OK, there are lots of contradictory things on the Web about the DC-vs-Fawcett lawsuit. It looks like Fawcett was losing when they decided to settle: [link]

The name of the judge in the trial? Judge Learned Hand.

What were the numbers? I vaguely remember it being as high as a million copies per issue. But I could be making stuff up again. I need a fact checker!

Captain Marvel's numbers in the 40s peaked at over 2 million according to sources I'd read. It was the top-selling superhero title of all time until McFarlane's Spider Man in the 90s.

I dimly recall it's because Capt. Marvel and Billy derive their powers from the wizard Shazam, but Capt. Marvel Jr. dervies his power from Capt. Marvel. Something like that.

Freddy was standing next to Billy when Billy said "Shazam," and Freddy got a sideways blast of magical mojo power with Capt. Marvel as the conduit. So that's why he says "Captain Marvel" instead of "Shazam."

At least that's how I recall the old continuity. Who knows what it is now.

Judge Learned Hand.

Oh, damn. That's gotta have been used in something since then, hasn't it?

Judge Learned Hand.

Famous judge in tort law (came up with the B/PL equation.) Boy did we have a lot of jokes.

Link stolen from Dana: Essay on Superman's behaviour in JLU, with some refs to Identity Crisis.

I was wondering if they ever showed Captain Marvel using that maneuver before.

BTW, here's Evan Dorkin's rant about Identity Crisis and Countdown.

Where does it go from here? It's like a rabid fan of pornography who can't get his kicks from depictions of straight intercourse anymore, so he moves on to more hardcore stuff, then into the crazy shit that even guys at frat parties won't watch together out of embarrassment. The thrills need to be amped, the bullshit revved up, the stunts multiplied, the violence ramped, the childhood characters must be put through even harsher predicaments and fates, saddled with traits and failings they were never designed to carry on their threadbare personalities.

This seems like a relevant question. Escalation of the grim. If you keep chipping away at the characters and compromising them, it gets reductive. Is there a point in Batman getting darker? How about Superman? Don't you need to be able to contrast them against their adversaries to make their missions meaningful?

It all brings to mind the Spinal Tappian "None more black" endpoint.

I feel like superhero comics have been in a mannerist era since Dark Knight and Watchmen. There's more and more meta commentary on the core subject, while the core subject itself shrinks in significance.

Fundamentally Meta: Starman, The Incredibles, Venture Brothers, Powers, Tom Strong, The Tick, Kingdom Come, Marvels, Astro City...

Don't you need to be able to contrast them against their adversaries to make their missions meaningful?

Not for me, no. Now, I don't think everyone should be dark, but the continuum of similarity between a hero and a villain, the distinction between means, ends, and motives fascinates me.

There's no need to shuffle all the stories to either end of that continuum, nor balance them all at the middle.

It's the homogeneity that bothers me, not the existence. There isn't a way that superhero comics have to be for me. I couldn't really even define the term conclusively.

Fundamentally Meta: Starman, The Incredibles, Venture Brothers, Powers, Tom Strong, The Tick, Kingdom Come, Marvels, Astro City...

I dunno, do the blatantly humorous items in there count as true meta? What differentiates meta from parody? Or is parody inherently meta?