CBR Live! Archive

I Teach Brian K. Vaughan How To Write OR Ex Machina Volumes 1, 2, and 3 are not very good comics.

by MarkAndrew
in General

Greg Burgas said:

Our very own MarkAndrew is amazed at how poorly written this comic book is, and I'd like him to explain himself!

"Ok," sez MarkAndrew.

And THEN the stupid fucking rabbit all called me out.

But I stand by my guns on this 'un. Despite the love from blog folks here and elsewhere, the Eisner award, the Entertainment Weekly ranking as one of the Top Ten Fiction books of 2005 and all those Publisher's weekly starred reviews Brian K. Vaughan and Tony Harris' Ex Machina is a deeply and profoundly flawed comic book. Nah... It goes deeper than that. There's a basic ignorance of the craft of storytelling in the first three volumes of Ex Machina that's surprising to see from a professional writer.

In fact, they're messed up enough that I thought it would be worthwhile to take some time to identify at least the really major cock-ups, in hopes that, well, someone can learn somethin'.
So here's my review of The First Hundred Days, Tag, and Fact Vs. Fiction, the first three volumes of Brian K. Vaughan and Tony Harris' finite superhero epic. Some spoilers, but I try not to ruin anything major. Strangely, there's some small spoilers for Gaiman's Sandman too.

.... Insert brilliantly witty segue here.....

2. Stuff that works

Lemme be honest. This piece is a hatchet job. I make no excuses, I make no apologies. I've seen a bunch of unearned and possibly incompetent critical praise aimed in the direction of these books, and I'm repping the other side. I'm being much harsher on these three volumes than I would have been had I not been driven by a burning desire to prove that Declarative Rabbit don't know his carrot stash from his nethers.

But. I do take this blogging think sort of seriously. And I didn't think these three books were all bad. And I don't want any of my writing to be completely in service of an agenda - That way lies madness and turning into Gary Groth, (Or at least Gary Groth when he's peeved.) So the way I see it it's my critical duty to note the stuff that does work along with the bad.

But I'm not gonna waste any time on it! So here's the good review, in condensed bullet point format:

It's Original! Like all of Vaughan's creator owned work, the basic premise behind this book is very strong. The hero of the book, Mitchell Hundred has a superpower: He can control and communicate with machines. But he's not a superhero in the traditional sense. (Well, usually.) He uses his powers to get himself a job - in this case as mayor of New York City. It's a clever twist on the basic idea of superfolks, and more true to the way the world works than the vast majority of superhero fiction.
It's exciting! The action scenes are tautly paced and creatively thought out. I'm especially impressed by the superpowered fight scenes. Vaughan shows Mayor Hundred using his powers in interesting ways.
The cast of Ex Machina is racially, sexually, and..um.. homo-sexually diverse. Score one point for accurately reflecting the diversity of NYC.
The book's not a comedy, but the dialogue and situations are often laugh-out-loud funny. Better yet, the humor usually arises from the situations the character's find themselves in, and doesn't seem forced.

The cliffhanger at the end of the first issue was honestly shocking, AND it immediately served to ground Ex Machina's fictional world in reality. (No, I'm not gonna spoil.)
Not only is the super-powered main character not a traditional hero, but the book is paced faster than most superhero books, effectively mirroring the everything-happens-at-once feel of a good political potboiler.
The coloring is absolutely spectacular. J. D. Mettler does a hell of a job reflecting the mood of the characters through his coloring, and he uses a differeny palate for flashback scenes than he does for the present day. There's a lot of jumping-around-in-time-via-flashbacks here, but the Mettle makes it all easy to follow.

That's enough of THAT then. But I'm still not quite ready to talk about my major problems with this book. So let's start with a couple of

3. Minor Criticisms

and work our way up.

(A) Needs More New York: I've got no problem with HOW things are drawn. The art from Tony Harris (penciller) and Tom Feister (inker) is strong and distinctive. I do, however, have some issues WHAT things are drawn.

Specifically; We need fewer panels of people talking and more shots of the city. At it's core, the book is about the relationship between a man and the city he governs. And we do see the city... sometimes, briefly, in the background or the very occasional establishing shot. But mostly we panel after panel after panel of characters talking about the city, but we we don't have a sense of what it feels like to live in Ex Machina's fictional New York. This is particularly bad in The First One Hundred Days, but it does improve slightly in subsequent volumes.
I can't help but comparing Harris' New York to the "star" of another long running DC series, Robertson and Ellis' Transmetropolitan. Like Ex Machina, Transmet is a politically themed science fiction book, albeit one taking place imm the far future. (Ex Machina is set in more-or-less present day New York.) Robertson's city (called only "the City") teems with life, and Robertson favors us with constant, loving landscape shots, detailing the city from skyline to ground level. And their City was full of PEOPLE, hundreds of 'em, filling every nook and cranny of the background and making us feel... hell, making us SMELL what it was like to live there. Conversely, Harris' New York feels like a ghost town. The only folks who seem to live their are the main characters and a few bystanders sprinkled in to further the plot. It's a city of talking heads, not a fully immersive environment. And in a story that's basically the love affair between a man and a city, that's a major drawback.

(B) This might be a little unfair but what the hell. I'm gonna introduce a critical standard which I've NEVER heard anybody else apply before. Let's call it Character predictability. It is, however, something I look for in everything I read, and something that bothers the crap outta me when it's not present. Bothers me double in a book like Ex Machina which is a character study, or at least an attempt at a character study. I'd conservatively estimate that Mitch Hundred is on panel 80-85% of the time, and everything that happens in the book relates back to him - an ensemble cast book this ain't.

But IF the book were an effective character study, I think I'd have some sense of who the character is. Fair enough, right?

Here's where I knew we had a problem. Issue 14. Heading towards the end of Fact vs. Fiction. Mitchell's long lost mother calls outta the blue, barely coherent..

"I'm..I'm in a bad way here.... I screwed up bad... But I'm ....I'm so proud of...Nnnnn."

And I had no idea how Mitch was going to respond to this.

No Es BUENO! This far into a character study, I want to feel like I KNOW the character. And that means understanding how the character relates to his family andfriends, and also having a handle on how the character views the world both ethically and morally. There's a few hints; Mitch calls himself a pragmatist, is annoyed by both the stereotypical liberal and conservative views of the world, relates to his staff with a slightly vulgar sense of humor...

Here the character wasn't well defined enough that I knew how he'd respond to this family Crisis. I can tell that Mitch isn't overly introspective, brave, and a man of action, but I don't have a sense of the characters' moral code. And if I don't grok the character's morals, I don't have a firm grasp on what drives the character to do what he does. To steal a line from every shitty actor ever "What's his motivation?"

Dunno.

Having a sense of the main character's moral core is hugely important in a political book. The failure to achieve character predictability is tied in with the lack of character development but the two aren't the same thing. (I'll do plenty of bitching about character development in the next part.) My complaint here is more of a corollary to part A above. The whole Ex Machina world doesn't feel quite fleshed out. We know some stuff about the main character, but not enough that he feels real.

Nitpicky Side-point to this main point: And it doesn't help that Vaughan purposefully (and apparently motivated by no storytelling reasons other than spite) refuses to tell us whether Mister Hundred is straight or gay. This is deliberately left up in the air for the last two volumes. If the writers' gonna play these kind of games - and I'm not convinced they should, ever - they need to make sure that every other aspect of their character is completely well defined, and they ALSO must promise some kind of payoff when the answer's revealed. Vaughan doesn't give us a plot-based reason to care about the characters sexuality by showing that the reveal could have some kind of effect of the series in the future. And if we don't care about a plot point, the space devoted to that particular plot point is wasted. And the time spent re-dredging this useless mystery could be spent moving the story forward. Which brings us to my...

4. Major Concern

First a disclaimer:

I don't think there are any absolute absolute rules in art. Any rule about how stories "should" work should look like a challenge to a real artist, who'll cheerfully go about finding ways to break them. But there are some basic guidelines that writers should be aware of and shouldn't be broken without a damn good reason.

Maybe the most important of them basic guidelines?

Stories should move.

Ex Machina doesn't.

And there's no reason for it.

Between the beginning of volume one and the end of volume three, there's been no change in the status quo, no character development and no major alterations in the thematic core of the series.

On the upside, this wasn't due to a lack of events. Stuff happened. On the downside, I REALLY had to work to care. For instance: There's a bit in The First Hundred Days about a white artist chick painting "NIGGER" on a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, leading to a predictable public freak-out. This isn't a bad plot point, in and of itself, but the resolution of the event rendered it meaningless in story terms. The artist creates a problem, the artist gets a stern talking to, the artist fixes the problem herself, and PRESTO! everything turns out exactly like it was before the problem occurred. "Same," sings David Byrne "As It Ever Was."

ALL the crises, all the stuff that happens... Well, it happens in a vacuum. The end of the third volume leaves off with everybody in more or less the same situation that we found at the end of the first issue. We might know some more background details about the characters, but nothing of any importance has changed. This gives the Ex-Machina-verse a feeling of immutability, and the main characters a feeling of immutability. No matter what obstacles the characters encounter, we can rest assured they won't be effected in any way, be it physically, mentally, emotionally... spiritually...

And that ain't how effective fiction works.

Here comes the rule: There are two ways to make fiction go! forward! - or maybe two degrees of the same thing. Let's hit these one at a time.

Change in the Status Quo can be any number of things. It can be a subtle change in the relationship between two main characters. It can be a temporary shift to a new POV character, like in War and Peace or One Hundred Years of Solitude or Cerebus. At it's most extreme - think David Lynch movies or the Matrix - this can mean that the entire WORLD can change, while the characters stay the same.

Changes to the status quo are how the story refreshes itself. They let the author and the reader look at the basic "what-the-story-is-about" theme-type stuff with new eyes. They keep the story fresh, and absolutely guarantee that the author is not telling the same story over and over.

In The First Hundred Days, Tag and Fact Vs. Fiction changes to the status quo are rare. The location, obviously, stays the same. The status of the characters stays the same - The Mayor and his aids have the same amount of power or status at the end of volume three as in the beginning of volume one, and there aren't any looming problems on the horizon that threaten to change this. Likewise, there's no real shift in the lead characters' physical or emotional status. The only movement in relationship between the main cast is the switch from Mayor Hundred and the his reporter "girlfriend" moving from "completely untrusting of each other" to "slightly trusting of each other but kind of not, too." Worse still, even THIS slight change seems to happen independently of the rest of story. It's not "Mayor Hundred he and his reporter girlfriend get closer because the crazy robot lady went postal and killed the fuck out of a bunch of people." Or even " Mayor One Hundred considers his past as revealed in a flashback, is saddened by his lack of closeness with humanity so he shacks up with his reporter girlfriend."

It's "Mayor Hundred gets closer with his reporter girlfriend... just because." There's no real connection between any series of events in these stories. Stuff happens. Then more stuff happens, completely independently of the other problems that have resolved themselves and vanished, never to be mentioned again. The underlying status quo remains rock solid.

EXCEPT ..

There *is* one major change to the status quo that affects Mayor Hundred in the story, though. But I'm still gonna be critical, 'cause this should've been MORE than a simple Status Quo Shift. It shoulda been a

Revelation.

revÂ·eÂ·laÂ·tion /ËŒrÉ›vÉ™ËˆleÉªÊƒÉ™n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rev-uh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - noun

The moment when the events of the plot force the character to learn something, and the character is changed forever because of those events.

If a major character is changed forever, this means that the character's view of the events, people, and world around him are changed forever - Which, in turn, means that the character ACTS differently. And if a character acts differently, that means that they're changing and growing... Just like REAL people.

The two most important points here: Revelations should flow from the story, and revelations should offer some kind of payoff which makes the fictional world different post-revelation than it was before. For comparison's sake, let's look at revelation as it's used in the big daddy of long-form, finite, factory system comics: Neil Gaiman's Sandman.

To keep it even, we'll look at the first sixteen issues of Sandman, the same number of individual comics as are contained in the first three volumes of Ex Machina. In these sixteen issues, there are major revelations for the two main characters.

Firstly, the Sandman himself comes to revelation. The first issue starts with the immeasurably powerful Sandman, "The Lord of Dreams" imprisoned in a giant glass box - type thing, with his "Sandman" powers drained. He escapes by the end of issue one, and proceeds to spend the next half-dozen issues gettin' his super-type powers back. (Note: Change in Status Quo.)

After he's back to top shape, he finds himself with nothin' to do. He's bored, restless, iratable... You know the drill. so he calls his older sister. Of course, since HE'S the ancient God of Dreams, she turns out to be Death personified. Granted, she's a happy goth chick and not a fearsome grim reaper, but she's still the woman who moves your soul from the moral coil to onwards. So the Sandman follows Death around for a day, and gets a sense of her dedication, her job satisfaction and the way she tries to make the change-over from funct to de as painless as possible for the mortals she helps cross over. As a result of followin' her around for a day and watching her work, he gains a new appreciation for his OWN job and purpose in life, AND decides it would behoove him to be a little nicer to the people he interacts with.

This sounds like a really simple thing, but his change in attitude has huge consequences throughout the rest of the story (payoff) starting with the very next arc.

Speaking of which - The Doll's House arc, covering issues nine through 16, contains a major revelation for the arc's Point Of View character. She starts out thinking she's a regular human bean, and ends up discovering that she isn't... quite. (Technically she's a dream vortex, and the Sandman almost kills her. Of course, the new improved Sandman does is nice about it. Still almost kills her, though. ) Call this the "Scullery Girl is actually a princess revelation" - Or a character turns out not to be what she thought she was.

But this ain't a Sandman review - Although I'm sure I'll get back to Sandman sometime. But I did want to point out a few examples of revelation as it can be used. (Although it might have been a tad unfair to use Sandman, which is the equivalent to Beethoven's Fifth or the Sistine Chapel of this kinda comics storytelling.)
Ex Machina is short on revelation. There IS one major revelation in Ex Machina - The artist who painted the Nigger Lincoln figures out that she's acting out of spite, not trying to make great art. But as soon as she comes to the "My Life is a lie" point, she's promptly hustled out of the book never to appear again. It's a small revelation, but it's a revelation with no payoff. So who cares?

To Vaughan's credit he does TRY to have a revelation a character based revelation at their core - He just fails to pull it off in any sort of meaningful way.

The major switch is this: Mayor Hundred starts off as a superhero and ends up as mayor.

However he never tells us why. In fact, there's no logical, in-story reason for the character to WANT to go into politics in the first place. In other words: The revelation doesn't flow from the story.

And due to a bizarre structural decision on Vaughan's part, there's no payoff from *this* revelation either.

Structurally, Ex Machina switches between the "now," where Mr. Hundred is the Mayor of NewYawk, and the "then," a of flashbacks showing how he got that way. There is a reason for this approach - it sets up the really cool thing in issue one that I said I wasn't going to spoil. But this flashback heavy narrative style cripples the rest of the series. Stuff that happens in flashbacks is inherently less interesting than stuff that happens in the "now." The main characters that we know and care about ain't gonna get killed or changed in a flashback, so the tension is much less. Every page of flashback is a page that could be used to move the present day story forward. It's not WASTED story, but it's a technique that works best when used sparingly, which obviously ain't the case here. So for the sake of one cool moment in the beginning of the book, Vaughan sacrificesu all the character progression from mayor to hero which SHOULD have been the pistons and other whirly bits behind this storytelling engine. Cause without revelation or much change to the status quo, your story's just gonna turn over a couple times and die. And I gotta tell you folks. These three volumes have the smell of the grave about 'em.

I forget who it was that said it first, but Comics Should Be Good. And not very good comics should not be over-praised. And the thing about Ex Machina is that it's UNIQUELY not very good. I can't think of another long form comic series that has these problems, or at least not one that's designed with an ending in mind.

But maybe there's another reason why I'm peeved. And, make no mistake, reading these books over and over has left me annoyed and disgruntled. These three volumes coulda been really good. Great premise, very solid artist great first issue... But the damn thing just keeled-over-plop soon as it got out of the starting gate. But maybe it'll get better as the series progresses. I flipped through volume four. Didn't read it too carefully because disgruntled, and didn't review it here, 'cause I was already pushing on towards done with my review of the first three volumes. And their was one VERY major change in the status quo, a change so major that it virtually promises some kind of Revelation... Not now. But in Volume five.

Maybe.

But y'know what? Reading and re-reading Ex Machina and picking it apart taught me a lot about what makes fiction good, and what makes fiction bad. Made me a better critic, betcha a dollar it will make me a better writer. So hopefully I'm just returning a favor.

Posted on May 31, 2007 @ 09:38 PM

Leave a Comment

Comments below

48 Comments

Mecha-Shiva

May 31, 2007 at 11:25 pm

I think stories should move, but that doesn't mean they always have to be moving. Certainly the early events in the series don't cause Hundred to undergo sweeping change, but I think as the series progresses we've seen him become darker, and somewhat bitter.

I don't think Ex Machina is a great comic, and maybe the praise it received set the bar a little high, but I enjoy it a lot, largely for the reasons you pointed out in the first section.

Greg Burgas

May 31, 2007 at 11:36 pm

See? Was that so difficult?

I agree with some of your premises, but still disagree with you overall. But it's late and I'm going to bed.

Interesting take, though.

stealthwise

May 31, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Parts of your review made me nod thoughtfully, parts of it made me shake my head in disgust, and most of it made me roll my eyes in agony.

I doubt I could convince you to do so, but read March to War, and keep reading. Have faith in Vaughan, or in other words, to steal from the series that you compared Ex Machina to, "trust the fuckhead."

I'd comment more, but it's late, I'm tired and irritated, and Ex Machina is a damn fine book.

Cap

May 31, 2007 at 11:49 pm

I read the first trade of Ex Machina, and the biggest problem I had with it, that I'm surprised you didn't mention here, was that all the characters had the exact same voice. Seriously. Even the Russian guy spoke just like everyone else, but with a crumby Russian accent.

Also, I'm not a prude or anything, but I kind of doubt that all these politicians would go around swearing like sailors all the time.

Relatively minor criticisms, I suppose, but they really took me out of the book.

Joe Gualtieri

May 31, 2007 at 11:50 pm

A few points:

1. Every reviewer who says the ending to #1 was shocking or the like starts to lose me. It was not. It was a completely predictable thing to have happen in a superhero comic where 9/11 happened.

2. You're right about Harris's New York, yet at the same time, I don't think its fair to expect him to replicate Robertson and Ramos's vision of The City. Their style is a fundamentally cartoony style while Harris's is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Chock it up to a conceit.

3. So you're aware of Hundred as a man of action, yet have no idea how he would react to a distress call from his mom? Really?

4. Vaughan tells us some of why Hundred became a mayor-- being a superhero was hard and not changing much. There's something else there, but that's what the flashbacks are for. The scene with the artist wasn't about her, it was about Journal.

5. You don't like the flashbacks and find them a waste? So I assume you don't like Lost either.

6. You want change? Read "March to War" which IIRC is volume 4.

Now Ex Machina has some problems, but the art aside, I'm not certain you've actually hit on any of them.

davidwynne

May 31, 2007 at 11:59 pm

I'm curious. How old are you?

I'm sorry but this piece just reads like the work of someone who is still working out the difference between subjective and objective in terms of critical judgements.

Let me put it this way- your criticism of the writing basically amounts to two points: the overall arc of the story moves too slowly for you, and you have trouble relating to the characters.

Well, I've got some sympathy for you, I know how it feels not to be into the thing everybody else is raving about. I don't like the Beatles. But that doesn't mean I think i have anything to teach Paul McCartney.

markus

June 1, 2007 at 12:03 am

You're pretty much spot on, EM is a deeply flawed book. I like it anyway and it does some things no oter book out there right now does, so there's that. But yes, it's overhyped because it's different, not because it's good.

Michael

June 1, 2007 at 12:29 am

I was with you until you had the temerity to insult 3.

david brothers

June 1, 2007 at 1:48 am

I feel like you want Ex Machina to be something it isn't. It is, in a way, a soap opera or mystery book. The status quo in the present day storyline doesn't change much, but at the end of each of the trades you mention, you know more about the status quo. You find out a little more about what moves the characters.

EM is about Hundred's days in office. That doesn't lend itself to status quo shake-ups because, well, what do you do after you get the mayor fired or give him a girlfriend? Dump her? Keep it going?

Instead, Vaughan plays with character relationships and our perception of characters to move the story along. I dig Journal and Wylie quite a bit after seeing more about them and how they react to things/behave.

I'd argue against the idea that the story never moves forward. It's paced very differently from other books, and I think that it works quite well as a character study. I don't think it's the greatest comic ever or whatever, but I enjoy reading it, dig the art, and I'm happy to see the trades on my shelf.

I will maintain that the first issue had the most striking cliffhanger I'd seen in years, and it remains one of my favorites. A buddy had come back from Free Comic Book Day a couple years back with a fistful of comics he didn't bother cracking open. I checked them out, and Ex Machina was one. I thought it was an okay read until the very last page, which hooked me for the rest of the series.

So, I will disagree with most of your points, I guess. I would like to see a bit more of NYC, but I think Vaughan and Harris do a better job of that later in the series. Even then, they build flavor and atmosphere with character beats, like the flashback about the comic shop Hundred used to go to, or the citizen reactions in the most recent arc.

It's kind of funny that you repost this on the night when I decide to re-read the first trade, though

J To The AAP

June 1, 2007 at 2:02 am

No matter what obstacles the characters encounter, we can rest assured they wonâ€™t be effected in any way, be it physically, mentally, emotionallyâ€¦ spirituallyâ€¦

It's quite obvious you haven't read March Of War yet because it completely obliterates this point.
Also, the reason for the shift from superhero to mayor has been made quite clear. He could achieve far more in that manner. What exact event made him come to this conclusion wasn't revealed, I'll give ya that one. But maybe it's not even an exact event, it could be a gradual decision that's being formed in the flashback scenes. Gradual decisions do happen, not evryhting in life is split-second with obvious key scenes.
Joe Gaultieri is right about the story with the artist by the way, that was about Journal, not the artist. Which again leads me to the advice to read March Of War.

I'm not gonna say Ex Machina is without flaws, I pointed out my biggest bug with it to the rabbit. I do agree with 3's assessment that it's a fine book though. I enjoy it.

Reality check

June 1, 2007 at 3:26 am

Mark Andrew who?

Anonymous

June 1, 2007 at 6:08 am

Mark Andrew who?

He's the guy who wrote the article you just read. And you are... ?

Kidding aside, one doesn't have to be able to build a house to tell when a door isn't hung properly or a line isn't plumb. This was a flawed piece in some ways, but I agree with Andrew. After reading the first 30 issues, I realized that I didn't care for EM for the same reasons I didn't like Y:TLM:

i> Indistinguishable character voices - everyone's so sassy! Except for the jerky characters, who are all jerky in the same way.

ii> Not much happens. Sure, there's the set-up in the first issues that's been alluded to a few times since, but, despite saying readers need to be more patient in the recent post about Scalped, 30+ issues is too long. The argument can be made that it's a character-based piece, but if I don't care or connect with the characters (See i), well, then I guess I'm SOL.

iii> "Tell, don't show." Possibly because it's a fast-paced book, possibly because Vaughn wants to be the Aaron Sorkin of comics, but there's too much damn exposition.

iv> Although EM's patented True New York Facts digressions can be neat, they're shoehorned so awkwardly into the story that they actually take the reader out of the book, rather than add to the verisimilitude and aura of plausibility that Vaughn's going for.

Honestly - and I'm probably going to live to regret this - but Ex Machina bores me the same way James Robinson's Starman did. Exposition crutches. Telling the reader how they should feel, rather than giving them something to react to.
For me, there's no there, there.

layne

June 1, 2007 at 6:09 am

Aw crud, I forgot I emptied out my cookies folder this morning before I hit Submit.

sleeper

June 1, 2007 at 6:19 am

Kudos for having the nerve to say what you mean and mean what you say. People who take an unpopular stance in the name of honest criticism deserve applause when they're being genuine and base their opinions on fact.

Having said that, prepare for negative backlash. The BKV fans are hardcore.

I loved EX MACHINA when I first read them, but, in retrospect, I may have praised them unfairly. I'm usually just so floored whenever someone tries to take a new and fresh look at the worn-out superhero archetype that I become enamored with the concept and forget that execution is just as important as themes.

EX MACHINA exceeds in the idea stages, but when you actually go back and re-read and re-read the comics again, it becomes apparent that it's not as hefty and thought-provoking as it was in your memory (at least, that was the case for me). My biggest gripe is that the politics aren't particularly complex or even intriguing... BKV doesn't really provide much food for thought. The book's politics are paper-thin and a bit tepid. Unlike WATCHMEN or DKR, the philosophical and political content of EX MACHINA is pretty high-school level. Unfair comparison? Maybe, but when the series is receiving such a high level of praise, you'd expect something with more depth.

Also, the characterization in those early stories isn't as compelling as I'd like. Like the political content, the quality of characterization was a bit SHALLOW.

Overall, those first couple TPB collected editions struck me as being unique enough at a purely conceptual level that I ranked them pretty high on my list. However, they don't stand up well to repeat readings and are a little bland, given the massive amounts of high praise heaped on them. I predict EX MACHINA will be forgotten quickly after it wraps, unlike the true classics.

Semi off-topic: Speaking of over-rated political comics, does anyone else think CHANNEL ZERO was lacking? I loved the themes, I loved the characters, and I loved the artwork, but in terms of plot, it was extremely light. There was no real food for thought in that book outside of the obligatory "fight the power!" message. I think Wood was more interested in pushing the envelope in terms of visuals than he was in story.

s1rude

June 1, 2007 at 7:40 am

Word - particularly sleeper's comment about nerve (aka guts aka balls) and criticism.

Re: EM, put me in the camp of folk who were initially blown away by the concept and BKV's track record who have since decided "meh". It's not bad comics, but it's not something I'm going to be spending any more money on. I think your EM's NYC vs. Transmet's The City comment is spot on (and a beef I had that I hadn't been able articulate), but my big reason for dropping EM is that I just don't care that much about these characters. Plodding Plotting TM is creator's choice and it's fine, but we know Mitch is soon-to-be ousted from office and that he's a rational jerk (as is everyone around him) - this isn't a time travel story and nothing has changed his personality so far (I too exited after Fact v Fiction - more on that in a second), so why should I stick around?

I'd also second layne & his "not much happens" point. Again, I don't mind not much happening, especially in a character drama. But when what little that does happen does nothing to change the protagonist (at least nothing the reader can notice), that's when it becomes an issue. Layne's also right that 30+ issues is too long. If this were a prose novel and the change happened in chapter four, fine. But this is sequential art, and a year & a half (and $40 worth) of comics is too long. So no, I won't be checking out March of War to see if my concerns are addressed - I've moved on.

I don't want this to come across as BKV hate: I'll still defend Y, loved The Escapists and Runaways, appreciated Pride of Baghdad, etc., etc. But I do want to support anyone who shares my view that EM is extremely overrated, and I guess I just did that, so I'll stop typing now.

Seb Patrick

June 1, 2007 at 9:00 am

>"Also, Iâ€™m not a prude or anything, but I kind of doubt that all these politicians would go around swearing like sailors all the time."

You do? Really? Hmmm.

Try watching "The Thick Of It" (US version on the way soon). Politicians swear. A lot.

>"Structurally, Ex Machina switches between the â€œnow,â€ where Mr. Hundred is the Mayor of NewYawk, and the â€œthen,â€ a of flashbacks showing how he got that way."

Erm, no it doesn't. It's ALL in flashback. The WHOLE thing is framed by Mitchell at the beginning. At some point, I'll wager, the series will be brought to the "present", and it won't be at the *very* end, either. But at the moment, it's a disjointed series of *different* flashbacks, brought together thematically rather than necessarily being narratively consequent. Personally, I think it works rather well.

>"However he never tells us why. In fact, thereâ€™s no logical, in-story reason for the character to WANT to go into politics in the first place. In other words: The revelation doesnâ€™t flow from the story.

And due to a bizarre structural decision on Vaughanâ€™s part, thereâ€™s no payoff from *this* revelation either."

I think you're being a little unfair on a series that is only just reaching halfway through its planned lifespan. You simply *can't* declare that there's no payoff when you haven't actually *waited* to see if there is one! I'd bet that the payoff, the story of why Mitchell stopped being a superhero, is yet to come. However, with the story being told almost entirely in flashback, Vaughan doesn't have to tell everything in *order*.

I really think you've made a mistake writing this piece now, rather than waiting until the series has finished - or, at the very least, you should have kept out the concerns that related to the *overall* structure of it until that overall structure had actually been revealed. You can't talk about a half-finished series and judge it by the same criteria as a finished one. It means you're starting off from a fundamentally-flawed standpoint.

As you can probably tell, I'm a fan of Ex Machina. Not a rabid BKV fanboy or anything (I'm actually not hugely keen on Y : The Last Man), and I can certainly accept purely subjective dislike of the series. But to my mind, you're applying a number of criteria that simply aren't relevant to the series. Such as your comment about Hundred's sexuality - the way I interpreted the question being left open at the end of "Tag" was that, for the moment at least, BKV didn't consider it an important-enough part of his character to be worth discussing. The door was "closed" on the debate. If his sexuality doesn't affect storylines, then why do we need to know about it? BKV doesn't tell us what his favourite breakfast cereal is, either - was that done out of "spite"?

MarkAndrew

June 1, 2007 at 9:52 am

Erm, no it doesnâ€™t. Itâ€™s ALL in flashback. The WHOLE thing is framed by Mitchell at the beginning.

There's a bunch of different definitions of Flashback on the web.

FROM FREE ONLINE DICTIONARY
A literary or cinematic device in which an earlier event is inserted into the normal chronological order of a narrative.

This is the definition I was using. Two pages at the beginning of the first issue don't count as a narrative.

FROM WORDNET
a transition (in literary or theatrical works or films) to an earlier event or scene.

By this definition you're absolutely right and the way I used "flashback" in the piece was wrong.

From Dictionary.com
a device in the narrative of a motion picture, novel, etc., by which an event or scene taking place before the present time in the narrative is inserted into the chronological structure of the work.

Could go either way. I'm defining the present as "when stuff happens" but I could see an argument for "the most recent events."

Anybody got an Oxford English Dictionary handy? I'll call that most definitive. If it agrees with Seb Patrick's definition I'll go back and edit the piece, and credit him with catchin' me.

Ian Astheimer

June 1, 2007 at 11:34 am

Um...

Mark, what happened to your first point? Why did you start with 2?

Are you going to flashback to 1?

Bill Reed

June 1, 2007 at 12:13 pm

I'm not that enamored with the majority of Vaughan's work, either. Kudos on some actual criticism. It's not that BKV isn't a cool dude or that he has never written a good comic, but he also isn't the second coming.

Reality Check

June 1, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Mark Andrew who?
Heâ€™s the guy who wrote the article you just read. And you areâ€¦ ?

Precisely my point. I am a nobody. YOU are a nobody. And this MARK ANDREW is a nobody.

None of us has the right to say "I teach so and so writer how to write". That is just plain arrogance. And a loser attitude.

If you really know so much how to write a perfectly perfect comic, then write your goddamn own and have it published and earn critical raves and prove everyone wrong. Then the world will know how utterly brilliant Mark Andrew is.

But until then, MARK ANDREW WHO?