Comic Book Resources

Wow. I didn’t realize how much Oz had been stripmined. Some of these look really cool.

I don’t think ANY of them look cool. Except the Shanower stuff.

Wow … that was a lot of research on your part.

And it doesn’t even include (unless I missed it) Geoff Ryman’s utterly *remarkable* Oz-inspired novel, Was.

Wow, they’ve really milked that to death, huh?

I love RETURN TO OZ, but something about Fairuza Balk’s dead eyes cause that poster to scare the hell out of me.

It didn’t involve THAT much research. But I was shocked at how the ‘adult’ Oz books outnumber the juveniles. I had thought there were only one or two ‘edgy’ adult Oz comics series. But there have been nine or ten at least. And more coming.

Brilliant piece and you’re right about all of it. Any time adults latch onto a beloved childhood icon, even if the intended purpose is something as lofty and admirable as literary allegory, expect something unsavory around the corner.

For every brilliant re-imagining, there are a thousand pervy fanfic weirdos waiting in the wings. The moment my stomach begins to turn, however, is when the pervy fanfic weirdos WIN and THEIR interpretation becomes the norm, eclipsing the original, child-friendly concept and becoming canon.

Devin Grayson, for example, gets paid to write DC-approved slashfic. LINK Icky.

I’m all for provocative, adult storytelling, but who needs to see kids’ characters SPECIFICALLY used in this way? Is a sex scene hotter if Pooh Bear is involved? Does Harry Potter slash merit the time it took to write it?

And here’s a question people don’t seem to want to ask: Why is Alan Moore the catalyst for so much of it all? When you stop and think about it, Moore has dedicated more of his career to imposing adult reality on innately childish fantasy constructs than he has to writing wholly original work for adults.

All I know is that I need a shower after seeing that statue.

In fairness, I see that the point of the article wasn’t that the “adult re-imaginings” are innately awful, but that was my take. There are both good and bad re-tellings, but it’s mostly just gross, in my opinion.

A thought: Your article ends with the cycle coming back around and presenting us with an non-ironic, wholly genuine reinterpretation of Oz. Animated series and DVDs notwithstanding, could the same thing happen with superhero comics at DC and Marvel? Other than ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, I’m not seeing it.

Animated series and DVDs notwithstanding, could the same thing happen with superhero comics at DC and Marvel? Other than ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, I’m not seeing it.

They’re happening, they’re just not selling very well.

See the Marvel Age line, odd projects like Tiny Titans or Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane, the Franklin Richard books, etc.

I think that at some point these properties cease to be a cultural icon and simply become iconic. At a certain level of saturation, the idea of the Tin-Man and the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion move into the same space that ideas like the classic Thunder God or Maiden/Mother/Hag do.

When they are referenced, few creators are really talking about the original book. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these authors had never actually read the book. When an image and idea becomes pervasive enough, what is really being referenced is our cultural associations with it.

More recent properties like the OZ titles and Superman and such are in an odd place. They are recent enough that as a culture we still remember them as an original title. Give it another fifty years and they will be used purely as iconography.

Great post, Greg. For a second, I started to wonder if Oz was unique in that respect, but then I realized there has to be at least as many reinterpretations and adult deconstructions of Peter Pan or Alice in Wonderland.

That Oz manga looks adorable. I may look into that.

I should really finish reading the other comments before spouting off my own.

@sleeper
DC has such an institutional hard-on for a single continuity they are having trouble getting pure titles going. Over on the Marvel side, the Adventure books are about as genuine as you can get. And as far as they go, most of the Ultimate line titles fall squarely there. Ultimate Spider-Man specifically. The style is modern, but there is very little of the knowing winks that cloud the main titles on both sides of the fence. For that matter, if you view the superhero genre in stead of individual characters (think Oz s Just Dorthy) there are quite a few back-to-basics titles coming out. Invincible for instance.

Not much to add other than the fact that I really enjoyed this piece. It was an eye-opener.

Why is Alan Moore the catalyst for so much of it all? When you stop and think about it, Moore has dedicated more of his career to imposing adult reality on innately childish fantasy constructs than he has to writing wholly original work for adults.

I think about that a lot, actually. If I was looking for a creator to blame for the trend he’d be one of my top three.

But, see, that’s missing the forest for the trees, because I don’t think you can blame a creator for writing the things that interest him. You have to follow it through and ask the rest of it. The real question is: why is Moore worshiped so for it? Why is it THAT work that made him a star? Why are these freakish adult-juvenile hybrid books always such monster hits?

You see it with Oz and say “ew.” But those of us that see it being done with, say, the Brad Meltzer JLA or the Ultimates and have that same “ew” reaction are jeered at for being too stodgy.

I wonder with Shrek, Fables, and Enchanted (and to some degree the earlier Roger Rabbit) if we will see a bunch of “reimangined”/”adult” fairy tales. Fairy Tales that move to the point of shock for shock’s sake.

Maybe it will come full circle and we will have new kid oriented fairy tales written for children, “without any attempt to trade on nostalgia.”

The only superhero who has really traveled that cycle is Batman. “The Dark Knight Returns” was the pivot from the juvenile to the adult version. However, DC has such tight control over the property that it really has not made the descent of the Oz characters. It is sort of in limbo.

No one has ever done a fully ‘adult’ take on Superman, or Wonder Woman. Both those characters are kind of stuck in ‘dated icon’ mode. Neither the Flash, nor Green Lantern have made it that far. Maybe that would be the effect of a JLA movie.

On the Marvel side, the Ultimate Universe has pushed things along a bit. However, the imposition of an adult perspective on Marvel characters is far more difficult. Stan Lee used adolescence as a theme a lot.

I think about that a lot, actually. If I was looking for a creator to blame for the trend he’d be one of my top three.

But, see, that’s missing the forest for the trees, because I don’t think you can blame a creator for writing the things that interest him. You have to follow it through and ask the rest of it. The real question is: why is Moore worshiped so for it? Why is it THAT work that made him a star? Why are these freakish adult-juvenile hybrid books always such monster hits?

You see it with Oz and say “ew.” But those of us that see it being done with, say, the Brad Meltzer JLA or the Ultimates and have that same “ew” reaction are jeered at for being too stodgy.

I would NEVER jeer at you for being offput by Meltzer’s superhero fiction and most comic book fans wouldn’t, either. I think a lot of the themes and tones he employs in is writing have insidiously infiltrated DC’s main line and people aren’t happy with it.

Having said that, you’re exactly right… the twisting of childhood icons is really prevalent in the comic book community and many of us never miss an opportunity to laud people for doing it. I think when you’re in your late teens and early 20’s, it’s common to be attracted to, or to see some value in, the chaos and anarchy in something like a bastardized and smutty version of Dorothy or Superman or Mary Marvel or whatever. People get a cheap thrill out of subversive art and culture.

The problem comes from the fact that a lot of comic book fans refuse to get past this mindset. Comic book fans age, but it doesn’t occur to them how artistically hollow and devoid of humanity it is to warp youthful imagery just for the sake of it. It really IS gross and actually merits the “ew” reaction.

I mean, I loved THE ULTIMATES and THE AUTHORITY, but I was 19 at the time. I often sneered at the “make superhero comics more traditional and geared towards kids” crowd, but obviously, they were right all along.

Greg:

No offense, but I really don’t see why you think Dark Oz was ‘missing the point’, when all it was was the continuation of the Caliber series by the same creative team, as well as the LAND OF OZ that Arrow did (which I noticed you didn’t use as an example, because it’s more clean cut to the original material), and also predates most of the stuff you’re talking about. Everything you cited with the exception of the obnoxious OzSquad comic came out years and years after Caliber / Arrow’s runs had ended.

So why are you lumping them in with “Fetish Dorothy”? I can understand you might not like the books - Bill Bryan’s art style is an acquired taste to say the least - but it’s not like they went out and tried to make abominations of the characters that I can recall. The whole point of their doing not only the OZ books but any of the adapations / continuation series from classic literary works that were in the open domain was to get comics fans exposed to the concepts because many comics fans in their experience as creators / publishers were very ignorant of literature, especially in the past twenty years. Their hope and effort was to get audiences to go to the source material. And if you looked at those Arrow and Caliber books, Greg, I think you’ll find essays about Baum, bibliographies with all the titles for the entire run of OZ books for audiences to go forth and see out…

So I think they were just a wee bit more benevolent than “Fetish Dorothy”. Just saying.

Two words.

Public Domain.

Oz, Alice and (to a lesser extent) Pan are all public domain. I don’t think we can ever get fresh ideas while brand managers have the power of veto.

So here’s an idea: Marvel and DC should invent a special creative commons licence. It would allow anyone to use their characters under three conditions.

First, no direct competition with existing Marvel/DC projects. They would need an INDEPENDENT panel to decide of your comic or movie was too much like the existing comic or movie. This handles the “lost existing revenue” argument.

Second, a big label on the cover explaining that this is unauthorized. The more that an idea contadicts existing brand, the bigger the label. This handles the “trademark protection” arguemnt.

Third, a published table for calculating a fair licence fee. This would be based on actual profits from existing properties, not imaginery hoped-for fees that would just discourage innovation. This handles the “lost future revenue” objection.

Just an idea.

Yeah, I was thinking public domain has a lot to do with this too.

I’m not totally buying the comparison though. We aren’t currently seeing an “adult spin” on super-heroes, we’re seeing a modern spin on them, just as there was a modern spin on them 10, 20, and 30 years ago. He used to be protecting his secret identity from super-villains but now he is also protecting his secret identity from the government.
Comics haven’t stopped, there is no end-of-the-book state so there is nothing that they can be reimagined from. Its all continous.

People grow up. They want to revisit things that they loved as child and often want to impose things like deeper characterizations and political implications upon them.

When done well, there’s nothing wrong about them at all.

They just aren’t done well a lot of the time. I don’t know if it’s because the writers don’t have enough distance from what they’re writing about to make good creative decisions or a lack of talent or what.

But I don’t think it’s innately bad. Why not write about something you’re passionate about? It’s like any other genre or subject in the world. Just find the ones that are good and don’t bother reading the rest.

I really don’t see why you think Dark Oz was ‘missing the point’, when all it was was the continuation of the Caliber series by the same creative team, as well as the LAND OF OZ that Arrow did (which I noticed you didn’t use as an example, because it’s more clean cut to the original material), and also predates most of the stuff you’re talking about.

I thought I was careful to point out that I’m not talking about the relative merit of ANY individual one of these efforts. I’m just looking at trends. I will absolutely and without reservation grant that every single creator involved in every single one of those efforts thinks they’re doing good work, even the Fetish Dorothy guys. Nobody sets OUT to do something bad. I’d even stipulate that most of the people working on the books have tremendous affection for the originals.

As for why the series got used twice — I was just looking for as many different covers as I could find, there’s not that much rhyme or reason to it. There were a lot more besides LAND OF OZ that got left out. The idea was just to show how many different times people have tried it.

That being said, no matter what the relative merit of a particular book is — sure, the Caliber books have merit, Dorothy of Oz is interesting, and I hear Bloodstained Oz is pretty good, actually — but I’m talking about where the books are AIMED. It’s really disingenuous to assert that a book called “Dark Oz,” with a bloodstained yellow-brick logo, and a scene of impending violence on the cover about to be committed by distorted Oz characters, isn’t working the same basic riff as fetish Dorothy. One is sex and the other is violence. But the shock value’s coming from the same place. No number of thoughtful, virtuous text pages in the back of the books are going to persuade me otherwise. Sorry.

And all THAT being said, the point of the piece is simply to suggest that this is happening not just with Oz, but ALL OVER the Marvel and DC landscape. Because the audience has naturally self-selected to the point where the big companies are stuck doing not only a particular genre, but this marginal interpretation of it, over and over, for their bread and butter; the primary audience for the matierial, the one it was DESIGNED for, has migrated elsewhere. So they twist it to make it fit the audience that’s left, and that process is a natural piece of evolution and we’re stuck with it. That’s the idea.

Which I’m not even completely sold on, MYSELF. But I think it has enough merit to build a column around it.

14:

Returning fairy tales to something more akin to a horror tale, making them stories for adults? That -is- the circle closing.

Before the Victorians moved in to give fairies their current tiny winged sprite image,they were mercurial, mischevious, occasionally malicious creatures. In the same way, fairy tales were neutered down into their current sparkly, happy ending, kiddy-story form.

The original fairy tales were dark and gruesome (see: Snow White’s stepmother dancing at her wedding in red-hot iron shoes; Cinderella’s stepsisters mutilating their feet to fit the shoes; Sleeping Beauty raped in her sleep by a necrophiliac prince). Heck, look at Hansel and Gretel; the witch is baked in her own oven, in a fit of karma for all the kids she’s already eaten. Those aren’t stories for children, unless you want to give them nightmares.

“So here’s an idea: Marvel and DC should invent a special creative commons licence. It would allow anyone to use their characters under three conditions.”

I have to disagree with you, Chris. Let’s use Batman as an example.

You can find enough pseudo-Batman characters and Batman fan fiction out there regardless of the copyright. One can assume that as long as someone wants to write a story featuring Batman, whether they intend to write a detective story or an S&M story, they will find a way to do it legally or otherwise. Nobody will stop you unless you intend to profit from it. In fact, with Elseworlds and other mini-series there have been multiple, all officially licensed, interpretations of Batman. This is already similar to your panel review idea, except for the lack of independence. I think it would more or less produce the same results that we already have, because ultimately this “independent” panel would be owned by DC.

But why would a company WANT to open itself up to allowing the publishing of unauthorized versions of their characters? Sure, there’s revenue there, but quality control is something that is far more important to most companies than squeezing that last dime. While we can debate for hours if DC or Marvel really has a grasp on “quality” (Devin Grayson’s writing suggests otherwise), the last thing DC, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Disney, or any other company wants is a bunch of people making unauthorized S&M statues of their characters. Because frankly, too much “deconstruction” and “reimagining” will undoubtedly flood the market and dilutes the property, and to use Oz as the example, generally produces more crap than gold. Read some bad superhero fan fiction and ask yourself if this would really produce enough revenue and/or acclaim to justify an official release, or would it just dilute the property. I say the latter.

My suggestion? If someone wants to write a story about Batman and can’t use Batman, simply make up a Batman-like character. It worked for Alan Moore with “Watchmen,” and I’d say those characters are currently part of the public consciousness far more than the original Charleton Action Heroes are (I don’t see a Blue Beetle or a Question movie on the horizon). I think people are just pigeonholed into the idea of wanting to write a superhero story with Batman when if their ideas really are a strong they can write similar stories with their own original characters that the public will recognize as basically Batman stories, even if he lacks the big symbol on his chest.

On the Alan Moore note, keep in mind that the man is also capable of writing something like Supreme. He turned the character from an XTREME Superman into a character that more or less was the Silver Age Superman. He certainly knows how to work against his “Lost Girls” type.

Let’s not forget the upcoming Wizard of Oz from Marvel by Shanower and Skottie Young. I’m still not sure if it’s gonna be based on the original or another adult version.

From the comic books above Bloodstained Oz and Dorothy Gale Journey to Oz looks interesting.

Y’know, not every theoretically “adult” deconstruction of child’s entertainment is done for shock value. Watchmen, I would argue, was done for a, perhaps serious is the wrong word, but genuine attempt to take these stories apart and look at what made them tick. And then you get reconstructions, like the first 12 issues of Authority and most of Astro City, that go for a more adult sensibility in the storytelling (Authority with technique, Astro City with theme) without really treading into shock value territory. Then, of course, you get the shock value de- and re-constructions, like Millar’s Authority and Ultimates and the infamous grim fin-headed arse-rape.

Meanwhile, some people do the reconstruction and make it something that can appeal to kids, like the Marvel Adventures or Enchanted (I can’t really take anyone seriously who lumps that one in with Fables). So, instead of a simple two points of “original and childlike” and “adult and shock value”, we have a pair of axes, with one line going from original to reconstructed, another going from childlike to actual adult, with deconstruction and shock value somewhere in the middle. And then the actual works get plotted in all places on the graph.

Greg:

It just seemed to me that you placed the order of photos in a “best of” to “worst of” manner, so it really didn’t make sense to have what was essentially the same work in one level of quality or presentation and then say what was essentially the same material just continued further at a different publisher was that much worse.

Putting that aside - Are publishers stuck producing marginalized materials? Well, I think I can agree that the comics industry has tied itself into a proverbial Gordian Knot of sorts. But are they stuck doing that? No. It’s just that whenever someone comes along and tries to cut the rope, the party is either ignored, or they get noticed so everyone else follows suit and turns what could be the cutting of the rope into yet another knot instead.

The only way to break that, is to have a publisher who truly understands publishing and isn’t concerned about a corporate agenda or figuring out ‘niches’ to fill, and just wants to produce a solid line of products. Then, the fans and retailers have to accept that stance at face value and support it.

Until you have that, you will continue to have the marginalisation of the genres and of the medium in this business.

It would hold more water if the chronological order of some of these hadn’t been rearranged to support the flow of the argument…

It would hold more water if the chronological order of some of these hadn’t been rearranged to support the flow of the argument…

Do you mean the Shanower? That’s a reprint of older stuff, that cover is of the trade collecting them but the work’s well over 20 years old. Likewise with Lost Girls, the collection’s new but that strip was originally serialized almost twenty years ago, I think in Taboo. I might have goofed up on the order of some of the indie Oz revamps but honestly I don’t know that the order matters that much there.

“It reaches the point where a new juvenile version, told in modern idiom without any attempt to trade on nostalgia, is actually the novelty.”

But the no-nostalgia bit is hard, without long breaks in publication and availability. The Silver Age wasn’t stuck in nostalgia, because the kids of 1960 hadn’t read comics (or existed) in 1940.

Super-hero comics haven’t been in that situation for along time now. We can get the Watchmen/ Dark Knight deconstruction, or the Powers/ Identity Crisis/ All-Star Batman ‘adult’-ification with rape and swears and dismemberment, or the Busiek/ Waid/ Ross nostalgia-plus-better-storytelling-and-art -than-in-the-old-days (I think All-Star Superman is one of these– and I’m not knocking it, my favorite books are often in this category). But it’s hard to get something unselfconscious, something that isn’t in part a story about comics’ relationship to their past and a commentary on the Silver and Bronze Ages. Sandman wa sgenuinely original. Starman synthesized darkening and nostalgia in an original way, when nostalgia was a specialty taste rather than the dominant theme. Morrison’s X-Men was an original *kind* of commentary on the past, but hardly a fresh and forward-looking start.

And now that comic book movies and even TV-animation understand that keeping the fanbase happy and excited is very important for good buzz and enthusiasm, it’s hard for those other media to be free of the nostalgia-winks– with Superman Returns as the reductio ad absurdum.

The old knock on the super-hero genre was that it was only capable of telling fight stories, even if these pretended to be mystery stories or morality tales. Now I’m afraid that it’s becoming incapable of telling stories that aren’t about itself.

Don’t forget the “Wizard of Oz” opera event in the World of Warcraft RPG.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Wizard_of_Oz

Well, my favorite Alan Moore series are Watchmen and Tom Strong, and those two are thematically polar opposites. Moore is capable of doing very diverse work, and has done so on numerous occasions. If you must blame someone, then blame the imitators who only see the trappings of Watchmen and attempt to replicate them without understanding the substance of the work.

I just want to point out that you didn’t exactly choose the best images for Baum’s later books. The first sequel to “Wizard” was called “The Marvelous Land of Oz,” the book you show was the fourth Oz book. “The Emerald City of Oz” was to Baum as “The Final Problem” was to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: they tried to end their series there, but the public demanded more.

Otherwise, I think you’re right on the money!

I know it’s not strictly accurate, Jared, but I went for the best (and still applicable) scans of John R. Neill’s illos. Personal bias. I love his stuff.

I can’t get the graphic between “Wicked” and “Son of a Witch” to load, what is it?

You skipped the HBO TV series Oz. Definitely a case of Adaptation Decay.

One of the problems is, it’s (perceived as) easier to make an adaptation of something than to create your own charaters and situation. And since it’s in the public domain you don’t have to make your main character “Dora Wind” or something, you can actually call her Dorothy Gale so everyone gets what you’re referring to.

AIR Moore wanted to use the real Charlton characcters for Watchmen, but was vetoed because they were being
integrated into official DC continuity; hence the pastiches.

I can’t get the graphic between “Wicked” and “Son of a Witch” to load, what is it?

Huh. How odd. It should; it’s a standard jpeg loaded on the CBR server, same as all the others. Anyway, it’s a shot of Gregory Maguire and a woman I don’t know, standing in front of a poster advertising the Broadway adaptation of “Wicked.”

LATER… Well, that’s weird. It looked fine in Mozilla but in Explorer I can’t see it either, not even on the original page I stole it from. So I switched to a different Broadway image. We do a full-service column here at CSBG!

[…] Here’s a picture essay about the Oz books and subsequent derivative works and how, they kept getting darker until perhaps due to the success of Wicked, the dark adult deconstruction of Oz became practically its own genre. Sort of like Postmodern superheroes, except with ruby slippers. […]