With online acquaintances I've noticed that a lot of people also seem to form opinions on books based on what they overhear about it, or what friends say about it, without ever really wanting to read it. Even people who don't read comics can end up with opinions this way. (In fact, most of the vocal OMD/BND haters I know have never read issues of either story, they just know "what happened in it" from other people... and those impressions aren't always terribly accurate.) I've also got quite a few acquaintances who follow current superhero stuff purely through piracy, because they want to know what's going on to complain about it, but don't care to spend any money on books they expect to hate.

Also, it seems like you’re operating on the base assumption that people who criticize a certain comic are A) buying that comic, despite complaining about it, and B) totally unaware of their alternate options..

I suppose I am. But how else do the complainers get hold of it to complain about it? Most of those folks appear to have READ the books in question. Which means for the most part they sought it out-- borrowed it or bought it. And the sales numbers tend to support this. I think it's a reasonable assumption.

Look at the numbers we get HERE. Look at the comment counts on things like whether or not Peter Parker and Betty Brant DID IT, as opposed to all the other things we talk about on the blog. I don't have traffic stats but I suspect those would bear me out too. The mainstream audience bitches and moans about superheroes not being what they want, about them never being adult enough, but they can't bear to let them go. And as I've said many times, even if fans hate the stuff they're buying, DC and Marvel still get to keep the money.

There's a difference between reversion for the sake of telling a certain story or type of story, and reversion for the sake of aesthetic comfort. The latter is much less admirable or forgivable.

Also, it seems like you're operating on the base assumption that people who criticize a certain comic are A) buying that comic, despite complaining about it, and B) totally unaware of their alternate options. It's totally possible, and realistic for most of us who make that type of criticism, to assume that the critic is reading books they like that aren't like the ones they're deriding, enjoying them, and making their negative opinion of the books in question known for the sake of joining the discussion.

Now, you're right of course that there must be a certain amount of people who buy a book, only to complain about it. We've seen this proven by confessions and sales numbers. But in my experience, those usually aren't the same people using the "reversion" criticism.

If you're gonna critique something, critique it on the quality of the work, whether it is good or not.

Heck, that's the main point of this blog!

So you agree that “fan fiction” is a legitimate criticism? ‘Cause I think that’s where a lot of this is about.

Fair question. Honestly, I don't think that's a legit criticism, at least not by itself. So I kind of undercut myself there. I should have said "BAD fan fiction." I committed the very same shorthand-critique mistake that I wrote the column about in the first place.

See, here's my thing. My gut feeling, as far as Marvel and DC superheroes are concerned, is that criticisms like "continuity porn," "fan-wank," "nostalgia-driven," "fanservice," and "fanfic" are telling us exactly nothing because that's true of the entire mainstream superhero line, because the market has demonstrated that's what adult comics readers care about. Currently that's required of every superhero book they are putting out and to some extent it's ALWAYS been true, as soon as the audience stopped turning over. When comics readers came and stayed, that started the rock rolling down the hill, and now here we are.

Honestly I think you can make a case that's true to some extent with any kind of shared-universe format for telling stories. Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who, James Bond. DC and Marvel superheroes. There's always the prohibition against damaging or changing the format beyond repair for the next guy to work on it. If you're working on, for example, Spider-Man, and you're not Stan Lee or Steve Ditko then it's pastiche-- classed-up fan fiction, basically-- by DEFINITION. That comes with built-in limitations that are in dead opposition to the requirements of "adult" storytelling -- growth, change, character arcs that complete.

So really all that's left is: are you doing the pastiche well, or are you doing it badly? Morrison did it well. Whedon did it... not as well. Etc. But they were engaged in the same basic effort. That's what I'm saying.

Absolutely. I'd still say he added significant twists to the X-Men concept.

"Morrison did it well enough to make it look new. Whedon was writing fan fiction. That’s the difference."

So you agree that "fan fiction" is a legitimate criticism? 'Cause I think that's where a lot of this is about.

It really stretches your argument if you’re gonna include that, though. Morrison introduced a radical new status quo and boatloads of new characters. Even if he was inspired by the old Claremont/Byrne stuff his run doesn’t READ like those comics.

Granted, it reads new. But all that means is that he did it WELL. Look at what he did in terms of storylines.

--evil sibling of Professior Xavier
--telepathic war of minds
--the Shi'Ar
--finding new mutants
--Weapon X
--Magneto takes over New York
--the Phoenix

Those are all straight from the X-Men's greatest hits. Remember, the argument isn't that nostalgia's BAD. It's that nostalgia permeates everything Marvel and DC are doing any more and most of the time it's what we want, so acting like that's a criticism is saying nothing at all.

Morrison did it well enough to make it look new. Whedon was writing fan fiction. That's the difference.

Great piece Greg! Great sequel Blackjack!

I always felt that the reason Wally worked out as the Flash, was that he didn't "get up to speed" (pardon the pun!) immediately... the first couple of years of his run involved him coming to terms with the fact that although he was now The Flash, he wasn't Barry, and more importantly, WAS NEVER GOING TO BE Barry...
Ditto for Kyle, but to a lesser extent, as Wally had kind of set the precedent...

I have grown to accept over the years that all the Big Two really care about is sales. I wish it weren't the case, but when you have a Mega-Corporation, you have to answer to the shareholders BEFORE the customers...

So yes... I have learned to look elsewhere! And boy-o-boy it can be so rewarding when you find a real gem!

Thanks for a great post!

Crabbing because it’s not different strikes me as a criticism about on the level of those folks who don’t like Westerns because of all the damn horses and cowboys in them.

- Sums it up perfectly. Great article, couldn't agree more.

It really stretches your argument if you're gonna include that, though. Morrison introduced a radical new status quo and boatloads of new characters. Even if he was inspired by the old Claremont/Byrne stuff his run doesn't READ like those comics.

Compare that to his successor, Joss Whedon, who dragged Colossus back from the grave just so he could hook up with Kitty Pryde again. I don't really mind myself, but I think it's that sort of thing that people get irate about.

Totally agreed.

Claremont's stuff was more angsty soap opera, which Morrison just isn't good at.

i hate to ask, but how does New X-Men fall into the category that the other three are in?

According to Morrison himself in his series proposal, it was to be an attempt to return the strip to the glory days of Claremont/Byrne by trying to capture the essence of what that run was about.

In all honesty, I'm probably just as bad. My filthy secret is that sometimes I use the edit function to fix typos in the comments section. At least the really screamingly obvious ones.