How NOT to write a comic book

[zuludelta]

Terrible, terrible expository writing:

Two of the Worst Comic Pages You Will See This Year

[Previsionary]

that...was the best piece of writing I've ever seen! Claremont has a challenger in the expository department and I, for one, welcome it with open arms. And I don't even read Batman and his various sidekicks. Today...is a good day for writing.


for those who've yet to realize, I'm being sarcastic...

[zuludelta]

Besides the clumsy "fanspeak" writing, I also can't believe how out of character Batman is being written in those two pages (granted, I haven't read Batman in years, so maybe I'm out of the loop). Here you've got Batman, the poster man-child for the "it's okay to creatively maim villains but it's never okay to use guns to kill them" movement and he's basically giving Batgirl a free pass for killing all sorts of villains because she was oh-so-conveniently "on drugs."

[Carravaggio]

Oh wow...I couldn't even make it past the third panel (wheres that :sick: emote?)

[Jakew]

Jeez ... did anyone manage to finish reading that?  :unsure:

[The Enigma]

Gods, it reads like a poorly written Wikipedia article.

[tommyboy]

It's a bit of a slog to get through, but I didn't really, really, dislike it.
Zulu, you say that Batman is out of character here, please show me any of the many Batman comics, and other comics in which Batman appears where he says or does anything to indicate he wants to shut Batgirl down. Because if there aren't any, then clearly any other Batman comic is also out of character, or perhaps they are all 'in character', including this. Now, I'll grant you that it seems a little inconsistent of him, but I would imagine an Editorial fiat has dictated 'his' policy towards her, so you can hardly pin it all on this one writer.

Yes, there is a lot of information, a lot of events somewhat hastily strung together with tenuous justifications, strange logic, probable retconning (I don't follow the Bat-family books closely so I can't tell), and general "we're going to cram all the backstory into this shape, whether it fits or not" thinking.
What are the alternatives to the approach the writer chose:
1. To not use the character ever again due to her dubious morality and lumpy backstory: Not going to happen. She's a "copyright protection device" like Spiderwoman, She-Hulk, Supergirl. They pretty much HAVE to do something with her. Leading to:
2. Have 'Batgirl' be some other character, new or pre-existing: Do-able, but they chose not to. Possibly a poor choice.
3. Devote many issues over several years to convey the same garbled 'plot' as in two pages: I'm glad they didn't. Rip the plaster off quickly, I say.

So they have a Batgirl series, and they need to bring her into 'the fold', to make her part of the Bat-family, but her previous appearances need to be explained away, for her to be 'good', or at least closer to it. They chose a justification which didn't seem much more outlandish than most comic book plots, I could understand and follow it, though I didn't know half the people referred to.

I'd probably give it a C- or a D if I were to grade it, but I wouldn't grade it without reading the whole issue. Two pages out of context from lots of comics might look worse than they would read in context.

EDIT: And having read the whole comic, I'd give it a C. The two pages in question are preceded and followed by other material that makes more sense of them. Batman's decision is questioned by Nightwing, on the very next page, and somewhat explained. And again, given Batgirls presence in the new Outsiders, you cannot pin all this on the writer of this book. Batman is not out of character since he is consistant with the other Batman comics currently published.
The book reads quite well. I, as someone pretty much entirely unfamiliar with the character of Batgirl, now know her 'origins', motivations, relationships with her own and the Bat-family.
If I were to complain about anything, it would be the stupid art error that has a bearded man firing a gun with his right hand in one panel, and her knocking his left hand (with the gun now in it) into his face in the very next panel.
Other than that, I'd say this is pretty much how you should write comic books. It's an issue that can be read alone and makes some sort of sense, but is part of a larger continuity. It engages the reader, even one like me who doesn't give a fig for the main character going in. And it makes some sense out of the mess of he pre-existing continuity.

[Previsionary]

actually, and this is coming from a non-batfan, you know the very very very condensed version of her history and they completely left out key ideas which are important to her personal story as to why she couldn't talk in the first place, why she originally didn't kill (It's not Batman related), and other various ideas. The batgirl fans are complaining because all of it was hastily explained and thrown at them when Batgirl was running around fine in one comic and crazy in another. Key points about her character were changed in an instance (by the same writer from what I gathered) and they had to wait for awhile to get an answer and they got...this. Even looking at the page without paying attention, it's a bit odd seeing words bolded that don't really mean anything, all the bubbles that cover the pictures (and they barely add anything), and the exposition could have easily been more condensed than this was (and it easily reminds me of Claremont's writing in New Exiles #8 only on a smaller scale).

BTB, Zulu didn't pin anything on any writer. He was talking specifically about the work he linked to. He even said he hadn't read in years, so he already admitted that he wouldn't know if it were in character for current Batman. But to his credit, even the bat fans on the page he linked to say the same thing, so apparently, he wasn't that far off according to them.

[tommyboy]

BTB, Zulu didn't pin anything on any writer. He was talking specifically about the work he linked to. He even said he hadn't read in years, so he already admitted that he wouldn't know if it were in character for current Batman. But to his credit, even the bat fans on the page he linked to say the same thing, so apparently, he wasn't that far off according to them.

I also can't believe how out of character Batman is being written in those two pages

(bold added by me)

It seems to me that if you say Batman is written out of character in these two pages, you are 'pinning' it on the writer of these two pages. I can't see any other possible interpretation, regardless of whether he's read any other comics or not.
Does he state Batman is out of character? Yes.
Does he believe anyone other than Adam Beechen wrote those pages? If so the belief is unstated.
And lastly, given that the title of the thread is: "How NOT to write a comic book", I think that he has 'pinned' his criticisms on the writer.

Of course, you are free to read "How NOT to write a comic book" and come away with the idea that he thinks this is fine, good, or great comic book writing, that is your business. Everybody else who can read is likely to assume he thinks that this writer is lacking in some way though.

[zuludelta]

Zulu, you say that Batman is out of character here, please show me any of the many Batman comics, and other comics in which Batman appears where he says or does anything to indicate he wants to shut Batgirl down. Because if there aren't any, then clearly any other Batman comic is also out of character, or perhaps they are all 'in character', including this. Now, I'll grant you that it seems a little inconsistent of him, but I would imagine an Editorial fiat has dictated 'his' policy towards her, so you can hardly pin it all on this one writer.

As I mentioned, I haven't been reading Batman for a while now, but it seems strange that he would condone Batgirl's killing of villains when one of the pillars of the character has always been his decision not to intentionally kill under any circumstances. Editorial fiat or no, it's a glaring inconsistency that I think the writer should have made apparent or at least made a nod to. Granted, maybe it's been explained in the rest of the issue, but in those two pages I linked, his behaviour (in light of how he's been traditionally portrayed) certainly is questionable.

So they have a Batgirl series, and they need to bring her into 'the fold', to make her part of the Bat-family, but her previous appearances need to be explained away, for her to be 'good', or at least closer to it. They chose a justification which didn't seem much more outlandish than most comic book plots, I could understand and follow it, though I didn't know half the people referred to.

See, for me, the underlying problem with this approach is the need to "explain away" in minute detail her previous appearances. This is a perfect example of how obsessive attention to prior continuity can undermine the writing in current comics. Wouldn't a concise inside cover recap done a better job summarizing the prior events that led up to the issue without the ridiculously convoluted and jarring conversation between Robin, Nightwing, and Batman? I would think so. Going into so much detail and cramming it all in two pages, trying to string together previous disparate portrayals of the same character just brings to the forefront how inconsistent the character has been portrayed and makes suspension of disbelief harder to to sell. That two-page digression did nothing that a panel with Robin or Nightwing basically saying "she got better" couldn't do. Sure, the premise that Batgirl had a sudden change of heart and attitude towards killing is perhaps ridiculous, but so is the notion that she was secretly drugged into killing her father, ninjas, pharmaceutical executives, and to top it all off, resurrecting some dead villain (Lynx) only to kill her again to frame Robin for a murder. 

Oh, and just to make it clear, tommy, I'm not trying to make a wider commentary on the writer (Adam Beechen)... I'm unaware of his work outside of those two pages I linked to. My primary intent in making the original post was to highlight an example of badly done expository dialogue, the main feature of which is that characters explicitly give statements to each other that are, in context, supposed to be implicit knowledge between them.   

[Previsionary]

Taheh, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying it for me because I certainly couldn't make my post seem any more clearer to the way you made it seem. ^_^ Many thanks. Anyway, I'm just going to add a few more thoughts on some things you raised that don't even mesh with my post at all. Sir tommy, you said Zulu was pinning criticisms on a whole base of work...but as I mentioned here (with random bolding imitation removed):

BTB, Zulu didn't pin anything on any writer. He was talking specifically about the work he linked to. He even said he hadn't read in years, so he already admitted that he wouldn't know if it were in character for current Batman. But to his credit, even the bat fans on the page he linked to say the same thing, so apparently, he wasn't that far off according to them.

I already addressed that he hadn't read in years as he even stated (in case you missed it while skimming) and that I said current readers had brought up the same points...but I guess they're probably incorrect or over-reacting. Who knows, eh? I also stated that he was talking specifically about the two pages he linked to...meaning that's his current level of exposure and that was his opinion on that and that alone. I don't think Zulu is a telepath or anything...unless he is...mutants. :angry: He didn't even mention anything about the writer or his previous works nor any other writer for comparisons sake. Just his evidence/proof that he linked to...it's a large jump to go from 2 pages of observations and giving an opinion on that to criticizing the author's entire body of batman work. His point was completely valid with the proof he provided and even people with the whole book STILL hated the pages. His title thread is much better than the actual cited works page of: Two of the Worst Comic Pages You Will See This Year (obvious lie!). Hopefully your critique applies to everyone who responded as they had similar comments. Pfft, Zulu was tame compared to true internet fans, so he can't possibly be human. That's right, Zulu is a robot. *nods wisely*

Also this:

Of course, you are free to read "How NOT to write a comic book" and come away with the idea that he thinks this is fine, good, or great comic book writing, that is your business. Everybody else who can read is likely to assume he thinks that this writer is lacking in some way though.

I'm not really sure where that came from. Why was it brought up anyway? Perhaps a last minute thought to address something, but I'm so unsure of the cause. It doesn't matter, but you almost made my poor pup cry. I don't even have a pup, ya know. I expect a bone in the mail to make him feel better otherwise he'll just die, ya know. Can't have that, now, eh? :( Also...Dunzo, ya know. *nods*

[bredon7777]

Holy info-dump, Batman!

[tommyboy]

Zulu, call me a pedant, but if I started a thread entitled "How NOT to draw a comic book", and posted links to a couple of pages of artwork, might a reasonable person not construe that as a criticism of the artist, or at least their work on those pages?
I don't claim you make any 'wider' criticisms of the author, but let's dispense with the notion that you aren't attacking his work on those two pages, because you are.
And two clunky, wordy, convoluted, and forced pages is what they are.
But less so in their proper context of the whole comic.
'Expository writing' is commonly held to be a 'bad thing' by people who prefer being shown to being told. But how could you possibly have 'shown' all that information in one issue, let alone two pages? And why is the exposition there?
You say that the knowledge explicitly conveyed by the 3 detective superheroes was implicit to them, but had you read the preceding page, you would have seen Batman tell Nightwing "You don't know the whole story." To which Robin replies "Neither do we yet". So by explicitly stating it all they are a) filling Nightwing in on what he doesn't know, b) comparing 'notes' to see if their info and conclusions match, and c) running it all past Batgirl to see if she says "No" to any of it. Within the context it makes sense, and when problem solving or trying to tie together events, people do explicitly state what they might all know, to make sure everyone agrees on the salient points, and to list what some have called the 'known knowns and known unknowns'.
Perhaps all the exposition is for the reader, but it is set up within the story by having Nightwing as the skeptic who need to be informed, which is not a bad way to work it in, per se. There is a consistent rationale for discussing her past, which is good enough for me.

However.
To some extent I agree with you. It's not the best writing I've ever seen, it could perhaps have been done better.
If it's the worst thing Ever by popular vote, so be it, I'm content to remain in the minority that dislikes other things more.
There are better comics I could champion.
For me, the war is over.

[Podmark]

This is a perfect example of how obsessive attention to prior continuity can undermine the writing in current comics.

The thing that you have to realize is that the entire point of this mini is to fix the Batgirl character that Beechen himself ruined during his Robin run. Explaining her abrupt character 180s pretty much required running through all that continuity and making it make some modicum of sense. Is that page the most effective way to do it? Well probably no but I've got a feeling he wanted to get through that and use those pages as a recap page.

Is Batman out of character for giving Cass a second chance? I don't think so. If Dick was brainwashed by Deathstroke to kill, wouldn't Bruce do everything he could to save him and bring him back into the fold? That said the mind controlling drugs was a lame cop out, but turning Cass evil in the first place made no sense. It didn't fit her character and the way it was portrayed in Robin ignored key elements of her character make up. Ever since that story DC has been trying to appease fans and fix the character, and truth be told I think they're wrecked her permanently. But DC managed to fix Hal so there's hope.

[zuludelta]

And two clunky, wordy, convoluted, and forced pages is what they are.
But less so in their proper context of the whole comic.

I guess it is somewhat unfair of me to take those two pages out of context and point out what I perceived to be glaring faults. Still, I think we are all in agreement that the dialogue, to varying degrees depending on your mileage for these things, was terribly executed.

'Expository writing' is commonly held to be a 'bad thing' by people who prefer being shown to being told. But how could you possibly have 'shown' all that information in one issue, let alone two pages?

Well, I won't profess to knowing any better than a professional writer like Adam Beechen when it comes to his craft, but as a reader, I know that the two-page dialogue sequence (taken out of context) read poorly, to the point of being absurd, even for a genre where I normally give more leeway for long-winded rationalizations for strung-along stories. Would a recap page have worked better? Possibly. Would an "omniscient" narration have been less cumbersome? Perhaps. But it wasn't my original intent to explain how it could have been done better. My intent was simply to spotlight what I felt and knew to the extent of my writing knowledge to be poorly-done dialogue.

Expository dialogue is often referred to as a "technique of last resort" in contemporary script-writing, whether it be for film, stage, or comics and rightly so. It is a difficult thing to pull off without drawing out the reader/viewer from the immersive experience. If Beechen was instructed by his editors to put in the sequence, then I suppose they share some of the blame for the poor execution, as a writer can only do so much given editorial directives.

Zulu, call me a pedant, but if I started a thread entitled "How NOT to draw a comic book", and posted links to a couple of pages of artwork, might a reasonable person not construe that as a criticism of the artist, or at least their work on those pages?
I don't claim you make any 'wider' criticisms of the author, but let's dispense with the notion that you aren't attacking his work on those two pages, because you are.

Well, I guess I am, in your words, "attacking" the author by highlighting those two pages. I prefer the term "criticising" though. "Attacking" makes it sound like I've got a personal mad-on against Beechen's written output, when really, those two pages are the full extent of my familiarity with his work. So yes, I am critcising that particular snippet of his work, and I fail to see why that is supposed to be a bone of contention. I think I made it clear enough that that was my whole intent with this thread.

There is a consistent rationale for discussing her past, which is good enough for me.

Having not read the book in its entirety, I freely admit that the underlying "consistent rationale" that allows you to accept the dialogue as sufficient is lost on me. By my sensibilities, however, the dialogue in that two page sequence, in and of itself, is not what I would consider serviceable professional script-writing, and would definitely be contra to what I consider to be good comic book dialogue. 

[Silver Shocker]

Zulu, call me a pedant, but if I started a thread entitled "How NOT to draw a comic book", and posted links to a couple of pages of artwork, might a reasonable person not construe that as a criticism of the artist, or at least their work on those pages?
I don't claim you make any 'wider' criticisms of the author, but let's dispense with the notion that you aren't attacking his work on those two pages, because you are.

Well, I guess I am, in your words, "attacking" the author by highlighting those two pages. I prefer the term "criticising" though. "Attacking" makes it sound like I've got a personal mad-on against Beechen's written output, when really, those two pages are the full extent of my familiarity with his work. So yes, I am critcising that particular snippet of his work, and I fail to see why that is supposed to be a bone of contention. I think I made it clear enough that that was my whole intent with this thread.

Personally I've never cared for this line of thinking that critiquing a creator's work because you, in fact, didn't like it is some kind of deadly sin. Dave Campbell of the (now retired) blog "Dave's Long Boxes" put it better than I ever could:

"However, if I were so inclined, I would mercilessly take the piss out of Civil War: Frontline #11 online with no guilt because I'm mocking the product, not the producer. If you put your [****] out there and people buy it, they've bought the right to have an opinion."

[cmdrkoenig67]

I'm not a Batfan either, but I don't see why he (the writer) needed to explain things to that extent, even if they were talking about why she did the things she did.  There was a lot of unnecessary wordiness going on there....To the extent of me giving up half way through the second panel on the second page.

Dana

[stumpy]

There is some interesting discussion here for sure, so I want to apologize in advance for a comment with far less depth.

First, I found those two pages confusing and, at times, meaningless. As a non-Batman reader, if I had been leafing through the book in a comic shop, there is a fair chance something like that would convince to put it right back down. That is doubly bad since, at least to some degree, that sort of exposition is probably targeting people like me who aren't familiar with all the character goings-on. On the other hand, it prompted me to go to wikipedia and I think I am basically caught up now.

Second, I am typically very anti-reboot, but I can see where the need arises. I mean, attempts like that to explain even just a few years of continuity make me more sympathetic to writers who have to haul along decades of story development and know there is no way to do it and bring new readers on board. Heaven knows that, back in the day, I was sometimes faced with questions like "So, what were the Magic Wars?", "What do you mean Laurel Gand is Supergirl?", "Wait, so, if the Legion never recruited Kal-El as a member, then why is there a Pocket Universe?", etc. and been tempted to throw my hands in the air and walk away.

[thalaw2]

I had to really examine the definition of expository in order to classify that rambling as such.  Isn't there a way the writer could have found to stretch out the explanation over several issues or at least make it more creative like TV dramas do along about the 7th episode?

[Spe-Dog]

How were those 2 pages NOT from a current Hulk Comic?  The undisputed champ in how not to write a comic.

[Podmark]

How were those 2 pages NOT from a current Hulk Comic?  The undisputed champ in how not to write a comic.

<disgruntled Batgirl fan> Because they were by Adam Beechen - the other champ. </disgruntled Batgirl fan>