Excellent excellent comics article

[zuludelta]

Big fan of long-time comics writer Steven Grant's comics-commentary column. His latest column is a blast:
http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=19027

If you don't feel like reading the link, here's my favourite excerpt:

Really, we have to get over this. It's great to be a fan when you're a fan. It's great to acknowledge your interests and leanings when you're a pro. If you're a pro and still trying to behave as a fan, you're really not helping.

Throughout my professional lifetime, I've watched talent go to Marvel or DC and occasionally other places, simply so they could work on Jack Kirby's characters. And do "their" version of Kirby. This includes people I consider friends. Again, it's one thing to have a good OMAC story in mind, but I'm talking about people whose greatest dream in life is to make their careers continuing Kirby characters. I don't think there was one of them who didn't believe their work on his characters somehow honored Kirby's contributions to the field. I only spoke to Jack twice in my life, but one of those times I asked him about this.

In fact, Jack did not feel honored. He wasn't upset about it, and didn't complain (like others I've known in similar positions have) that he hadn't been hired instead to work on his own characters. He was saddened. Why? Because he hadn't spent his career just working. He'd spent it creating, and constantly coming up with new characters and new creations wherever he had the chance.

What saddened him was that message – create your own, create your own, create your own - wasn't the legacy his career was leaving for new talents instead.

Likewise, the message talent should be getting from WATCHMEN is: tell the story you want the way you want to, make the story your only, know when there's no story left, then get. The hell. OUT. And two decades on, they're still not getting that message.

We have to drum it into our heads: if you like Jack's work, or Alan's work, or Warren's or Robert Crumb's or Daniel Clowes' or Jim Lee's or whoever's, do not imitate their work.

Imitate their example.

Because that's the only thing besides death that's going to put a crack in the current incestuized commercialized ennui that is the comics industry. Underneath "commercial considerations," underneath "homages," is always the urge to get rub off fame, to amplify your own credentials and popularity by leeching off the fame and authority of those who came before. Sometimes it works, at least for a little while. Mostly it just tarnishes what we rub against, and accomplishes little else.

[Epimethee]

A very good point indeed.

[Talavar]

I think the part you've quoted from zuludelta is excellent, and completely true, but I don't agree with the whole article.  The general public has never known who more than a handful of the most famous comic writers are, and that they still don't is hardly lamentable - the general public couldn't name more than a handful of television writers or movie writers either.  They only know directors because movie awards like the Oscars are full of such pomp.  Pure writers are the only group that more than a handful would be easily named, and most of those would be a lot older than the 2 decades the author of that article is complaining about Frank Miller or Alan Moore's defining works being from. 

Objectively, most superhero comics aren't very good.  That's just the way it is, but that's the way it's always been - I mean, what was the industry's Watchmen or Dark Knight Returns before those titles were published?  To expect seminal, genre-redefining work to come along semi-regularly is ridiculous, but it is particularly so when you don't seem to be looking beyond superhero comics.  Writing 2008 off as a terrible year in comics just seems lazy, and characteristic of a certain segment of the comics audience these days: they bemoan the general crappiness of modern superhero comics, but don't seem to bother looking for anything better beyond that genre.  When the author of that article said that his best of the year list had 2 entries, and both were reprints, I basically dismissed him as an old crank - regardless of his actual age.  If you aren't reading good comics read different comics - because good ones are out there; they just don't have Spider-man in them.

I personally don't read comics because I love the medium particularly; I read comics either for specific creators (it was Neil Gaiman's Sandman that got me reading comics in the first place) or for superheros, and get my quality entertainment elsewhere.  Now, I prefer a superhero book to also be pretty good, and half my pull list lately is getting cancelled, but that doesn't make me complain about the entire medium - because it's true across mediums.  Most television is crap - the ten top-rated shows are awful dreck.  Most film is crap - how many unnecessary sequels, remakes and adaptations get made every year?  Most books are crap - the average mega-bestseller is like a vacuum of good writing.  To find quality entertainment that you enjoy takes something not unlike panning for gold; you've got to sift through all that crap to find your nuggets of quality.  Expecting comics to follow a different model baffles me.

[BentonGrey]

Yet more excellent reasons to give people what they need, rather than what they want.  Ha, when you constantly pitch everything to the lowest common denominator, you don't get quality entertainment.  This is precisely why I should rule the world.  I would ensure that entertainment met the highest, most exacting standards...mine.

[zuludelta]

To expect seminal, genre-redefining work to come along semi-regularly is ridiculous, but it is particularly so when you don't seem to be looking beyond superhero comics.  Writing 2008 off as a terrible year in comics just seems lazy, and characteristic of a certain segment of the comics audience these days: they bemoan the general crappiness of modern superhero comics, but don't seem to bother looking for anything better beyond that genre.

Ah, you must not be too familiar with Grant's column... if you think he's dismissive of the current state of superhero comics, you should read his assessment of most "indie," "literary" & self-published comics. He really lays into them when he does his reviews. The one thing he's always maintained that the Big Two have going for them is that there's a minimum level of professional craft involved with their output (just by virtue of all the controls & editorial filters they have in place). There is no such thing with many smaller publishers.

It's pretty easy to miss the subtext in the article if you haven't been regularly following his columns, but the larger point he's trying to make is that the established "talent" (the artists & writers) who dare to strike out beyond Marvel & DC to do their own thing end up creating material that isn't too far removed from the same old stuff that DC & Marvel put out, except with fewer distribution channels, less quality control, and an even smaller profit margin.

A recent example would be Robert Kirkman making a big announcement about leaving Marvel & DC for good to focus on creator-owned books in Image Comics and how a shift to more creator-owned work would save the comics industry's flagging fortunes. The announcement would have been a lot more impressive if he were doing material that isn't the same as the rest of the stuff that clutters up the shelves at your LCS, but as it stands, Invincible, while well-written and well-drawn and a favourite of mine (although I haven't kept up the past few months) is basically another fan-turned-pro's love-letter to Stan Lee's Spider-Man whose appeal mainly extends to pre-existing comics readers and Walking Dead is just another zombie book in a market already saturated with zombie books. If consumers today aren't interested in reading comics featuring Spider-Man or Batman or Wolverine or zombies or whatever tried-and-true marketing icon, what makes Kirkman think that they'd pony up the cash for what basically amounts to his take on Spider-man and zombie apocalypse stories?

[bearded]

this article got me thinking along a slight tangent.  how do you imagine the money making publishers managed to avoid turning the watchmen into a venture?  i mean, i'm glad.  but why isn't there a rorshack mini series.  "rorshack is back!  and this time she's really cranky!"  or worse, integrated into the dc universe.
and that led to another, horrifying thought.  what if this movie travesty does lead to such a thing?  part of the reason the watchmen is so enduring is the purity of it.

[zuludelta]

this article got me thinking along a slight tangent.  how do you imagine the money making publishers managed to avoid turning the watchmen into a venture?  i mean, i'm glad.  but why isn't there a rorshack mini series.

Probably because DC's suits back then had the good sense to realize that there really weren't very many interesting places to take the story after the mini-series' finale. Like Grant says in the article, a good writer knows when to get out and end a story. Trying to milk more money out of the franchise just leads to dissatisfaction among certain segments of the readership and sometimes alienates the original creative team (particularly if the characters & stories they created are handed off willy-nilly to other talent).

DC actually tried to do something similar to what you brought up with Kingdom Come several years ago... after the smashing success of Waid's & Ross' opus, DC tried to get more mileage out of the concepts they introduced with an editorially-steered follow-up cross-over/mini-series called "The Kingdom," with neither Waid nor Ross involved in the books. The project was a critical and commercial flop, and actually led to Ross forsaking future work with DC (although they did patch things up a few months later). The irony, of course, is that Ross is currently doing books for DC right now that are thematically similar to "The Kingdom," and by most accounts, it's receiving lukewarm attention from fans & critics alike, further attesting to the notion that stories that are initially conceived of as finite entities (the way Kingdom Come originally was) don't really lend themselves well to ad hoc extension and fleshing out.

You see this not just in comics, mind you, but in all sorts of entertainment media.

Sylvester Stallone would probably have a better legacy as a performer & writer if he hadn't turned the Oscar-winning Rocky into an artistically-bereft franchise & the critically-acclaimed First Blood into the cultural landfill that became the Rambo series of films. Carlos Santana probably should have tried a different artistic direction after his brand of Afro-Cuban guitar-playing had played itself out by the late 1970s. Instead, he's making with eye-gougingly horrid videos with Matchbox 20's Rob Thomas, endlessly recycling riffs that were tired before Thomas himself was born.           

[bearded]

i need to explain what i meant by watchmen movie as a travesty.  i mean it in the same way that superman is a travesty, in regards to seigal and shuster.  they lost control of their character.  and in that light, moore does not want a watchmen movie made.  for whatever reason.  and he lost control of his creation.  that is a travesty.

[zuludelta]

i need to explain what i meant by watchmen movie as a travesty.  i mean it in the same way that superman is a travesty, in regards to seigal and shuster.  they lost control of their character.  and in that light, moore does not want a watchmen movie made.  for whatever reason.  and he lost control of his creation.  that is a travesty.

I can see your point, and can sympathize to a small extent, but I just don't feel strongly either way about the upcoming Watchmen movie. I don't think the movie enhances the comics that spawned it, nor does it detract from it, regardless of how poor or great an adaptation it is. It's just a movie, in my mind, and doesn't really affect how I perceive the original story.

I'm more bothered by the fact that 20 years after it was published, many of today's writers are still trying to recreate their own version of Watchmen or Dark Knight Returns or Love & Rockets or Phoenix Saga (with oftentimes unintentionally hilarious results). It seems like many of today's writers keep trying to out-Alan Moore or out-Frank Miller or out-Los Bros. Hernandez each other. But the thing is, Alan Moore wasn't trying to be "The Alan Moore" back when he was creating groundbreaking work during the 1970s and 1980s. He was just writing his stories and not trying to be anybody else or be the next Stan Lee or whatever.       

[zuludelta]

I will hasten to add, though, that my somewhat downcast opinion regarding the majority of today's comics (superhero or otherwise) is borne of two-and-a-half decades of reading comics spanning five decades, from three different continents, written in three different languages (and English reprints of comics that were originally printed in at least two other languages). I'm a very jaded fan of the comics medium (although nowhere near as jaded as Steven Grant, who's been reading comics at least twice as long as I have).

I guess it's just that after you've read enough comics covering as diverse a range of genres and talent as I have, it just becomes harder to find something that stands out from the collective pulp mass. I'm looking for comics that will make me read with "young" eyes again, make me excited for the medium again without pandering to nostalgia or cheap thrills...

... but that search is made increasingly more difficult by the many writers and artists in the North American comics industry who are either unaware that they are simply rehashing a lot of what has gone before, or are aware of it and just don't care. DC's Vertigo line & smaller outfits like Image Comics, Dynamite Comics & Boom! Studios will offer up the occasional prize find, and Marvel can still manage to surprise me every now & then (although those times are becoming increasingly rare), but as time goes by, I find myself gravitating towards comics in the European, Japanese, and Philippine tradition, not because I think they're inherently better than most of what's to be found on this side of the planet, but the themes that they dwell on that are not popular over here still aren't played out for me (although I'm sure there's a vocal segment of their own comics-reading populations who are sick & tired of their comics and are just aching to read some good old DC & Marvel spandex shenanigans).

[tommyboy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, originality in art is something of an oxymoron beyond a certain point.
Allow me to explain. Any art form, be it writing, photography, painting, music, whatever it is will have an early period where various aspects of existence and themes relating to human experience are dealt with and explored for the first time, which is "originality". Then there comes technical originality, the first James Joyce or Pollock or synthesizer music, the first time old themes are seen through new devices or techniques. Then there can be recombining, re-interpretation, deconstruction of what has come before. But there comes a time in any human artistic endeavor when all the possible combination of notes at all possible speeds have been tried, all types of picture painted, all the stories told and retold, and those who create past that point are trapped in a diminishing spiral where all their creativity is for nought, because they are simply recreating what has gone before. It's not their fault, and there is nothing they can do about it except try their best to do what they do well. But unless they or their audience are ignorant of the past, they are doomed to be accused of being unoriginal.
And I think that to a large extent superhero comics are either in or very near to that point where you cannot surprise an informed reader.
Of course to a new generation of readers, everything is new, and fresh and original, and at least at first they may not care if it was Eisner or Miller who first used shadows and perspective to get a noir effect.
I think continually asking for the New in any artform is unfair and doomed to bitter disappointment. I think that what people like Grant, and me (and maybe even Zuludelta) want is actually to be young again, to have the shock and delight of seeing the stories and art and ideas for the first time, to live in a world that is vast and wondrous and full of unknown pleasures, rather than to be exposed to the artistic endeavors of some poor shlub who had the misfortune to be born later than Kirby or Moore or Eisner and to pan them for not having an "original vision".
And, finally (thank goodness), as George Steiner discusses at length in "The Grammars of Creation", ALL art is not Creative, it is RE-creative, it is the process of mirroring the world and our experiences, not generating a new world. Therefore there is not, and cannot be, any such thing as originality in art until such time as we learn to create matter and energy and truly Create, rather than re-create.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

Last night I was prepared to post something flippant like, "Nothing proves the postmodern condition of art like the return of Ezra Pound's modernist ghost," but tommyboy has said it better (and said something very similar to what I, too, have posted in the past).  Let us remember that writers as ancient as the Qohelet and (elsewhere) Plato were in agreement then that "there is nothing new under the sun," so we would be very fortunate indeed if the comic book industry   (a term which alludes to the mass (re-)produced and the total abandonment of the Benjaminian "aura") were to spawn something new at this or any other time.  My own personal aesthetics pull me in the direction not of the "original" but, as tom mentioned (in his own words, not using the term I'm about to use), the permutational.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that what tommyboy identifies at "technical originality" is as close to unique "creation" as humankind has come (and it is as close as humankind ever will come).  To put this another way, I might say that innovation is nothing more than recontextualisation or reconfiguration or re-presentation.  Paronomasia (punning), as a trope, had existed for centuries long before Joyce decided to write an entire text in this vein (Finnegans Wake); liquid paint, and it's potential to be splattered on the canvas or other surfaces, had existed long before Jackson Pollock and others decided to use this medium to capture the movement of the abstract expressionist's body in the act of composition.  Much modern art is based on ancient Roman art, which is based on ancient Greek art, which is based on etc., etc.  To me, this is not an issue or a loss, for as someone who believes that postmodernism (which often ostentatiously embraces the derivative (in a non-negative way), the hybridised, the absence of originality, et al.) has the potential to reveal these conditions (as much as it also has the potential to thrust us into chaos), originality was never ours to lose.

Consequently, as far as I'm concerned, the rules of the game in artistic disciplines are to innovate via re-presentation/recontextualisation/reconfiguration.  If that means redrawing the contemporaneous Incredible Hulk so that hints of the Kirby Hulk become salient features, and doing so makes sense within the structure of the current Hulk project (for instance, the Hulk may be going through a self-reflexive phase in which he contemplates his early life), so be it.  Perhaps the current Banner begins to resemble Kirby's Rick Jones, subtly hinting at the troubled, tangled history of these two characters.  So be it.  On the other side of the coin, I think 'twill be impossible to offer new characters who are not somehow reminiscent of other past comic book characters.  The Kirbyesque, for better or for worse, is out there, in circulation, signified and exchanged in a million different ways every month.  For a number of reasons, history has taken up the styles and work of several artists (Kirby included) and sustained them as a gold standard and valuation system that will not stop measuring the work of others until it is replaced by another standard--and even then, 'twill be sublated and reabsorbed by the next valuation system in the very act of its replacement (Ooh!  Who knew I'd wax Hegelian in this thread?).

part of the reason the watchmen is so enduring is the purity of it.

Actually, (with what I've posted above as preface) I would say the opposite: Watchmen is enduring due to its impurity, its heterogeneity, its hybridity, its terrible, beautiful mongrel status.  (I know that I've taken BiL out of context, but could not resist: 'tis my nature to appear to contradict him.)

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

[zuludelta]

I think that what people like Grant, and me (and maybe even Zuludelta) want is actually to be young again, to have the shock and delight of seeing the stories and art and ideas for the first time, to live in a world that is vast and wondrous and full of unknown pleasures, rather than to be exposed to the artistic endeavors of some poor shlub who had the misfortune to be born later than Kirby or Moore or Eisner and to pan them for not having an "original vision".

Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I want to feel about comics again. I remember reading collected editions of Watchmen, Calvin & Hobbes, and The Spirit for the first time (I came into the whole Alan Moore/Bill Watterson/Will Eisner thing a bit late, having only discovered their significant works in my mid-teens), and the effect they had on me... it re-contextualized every comic book & comic strip I'd read before then and made my love for the medium grow even deeper, but unfortunately, it also exposed many of the contemporary comics I'd been reading up til then as poorly executed simulacra of what good comics could be.

I suppose what I'm looking for is well-nigh impossible to find, since it also requires that I regain some of my own youth and sense of wonder and amazement at the combination of words and pictures (and I don't know if there's any way to read comics again while consciously ignoring everything that's informed my taste since). 

My own personal aesthetics pull me in the direction not of the "original" but, as tom mentioned (in his own words, not using the term I'm about to use), the permutational.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that what tommyboy identifies at "technical originality" is as close to unique "creation" as humankind has come (and it is as close as humankind ever will come).  To put this another way, I might say that innovation is nothing more than recontextualisation or reconfiguration or re-presentation.

I agree with you and tommyboy that "permutational" innovation is the best that we can expect in comics or in most any entertainment medium (thanks for the term by the way... I've been aching to find a way to express my definition of "originality" without having to resort to examples). But even that, I find, is a bit thin on the ground from where I'm sampling the current crop of North American comics.

The way I've managed to keep from descending into comics ennui is by looking at today's comics with an eye towards craftsmanship and technical execution (as opposed to looking for "artistic" or "literary" merit). On that score, many of today's comics, particularly those from established publishers, deliver in spades.   

[bearded]

Actually, (with what I've posted above as preface) I would say the opposite: Watchmen is enduring due to its impurity, its heterogeneity, its hybridity, its terrible, beautiful mongrel status.  (I know that I've taken BiL out of context, but could not resist: 'tis my nature to appear to contradict him.)

wow.  i'm impressed.  this statement is so intangible there is nothing i can make actual contact with.  when i think i detect a solid target for a solid repisote it twists into something else entirely.  how do you wrestle with the fog?  what did this debate technique do?  it makes a solid looking statement, then, when i am marshelling my retorte, it deflates, then inverses in appearance.  bravo, ow tiobe sb!  bravo.  your meaningless groundless technique has dizzied me.
  i do have this to say, about youth and freshness.  look back, but not longingly.  (lord.  ow tiobe brings out the wordsworth in me.  let me settle.)  due to various factors, my brain is in a constant state of amazement.  i do read comics for the first time, on a fairly daily basis.  there's a lot to be said for being jaded, discerning.  in youth, what you were experiencing was a learning phase.  you read comics, and new areas of your brain were cultivated.  you learned new things.  this is a good thing, but the feeling is secondary.  you were being created to be the person you are now.  now, it is time for you to be the creator with what you have learned.  does this make any sense?  it's my take on grant and you other guys.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

(lord.  ow tiobe brings out the wordsworth in me...)

(I was rather expecting you to mention Byron instead.)

As I've noted before, BiL, to mean nothing but suggest everything is the aim of all professional dandies. ;)

To attempt to remain on-topic, let me say what a pleasure it is to read and respond to so many of zuludelta's posts devoted to the aesthetics of the genre.  They always give rise to very engaging discussion.  :)

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

[BentonGrey]

(lord.  ow tiobe brings out the wordsworth in me...)

As I've noted before, BiL, to mean nothing but suggest everything is the aim of all professional dandies. ;)

After all, a man who can call a spade a spade should be condemned to use one.

[bearded]

(lord.  ow tiobe brings out the wordsworth in me...)

(I was rather expecting you to mention Byron instead.)

ow tiobe sb; i pull at my forelock and i tug at your beard...

THERE was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,   
    The earth, and every common sight,   
            To me did seem   
    Apparell'd in celestial light,   
The glory and the freshness of a dream.          5
It is not now as it hath been of yore;—   
        Turn wheresoe'er I may,   
            By night or day,   
The things which I have seen I now can see no more.

from 'intimations of immortality'.  by.  wordsworth.  it goes on a bit in that diatribe.  and it informed my off the cuff comment.

when i was a child, before i discovered comics, i read king arthur, robin hood, and stories of chivalry and noblisse oblige.  then i discovered the same attitudes in comics in a contemporary setting.  and that is what i learned.  but i worry, what are the children of today learning?
a buddy at work over-read some of this discourse.  and he noted something i had never thought about before.  the best of all time comics are nearly always depressing.  watchmen, dark knight returns, sandman, etc.

[zuludelta]

To attempt to remain on-topic, let me say what a pleasure it is to read and respond to so many of zuludelta's posts devoted to the aesthetics of the genre.  They always give rise to very engaging discussion.  :)

Dude, you'll make me blush.

Actually, I should probably take the time to thank you guys for posting your responses not just in this thread but in many of the threads we've had here over time... it's a refreshing change from 99% of comic book discussion boards & comic book shops to be able to discuss comic book aesthetics without talk descending into factional trifles and comic book "nerdity."   

[zuludelta]

the best of all time comics are nearly always depressing.  watchmen, dark knight returns, sandman, etc.

I don't know if that's just an incidental feature of good literary & artistic works having emotional resonance with their audience, though. Certainly, I can think of just as many good comics & comic strips that plumb other emotions (Calvin & Hobbes, The Spirit, Tin Tin, early Spider-Man, early Jean Giraud, Shirow's original Ghost In The Shell, mid-era Peanuts, etc.).

[Talavar]

Steering a little more towards the original topic...

While we can debate the existence of creativity in these late days, I have to say that comics, particularly superhero comics, are far more inwardly focused, more masturbatory than film or books, or even scripted TV.  Regardless of true creativity, storytelling has its legs cut out from under it when character growth is circular, always coming back to the status-quo - the eternal, "essential" version of a character (ie. the one that resonates with the largest commercial audience).  Mainstream superhero comics seem like their always working backwards, using byzantine plot developments to undo the work of other writers.  Simply saying "there's nothing new under the sun" doesn't excuse the use of a magical in-story character reboot.  It's not just a lack of creativity or originality, it's a lack of good story-telling principles, and demonstrates a willing stagnation of character for marketing-driven reasons.

[tommyboy]

Steering a little more towards the original topic...

While we can debate the existence of creativity in these late days, I have to say that comics, particularly superhero comics, are far more inwardly focused, more masturbatory than film or books, or even scripted TV.  Regardless of true creativity, storytelling has its legs cut out from under it when character growth is circular, always coming back to the status-quo - the eternal, "essential" version of a character (ie. the one that resonates with the largest commercial audience).  Mainstream superhero comics seem like their always working backwards, using byzantine plot developments to undo the work of other writers.  Simply saying "there's nothing new under the sun" doesn't excuse the use of a magical in-story character reboot.  It's not just a lack of creativity or originality, it's a lack of good story-telling principles, and demonstrates a willing stagnation of character for marketing-driven reasons.

You are right to a certain extent, but I would cite Tarzan, Dracula, Rambo, Sherlock Holmes and many other characters from books or films who are also kept in a form of stasis to increase revenues. It's hardly exclusive to comics. It also is something that to some extent has always happened. Yes, King Arthur dies, and the Norse Gods meet Ragnarok. But people still crammed more and more stories about them into the period before The End, because as humans we want more of what we like, even if some part of us knows the diminishing returns that repetition can bring. Can a hero have ten amazing adventures? Yes. A hundred? Yes, but we will see some recycling of ideas and characters. A thousand? Well, even the most rabid fan must begin to grow a bit jaded at that point, and pity the creative team that have to do those latter stories.
So do we blame the creators for stagnation? Or the 'suits' who want to market indefinitely? Or the Public who will buy ten comics a month with Wolverine or Spiderguy in them?
Given how poorly new characters and ideas tend to be received, my blame goes to a large extent to the public, whose conservative choices drive the business to a large extent.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

Regardless of true creativity, storytelling has its legs cut out from under it when character growth is circular, always coming back to the status-quo - the eternal, "essential" version of a character (ie. the one that resonates with the largest commercial audience).  Mainstream superhero comics seem like their always working backwards, using byzantine plot developments to undo the work of other writers.  Simply saying "there's nothing new under the sun" doesn't excuse the use of a magical in-story character reboot.  It's not just a lack of creativity or originality, it's a lack of good story-telling principles, and demonstrates a willing stagnation of character for marketing-driven reasons.

I don't disagree, and I hope you don't think that my speaking to (or delivering an apology for) postmodern art was an attempt to buttress bad comic book writing in the postmodern era.  While it is true that the general modus operandi of postmodern art is irony, I don't detect an overarching ironic tone to the revisionist story arcs populating major comic book franchises that might otherwise justify their changes in direction (in other words, e.g., most reboots are not offered to their readers as parodies of bad comic book writing but, instead, merely constitute bad comic book writing).

Putting the dictates of the marketplace aside, however, there is something to be said about the tension between writing archetypes and writing characters who evolve and become, perhaps, even more round.  Superheroes typically come prepackaged with their own branding: a costume, an insignia, a catchphrase, a sidekick (for reader identification), an arch-villain, etc.  They are introduced to their readership already well down the road toward iconic status.  They invite readers to codify their essences as the good, the strong, the brave, the incorruptible, etc.  Cutting against this grain is the hero's secret identity, which cannot be easily divorced from the life heroic, that occupies a place in the so-called real world, pays its taxes, bleeds (in some cases, only in a metaphorical, psychological sense), and often changes with the times (e.g, enters relationships, gets married, has children, loses loved ones, contracts the Legacy virus, etc.).  The mark of a good series or a good writer is the proper, balanced navigation between the tendency to freeze a hero in time (or return to that frozen archetype) and the tendency to allow Death to enter Arcadia, so to speak.

These demarcations are hardly clear in a postmodern marketplace, of course.  What happens, for instance, when heroes do change by, e.g., losing a hand, becoming a villain, dying while defeating the schemes of the Anti-Monitor?  Moreover, what happens when heroes' secret identities become not-so-secret identities (c.f. the Superhuman Registration Act)?  All of these changes, for better or for worse, take major risks and throw a spanner in superheroes' branding.  The pull toward the nostalgic, the essentialised, the iconic is strong.  Aye, I gather focus groups are conducted, marketing teams discuss impact, etc., etc., and the seeds of a possible reboot are sown at the corporate level.  There will always be a crass, capitalist motivation behind these major events, but I'd be willing to bet that those writers involved, who are often equal parts artist and fan, feel the inner turmoil between the tendency to preserve incorruptible heroes (at any cost, no matter how unbelievable or trite the mechanism of rebirth/reboot might be) and the tendency to allow characters to evolve (even if that means traveling toward permanent death).

After all the apologies for the mere humanity of comic book writers (not to mention the subhumanity of their corporate identities), I agree with the spirit of your reply, Talavar.  Writing under postmodern conditions does not issue an automatic pass for producing bad writing.  While the tendency toward radical non-allegiance in postmodern art tends to problematise the concepts of artistic responsibility and integrity, it should never be understood as issuing carte blanche to comic book writers, editors, or *cough* editors-in-chief who may think that, in the postmodern era, anything goes.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

EDIT: *pulls BiL's finger*

[zuludelta]

Regardless of true creativity, storytelling has its legs cut out from under it when character growth is circular, always coming back to the status-quo - the eternal, "essential" version of a character (ie. the one that resonates with the largest commercial audience).  Mainstream superhero comics seem like their always working backwards, using byzantine plot developments to undo the work of other writers.  Simply saying "there's nothing new under the sun" doesn't excuse the use of a magical in-story character reboot.  It's not just a lack of creativity or originality, it's a lack of good story-telling principles, and demonstrates a willing stagnation of character for marketing-driven reasons.

So do we blame the creators for stagnation? Or the 'suits' who want to market indefinitely? Or the Public who will buy ten comics a month with Wolverine or Spiderguy in them?
Given how poorly new characters and ideas tend to be received, my blame goes to a large extent to the public, whose conservative choices drive the business to a large extent.

Putting the dictates of the marketplace aside, however, there is something to be said about the tension between writing archetypes and writing characters who evolve and become, perhaps, even more round.  Superheroes typically come prepackaged with their own branding: a costume, an insignia, a catchphrase, a sidekick (for reader identification), an arch-villain, etc.  They are introduced to their readership already well down the road toward iconic status.

Your responses put me in mind of a long ago lecture I attended in a writing class, where the topic was balancing character evolution against plot development (per Aristotle's six elements of drama). Ideally, the writer should serve both equally to advance and round out a prototypical story (particularly one to be adapted for a script).

The commercial considerations of publishing on-going stories featuring icons that the publishing companies are heavily invested in biases the writing to focus on maintaining a particular status quo, however. Icons tend to lose their effectiveness as public brands when they are diluted or changed past a certain extent, so it is only to be expected that DC, Marvel & King Features Syndicate editorial boards, whether explicitly or implicitly, would want to protect that status quo.

These days, it helps to think of companies like DC, Marvel, Dark Horse Comics & to a lesser extent, Dynamite Comics as being in the business of selling branded icons, as opposed to being in the business of selling illustrated stories. In fact, Marvel has been making more money from licensing out their intellectual property than from their publishing division ($94.9 million vs. $31.8 million as of Q2 2008). It makes sense from a business perspective that they'd want to maintain some sort of synergy between their licensed product and their published material.

Again, this isn't limited to North American comics, or even comics in general. James Bond has been fighting criminal masterminds since the end of World War II and Hergé's Tin Tin has yet to hit puberty after 69 years of publishing but there doesn't seem to be any vocal sentiment for these characters to grow and progress.

What I think readers like Talavar are negatively reacting to is that DC & Marvel (or at least their publishing/editorial divisions) insist on maintaining the charade that they are somehow creating organic stories that feature evolving, living, breathing characters. Events like DC's Final Crisis and Marvel's Civil War sell on the promise of change ("Things will never be the same again!"), but in the end, most, if not all the change engendered is illusory. It would be foolhardy for these companies to stray too far from the core features that made their icons so marketable in the first place.

[Epimethee]

Minor point, but:

> Hergé's Tin Tin has yet to hit puberty after 69 year
But at least – for the moment – he hasn't had a new adventure since the death of his author. And, ironically enough, in the unfinished Tintin et l'Alph-Art, the last page Hergé ever sketched has Tintin about to be killed by being turned into a plastic statue.*

The character also changed radically between 1929 (In the Land of the Soviets) and 1976 (The Picaros) – while the physical age of the character stayed mostly the same, the aspect, context and tone of the story changed enormously as their creator aged.

The major issue with industrial comics is not so much the fact that the basic premise is frozen (an always very young Belgian reporter, a mild-mannered alien from Krypton or a flag-bearing super-soldier from WWII). Rather, it is, first, that the relationships to the premise have a tremendous inertia, as almost any meaningful change will end up being reversed (hello, Brand New Day). Second, there is an utter lack of consistent vision after the original creator(s) left; instead of a vision, an inspiration, the only reference point is the most rehashed part of the original corpus. Third, this focus on existing material (the "sacred texts") become so important that it supplants telling an interesting story. When you need to understand references to events having happened in the series 35 years ago, or in four other series during the last Summer mega event... well, this would only surprise the suits and fanboy editors at the Big Two, but you're not going to attract many new readers. Compound with the fact that most comics in themselves little artistic or entertainment value, even ignoring what has gone before and you've got an ever dwindling reader ("reader", not "fan") base.


*Obviously, among successful Euro comics, Tintin's "cancellation" has been a very rare exception, as most successful series have continued after the original author quit.

[zuludelta]

... there is an utter lack of consistent vision after the original creator(s) left; instead of a vision, an inspiration, the only reference point is the most rehashed part of the original corpus...
... this focus on existing material (the "sacred texts") become so important that it supplants telling an interesting story.

This really speaks to the point Steven Grant was saying about writers/editors needing to know when to finish up a story and let story concepts go.

Much easier said than done, of course, considering that most publishers still work with the monthly 22-page serial model, but in recent years a shift towards a bi-annual, annual, or even semi-regular TPB/graphic novel print market seems to be gaining ground with on-line promotion of "single" issues (whether legitimate or otherwise) doing a much more efficient job in the loss-leader role than monthly pamphlets (see Image Comics' and Dynamite Entertainment's ability to survive almost solely on the strength of their TPB & graphic novel sales in a year that saw about half a dozen notable independent comics publishers fold up).     

Publishers like Marvel & DC are so caught up in the monthly comics model that they can't see that the regularity with which they push out new product is at once negatively impacting the quality of the stories they tell and the viability of the market by flooding it with a glut of material that sells in disproportionate numbers. And with the average DC/Marvel single issue price point rumoured to be going up to $3.99 (US) by early next year, I can see that many more readers shifting to TPB collections altogether. 

I can only assume that most of the publishing executives in Marvel & DC come from a strictly serial print/publishing background, as that would perhaps best explain their inflexibility in adapting a different business model that could potentially foster a higher quality in their product while minimizing outlay.   

[Talavar]

What I think readers like Talavar are negatively reacting to is that DC & Marvel (or at least their publishing/editorial divisions) insist on maintaining the charade that they are somehow creating organic stories that feature evolving, living, breathing characters. Events like DC's Final Crisis and Marvel's Civil War sell on the promise of change ("Things will never be the same again!"), but in the end, most, if not all the change engendered is illusory. It would be foolhardy for these companies to stray too far from the core features that made their icons so marketable in the first place.

That's it exactly!  It's not just the lack of character development - it's the pretense of it, only to have it all undone by the next creative team.

[Rubberbandman]

I think the slavish devotion continuity combined with the desire to explore new character and story lines.  In the past, continuity was secondary to a good story.  As an example, when I was a kid growing, Batman was one of my favorite heros.  The books he appeared regularly in were Batman, Detective Comics, Worlds Finest, The Brave and the Bold, Justice League of America, and the non-canonical Superfriends.  I read as many as my allowance would allow.  Each had their own storyline and feel.   In one, Batman might be fighting common criminal Batman, flashy villains in Detective Comics, traveling in foreign lands in The Brave and The Bold with that month's guest star, defending the earth from alien invasion in JLA, and fighting an extra-dimensional threat with Superman in Worlds Finest, and this in one month.  If you tried to put all of this in one timeline, you would get a headache, but if you just sat back and read the stories, they were all good.

Now, continuity takes precedence over story.  Many good stories are not getting written because they would mess up continuity and ruin things for the whole DC or Marvel universe.  The only recent good response has been the Elseworlds that allow non-mainstream stories without resorting to alternate universes.

I believe the only real solution is to scrap the idea of continuity and give each writer/creator his or her own Elseworld to tinker with without having to change the whole universe through some universal time/continuum story line and thus ruining for writers and fans who like things the way they are.

[BlueBard]

One area in which I've been able to partly satisfy my craving for superheroic stories are in the novels derived from the comics (not necessarily, mind you, the novelizations of the movies derived from the comics... one can take only so much derivation).  Many of them tell engaging stories while remaining fairly true to the characters they are about.

"Drowning in Thunder" and "The Darkest Hours" for example, are Spider-Man novels set in the pre-BND days that neatly manage to extend the Marvel Universe and weave many of those elements into enjoyable stories. 

Are the novels original?  Well, depends on what you call original.  The characters themselves are well-established.  There really aren't any surprises there.  Neither do the action narratives fail to depart from the usual superhero slugfest, for the most part.  The originality is in how cleverly all of these things are blended together to make the old seem new again.

It's enough to make me wish that the story arcs in the comics were written based on novels and not the other way around.

[zuludelta]

One area in which I've been able to partly satisfy my craving for superheroic stories are in the novels derived from the comics (not necessarily, mind you, the novelizations of the movies derived from the comics... one can take only so much derivation).  Many of them tell engaging stories while remaining fairly true to the characters they are about...

... It's enough to make me wish that the story arcs in the comics were written based on novels and not the other way around.

Again, this I think relates to the point Grant was making in his column about writers and editors needing to know when to end a particular story in order to create more coherent products.

But I don't know if it would be enough of an improvement in terms of story quality if the monthly comics were to be based on comic book novels, no matter how well those novels are written. Novels, structurally speaking, have clearly demarcated beginnings and endings, even the ones set in a larger cycle or series of books, and each one is largely self-sufficient in and of itself with regards to providing a backdrop that a "naive" reader can quickly latch onto and can be enjoyed as an insular piece to varying degrees depending on the quality of the writing.

The on-going serial format as it stands right now affords no such convenience and little sense of closure and satisfaction (especially when readers become cognizant of the fact that most, of not all plot developments are largely ephemeral and can be overturned by the whims of an editor or a new creative team).

In a way, novels featuring comics characters have more in common with the self-contained comics mini-series (think Mike Mignola's series of Hellboy minis or Dark Horse's various Star Wars mini-series) or the long-running finite series format (à la Preacher or Y: The Last Man) than the monthly on-going comic.

The monthly on-going was a perfectly functional format back in the day when stories were less sophisticated (in terms of plot structure, not necessarily in content or art), when a story spanning three issues was considered a long story-arc, and when readers were more forgiving when a particular story didn't fit neatly into the context of what had gone before. These days however, the industry is leaning towards long format stories, and the monthly pamphlet format makes little sense both creatively and economically (I don't think it even provides them with supplemental operating capital in between TPB releases, since they're largely printing single issues at a loss). 

[BlueBard]

The monthly on-going was a perfectly functional format back in the day when stories were less sophisticated (in terms of plot structure, not necessarily in content or art), when a story spanning three issues was considered a long story-arc, and when readers were more forgiving when a particular story didn't fit neatly into the context of what had gone before. These days however, the industry is leaning towards long format stories, and the monthly pamphlet format makes little sense both creatively and economically (I don't think it even provides them with supplemental operating capital in between TPB releases, since they're largely printing single issues at a loss). 

You do realize you are very nearly describing movies as the ideal format and medium for telling 'comic-book' stories.

They are visual, well-oriented to capturing action, the plots work best when they aren't over-complicated, a trilogy is considered a long story arc, and people (except fanboys) tend to be more forgiving when a movie doesn't exactly fit the context of the ones which went before.  Plus they are a heck of a lot more profitable than printing comic books, as long as they do well at the box office.

Television would be an even better medium, but the SFX budget would be horrendous and after awhile they'd suffer from the same inertia drain that affects the comics publishers.