A textbook example of what’s wrong with superhero comics and the writing of them. Instead of showing the reader who a character is and developing them from there, a lot of writers, instead of developing plots and motivations and wants and needs and illustrating them through basic actions and through observation, will recite character traits in order to develop some kind of depth, but really it’s sloppy and nonsensical and bad writing.

Now, Paul Cornell is a good writer. I’ve enjoyed his books and Doctor Who episodes, but this issue was just a “I’m a character! Don’t you see? I am this and this and this and you are this, but I’m this so we’re the same but different” and that’s the story. It may have been interesting or new if these were different traits of Luthor analyzed, but it’s the same trait. Luthor is smarter than everyone, let me show you 10 times. One of those times will be with a Gorilla though.

In addition, by the powers invested in me by the authority of the internet, I hereby sentence Paul Cornell to never ever write the Joker again. This is probably the worst written Joker I’ve ever seen. Not only was he not funny (which the best writers of the character do even though he’s a psycho maniac), but the take is completely off. Yes, Joker is one of those characters who are chaotic and allows different takes, but this take, as some Camus-esque victim of the absurd with pathos and sorrow to his psycho smile, is completely inaccurate. He is the absurdity of the universe personifed. He is not a victim of it. He is not a prime example or archetype that works with The Myth of Sisyphus.

But don’t take my word for it!

BA DA BA!