. Roy Thomas' Brother Brimstone (DD #65-66) was a sort of horror movie killer come to life. Steve Gerber and Bob Brown rework an old villain into the Deathstalker (DD #113), who has a wonderfully sinister image and can literally kill with a touch. Marv Wolfman, during his run, had a particularly choice idea for a tale (DD #127) in which DD ends up in an extended fight with the Torpedo (later of Rom: Spaceknight fame), and, while kicking one another's teeth in and doing the standard Spider-Man banter between themselves, they completely destroy a family's home. The horrified family matriarch blows up at them and they're shamed to a standstill. I've always thought that was a great end to a comic story, certainly one that fits with later DD. A comic growing up. It's unfortunate that Marv's follow-up--a non-follow-up, really--involved rehashing some material from "Spider-Man No More" then basically just forgetting the whole thing.

It was Frank Miller who recognized this as the ideal tone for the book and, as I said, made it the status quo. Miller was a marvel in those days and brought a great deal of depth and literacy to the table, and a much more mature approach to storytelling. Along the way, he brought in all sorts of other influences--samurai cinema, manga, Greek tragedy, etc.--but always filtered them through that same "pulp noir" lens. In the process, he made Daredevil A-list for the first time in the character's history and established the tone that would, generally speaking, be followed by DD's creators, from the excellent to the godawful, right up until Waid. It isn't a set-in-stone approach and the book would sometimes deviate from it, but never for long and it would always return. Not in mere emulation of Miller (as has sometimes been alleged since I began writing about the book again), but in recognition that this is the feel that works best for this character and his world, an important part of what separates Daredevil from his poor-man's-Spider-Man past--part of his unique voice.

Even Mark Waid has, in effect, conceded this. His effort to devolve DD back to those lighthearted, juvenile, poor-man's-Spider-Man days were a radical break with the book as it had existed for more than three decades before he'd taken it over. It eventually led him to initiate a series of even more radical changes that ripped at the conceptual fabric of the character and the book, rendering both utterly unrecognizable. His grinning, silly Matt has publicly fessed up to being Daredevil, abandoned not only Hell's Kitchen but New York itself (and nearly all of the locations and supporting cast that had filtered through the book over the years), moved to an alien town on the opposite coast, and become a wisecracking celebrity.

Call it whatever else you like, it ain't Daredevil.

And that's sort of the point.

Waid himself says the book's best creators over the years have been a murderer's row of top-shelf comic-book talent. Daredevil is a book that brings out the best in a lot of them. It has, over those years, had a lot of really high high-points, and all of them, all of its finest moments, have been deeply immersed in that "pulp noir" tone. The answer to the original question is that, theoretically, Daredevil doesn't have to be "pulp noir" in tone to be great, but it probably has to be "pulp noir" in tone to be great Daredevil.

This was one of the most epic and brilliant post i've ever read on this site.

@daredevil21134 said:

As Frank Miller discovered, there's a certain tone--call it "pulp noir"--that, overall, is by far the best fit for the Daredevil material. He didn't introduce this so mach as he recognized it as what had worked best and made it the book's status quo.

Over at manwithoutfear a few days ago, the question was raised, what is noir? Writers on film have argued that question for ages; I put together a little montage about it (or, if one prefers, a rant):

"Noir - 'A genre of crime film or fiction characterized by cynicism, fatalism, and moral ambiguity.' American Cinema's oft-quoted rundown: 'stories about life on the streets, shady characters, crooked cops, twisted love, and bad luck. About a darker side of human nature.' Dark romances about omnipresent corruption, dishonesty, sadism, nihilism, evil; full of violence, brooding, existential themes, intense psychological themes, the idea of malevolent fate, crushed idealism, the best intentions often coming to little or naught, and the only good coming at a high price. Urban expressionist fantasies full of gangsters, killers, hoods, racketeers, femme fatales, first-person narratives, crime-ridden back alleys, smoke-filled backrooms, and light filtering through venetian blinds. Tales wherein love is mostly hopeless and often expressed as obsession and aberrant sexuality."

And so on.

Now consider Daredevil from a conceptual standpoint (and here, I'm going to freely paraphrase myself a bit): From his youth, Matt Murdock has lived in a world of constant darkness. He comes from poverty, from a liberal tradition that says you give back to your community if you succeed, and from a community that badly needs him but whose problems he's ultimately helpless to solve. Consider the singleminded will it took for Matt to rise from his circumstances to become both a top-shelf lawyer and, even more extreme, a costumed vigilante who, in entirely mortal flesh, throws himself into the MU. From whence he came is branded on his soul, fused with his DNA--he never forgets. He is his father's son. His father is the guy with too much pride, the tough pug who wanted his boy to be more than just some bum, the fighter who would never quit, the good man who was destroyed by the slimy, sweaty hoods who lurk in the shadows and the business-suited big-shots behind them who profit from corrupting everything. Matt has dedicated his life to a war he can never win against an enemy he can never defeat--his cause was doomed to failure before it even started, and yet he persists. He's the man without fear who challenges those who would make the world a place of fear. The vigilante sworn to serve the law; the angel in the garb of a devil. Ironic and iconic.

That "pulp noir" tone is an obvious, even unavoidable, fit. And it had been there at DD's birth; it's there in the concept and in his origin story, from it's milieu to its wonderfully rendered Bill Everett hoods to the black irony of Matt going through so much to avenge his father only to have the murderer drop dead of a heart attack while almost in reach. The corrupt boxing milieu is a constant feature of the first era of film noir in the 1940s and '50s. If you want to see the story of Battlin' Jack Murdock 15 years before it had appeared in Daredevil, pick up a great Robert Wise noir called THE SET-UP (if you haven't seen it, watch it--you will thank me for the recommendation). Some of Stan's early scripts tap the same vein, particularly his first Owl story (in, I believe, #3--Stan's strongest DD noir excursion) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, his first Purple Man tale (can't remember the exact issue). Unfortunately, Stan quickly came to treat DD as primarily an opportunity to goof off, and this sort of tone would only turn up sporadically in the rest of his work on the book.

Gene Colan, who was a huge movie buff and noir fan, took over the book's art chores with issue #20 and immediately introduced a particularly strong noir tone into the artwork, many years before it would come to be regularly reflected in the writing. His DD was one of wild expressionistic flair, dutch angles and darkness, even while the scripts were mostly just poor man's Spider-Man stuff.

With subsequent writers they weren't always b-list Spidey tales either--the noir themes and elements recurred from time to time. Roy Thomas' Brother Brimstone (DD #65-66) was a sort of horror movie killer come to life. Steve Gerber and Bob Brown rework an old villain into the Deathstalker (DD #113), who has a wonderfully sinister image and can literally kill with a touch. Marv Wolfman, during his run, had a particularly choice idea for a tale (DD #127) in which DD ends up in an extended fight with the Torpedo (later of Rom: Spaceknight fame), and, while kicking one another's teeth in and doing the standard Spider-Man banter between themselves, they completely destroy a family's home. The horrified family matriarch blows up at them and they're shamed to a standstill. I've always thought that was a great end to a comic story, certainly one that fits with later DD. A comic growing up. It's unfortunate that Marv's follow-up--a non-follow-up, really--involved rehashing some material from "Spider-Man No More" then basically just forgetting the whole thing.

It was Frank Miller who recognized this as the ideal tone for the book and, as I said, made it the status quo. Miller was a marvel in those days and brought a great deal of depth and literacy to the table, and a much more mature approach to storytelling. Along the way, he brought in all sorts of other influences--samurai cinema, manga, Greek tragedy, etc.--but always filtered them through that same "pulp noir" lens. In the process, he made Daredevil A-list for the first time in the character's history and established the tone that would, generally speaking, be followed by DD's creators, from the excellent to the godawful, right up until Waid. It isn't a set-in-stone approach and the book would sometimes deviate from it, but never for long and it would always return. Not in mere emulation of Miller (as has sometimes been alleged since I began writing about the book again), but in recognition that this is the feel that works best for this character and his world, an important part of what separates Daredevil from his poor-man's-Spider-Man past--part of his unique voice.

Even Mark Waid has, in effect, conceded this. His effort to devolve DD back to those lighthearted, juvenile, poor-man's-Spider-Man days were a radical break with the book as it had existed for more than three decades before he'd taken it over. It eventually led him to initiate a series of even more radical changes that ripped at the conceptual fabric of the character and the book, rendering both utterly unrecognizable. His grinning, silly Matt has publicly fessed up to being Daredevil, abandoned not only Hell's Kitchen but New York itself (and nearly all of the locations and supporting cast that had filtered through the book over the years), moved to an alien town on the opposite coast, and become a wisecracking celebrity.

Call it whatever else you like, it ain't Daredevil.

And that's sort of the point.

Waid himself says the book's best creators over the years have been a murderer's row of top-shelf comic-book talent. Daredevil is a book that brings out the best in a lot of them. It has, over those years, had a lot of really high high-points, and all of them, all of its finest moments, have been deeply immersed in that "pulp noir" tone. The answer to the original question is that, theoretically, Daredevil doesn't have to be "pulp noir" in tone to be great, but it probably has to be "pulp noir" in tone to be great Daredevil.

I wish Marvel thought like you when it came onto to Daredevil. I wonder why Quesada let Waid do this

This was one of the most epic and brilliant post i've ever read on this site. @arturocalakayvee@spideysense44@jonny_anonymous@punyparker@grenadeflow Check this post out guys

@daredevil21134 said:

As I recall (and I may be wrong about this off the top of my head), Quesada had already stepped down as EIC before Waid took over Daredevil.

Eh I still like Waid's Daredevil but I do see where you guys are coming from.

Honestly.. I don't like most of Waids stuff.

@arturocalakayvee: lol

Do you read his Daredevil? It's mind boggling how people like it.I would love it if I was 10 years old

@daredevil21134 said:

But--and here's something on which to chew--you probably couldn't afford it.

True but my point was my adult mind can't handle it lol

@daredevil21134: Ive read a few issues and decided it wasn't for me.

@daredevil21134: The story didn't grab me. The tone was weird for Daredevil. The dialogue bugged me.

@arturocalakayvee: I thought you liked Waid's Daredevil? Or have you converted to the Dark Side now? :P

And as you may know, I only read the stuff from the New 52 which is actually decent. It's blind cherry picking but it helps me enjoy DC rather than alienate myself from the company I love :P

But I'm just kidding there, you have solid reasons for leaving DC in the dust and I don't blame you.

@jriddle73: Even though I do agree that the nori feel has been a big nd main part of DD since Frank Miller why do you think that the Swashbuckler is not a part of the DD mythos. I don't think anybody would argue against this. The Swashbuckler DD is like the campy Batman. It is fine if you don't like it (I'm not a fan my self). But saying it is a part of the mythos or part of DD I can't. Besides Stan added another of part of DD's mythos. The whole Mike Murdock was first of all way ahead of its time where stories where supposed to end within the same issue. Here Matt created a fake twin brother to explain he was DD (IIRC Spider-Man had outed him in a indirect manner). First of all it was dealing with Matt's first outing second he was creating a fake identity which he has done since then (talking the name Battlin' Jack doing Chichester's run). I think the view of the Swashbuckler is rather simplistic.

Mike Murdock definitely wasn't "way ahead of its time" insofar as serialized, multi-part stories were concerned. Marvel, which did innovate such storytelling, had been doing it for some time by that point. Mike Murdock was exceptionally stupid, and a result of Stan just using the book to goof off.

When it comes to the "swashbuckling" business, characters like Daredevil are, by their very nature, a romantic fantasy, the masked hero who, defying all the odds, swoops in at the last minute and saves the day. In the context of Waid's DD, this unfortunately becomes entangled in a lot of other issues, and this is often intentional (it's certainly intentionally done by Waid when he talks about his DD work). To untangle the thicket, then, there's absolutely nothing about the romantic hero that demands or requires Waid's constant silliness, nor does it demand or require his oppressive lightheartedness--in its DNA, it's only "lighthearted" insofar as any romantic fantasy tends to be considered a fancy. Waid does seem to consider the whole thing a fancy, and his notion of the romantic hero, entangled in everything I've just tried to straighten, is the romantic hero merely for its own sake, using the archetype as an end rather than taking it as a given. This isn't uncommon in literature, and it's why such characters are commonly--and, in most cases, correctly--regarded as merely a fancy. When, like Waid, one works from the archetype and makes no real effort to conceptualize a person beyond it, the resulting character is superficial and without depth, and to allow it to live, Waid has placed it in a world that is, likewise, superficial and without depth. A world in which, among other things, the story of Daredevil as it existed prior to Waid can mostly just be ignored; a world in which Matt can fess up about being DD then just move to California and start over with no real repercussions.

The Galactus trilogy was less than a year old. This was certianly new in comics to have a comic doing a story like that. I have yet to see a so convoluted subplot in any silver age comic. Feel free to name any. You think it is stupid but you don't really back it up with anything. Was it weird/goofy/crazy? Yes, but it was the silver age so what do you expect?

@jriddle73: Yes there is no way to excuse the writing on Matt not being faced with consequences for outing himself in front of a court.He should have been thrown in Jail and multiple counts of perjury and vilgilantism.And a lot his cases would have probably been compromised. He definitely wouldn't have been able to walk away free.But Waid is from an era of when DD jumped on top of a tank and told the Military to stand down,an era where superheroes get the last word

@tupiaz said:

By the time Mike Murdock came along, Daredevil was entirely directionless, and that entire awful subplot was just another example of it. That kind of goofing off is basically all Stan was doing with the book, often even mocking his own plots. As for continuing stories--the original issue here--all the Marvel characters (including Daredevil) had ongoing subplots right from the beginning. Marvel had introduced full-blown multi-part tales--not just subplots--years before Mike Murdock. The (godawful) Avengers/Masters of Evil war--itself an outgrowth of the books featuring the individual Avengers characters--began with Avengers #6 (July 1964) and went on for a year (before becoming more sporadic). Spider-Man's first multi-part epic began with issue #17 (Oct. 1964). Both Thor and the Fantastic Four were being tightly serialized long before that, with one issue leading directly into the next with no let-up. The FF had gone full-on serial from FF #38 (May 1965) forward--well before the first Galactus tale. Mike Murdock only limped into existence in DD #25 (Feb. 1967). Way too late to the party to be considered an innovation.

@daredevil21134 said:

Exactly. He's spent his entire professional career as an agent of the court operating as a criminal on the side. As a lawyers, he's defended people he's taken down as Daredevil and even served as a prosecutor for others. He's faked his own death, created a false identity then faked its death too, pulled all sorts of shenanigans to conceal his own identity. Think of the multiple Daredevils in the "Playing to the Camera" arc. When, during Bendis, he was exposed as DD, he denied it and sued the publisher, who was then murdered. The list goes on into infinity. Forget being merely permanently disbarred, there's no way, after fessing up, he's going anywhere except straight to prison for as long as he can last there, while everyone he knows and loves would be horribly murdered. Look at what he went though when it was merely a suspicion that he was Daredevil. It isn't just that Waid has erased Daredevil; he's erased that entire world. He's replaced it with a silly one to suit his silly conception of the character; one in which things like consequences are merely an arbitrary whim of the writer; one that collapses if the reader gives it any thought.

@jriddle73: I keep thinking of one of Bendis's best sequences...when Luke Cage challenges Matt to just fess up and give up his secret identity like most of the rest of the heroes. Matt defiantly tells him he would never do that because of the promise he made to his father to practice law, and that would destroy it. Or pushing further, when he walks into Josie's unmasked and says in effect, you've seen my face, but if you go after me or anyone I care about, you know what I'll do to you. Or his appearing at the meeting in Decalogue. They can see his face, but his name will never be spoken. Brubaker carried that sense in the prison story, where anyone who knew who DD was would know better than to talk. The best writers can push the boundaries and make it original and effective. Waid has turned their efforts into farce.

Actually, I don't think it's ever made totally explicit what law Matt is breaking that necessarily warrants jail , but I thought the issue for him is the conflict of interest in DD's interference in Matt's court cases, which violates his oath as an officer of the court, at least resulting in disbarment. It's not being a vigilante... they all are. And I'm not sure where this Mike Murdock as ongoing story comes from. Marvel had been doing ongoing stories for a long time, especially in FF, after they lost their powers in a Frightful Four story, then were helped by DD in fighting Dr. Doom, then with Ben joining the Frightful Four, then with the reveal of Medusa and the Inhumans, etc. Thor was ongoing as well. All this was well before Stan getting the bright idea that it would be funny to give Matt a ridiculous twin brother. And Mike wasn't even a story. He was just an ongoing joke through a series of arcs before they decided the joke was over and to kill him off.

He did like it and may still even like it a little, but he took me and @jonny_anonymous advise and went back and read Miller's DD and now his eyes are open and he sees how incredibly lame and campy Waid's DD is compared to Miller's, It's like reading two different characters and when he finally reads Bendis's run, he is going to be further blown away

@arturocalakayvee: It is indeed. I'll depart to allow the conversation to resume its usual standards and maybe another post can match the brilliance of what @jriddle73 said.