Funny thing about that line is that it is absolutely un-sourceable. A guy tried a few years ago, and wrote a journal article about his failure to find any place where Luther actually says it.

@zoanon: No clue. Exploring the bold new world of child-rearing advice?

I like the way the crew members were supposed to have the names of famous explorers — Cook, Drake, Bougaineville. (There's an island named for that last guy, but I only know that because of Google). Would there have been an Eriksen or a Cortes in the second season?

@DaCrusher: "Corrective table etiquette!" Yeah, I'd say that delivers "more than the opposition" all right.

There's another factor — not as deep, but also a factor: those costumes.

@crosis101: Wait, I don't understand. That's a great scene — isn't it the kind anybody would WANT to write (and film), if only the chicken**** producers would let them?

Two things about the signet ring idea. First, "TW" doesn't really look like a bat. If Bruce's father had been Victor or Walter or something, then maybe.

@hwilam: If I remember right, the July 1039 issue has a nice little story by Geoffrey of Monmouth.

If I have learned nothing from the Flash, Green Arrow, Batman and Captain America, I have learned this:

@Gaucho85: Seriously. After watching him help wreck the former Batman franchise, and then keep the Saint from ever developing into a franchise ... well, Kilmer is on the "avoid at all costs"list.

Um, guys? Professor Erskine's super-soldier formula? And the vibranium shield?

@MinervaAlpaca: There, see? You said it so I don't have to.

Yeah, sure. But I'll take the Dick Sprang Batcave over all of it.

@FatherAnonymous: Crusher. I meant Crusher. Typo, not drunk, no matter what it seems like.

Two things in the letter, one silly, one ya-wish-he'd-remembered:

Great stuff, but it makes me worry about poor Jess. How much of this stuff — meaning the stuff best forgotten — has he actually had to read? One shudders at the thought.

I remember that arc, although not in much detail. And as I remember, it was exciting and creepy. Also noirish and, by the standards of comic books, credible.

@syafiqjabar of Mars: Well, yeah. But the remedy isn't putting in different sex and violence. Traditional stories like RRH have been honed down over time, by generations of skilled storytellers. They really work, at a deep psychological level.

It's all very Kim Stanley Robinson. Except that with actual human beings, there's a chance of some credible characterization.

@m_faustus: Gotta go with Jess on this. Even as a ten-year-old boy, I used to read the paperback reprints, thinking, "Wouldn't it be great if there were stories about this terrific hero that had decent prose, credible plots, or any characterization at all?"