Comic Book Resources

You completely failed for trying to use “Image United” as a gateway comic.

“I love Rogue, Psylocke, and Dazzler, but I have no idea what’s going on with them currently, because I haven’t been interested enough in the X-books to find out.”

Boo.

Comic book readers need to realize you don’t follow your favorite characters; you follow your favorite writers.

Why would pick the three of the worst books to get back into superheroes? Blackest Night is cliche-riddled, purple prose shouting torture porn. Cry for Justice is the worst kind of camp. Image United is drawn by Rob fricken’ Liefeld. I mean, C’MON, you do know a new issue of Incredible Herc and Dark Avengers: Ares came out last week, right?

I agree. Although when I read my brother’s copies Blackest Night and and Cry for Justice I’m going to read it for the pulp it is. I’ll probably enjoy Blackest Night, for what it is, and CfJ will probably make me laugh in a not intended kind of way.

I think Ellis and Morrison are the best superhero writers out there but I don’t want to read just their stuff all the time. You have to know what to expect going in.

Greg, your whole take on nudity and sexuality versus violence is generally spot-on, but it’s kind of silly to take Marvel and DC to task for that when the absurd dichotomy runs rampant everywhere in our culture. Are you asking two mainstream comics companies to do something that TV execs and Hollywood filmmakers won’t? Because they have a lot more leeway, I’d think, if they want to try to push the boundaries.

Jeremy: I do read Hercules (and I’ve heard good things about Ares). This is not about “getting back into” superhero comics, because I’ve never left them. The ones I like tend to be the ones where the writers can do more things because they don’t sell as well. Like it or not, Blackest Night is DC’s top-selling book right now, and I can’t imagine the other two not selling well either. LOTS of people like these books, and I thought I’d check them out.

Squashua: The problem is, many readers don’t do that. They DO follow characters. That will probably never change.

Rebis: Yeah, I know. It still bugs me, though.

You said it yourself:you didn’t read these superhero book as a youth. What all of these are trying to do is get more lightening out of the same bottle. Doing this by have better artist or new ideas or dramatic changes in character in order to suit the stories, is an attempt to tittilate the young boy still clinging to childhood joys all the while being an adult. To give an adult the same joy as a child. You didn’t experience that joy so you don’t understand.

I think the factors that you enumerate would be less problematic if there were a bit more diversity.

Marvel pioneered Reliance on Continuity and the Illusion of Change in sixties and seventies. Characters were constantly quitting, being replaced and returning to super teams. Those little editors notes were always giving readers little cues about other books they could be reading.

The appeal to Golden and Silver Age nostalgia and the Illusion of Maturity were really innovations by DC Comics during the late ’80s and ’90s. Both felt very fresh at the time. DC killed off Supergirl and Barry Allen in COIE and it felt like comics had become much more serious even if they hadn’t. British Invasion writers used the long publishing history of DC Comics as a large canvas to give their stories a dense, epic feel.

Image borrowed all four elements when it spun off from Marvel. Most of their characters were pastiches to one degree or another, which is a form of nostalgia. The violence was dialed up and everything seemed very “edgy”. Then, everyone started ripping everyone else off and creators bounced from publisher to publisher.

I’d wager that a novice could not tell the difference between a DC, Marvel or Image superhero title without looking at the cover. They are all the same.

“Comic book readers need to realize you don’t follow your favorite characters; you follow your favorite writers.”

Squashua, you’re soooo close , but it’s to follow your favorite ARTIST.

That’s probably why I got bored of Geoff Johns. I enjoyed Sinestro Corps War which was less about the nostalgia and more about the the moment, but as the title moved past that towards Blackest Night, I just didn’t really care and realized I wasn’t the intended audience. In my opinion Johns pulls too much with the “wink-wink nudge-nudge I’m writing a superhero comic and I’m referencing common superhero happenings in an satire-parody-fan-service-homage, aren’t I clever?”
And maybe it is clever, but it’s just not for me. I read some Spider-Man and X-Men comics as a kid, and then forgot about them for over 10 years until Marvel’s Civil War pulled me back in.

“I love Rogue, Psylocke, and Dazzler, but I have no idea what’s going on with them currently, because I haven’t been interested enough in the X-books to find out.”

Boo.

Comic book readers need to realize you don’t follow your favorite characters; you follow your favorite writers.

Or, you could buy the comics your favorite writers pen and follow your favorite characters (who aren’t in said comics) via online spoilers and Wikipedia updates.

I haven’t read a Green Lantern comic in years, but I have a pretty solid grasp on what Kyle Rayner’s been put through.

Greg: Just before I go home…

Kory was naked in 52… lost on the planet with Adam Strange and Animal Man…

@azjohnson5

I was going to use the broader term of artist, but decided since I’d seen some beautifully drawn comics using a script by writer Judd Winick, I would rather promote following a writer.

@Jeremy

Why pick the three ‘worst books’? Perhaps because they are each flagship releases on the part of their companies and are (at least in the case of Blackest Night and United) likely the top selling books at their companies. As you aptly point out that is no indicator of quality…but it is a signifier of how editorial at Image and DC want their books to be percieved in the marketplace.

I agree with most points in the article, and am roundly tired of most corporate books at this point. There are some execeptions of course, Brubaker’s Captain America is one of the better examples of a book that doesn’t depend upon excess gore or adolescent attitutes towards sexuality. But I strongly prefer books with a finite life span at this point. Getting one creative team’s vision of a project with a definitive ending makes me much more interest in the work as a whole. Franchise books that will be serialized forever seem to have greater and greater difficulties finding that magical definitive run quality that marked earlier ages of comics.

“Comic book readers need to realize you don’t follow your favorite characters; you follow your favorite writers.”

Or some of us do both. I love Green Lantern, I always have. So I read Green Lantern, I follow the character. I will follow my favorite writers most of the time, but when they write a character I don’t really like, I don’t want to read it, because I have no interest in the character. (Unless it’s Morrison, he can get me interested in almost anyone).

Of course I’ve never heard of someone who follows artists, does anyone here do that?

I would much rather have nudity and graphic sex in comics than gory violence.

I haven’t read any of the books you’ve been talking about, but in general terms I agree with your complaint about the assumption that we should know all the characters and their history. I think every issue needs to work as somebody’s first issue. They shouldn’t try to explain everything, but they must never assume that the readers already know all the characters, or about all the important previous events, not to the point where the story becomes indecipherable to first-time readers. I don’t advocate stopping the story to explain everything, but there are ways to drop hints as the story goes along, and recap pages should be written to include all the most important information.

Great piece Greg.

I love superhero comics and I agree with everything you said, although I think that those 3 titles don’t accurately represent superhero comics as a whole.

But I agree with your points: I hate that Geoff Johns and DiDio are trying to make DC the way it was when they were kids, I hate that sex is taboo, but ripping people’s hearts isn’t (although this happens on TV and movies as well).

It’s like you said on the Previews article: there’s great stuff, you just need to knw where to look.

I’ve heard of people who follow certain artists, regardless of the writer. George Pérez and Alex Ross two artists I have heard this about.

In this economy, I’ve found I only pick up books that provide the appropriate “bang” for my buck (eg: R.E.B.E.L.S., Doom Patrol).

Greg, Greg, you have made a horrible mistake.

I read in a comment yesterday that we only complain about sex here, but totally gloss over excessive violence.

So you must have made a mistake in your piece. Please change it to coincide with that commenter’s view of how we operate here.

“Event” comics usually have all the bad stuff plaguing modern superhero comics, with none of the good stuff.

If you really want to read event comics, you should do so just to keep current on what may impact other books.

I like Geoff Johns, I like him in Green Lantern and I liked him in JSA. But I still found Infinite Crisis very boring.

Because what I really like in superhero comics is the ideas and characterization that go into the monthly titles. I like the issue of Green Lantern when Hector Hammond is shown as envying Hal Jordan’s life and wanting some of his memories. Or Hal hanging out with his brother’s family. Or the slow build-up of the Sinestro Corps members in the back-up features. The action scenes also are more interesting in monthly comics, because you have breathing space.

Now, event comics are boring. Infinite Crisis was boring, because you had millions of characters doing millions of things. BAM BAM BAM. Few quiet moments, and the quiet moments tended to be ridiculous and forced, because you can’t delve into the characters like you do in a monthly comic.

When Geoff Johns narrated Atom-Smasher’s change from hero to anti-hero in the JSA comic it was cool, because it was a gradual proccess. When he darkened Superboy Prime in Infinite Crisis it felt forced and silly, because it was so rushed.

Event comics are the bane of comics.

@Rene – Morrison write Infinite Crisis, not Johns so much.

RETRACTION – my bad; Morrison write FINAL Crisis.

“Comic book readers need to realize you don’t follow your favorite characters; you follow your favorite writers.”

Why? You ever hear someone say, “I like 24, but I’ll only watch episodes written by Andrea Newman.”?

That’s different. TV writing is done with the intent to make all episodes blend together as well as possible, as opposed to comic writing, where the writer is given more control of the reins during their tenure on a book.

DC really just needs to go ahead and change their name to “Severed Arm Comics,” since that seems to be what they’vve been obsessed with ever since Infinite Crisis.

I agree with Rene’s comments about Event comics. For example, I have really been enjoying the Blackest Night storyline running in Green Lantern and Green Lantern Corps, but have found the main title pretty boring. It’s weird that the same writer covering the same storyline in two diffferent titles can make it really interesting in one and filled with every cliche and navel-gazing hero worship in the other. Although I have to admit, I liked BN #5. I was going to drop the main title with this issue, but I liked it enough that I’ll still be getting #6.

I pretty much agree with every one of your points, Greg, even though I draw different conclusions from them.

“Kirkman is a fairly decent writer”

Really? Fairly decent? If his Walking Dead work only ranks as “fairly decent” writing I’d love to see something that’s just plain old good.

“That’s different. TV writing is done with the intent to make all episodes blend together as well as possible, as opposed to comic writing, where the writer is given more control of the reins during their tenure on a book.”

Maybe there’s a difference from the writing end, but ultimately people wanting to see what happens to Jack Bauer are operating out of the same type of character-attachment as people wanting to see what happens to Spider-Man.

While I respectfully disagree with your points. They are fair enough to make. Except for the whole Johns is a terrible writer thing.

Speaking of, Rogue was on the recieving end of amazing writing this month. Hats off to Carey and Fraction.

“Every once in a while I have to defend myself against the people who say I hate superheroes.”

And here’s where I had to scroll back up to make sure I read the byline right. Who are the people who think Greg Burgas hates superheroes, and why has science not locked them up for study?

What’s interesting (read: creepy) for me is the bizarre intersection between nostalgia and violence at play in the DC books. I’ve noticed a certain undercurrent to certain work there that goes, “We love these characters so much, we’re going to make them wish they were dead!” It’s kinda like Glenn Close’s character from Fatal Attraction is working there these days.

“you’re soooo close , but it’s to follow your favorite ARTIST.”

That way lies madness. Remember the nineties.

Which brings us back to the old question: Do artists deserve the degree to which they lost prestige in relation to writers in reaction to the nineties?
The answer is yes; that nineties shit was just that bad.

Also, I really enjoy Kirkman quite a lot, but after one look at that Image United cover, and it would pretty much take some sort of comics-reading version of a Clockwork Orange chair to get me to read it.

“Maybe there’s a difference from the writing end, but ultimately people wanting to see what happens to Jack Bauer are operating out of the same type of character-attachment as people wanting to see what happens to Spider-Man.”

In a contiguous series like 24 or Lost (both of which are terrible examples), the plot on an episode-by-episode basis is strictly tied together. A better example would be ye olde show X-Files (yes, it’s quite old now), which had extreme differences in episode quality based on the writer. Not that you wouldn’t watch it. In a generally episodic series like Castle or a sitcom like Friends, the plot can completely vary by writer and we get a totally different episode.

What I’m referring to, by following writer and not character, is (for example) the several comics per month in which Spider-Man appears. He’s in Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man, Spectacular Spider-Man, New Avengers, Asstacular Spider-Man, and a guest appearance in Hulk. Each issue is written by a different writer and does not necessarily jive in storyline with the other books. Someone following a writer would know to pick up the books written by (for example) Dan Slott and not the fill-in writer du jour. Someone who follows the characters might be wasting his money on a single-panel Spider-Man quip in the ongoing fight scene that is New Avengers.

I have generally drifted from superheroes (aside from back issues) and generally despise event comics, but out of some strange impulse, plus good word of mouth, I picked up the first four Blackest Night and have really been enjoying them. I’m not a Green Lantern fan, have always been a Marvel fan and am thus not that invested in DC characters (especially Silver Age ones), and yet I’m still finding it a very fun romp.

Frankly, I’m enjoying the straight-forward good vs. evil cliche. Plus, Geoff Johns’ hero-worship-filled prose actually kind of makes me more interested in characters I didn’t know that well, and keeps the stakes always feeling high.

I’ve given up on Marvel just because the heroes feel so distant from the heroes I remember (I really can’t stand their event comics) while with DC I have the distance just to like the characters as they’re presented (maybe the way movie audiences can start fresh with comic characters they’ve never read about and just enjoy a story for the escapist fun that it is.

I guess I’m writing this in defense of Blackest Night and to point out it can be enjoyed without a reliance on the nostalgia and continuity elements, and the illusion of change isn’t a big problem either. And I don’t feel I’m being asked to view zombies as mature, either, just as real mean.

Michael P: Yes, more than once I’ve been accused of not liking superheroes simply because I hated a random issue of a random superhero title. Strange but true!!!!

Greg,

Preach on!
I don’t think I’ve always agreed with your reviews, but we seem to be on the same wavelength.
But there is a difference…
I’m 35 and I LOVE the Silver Age, both DC and Marvel, and because of that I’m particularly turned off by both Blackest Night and Cry for Justice because they want to wallow in nostalgia while at the same time embracing more modern storytelling elements that ruin the glory and wonder of superheroes.
The Atom is one of my favorite Silver Age concepts and it’s great he’s featured prominently in BOTH of these event series. So, yeah nostalgia! But in one he’s an angst-ridden hero torturing bad guys and in the other he’s an angst-ridden hero plagued by the zombie-fied body of his ex-wife who killed a teammate’s wife.
Would I rather go to my DC Archives and read a Gil Kane-penciled tale of The Atom fighting crime using crazy Silver Age science? Hell yeah!
I’m going to use Barry Allen Flash as another example.
I thought Grant Morrison’s decision to provide little to no explanation about Allen’s return in Final Crisis was brilliant because within the story itself Morrison appeared to provide readers with a wonderfully simple reason – the DC Universe needed him.
I don’t have the Final Crisis issues in front of me but essentially toward the end of the series Superman or another character talks about how the DCU has measures to ensure it’s continued existence and as a reader I felt that was the explanation for Barry Allen’s return. The threats that resulted in the Final Crisis were so bad that Barry Allen had to come back and help out (or the writer, Grant Morrison, needed him to return. However you want to take it.)
But, of course, that is not good enough for most readers and DC and Geoff Johns are only too happy to try to come up with convoluted explanations about not only Barry Allen’s resurrection (see Flash: Rebirth) but all of the other resurrections in the DCU (see Blackest Night).
So yeah nostalgia for bringing the Silver Age Flash back, boo too subsequent writers not named Grant Morrison for trying to over-explain why he’s back rather than just figure out how to tell some damn good Flash stories.

Great read Greg, thanks for the post.

Greg, Greg, you have made a horrible mistake.

I read in a comment yesterday that we only complain about sex here, but totally gloss over excessive violence.

So you must have made a mistake in your piece. Please change it to coincide with that commenter’s view of how we operate here.

Geez, is a little professionalism too much to ask?

Get your crew in order Brian – I shouldn’t be expected to read a blog made up of differing opinions, and then make up my own mind, I wanna be spoon fed!

Why? You ever hear someone say, “I like 24, but I’ll only watch episodes written by Andrea Newman.”?

Actually, thanks to Tv shows on DVD, I have started to notice writers and directors whose episodes I enjoy more than others on shows – particularly with shows like Twin Peaks and Sopranoes where they seemed to let individual episodes stand alone a bit.

Also, if you take in something like The West Wing, there was a noticeable difference once Aaron Sorkin stopped producing the show.

Speaking of, Rogue was on the recieving end of amazing writing this month. Hats off to Carey and Fraction.

I thought the rule with Rogue was that she’s not allowed to have amazing writing!
Long, slow and drawn out arcs nobody cares about is what that character was built upon!

This all seems to come down to the same argument I’ve been hearing for years now…

“This is why I like what I like and this is why I don’t like what you like and I have damn good reason.”

While some comics may not be enjoyed by mass populations, or may have bad traits, by and large most comic fans seem to basically pick apart everything nowadays. Nothing is good enough.

Ian Melton

Nothing is good enough.

Except the books that are good enough, which Greg talks about frequently.

I don’t mind violence in comic books. What I don’t like is violence without any consequences. I had the same reaction as you, Greg, when I saw that page with Roy’s arm ripped off. “Oh, they’ll fix that up with some JLA tech next issue.” I was ashamed with myself for thinking that! My favourite part of DC is the Green Arrow family and for that reason i’m all for messing up with those characters IF and only IF it’s not going to be brought back to what it used to be in a couple of years or two. Furthermore, out of all the heroes who loose an arm, it’s a much bigger deal for an archer than it is for anyone else! What is Roy going to do without his arm? Use his slighly above average strenght to punch the big bad JLA baddies? Heck no! Then again, it could be even worse. What if he goes back to using guns and other projectile weapons? Then he can’t be red arrow anymore unless he uses a Huntress style crossbow but then he’s a terrible amalgam of the Green Arrow and Batman family. My point is, i know nonw of these terrible ideas of mine will happen because like I said, a little JLA tech and that superhero doctor from the JSA (who’s name I forgot, shame one me!) will fix Roy up in no time.

If you’re going to show violence, make damn sure you’re going to show the consequences of that violence.

Topic 3 reminded me of Giuseppe di Lampedusa:

“we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”.

The Leopard. Great book, great film. Give it a try.

If you’re going to show violence, make damn sure you’re going to show the consequences of that violence.

Howard The Duck’s policy speech from when he ran for President holds a lot of truths.

A few notes…

-the writer/tv show analogy holds best for Amazing Spider-Man right now, where you could very well buy arcs based on writer, but it would be pretty disjointed. All the same, it’s very possible to have a favorite writer.

-Robert Kirkman is in fact “only” a pretty decent writer. The problem isn’t his good stuff, it’s that his bad stuff ruins the curve. And there’s enough of it to be worth noting.

@Stephanie

Thanks for the Amazing Spider-Man comment; that’s pretty much where I was going with it. Some of those issues are out-and-out lousy, while some are great, and it’s all due to the rotating writing staff.

@dhole:
The thing is Johns isn’t just going for nostalgia for certain characters, but there’s a nostalgia for a certain “feel” to his comics. Despite all the maiming, death, blood, and gore in John’s comics they’re very steeped in Silver Age pastiche; the roles of ultimate good vs ultimate evil, the over-explaining of cosmic concepts that *really* don’t make any sense at all no matter how much it’s explained, etc. Grant Morrison dabbles in and distorts this pastiche, but Johns decided to cut off it’s head, drink it’s blood, and declare himself the new Silver Age God. And that’s fine and all for some people, but I felt it was goofy when I was a kid and I still do now.

There are a few artists I follow (Gene Colan, Bill Sienkiewicz, JH Williams III), but I’m more likely to buy a comic that has good buzz or one that looks like it has an interesting story.

(Speaking of buzz, those commenters who said Scott pilgrim got better after the first trade: You were right. I just got vol. 4 and hope to read vol. 5 soon)

As to ultraviolence in mainstream super-hero comics, I agree with Greg. It’s depressing, I don’t enjoy it, and I avoid comics that look like the wallow in it. Consequently, I read less Marvel & DC books. Occasional ultraviolence in an otherwise quality comic (e.g. Venom biting someone’s arm off in Thunderbolts) can be jarring, but overuse makes a comic lose whatever fun it might possess otherwise (e.g. that horrible Old Man Logan annual ruined the story for me). I just wish the trend would die out.

“…lackest Night is based on the idea of bringing corpses back from the dead, which we can read as a metaphor for nostalgia, if we so choose. Image United is based around the idea of the original Image creators drawing a comic,…”

Combining the two, Image United is based on bringing the corpses of careers back from the dead.

I agree with Jazzbo on Johns’ strengths as a writer. His long-form stories are pretty hard to beat with JSA, Flash and Green Lantern being strong examples. Even though two of those are based on solo heroes, all three built up huge casts of heroes, supporting characters and villains who were fleshed out by Johns over long stretches so that, say, when Atom-Smasher confronts Black Adam, it is building off of years of development. His stories that fail to move me are the events like Blackest Night and Infinite Crisis where he is having to move plot forward rather than character.

I have gotten the feeling from the get go that Johns never meant for Blackest Night to be a line-wide event. I got the sense that he was asked to rush it out to make up for the indifferently received Final Crisis (which I liked quite a bit) and expand it to include everyone. This is all speculation but when DC saw how well Sinestro Corps War was received I bet they wished they had marketed the crap out of it with crossovers. But they missed the fact that it succeeded because it was self-contained and grew organically from everything Johns had been doing on the title. I would have been very happy if Blackest Night had just stayed in GL and GL corps.

Likewise, I don’t see why Robinson has been handed the keys to JLA and Superman when his real strength seems to be in building characters from the ground up like Starman (who was really only a name to modern readers when Robinson started that series). I honestly think he would have been a better choice for a concept like the Outsiders where he can play with little loved and little known characters and grow them into three-dimensional figures. Would anyone be as up in arms about Katanna and Man-Bat torturing criminals as Atom and Green Lantern? If so, I imagine it would be a lot fewer people. It goes to Greg’s comments about lesser selling titles being more compelling because they have more leeway. I think Robinson is made for those kinds of titles and not the big leagues.

That’s just my two cents, I could be wrong.

It’s kinda late to spend much time on this, so I admit to not reading all the comments. But I must say that the splash page of one-armed Speedy (or whatever he’s called now) speaks volumes about why I lost interest in DC, despite the probable good comics they put out, too. It’s not shocking or cool… I just think it’s kinda gross.

Oh, and I completely agree that the more “mature” they make these stories about costumed superheroes, the more ridiculous their costumes and superpowers become.

But I must say that the splash page of one-armed Speedy (or whatever he’s called now) speaks volumes about why I lost interest in DC, despite the probable good comics they put out, too

Don’t worry, when it comes to modern mainstream DC Universe comics, good stories are anything BUT probable. Chances of you missing out on some good writing are very slim.

I don’t really think these comics are the problem maybe it’s you, regardless of how I feel about any of them complaining about Nostalgia when reading about characters that are anywhere from 30 to 50 years old is head scratcher number 1.

Complaining about continuity in a comic, again makes me wonder what you expect from comics even if you start a brand new comic today a couple of years from now continuity will be a part of it’s history complaining about it makes no sense it’s comics.

Which goes to head scratchers number 3, illusion of change again this is comics I love this idea that people read comics because they want to see radical change and characters move forward. Yet any arc that has say Wally taking over for Barry ends where Barry Allen started before his death. Basically you have guys being junior version of other characters and that is moving forward or real change? no it’s the illusion of change with another character. Comics shouldn’t change when they do usually the end up pissing off fans and damaging brands, hell comics went to hell in the ’90′s because they wanted new things and Marvel and DC gave them and then their comics went to hell because of it.

I really sometimes wonder why some people even read comics when they seem to have no grasp about how they work or why the are popular, because if you have a problem with those 3 things maybe just maybe they aren’t the problem maybe they’re just not for you.

Don’t worry, when it comes to modern mainstream DC Universe comics, good stories are anything BUT probable. Chances of you missing out on some good writing are very slim.

I know it rufffles everyone’s feathers to say so, but I read a lot of DC, and the occasions of such violence are pretty limited – nowhere near as widespread as some like to make out.

-the writer/tv show analogy holds best for Amazing Spider-Man right now, where you could very well buy arcs based on writer, but it would be pretty disjointed. All the same, it’s very possible to have a favorite writer. I BUY SPIDEY THIS WAY. 600, 611-614, 619-621. READS JUST FINE BY ME!

“-Robert Kirkman is in fact “only” a pretty decent writer. The problem isn’t his good stuff, it’s that his bad stuff ruins the curve. And there’s enough of it to be worth noting.” HIS CAPTAIN AMERICA ARC DURING AVENGERS DISSED WAS ONE OF THE WORST THINGS I EVER READ. BATROK HOLDING UP THE CROWD AT A BASEBALL GAME? REALLY? THAT PLOT WOULD HAVE BEEN OUTDATED IN 72′

“There are a few artists I follow (Gene Colan, Bill Sienkiewicz, JH Williams III)” ME TOO! NOT ALL ARTISTS WIL RUIN THE MEDIUM LIKE THE 90′S FOR EXAMPLE I’M BUYING FABLES 92-93 BECAUSE LAPHAM IS DONING THE ART.

You have Spider-Man #619-621??? Are they even out yet? I’ve only got it up to #612. I get mine through the mail, and they sometimes come a week or more late, but I don’t see how you could be past #614 or so.

Mary, He means he will buy them (#619-621) not that he owns them. The comics that will be out in three months are already known and can be ordered through a retailer.

Man. Is it just a nerd thing that everyone gets worked up like this, or is just the comic book nerds?

I mean, I like Kirkman plenty, but I’m not going to verbally attack someone to defend his honor. These comment threads get a little crazy sometimes. Granted, I’ve seen way worse.

EJ, you do realise that there are comics that aren’t published by Marvel, DC or Image, don’t you?. Maybe you don’t.

I’m a lifelong superhero fan and I think perhaps the titles for this article might have been better chosen, but I have to completely agree with the criticisms made. Sadly.

no its writer. i never had a favorite ARTIST.

Im fairly sure Image United is not about bringing anyones career back from the dead. Id guess that they could either get writing or art gigs at Marvel or DC easily, if they wanted to.

“This half-assed attitude toward “mature” superheroes is idiotic. But that’s just me.”

It’s not just you. These three comics are indeed absolute crap that I would recommend to nobody.

Hear, hear. Hate to align myself in the old fogey camp, but a lot of my problems with comics today is that I can’t share them with my son. You’ve done an excellent job explaining why (not just the violence, but the extreme nostalgia — and no, Tiny Titans is not terrific if you have no idea who those characters are. It’s all in-jokes for adults who want to read kids’ comics, and if that doesn’t make sense to you, welcome to my world.)

“EJ, you do realise that there are comics that aren’t published by Marvel, DC or Image, don’t you?. Maybe you don’t.”

Of course but considering that the 3 comics he chose to talk about were from DC and Image that’s what I made my points about. You know what you are getting when you read comics from the big 2 they’ve been that way for decades complaining about them is like complaining about the WWE while watching Raw the problem isn’t with the product which is the same it’s with you expecting something that you’ll never get from them.

It’s the ARTIST, these are COMIC BOOKS, not novels. Why do you think the term GRAPHIC NOVEL is used, not novel. It’s the art, the graphics. You want a good story go read Lee Childs, Dan Brown, Vladimir Nabokov, Steven King, Jess Walters,Sue Grafton, Janet Evanovitch, Eoin Colfer, whatever…. Come on people, I can’t even see this as debatable, it’s the ART.

If I want a good story I can also read a Ware, Clowes, Morrison, Moore, etc.

Not in novel form you won’t, only graphic novel>

Uh, I know. But they are excellent writers that I follow. Some are also artists. I love my comics to have great art, whether Tomine, Quitely, Williams, Kirby, or whoever. But if the story is dogshit, even beautiful artwork isn’t enough.

I’m not saying it isn’t legit to follow artists. I totally get that. But it’s kind of weird to act like following a writer is some aberration. Especially with online fans who post on blogs. Obviously, they’re verbal/writerly in their own way.

What Joe said. I do follow artist (at least the older “classic” ones anyway). But to make the point that it’s the art and only the art seems to miss the beauty and subtlety that only comics or graphic novels can deliver. Good writing and good art make a beautiful combination that no other medium can match.

Like Joe said, if the story is shit, well you’ve got some pretty pictures and that’s it. If you just want pretty pictures why not go and look at some nice paintings or illustrations?

That said, I do have a hard time reading a great story with crappy art.

“That said, I do have a hard time reading a great story with crappy art.”

I guess that’s my point. Even the best writers stories suffer more from crappy art then the best artists stories suffer from crappy writing. No matter how great a storyline is, crappy art will kill it, conversely crappy stories can still be saved by the expression of a magnificent artist. All three of these books are saved by the art.

“if the story is shit, well you’ve got some pretty pictures and that’s it. If you just want pretty pictures why not go and look at some nice paintings or illustrations?”

I do ,they’re called 90% of the comicbooks that are out there. Again all three of thes books are saved by the art.

I disagree completely. A story goes a lot longer than the art for me. Morrison’s Batman with Daniel or Tan . . .do I wish someone good drew them? Yeah. But they’re still good. Whereas Millar’s Authority couldn’t be saved even with Quitely.

You guys are completely wrong. A good story with lousy art is still tolerable. A lousy story with great art is just a lousy story.

How about this, instead of saying I’m completely wrong, how about, we each have different taste.

Some of us prefer art over stories, some story over art. Me, I lean in the direction of art, but that’s because I’m a visual artist and a designer. I wouldn’t hold it against a writer to say that they prefer story over art, it would seem to be their natural inclination. Nobody really has to be wrong, it’s just different tastes.

I can read a mediocre story with art by Toth, Kirby, or Moebius and get a lot out of the art, it leaves me wishing the story was better, but I still learn a lot from studying their approach. composition, line etc. I can read the Doom Patrol by Morrison, Early Sandman and God knows how many poorly illustrated independent comics and wish the art was better, but I’m still left with a good story, a story that I can examine and hope to learn some craft from, so I’m happy on that front as well.

My point was that the two together are more than the parts and when they click you get something mindblowingly cool, without both it’s just ok.

BTW: I’d say that none of the three examples Greg blogged about have good art, I think they all suffer from being waaay over rendered, the coloring on Cry for Justice strikes me as really garish and overdone.
Just my two cents though, I know I’m in the minority on this.

I’m with Lou (whose handle is awesome, by the way).

Maybe, but he lists Morrison’s Doom Patrol (by which I assume he means Richard Case) as “poorly illustrated” which I cannot just let stand.
It reflects the kind of technique-wankery that could very well betray a weakness for prog rock.

I meant that I agree in a general sense, that everyone has their flavor. I prefer good writing over art, and I also think Doom Patrol looked amazing.

To me, it is both.

A comic that has a clear, well crafted story probably has good art. That is irrespective of whether the art is pretty or not. Good comic book art serves the story first and foremost. Good comic book writing does the same thing. When a story works well, it is hard to tell where to assign the lion’s share of the credit.

There are lots of books with beautiful individual images and snappy dialog that utterly fail to tell a coherent story. CRY FOR JUSTICE is an example of this. In cases like that the tendency is to blame the writer. However, it is ultimately a failure of both script and art.

I liked an Alan Moore story partially illustrated by Rob Liefeld. I liked Alan Davis art in an X-Man annual. I probably wouldn’t enjoy most Silver Age comics if not for the art, and there are plenty of indy books I’ve liked that were not illustrated in ways I appreciated. It goes both ways.

I remember that there was a long, drawn-out “taste is subjective” debate on this website. I don’t want to start it again. I will say, however, that people have vastly different definitions of “bad comic book art.” Richard Case didn’t draw in a flashy style, but all the storytelling was clear. In a Morrison story, that’s no easy feat. Some readers appreciate that, others think his art was too plain. It took me a long time to see past the surface elements of John Romita, Jr.’s artwork to understand just how good he is. Rob Liefeld still has fans. I didn’t like the pseudo-manga stylings that popped in American super-hero comics in the ’90s. Joe Madueira and others became stars despite me and others like me. So, yeah, taste is subjective. I apologise in advance if this causes another wekk-long rumble.

Oh, I agree Joe, I just had to object to such an otherwise reasonable argument being undermined by such a bullshit example.

“the problem isn’t with the product which is the same it’s with you expecting something that you’ll never get from them.”

He wasn’t expecting anything, he was merely explaining why he doesn’t like them. Is your point that no-one should complain about something being exactly how it is?

“I really sometimes wonder why some people even read comics when they seem to have no grasp about how they work or why the are popular,”

Having now confirmed that by “comic” you mean “American superhero comic” then I can respond by saying A. American superhero comics aren’t popular, B. just because something is popular doesn’t make it good C. who says that American superhero comics work anyway?

Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn’t with what Greg said. Maybe the problem is just that you can stand that idea that someone might say something you like isn’t good. Just because you don’t agree with Greg doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

“Fairly decent? If his Walking Dead work only ranks as “fairly decent” writing I’d love to see something that’s just plain old good.”

As others pointed out, he is extremely inconsistent. Too many misses in proportion to his hits, and some so-so work, makes it hard to call him a great writer.

As for nostalgia…I guess you appreciate the era you feel nostalgic for. I got into comics during the 80s, so that’s the era I’d probably be most nostalgic for (and prob explains why some of my favorite runs are from that era). I don’t care much for the Silver Age, especially the DC stuff (stories about Super-man now having a crocodile head or Batman being turned into a unicorn while still fighting crime or whatever just don’t appeal to me). Granted, there is some silly Silver Age stuff I do enjoy, like some of the Legion stuff from that era. But generally, I’m not into this while 50s/60s nostalgia kick Johns and Robison are on.

@ Jack Norris & Mike Loughlin

Sorry if I pissed you off with the Richard Case example. I didn’t really care for his art that much. He did do a good job of moving the story forward with clear understandable graphics and for that he has my appreciation . He is by no means a favorite of mine, but I can think of many, many artist I like less. I was just trying to think of a comic that is lauded that doesn’t have the best art in the world (IMHO). His styling wasn’t to my taste but his underlying storytelling ability is strong. Perhaps it wasn’t the best example I could have used, but then somebody else would be pissed that I mentioned and artist that they really like.

“It reflects the kind of technique-wankery that could very well betray a weakness for prog rock.”

Well, since you bring it up; as a matter of fact my appreciation for Prog Rock has grown some as I’ve gotten older. But I still prefer less pretentious “technique-wankery” music most of the time. My God, if you could hear the “form follows function” anti technique-wankery arguments I’ve had with my die-hard Jazz friend…
I think we’re on the same side here.

The three examples of art above strike me as very much technique-wankery driven, and I spoke up about not liking them.

Oh, and thanks Joe.

So I was in the comic store today and saw a Hitman Trade in the new books section. First dozen or so issues. Of the greatest story ever.

I mention how incredible the stories are in the book to some guy next to me. He picks up and flips through it, “Meh, I don’t like the art.” and puts it down.

*smolder*

Actually, I’ve discovered many weak spots and actual breaches in my old hardline barriers against prog myself as I’ve grown older.
The line about it was blatant less-than-fully-serious chain-yanking mischief on my part. Sorry about that.

Yank my chain will ya! Why I oughta…

No it was funny, I guess I get so caught up in “form follows function” view of things that the prog rock jab was especially hitting close to home. Now If you’ll excuse my I have to find my copy of “Pictures at an Exhibition”
So far the only E.L.P I can really get into.

But you were right, the Doom Patrol one wasn’t a great example.

[...] supers comics but Fraggmented wrote about including Superman in DC Comics Presents and CBR asked why do superheroes make me blue? I’d rather see them change but I may just have to get over it. Speaking of which… this [...]

I guess I can kind of see both sides of most of the issues discussed in this thread (other than buying comics just for the artist, which is something I rarely do. Although I do find it happening sometime with Jim Cheung, J. Calafiore, and Ron Lim—but sorry, even Lim’s not going to get me to pick up Anita Blake).

Geoff Johns is one of my favorite writers right now (and has been for a while), but as a relative newcomer to DC, I don’t feel like I have to know tons about the characters to get what’s going on. In fact, instead of confusing me and making me wonder about characters’ pasts (although I would sometimes appreciate labeling characters in group shots so I could look them up on Wikipedia), Johns has made the JSA one of my favorite comics, and he’s inspired me to pick up older books about the characters (just like Tony Bedard inspired me to pick up old L.E.G.I.O.N. and R.E.B.E.L.S. issues) to find out more about them. And even though Johns isn’t writing JSA anymore, I appreciate the way he continues to use the characters in books like Flash: Rebirth and Blackest Night.

I do see some merit to the argument that Johns’s ongoing books are better than his event books like Infinite Crisis and Blackest Night, but I still find myself enjoying both types of books (albeit sometimes to somewhat different degrees). I feel somewhat similarly about Robinson, I guess—I’ve loved the first three volumes of Starman Omnibus and the Golden Age, and I’ve enjoyed his Superman work, but his JLA stuff has only been so-so (though not as horrible as some people seem to make it out to be). I always enjoy and appreciate the text pieces, though.

The change versus illusion of change thing is also a tough issue, so I’ll compare it to music—has anyone else noticed that if a band makes a drastic change to their style on a new album, people rail on them for changing so much, selling out, abandoning their fanbase, etc., but if they tread territory people see as “too familiar,” critics say they aren’t learning and growing? It’s a no-win situation. If creators change things too much (like Tony Bedard’s Starro revamp—I love it, but does anyone really think the next writer to use the character will even mention the revamp? I’m under no such illusion, unfortunately) they get whining fanboys, but if they keep things at the status quo they get complaints for not changing enough or having an impact on/developing the characters. What’s a creator to do? I know that if I were ever to write comics, I would try to write the kinds of comics that I personally enjoy and feel passionate about, and I think that’s what Johns and Robinson are doing. Will everyone love it? Of course not. But hopefully enough readers will have similar enough tastes that the books wi’ll do well. And obviously, looking at the sales charts, they are doing well. It’s nice to see writers I like actually selling tons of books (unlike Jeff Parker, Abnett & Lanning, Tomasi & Champagne, Bedard, etc.).

I think I’ll leave the Image United/Robert Kirkman thing alone, other than to point out that Greg seems to have picked the absolute worst cover to pick up . . . not that I’m suggesting he get the Witchblade one or anything (although I hear Ron Marz is doing wonders with the character) . . .

Drew: The biggest problem I have with the “illusion of change” thing is that writers court the issues you bring up by doing these things. I have no problem with the big time superheroes stayting static because they need to be recognizable the next time a movie comes along … but then writers shouldn’t be allowed to screw with them at all. Many, many people would still buy the books because they love the characters, I think, and a writer can certainly write a story where a lot of good things happen without screwing with the characters. It gets back to the attitude toward nudity: shit or get off the pot. If you’re going to change characters, make sure the changes stick. If not, don’t even hint at it. I just don’t like the half-assed attitude DC and Marvel have toward change. We KNOW they’re not going to change, so why do they even taunt us with it?

I was definitely trying to get the worst cover of Image United! That’s part of the fun!

Greg: Okay, good to know picking the Liefeld cover was intentional!

I do get what you’re saying here, but if creators weren’t even allowed to flirt with change, we’d never get great comics like Brubaker’s Bucky Cap stuff. I don’t know if you’ve been reading it, but I’m sure that you and I both knew going in that Steve would be back eventually, but I’ve had a ton of fun reading Bucky’s adventures nonetheless. (Then again, I was never much of a Steve Rogers fan to begin with. Similarly, I’m more of a Nightwing fan than a Batman fan, so I’d love to see Dick stay in the cowl forever—yeah, like that’s going to happen!)

Also, is Red Arrow such a major character that this injury is guaranteed not to lead to any lasting change? I mean, he’s already been reinvented several times over the years, and the Red Arrow persona wasn’t working that well for me anyway (it seems rather redundant, honestly).

MY biggest problem with Cry for Justice #5 was (and I’ll try not to spoil anything here) that I wasn’t really sure who the bad guy WAS at the end. Did I just miss something? I’m reading along, and I’m thinking to myself, “Uh-oh, Supergirl’s eyes are glowing ominously, and now she’s attacking—no, wait, she’s just cauterizing the wound. Never mind.” And then on the last page, her eyes are glowing again, but I still don’t really think she’s the “bad guy.” My first inclination is to blame my confusion on the art, but Robinson’s script could probably have been more clear as well. And who knows, maybe we’re really not supposed to know for sure who the bad guy is at this point.

Supergirl’s not the bad guy. It’s who she’s fighting. At least that’s what I thought.

I have been reading Captain America (albeit in Omnibus-sized chunks, so I’m just up through issue #42), but the fact that Steve is coming back has bugged me the entire time. It’s what annoys me about Morrison’s attempts to make Dick the “real Batman” – as noble as both efforts are, why bother? It does annoy me, because the way Brubaker has made Bucky into a hero is fascinating. But the shadow of Steve coming back is always there, and it bugs me.

Wow, I knew I was super busy for most of December, but I didn’t realize that it had been over a month since I responded to any of your stuff. Sorry!

Anyway, yeah, I eventually came to the decision that the person fighting Supergirl was the bad guy. I was mostly just annoyed that it wasn’t more clear. And who knows if it was Robinson or Cascioli’s fault.

And as far as Captain America goes (SPOILER WARNING, since you’re only up to #42), I’m a few issues behind (crazy December and all), but a friend of mine is very upset about the latest issue and has pretty much decided to quit reading comics because of it. He’s a HUGE Steve Rogers fan who’s pretty much been waiting out the Bucky Cap stuff, and he mentioned a while ago that if Steve didn’t become Cap again at the end of Reborn (and maybe even if they BOTH remained Cap), he might cancel his hold. Crazy, I know, but I can only assume that one of those two things happened, which means you’ll at least have a while longer to enjoy your Bucky Cap!

I agree with many points. I used to love comics, I would always look forward to comic book day. Then around the mid to late 90′s that changed, I stopped looking forward to comic book day. Then one day I realized that I hadn’t gotten a comic in a couple of weeks and I didn’t care.
I think this came about for a number of reasons. The stories got grimmer, the art became more convoluted. (Sure it looked nice, but comic book art should be crisp and clear, not to much detail). There was always some “Big” thing going on and just like you said, in the long run nothing changed. The other thing that happened was that the stories got harder to follow. A monthly comic shouldn’t be to hard to follow, with that amount of time between stories you can’t make them to complex or you will loose the readers. I got tired of having to re-read the month’s previous to remind myself what was going on.
I think that the comic companies need to go back to earlier story telling. Don’t make huge changes to characters, small ones work fine and create better stories in the long run. Having a character give up being a superhero, can give some very interesting stories and the reader wont feel cheated once he puts the cowl/cape/suit back on.
But the big two seem stuck on their current death and resurrection stories. I say go small, make the stories more intimate and make super battles fun again.