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 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.

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.

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

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) . . .

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.

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*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.