I enjoyed the first issue but with King, he likes to play with narrative a bit. So I'm curious to see where it goes. Superman overcome by grief was pretty affecting.
My biggest gripe isn't so much with King or the book itself, but I find the whole notion of killing characters, especially post- Captain America, to be more than a little absurd. No matter how much DC or Marvel or any of the writers try to convince us the death is permanent, we know unequivocally that these characters will come back. It's what made the Green Arrow tie-in so bad, especially when several characters who appeared in that book died and came back to life.
While comic deaths are absurd, at least there's an opportunity to telling an affecting story dealing with the consequences and the fallouts. But you need to be incredibly sure of yourself as a writer to make it work and, more importantly, make it count. Brubaker did it. I trust King to do it as well. But it's rare.
More absurd though than the killing of comic book characters is the reaction of fans. I apologize for my rather curt comment when you first made the thread, but I had been lurking on the CBR forums for a bit and just couldn't handle it any more. Maybe I'm just jaded because I've been reading these ragnarok stories for so long, but getting pissed off, threatening to boycott the publisher, threatening the writer, etc...all seems so stupid when we know that these characters will not stay dead. And for me personally, I've been profoundly unimpressed by Williamson's Flash book (which more or less seems hampered by Geoff Johns still and Flash War was straight garbage) so if Heroes in Crisis can allow time to be taken to actually figure out how to handle Wally in the books going forward, so be it. Is it annoying and lazy that this is the means in which they accomplish that? Sure. But I'll take it.
