"I hate red! So I pick blue."

"Name three colors, with one of them being orange."

"Purple, Red and Green."

"What is two plus one"

"I hate math! I refuse to answer, but I think it is important to let you know that I am not just refusing to answer, I am answering to point out that I am refusing to answer!"

"What does that sign over there say?"

"I don't want to look at that sign. I am enjoying the sign on the other side of the street, though, so I can tell you what that sign says."

"Who is your favorite X-Men?"

"Dan Didio/Joe Quesada sucks!"

45 Comments

• At June 19, 2008, Chris Jones wrote:

  What do you think of Howard the Duck?

  "I think it was one of the most important comics of it's time!"

  What ...

• At June 19, 2008, KMFPL wrote:

  Brian, are you trolling? Awesome!

• At June 19, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  "Who is your favorite X-Men?" is the favorite question of nerds' grandmothers across the world.

• At June 19, 2008, KMFPL wrote:

  My favorite X-Man is Red Tornado, of course...

• At June 19, 2008, Rob wrote:

  Stop it..your raping my childhood

• At June 19, 2008, Evie wrote:

  White or whole wheat?

  That's six bucks a week you're not getting from me anymore, corporate wankers, sucks to be you!

• At June 19, 2008, Random Stranger wrote:

  I don't read these corporate questions; I only read independent ones.

• At June 19, 2008, KMFPL wrote:

  Y'know, this is the problem with today's blogs. The 1980's were really the Golden Age of Blogs.

• At June 19, 2008, Kelson wrote:

  "So, what's your favorite color?"

  "Pink sucks. Thank goodness we're finally getting Red back after 23 years. This Pink ...

• At June 19, 2008, DoctorFinger wrote:

  That question discriminates against women.

• At June 19, 2008, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Somehow, I find these questions personally insulting.

• At June 19, 2008, buttler wrote:

  This is why you'll never get your own memorial case in the Batcave, Brian.

• At June 19, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  You dislike something? Elitist snob!

• At June 19, 2008, Michael wrote:

  I'm not quite sure what prompted this. Well, specifically; in general, I know damn well what prompted this.

• At June 19, 2008, Michael wrote:

  But yes, under the most carefully controlled laboratory conditions possible, the organism *will* do whatever it damn well pleases.

• At June 19, 2008, Omar Karindu wrote:

  These questions are totally inconsistent with some questions I answered 20 years ago. This Cro-Nan guy sucks. But ...

• At June 19, 2008, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  ”

  What did you REALLY think of Howard the Duck before Steve Gerber died?

  That it was pretty funny stuff, although it ...

• At June 19, 2008, T. wrote:

  I know what Brian is talking about generally but like the other commenter don't know what SPECIFICALLY brought on this ...

• At June 19, 2008, Lawrence wrote:

  Ugh. It took him FIVE questions/answers just to prove a point about comic book fans on the internet? I hate ...

• At June 19, 2008, Shaun wrote:

  Don't let Judd WInick see these questions or he'll turn them gay.

  Also, keep Dan DiDio away from this blog or ...

• At June 19, 2008, KMFPL wrote:

  Shaun: That continuity wasn't real. It was a Skrull.

• At June 19, 2008, jazzbo wrote:

  If only those questions had been written by Grant Morrison. He's the only one that writes any mainstream questions ...

• At June 19, 2008, KMFPL wrote:

  Brian, are you still upset about trying to explain Icicle's power's with "science"?

• At June 19, 2008, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  Welcome to life Brian!

  If you think we're bad, check out Politicians at question and answer time!

  Hell, I once saw an ...

• At June 19, 2008, Kelson wrote:

  then we’d all have twenty years of our continuity wiped out by magic.

  At least they wouldn't have to explain it.

• At June 19, 2008, stealthwise wrote:

  All of those questions are subjective anyways. My opinion can't be wrong!

• At June 20, 2008, J to the AAP wrote:

  If you think we’re bad, check out Politicians at question and answer time!

  “What color do you like better, red or ...

• At June 20, 2008, Tom wrote:

  Okay, okay, who argued with Brian yesterday?

• At June 20, 2008, Al from Italy wrote:

  "The comic books of the past were better and the comic books of the future will be better. Now they ...

• At June 20, 2008, BDaly wrote:

  Brian: Sorry I went off-topic in the Brand New Day thread. I usually stay on-topic, but I slipped. At least ...

• At June 20, 2008, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Why is everyone so negative? The questions of today are the best they've ever been. In fact, I'd say we're ...

• At June 20, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  And another thing, how come I can't get no Tang 'round here?

• At June 20, 2008, Mike wrote:

  First!

• At June 20, 2008, kushiro wrote:

  Who the heck are you to ask these questions? You hardly have any posts on this board. Mods, ...

• At June 20, 2008, Craig wrote:

  Best. Topic (and replies). Ever.

• At June 20, 2008, Adam Jones wrote:

  When did this turn into Pitchfork?

• At June 20, 2008, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  And another thing, how come I can’t get no Tang ’round here?

  Shut up!

• At June 20, 2008, Ralph wrote:

  Damn you for posing this questions! Now i´m going to drop every issue of DC/Marvel from my pull up list. ...

• At June 20, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  Shut up!

  I figured if anyone knew where to get some Tang, it'd be you.

• At June 20, 2008, KDBryan wrote:

  WHUT THESE QUESTIONS ARE STUPID U SHULD TALK ABOUT X-FORCE BCUZ X-FORCE IS AWESOME IT HAS WOLVERINE IN IT WOLVERINE ...

• At June 20, 2008, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Man.

  I miss Tang.

• At June 21, 2008, plok wrote:

  You nerds are all nerds that should get girlfriends except ha ha you can't because you are nerds. Your ...

• At June 21, 2008, plok wrote:

  NO WAIT!!!

  "Signed,

  Dick Hyacinth"!

  Man, trust me to blow a punchline...nertz.

• At June 21, 2008, Tom wrote:

  This death doesn't matter. You know they're just going to bring these questions back in six months anyway.

• At June 22, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  Pitchfork?

  Guh-wha?

One of the dudes at the comic book store was asking me what I usually read, and I was ticking off some of my favorites, trying to stay in the Marvel/DC realm so I wouldn't have to explain myself too much. He's a relative youngster, and has shown in the past that he doesn't venture too far beyond the Big Two. And that's fine. He asked me if I was going to read Secret Invasion, and I mentioned that I had seen it all before. Yes, that was my big revelation. No, it's not that groundbreaking, but lemme 'splain.

Many people have noted how similar this feels to "Millennium," DC's big crossover back in the day. I hadn't started buying comics when "Millennium" hit, so I only know it from buying back issues of certain titles, such as Detective Comics. Someone else mentioned the similarity of Secret Invasion to the Dire Wraiths storyline that started, I guess, in ROM but ran through several Marvel titles, including Uncanny X-Men. I mentioned that to the dude to whom I was speaking, and simply said, "I don't have any interest in it, because I've seen it before."

I know this isn't a perfect excuse; much of fiction is recycled. But with Big Event Comics, it seems like the recycling is more pronounced, and I have less tolerance for it. I mean, this event hearkens back to the freakin' Kree-Skrull War, and that was almost 40 years ago. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of Skrulls infiltrating the highest echelons of government and sowing discord among the superhero set, even if it's a pretty standard idea. If I were younger and hadn't read as many superhero comics, I'd probably be all over Secret Invasion. Yu's art is nicer than it's been recently, and Bendis obviously knows what he's doing. But with big-time events like this, the creative team seems to take a back seat to the momentum of the event, and it becomes less important that a good team is on the book and more that certain plot points get covered. I have recently finished reading "Messiah Complex," and despite the presence of good writers - Brubaker, Carey, David - it felt like they were simply trying to get from Point A to Point B to Point C. Now, this is probably a different animal, as Bendis is the sole writer on the main event, and therefore the central mini-series might be more coherent. But the fact remains that this mini-series, like crossovers before it, is about moving the plot forward. And when I've seen the plot before, it doesn't thrill me as much.

This is one of the reasons why I've moved away from traditional superhero comics. It's not that I don't like superheroes, it's that when you have these characters for which nothing ever changes, it's very hard to come up with new stuff for them to do. A writer I like will alleviate some of that, and so I drop in on Batman because I like Morrison. Once he's done, I may or may not keep up with the title. I have liked Bendis' stuff in the past, but I don't think he's a particularly good superhero writer, so that's not a draw. At some point in the development of my taste, I decided I wanted something more than stories of superheroes faced with tough odds. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. The nature of the business, however, means that there's not really a lot of mystery about what is going to happen. Civil War hasn't really had that many repercussions, despite all the hype. Yes, there have been a few, but generally it's business as usual in the Marvel U. This series may have some repercussions, but not many. If we consider something like Invincible, which takes place in its own little universe and is under the sole control of Mr. Kirkman, the difference becomes clear - every event in that book matters, because Mark Grayson's life can change dramatically. I'm not saying that it's automatically a better comic, but it's more interesting to me, personally. Even in the Big Two we can get interesting comics, but they're always books that don't sell particularly well, and therefore the creators can take more chances. Since Bendis took over, the Avengers brand has done well for Marvel. Do you really think they're going to let him fuck with it too much?

I have no problem with Marvel doing Secret Invasion. I have no problem with DC and Marvel doing these Big Events, especially if they're going to get good talent on the main series. I'm somewhat jazzed by Final Crisis, because yes, I'm a Whorrison, we never get to see J. G. Jones on interiors, and I honestly have no idea where the story is going to go. The biggest problems I have with a lot of these Big Events is, as I pointed out, the writers' best assets are subverted to the bigger plot, which is never a great idea; nothing much ever changes, because of the fact that these are iconic (and marketable) characters; and because it takes so much attention away from books that need a marketing push, like Blue Beetle or The Order. Again, if you don't like those books, fine, but very often, they get overlooked because DC and Marvel are so busy pushing the Monster Event. It's too bad.

I know this is the Nature of the Beast, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with people buying Secret Invasion. I do have a problem with people thinking it's going to be some kind of revolutionary story. It might be good, it might be bad. But for me, I know I'd rather take my four dollars and spend it on something like Fallen Angel, where shocking things happen as part of a long-running and carefully-planned storyline. I've seen a Skrull infiltration before. I've read too many comics for it to interest me. Am I just too old? Is this just a case of Secret Invasion appealing to the younger comics readers, who haven't read this before? You tell me, good readers of this blog!

75 Comments

• At April 6, 2008, Don C. wrote:

  My son, who's eleven, is why I got issue #1. He loved it. Outside of the "who's a ...

• At April 6, 2008, Conor E wrote:

  Are people really complaining that it's a Millenium rip-off? I think 20 years is enough turn around to reuse a ...

• At April 6, 2008, sleeper wrote:

  You hit the nail on the head. If you're expecting lasting change or a story that will have permanent ...

• At April 6, 2008, nadir wrote:

  one has to go as far back as right now to see that this is the exact same story, well ...

• At April 6, 2008, Mecha-Shiva wrote:

  From actually reading the issue, it bounced from character to character and place to place so much that it felt ...

• At April 6, 2008, JD Posey wrote:

  You probably hate tomatoes too even though you've never had one. "I'm not bashing the comic, because I haven't read ...

• At April 6, 2008, Scott King wrote:

  Just read the trade for free at B&N or Borders once its out.

• At April 6, 2008, Randy wrote:

  I thought it was pretty good, But what I'm more interested in is Final Crisis. I just cant wait to ...

• At April 6, 2008, Pastor Aarn wrote:

  I think it's funny that it is being compared to MIllenium because when I read it, it just screams "Battlestar ...

• At April 6, 2008, Greg Burgas wrote:

  When I bash something, I get ripped because I don't "get it." When I explain why I'm not going ...

• At April 6, 2008, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  I would read it if it were being treated like an interesting story instead of a crossover. If it ...

• At April 6, 2008, TimCallahan wrote:

  Personally, I love recursions and repetitions and revisions. I will watch eighteen different versions of Hamlet, just to see ...

• At April 6, 2008, The Mutt wrote:

  I'm much more interested in reading about Secret Invasion than I am in reading Secret Invasion.

• At April 6, 2008, Michael wrote:

  The real revelation is that every one of these Big Events is actually the same Event. The details may differ, ...

• At April 6, 2008, MarkAndrew wrote:

  My son, who’s eleven, is why I got issue #1. He loved it. Outside of the “who’s a skrull?” question, ...

• At April 6, 2008, Andrew Collins wrote:

  It's funny you mention the Dire Wraiths story in ROM, because I just bought a complete run of ROM off ...

• At April 6, 2008, Dave wrote:

  It's funny that you mention Final Crisis, because this is going to be the first year that I've ever bought ...

• At April 6, 2008, Jack Norris wrote:

  JD Posey:

  I think you're way, way off. I didn't read an article by someone who was refusing to try ...

• At April 6, 2008, plok wrote:

  Personally I think Bendis overseasons his tomatoes. And cooks 'em too long.

• At April 6, 2008, Bryan Levy wrote:

  I actually really like when series like Blue Beetle crosses over with the Big Events. Because they are off ...

• At April 6, 2008, Tomer S wrote:

  I read the story before, I know all about the shapeshifting aliens and their blah blah blah, but I still ...

• At April 6, 2008, red-Ricky wrote:

  How bout you wait until more than just one issue comes out of this series before you start saying you’ve ...

• At April 7, 2008, J to the AAP wrote:

  "Now contrast with Secret Invasion which will go on for 8 months and will have tied into 34 comics by ...

• At April 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  I don't get the Millennium complaint. Sure this story is a retread of Millennium, but people like me who ...

• At April 7, 2008, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  The interesting thing to me about it, being one of those ancient fans that watches trends and spends way too ...

• At April 7, 2008, acespot wrote:

  Yu's art is only nicer because he's got SOMEONE ELSE inking him.

• At April 7, 2008, Dan Felty wrote:

  I want to read good comics. That means that I shouldn't be afraid to be trendy nor be afraid ...

• At April 7, 2008, red-Ricky wrote:

  It's just an opinion but I believe chromium covers and hologram covers were profitable in their times, and now they ...

• At April 7, 2008, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  Put on the glasses!

• At April 7, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  I don’t get the Millennium complaint. Sure this story is a retread of Millennium, but people like me who try ...

• At April 7, 2008, avengers63 wrote:

  What I find most amusing is Mr. Burgas' incorporating a solid one-two bash of Christianity into his opening statement. ...

• At April 7, 2008, nadir wrote:

  hate speech????

  hey avenger63 you seem to be stuck on/in your talking points. to conjecture why someone had a revelation is ...

• At April 7, 2008, Andrew Collins wrote:

  Wow, you just took this discussion in a whole direction it didn't need to go in...

• At April 7, 2008, avengers63 wrote:

  I would suggest that Greg took this in that direction when he attempted to discredit a particular faith.

  And no, this ...

• At April 7, 2008, Jason B. wrote:

  What I find most amusing is Mr. Burgas' incorporating a solid bash of Gravity in his opening statement. I thought ...

• At April 7, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  If you have a problem with Greg, contact him. Don't hijack the thread for some imagined slight.

• At April 7, 2008, yo go re wrote:

  No one's trying to discredit another's life - no one said a thing about any faith being false, other than ...

• At April 7, 2008, fanboy d wrote:

  you'll never guess what my revelation regarding this article is...oh, wait, yes you will.

• At April 7, 2008, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  Oh, come on. I am Christian and teach Sunday school, I'm married to a mission worker, and WE are in ...

• At April 7, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  Religion is not the foundation of your life. It's a choice you make based on your opinion of the ...

• At April 7, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  Addendum: If you can't handle someone making fun of your opinions, then for your blood pressure's sake, you ought to ...

• At April 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  That’s a strange thing to admit so proudly.

  “I don’t care about the story, I care about the franchise!”

  No, I do ...

• At April 7, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  That's just a ridiculous fanboy attitude.

  Who are the Marvel creators, anyway?

• At April 7, 2008, avengers63 wrote:

  Religion is not the foundation of your life. It’s a choice you make based on your opinion of the world.

  Incorrect. ...

• At April 7, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  You're getting into rhetoric mode, where logic and reality don't apply, so I'm not going to bother arguing.

  For the record, ...

• At April 7, 2008, Jack Norris wrote:

  Then there's the fact that none of what he said constitutes "bashing".

• At April 7, 2008, Alan Coil wrote:

  Greg, you are far too courteous when you say:

  "Thank you, Internet!"

  More bluntly, you should have said:

  "Thank you, B!tche$!"

• At April 7, 2008, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Wow. I do apologize, avengers63. I am not a Christian, nor do I have any particular use for ...

• At April 7, 2008, Alan Coil wrote:

  Bendis---proudly writing for 11-year-olds for over a decade!

• At April 7, 2008, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Dang it, I spelled "reverence" incorrectly. I suck. I just wanted to point out that I'm not being ...

• At April 7, 2008, entzauberung wrote:

  "That does not, however, allow for any level of dismissive attitude towards my beliefs."

  So you can't be dismissive towards ANY ...

• At April 7, 2008, Anonymous wrote:

  BURGAS: Thank you, Greg. That was all I was looking for.

  It has become inappropriate for anyone in a ...

• At April 7, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  No, that's just an unfortunate development in your mind. Greg is not a public leader and has no responsibilities of ...

• At April 7, 2008, Andrew Collins wrote:

  Public leadership??? It's a blog on the internet! No offense to Brian and the Gregs, but if CSGB is a ...

• At April 7, 2008, avengers63 wrote:

  If you're the facilitator of a conversation, then you're the leader. No, the facilitator on a comic ...

• At April 7, 2008, avengers63 wrote:

  On a different note, I'm liking Secret Invasion. I'm not too concerned that the idea is a mish-mash of ...

• At April 7, 2008, nadir wrote:

  avengers63:

  you seem to be taking this a bit too far. you were offended. i can not argue that. and you ...

• At April 7, 2008, MarkAndrew wrote:

  I’m sick of seeing Christianity not get the same consideration as other groups. I’m sick of the double standard.

  That's a ...

• At April 7, 2008, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  Just as an aside -- there are no guidelines here that I'm aware of other than our own judgement. No ...

• At April 7, 2008, JBird wrote:

  The first issue was pretty fun and fast-paced. Don't sell it short - most crossovers are awful, but I can't ...

• At April 7, 2008, Michael wrote:

  Boy, this is the single dumbest tangent the Internet has ever produced.

• At April 7, 2008, Evan wrote:

  I've only been seriously reading comics for almost a year now, and I guess thats why I find Secret Invasion ...

• At April 7, 2008, yo go re wrote:

  I clearly recall a newscaster being disciplined because they were wearing an American flag pin days after 9-11.

  I call bullshit ...

• At April 7, 2008, yo go re wrote:

  I call bullshit on that.

  Nope, I looked it up: I was wrong...

• At April 7, 2008, Andrew Collins wrote:

  Well said, yo go re, well said.

• At April 8, 2008, avengers63 wrote:

  I' d like to offer a public apology to Greg Burgas and to ask him to forgive me. After ...

• At April 8, 2008, Henz_Be_Luvin_Me wrote:

  "Yu’s art is only nicer because he’s got SOMEONE ELSE inking him."

  Ain't that the truth, brother.

• At April 8, 2008, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Heck, avengers63, ain't nothing to forgive. As I mentioned, I was a bit mystified that you were offended, but ...

• At April 8, 2008, Chris wrote:

  Bendis and Marvel were smart. By giving us this isssue a couple of months after the horrible "Sell Out" ...

• At April 8, 2008, Chris Tolworthy wrote:

  For the record, the "magic mushroom" theory (or its equivalent) was held by many early Christians as well. See Wikipedia ...

• At April 8, 2008, Chris Tolworthy wrote:

  "it" being the book of Revelation. (Luther distrusted it, the Syrians rejected it, others felt it cause more trouble than ...

• At April 8, 2008, Scott Free wrote:

  Maybe if you're so offended, you shouldn't read this blog anymore. A blog is a forum for expressing a ...

• At April 8, 2008, Chris wrote:

  Religion is a touchy subject since everyone thinks their religion of choice is right. Until people can look at ...

• At April 12, 2008, Agustin Mojica wrote:

  I do understand why the lack of radical change would become fatiguing over so many years reading the Big Two; ...

• At April 16, 2008, JD Posey wrote:

  I think we should all just sit down together and have a bowl of tomato soup.

As threatened, I'm writing up some thoughts on the Bendis/Maleev run of Daredevil, a run which is an important one for a number of reasons.

First, and most evidently, it's one of the three key books that made Bendis's reputation and career within Marvel. Really, it was his success on Ultimate Spider-Man half a year earlier that had nailed things down for him at Marvel. Likewise, his work on Alias overlaps with his DD material to some extent, but it's hard to argue that this was the title whose critical success won him the level of influence and the plum assignments on Marvel's high-sales superhero books, and especially the Ultimate line for which he is all but creative director.) More to the point, critics and fans tend to read his work on Matt Murdock and Jessica Jones as somehow more personal than his work on Ultimate Peter Parker, perhaps because Bendis remains forever associated with his independent work on noirish crime fiction and superhero/police procedural genre fusions.

Second, the title is often held up as a high point of the so-called "decompressed" (or, more pejoratively, "Quemas" or "NuMarvel") direction that Marvel as a company trended towards some years back. Moreover, it seems that the critical reception of the Bendis/Maleev Daredevil has withstood the test of time; certain other efforts from the same period are now often made the targets of the backlash (absurd as I find it) against "decompression." The Bendis/Maleev run on this book, by contrast, is generally treated as a crowning achievement. It also, in both intranarrative and metanarrative terms, determines the current direction of the Daredevil property at Marvel; like Frank Miller before them, Bendis and Maleev seem positioned to cast a long shadow on the book's plot elements and general narrative style.

Third, it presented a particular variation on a longstanding trend, a variation that arguably replaced that trend. At a time when everyone from Warren Ellis to Grant Morrison -- well, you get my meaning, anyway -- was championing the ejection from the genre of many of its tropes, the Bendis/Maleev Daredevil demonstrated the potential of using the same elements of older days, including secret identity plots, costumes, supervillains, and grand narrative conflicts, but approaching them from the perspective of other genres. In this case, it was the crime genre; but what it announced was the return of the costume, the secret identity, and the like with a different pacing and a different idiom applied to their execution. Here in 2007, the masks and costumes have not vanished, but more books than ever seem to be applying the standards of other genres to the superhero standards. Whether it's as anti-nostalgic a writer as Warren Ellis adapting his post-Gibson cyberpunk sci-fi to the Ultimate line and Thunderbolts or as traditionalist writer as Dan Slott finding a way to bring David Kelley legal dramedy to She-Hulk and "boot camp" movie stylings to Avengers: The Initiative, genre fusion of this sort has predominated where the prediction of superheroes-as-The Matrix has gradually petered out.

These reasons are the broader ones that I think permit yet another of the many, many critical considerations of this milestone run. But there is another, perhaps greater or at least (I hope) uniquely compelling reason to look back on this run, a reason that underlies those I have stated above: the Bendis/Maleev Daredevil manages at once to stand in for a certain era of Marvel comics and to explain a certain dominant creative direction at Marvel today. It opens debates on Bendis's own creative power at Marvel, the use of a variety of techniques shocased in the run, and an entire attitude towards doing superhero comics that has caught on at Marvel. If it originates only some or none of these things, it remains a vital and focal point from which a great many such trends can be evaluated and treated at once.

You'll note that I am treating the Bendis/Maleev run, which will exclude both the earlier Bendis arc and the David Mack interlude with Echo. This is because the Bendis/Maleev run is clearly meant to stand as a piece, with its graphic novels as chapters in a longer novelistic fiction, while those other arcs are essentially stand-alones or onto other business. (The Echo arc was commissioned as a miniseries before it was drafted into the main title to give the regular team a break.) A word, also, on method: Though I foreground themes and methods over plot, I will still be proceeding through the run roughly chronologically, the better to track what shifts and changes in the run's progress. However, I will permit myself -- and more importantly, will beg your indulgence for -- analepses and occasional analogies where my own admittedly subjective views and readings seem to demand them...or at least wish for them in a spirit of whimsical velleity. On to the meat, then.

Underboss

Themes

From the beginning, Bendis and Maleev deploy two interlocking strategies which I think bear outlining at the start. They are, to wit: 1) A narrative effort to deconstruct or push beyond the boundaries established for noir superheroes by Frank Miller's earlier and nfluential work on the feature; 2) An effort to insistently foreground the filmic and more specifically film noir roots of the verbal and visual -- comics, kids -- language being applied to the feature.

These elements are apparent with the opening pages of their first issue as a team, the first part of "Underboss." Sammy Silke sits before the Kingpin's seeming corpse, rendered in a chiaroscuro style with a (for comics illustration) rather phgotographic quality. This photographic quality is not simply in the pencilling, inking, and coloring style; the panel sequences themselves treat the image like a photograph, and will for the entire run, using stats, "zooms," and so on of single panels repeated.

This in turn has the effect of simulating a camera moving, as if we are seeing not panels in a comic but stills in a motiuon picture. Maleev's tendency, already evident on page one, of only minimally breaking up the vertical axis of the page, highlights this. Horizontal sequence is used in Maleev's art on this title to present "faster" cutting in a film, not to pace comics material along a horizontal axis as, say, Scott McCloud on a very off day might suggest. (McCloud would likely recognize Maleev's maneuvers rather quickly, so I have cheerfully and unfairly handicapped him in this hypothetical for my own sinister purposes.)

The other image on page one that sets up an entire thematic for the run is that of Silke sitting and giving orders, that is, an image borrowed in some sense from Frank Miller: the Kingpin in his seat, the boss reclining, the spider at the center of the web. What contrasts this to Miller's take is the simple narrative fact of having Silke, a brand new character, and one lacking the flashier visual elements of the Kingpin, in that visual and metaphorical position. The Kingpin's Throne, the seat of power, will become a a metalepsis that represents the plot of this entire run and, I argue, is its ultimate theme. All contests, all grand moves, are about taking up the position Silke has on page one, panel one; this seat can never be vacant, as later arcs will insist, and the run itself takes for granted as a premise.

Miller, of course, treated individuals rather than positions of power. His Kingpin was Kingpin becaus ehe was smarter, stronger, and more willful than anyone else. Daredevil's various stalemates with him -- Miller never allowed DD to depose the Kingpin, nor, even in the nadirs of "Born Again," really let the Kingpin finally crush Matt -- were built aroudn the idea that each was special, distinct, unique, and uniquely powerful. (Stick thinks Matt is greater in potential than the students he has trained for a lifetime, and it is Matt who can purify Elektra where Stick failed; the Kingpin reasserts control from his incompetent successors and can game any process or election and is untroubled by any other superhero save when Daredevil intervenes.)

Here, we have not an immortal Kingpin, a genuine supervillain, but rather a crime boss stabbed dead on the ground. If Silke compares him to Caesar, it is to underscore his own greatness as a Brutus or an Antony. Caesar dies, he doesn't reign. (Of course, the other side of the comparison catches up to Silke as it did to Brutus and Antony in the Shakespearean idiom that this scene and this arc are based around.)

Miller is quite often credited as having made Daredevil a noir feature. He didn't. He applied some of noir's visual language and conceits, but his take on the feature was still well within the realms of superheroic fiction. (There's also his incorporation of a more mystical and Orientalist thematic that is miles from noir as usually understood, but that's a matter for a Miller career retrospective.) Bendis and Maleev are, by contrast, fully committed to noirish principles and to a distinctly filmic storytelling style. In so doing, they push beyond Miller in generic (as the adjectival form of genre) terms precisely by fully applying noir.

Power and position run noir more than individuality or uniqueness; fate is a web, and valor and honor or lack thereof are less important in some ways than where one is at on that corrupt web. Being exceptionally clever, or, more often, exceptionally strong-willed can permit either brief exceptionality from fate, or rather temporary furloughs from the tragedy in which noir ends, but in the end it is the tangled weave of the web of corruption, the closing of the sticky net of fate that matters. Power and corruption are the order of the world, and a dispassionately moral fate the world's motor in the genre.

This is the other reason for the endless -- sometimes, yes, tiresome -- Caesar bits. Caesar's play is a tragedy, and tragedy plays out fate, not human volition. Flaws are inborn, not acquired, and the outcome is seeded in the start, the fall in the rise. This is the other aspect of the foregrounding of the Kingpin's Throne over the ostensible Kingpin himself. Whoever sits in that chair inherits the worldly power, but also the fate attached to the position.

The Kingpin's fall is thus not the breaking of Miller's pattern, but the revelation of a new governing pattern that incorporates it as an Act I sort of moment. Where Miller's take on that site of power or on the hero's position -- mirrors of one another -- was the sacrifice of a certain kind of ordinariness, a certain mode of intimacy and friendship (only passionate love really survived in Matt or Fisk for Miller), Bendis and Maleev read the matter as one of pure noirish politics, in its similarly generic sense: whoever is tough enough and smart enough to conquer and win that throne becomes the Kingpin, but also achieves the fatality inherent in the position.

The inheritor will have to be of a certain nature, bestowed with certain innate gifts, to keep it for any length of time, but there is also a pattern of rise and fall which is inevitable associated with the Kingpin's Throne. Matt Murdock's and other characters' various efforts to upset or deny this order or its homologues in realms ranging from espionage to mythology and the consequences that befall them in the process will make up much of the plot of the run. Fate is a place, not a personal flaw.

Next time, having set up the themes of "Underboss" and done a bit with the two pivotal characters, I'll look at the execution of the story and do a bit of a closer reading of its plot turns, subthemes, and various characters. I'll be covering Maleev's action sequences as against his conversation scenes, and the layout of panels and pages; Bendis's use of elliptical and referential phrasing, part of his creation of a postmodern hardboiled dialogue style and plot structure; and the roles played by Foggy Nelson, the other Fisks, Ben Urich, and the supervillains in this opening arc.

4 Comments

• At December 29, 2007, Crash-Man wrote:

  I love it.

  May I have some more?

• At December 29, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  "Introductory Remarks" would lend you to believe there's more, no? ;)

• At December 29, 2007, entzauberung wrote:

  Omar Karindu should write the entire internet.

• At December 29, 2007, Denn wrote:

  Great article. There are a couple typos I noticed though.

I understand that some of you really, REALLY like Mary Jane Watson and Peter "Spider-man" Parker being married.

It's sweet.

The circumstances in comics that immediately led up to the marriage might have been a tad contrived, but the marriage itself totally makes sense in terms of overall character progression and Peter/Mary Jane's shared history.

It gives Spidey an emotional anchor.

The every-nerd gets girl premise is even kind of validating for many of you.

And, OK, me too.

But.... Let's try to be all Zen-like and analytical about this. Inhale. Exhale. Think of happy clouds.

Let's forget, for the sake of argument, certain clumsy developments in the actual telling of Spider-man stories, and look at the marriage as an isolated thing.

Everybody forgot? Goot, goot.

Let me posit the following premise: Every superhero worth his spandex is a vehicle for certain unique types of stories. Specific superhero comics ain't just about the personality, powers or supporting cast of the main character. Each book is also a specific milieu designed for telling certain TYPES of stories that reflect certain themes. A dark, noir-ish, revenge driven story will generally serve Batman better than Superman, unless it thematically incorporates or comments on elements of The Superman Story, such as the immigrant myth, American optimism, or the stark division between right and wrong.

What I'm talking about here isn't exactly the same thing as a Story-telling engine, but it hangs out in center field of the same ball-park.

But note that when I say "Spider-man" in the body of this post I'm usually going to mean {The entirety of the "world" as it's generally depicted in the Spider-man comic book} or {Spider-man as grouping of concepts centering around the themes of power and responsibility, private duty vs. public perception, personal isolation, family, and stuff like that.}

So. Marriage bad. Two points.

(A) {Spider-man} is designed to incorporate soap opera elements.

Here's my theory: The reason super-hero comics survived and prospered when westerns and pirate comics flopped over and died was the super-folks adaptability, the ease with which they utilize the conventions of different genres.

Companies didn't stop making crime comics, romances, horror stories or science fiction comics. It's just that the tropes of those genres got incorporated into superhero comics.

So let's look at the non-super-hero genre elements that went into Spider-man. In it's earliest Ditko days, Spider-man was part crime comic, part Frankenstein story (Think of it as mad scientists at war) and part romance comic, mebbe 20% Archie style comedy mixed with 80% straight tear-dripping romance.

And the central question of romance comics, Archie style and regular, is who's gonna hook up with who.

So if you marry the two leads this becomes a moot point. In the Spider-man-verse, the marriage has two effects -

First, despite some brilliant wrangling from folks like Paul Jenkins**, the marriage did often take the focus off Pete's brilliantly conceived supporting cast, and second...

Peter's constant girl troubles were a darn fine way to maintain narrative tension. You take that away, and you need a hook to replace it. And there hasn't been one for the last twenty-or-so years that drive the narrative so effectively.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are some storytelling advantages to having a married Spider-man. It does somewhat increase the tension of having Mary Jane threatened (See that first Micheline/Mcfarlane Venom story) and it increases the importance of family in the title, which let J.M. DeMatteis and Sal Buscema to draw some interesting parallels in their Spectacular (note clever pun) Death of Harry Osborn arc. But neither of those has been able to CONSISTENTLY provide the illusion of story advancement which ongoing collectively written stories need to keep chuggin' along.

This also doesn't mean that no elements can be introduced that are as interesting as the soap opera based engine. I can't think of any, mind. But I grantya the theoretical possibility.

Which brings me to my second and more damning point:

2) Spider-man is Coming of Age Story:

In fact, Spider-man is fighting it out with Huck Finn and Harry Potter to be THE most important coming of age story in Western culture. Check it:

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility", right?

Growing up means gaining more power and gaining more responsibility. Pete/Spidey starts as a powerless teenage aunty's boy. Then, in his very first story, he's taught the importance of social responsibility, and he has to struggle to apply his new-found more grown-p perspective to his real life.

"I WANT to punch Flash Thompson in the cajones, but doing so might reveal my secret identity and endanger ALL the people around me. So I won't. Dammit."

Responsibility.

I don't think I'm too far off in saying the purpose of Spider-man is to teach us how to be grown-ups.

So when Spider-man undergoes maybe THE most important ritual of becoming an adult***, he's no longer coming of age, he dang well CAME.

Which would be a heck of an ending to the Spider-man story. If we want to permanently replace Peter with May Parker/Spider-girl, this is the way to go about it, happily ending the Spider-man story. (And I'm certainly not opposed to this course of action.)

OR if we want to re-cast Spider-man as a coming to middle-age story with a house in the 'burbs and a kid not abducted by the Green Goblin and vanished forever... well that maybe possibly kinda might work sorta to a degree if the creative team involved was stellar.

Maybe.

Still, even if reversing the marriage is a good thing it's going to be tough to tell this story well.

I think I can safely submit One More Day so far for evidence.

I certainly can't think of an effective, in continuity, {Spider-man} appropriate way to end it. Divorce just makes Spider-man look old. Killing Mary Jane gets rid of one of the best supporting characters in comics. Having the devil come in and use Super Devil Magic... Well, that's just stewpid. THAT would never happen, right?

Right?

So we're stuck with the theoretical - Single Spider-man and Mary Jane WORK in a way that married Spider-man doesn't. Versus the practical - Making married Spider-man fun is a storytelling quagmire.

And, honestly, it's kind of a damned both ways situation. I guess I'm more anti-marriage. It certainly hasn't destroyed the comic or made for terrible stories - Although I'd argue that Spidey's Golden Age had passed by '87 - But it still feels like married Spider-man isn't working how he's supposed to work .

And maintaining Spider-man as vehicle for stories and, more importantly, Spider-man as cultural icon is, to my mind, the most important thing.

* By which I mean 1947.

** Bring back Kevin the Cheese!

** Note "Ritual." As in "On a ritual level." As in married people SEEM like adults in society's eyes, whether or not they ACT like adults. Figured I had to make that distinction or lose all my cred among anyone who's ever met Newlyweds.

72 Comments

• At December 3, 2007, TF_loki wrote:

  You're my hero. That is great. Could you post it on the 'Rama boards too....?

• At December 3, 2007, Snouffelaire wrote:

  Well, the whole débate "Single Spidey vs Married Spidey" reminds me of "Batman and Robin vs Batman lone hero" : ...

• At December 3, 2007, J to the AAP wrote:

  There's already a single Spidey or one with 'girlfriend trouble' in Marvel Adventures and Ultimate Spiderman. I don't see why ...

• At December 3, 2007, Paul O'Brien wrote:

  I kind of agree with this. Spider-Man isn't just a character, he's a format. Part of the format ...

• At December 3, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  The other side of all of this is also that today's comics really aren't the same sort of soap operas ...

• At December 3, 2007, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Know how to make the marriage work? Don't hire Howard Mackie and Tom DeFalco to write your comics, don't work ...

• At December 3, 2007, fanboy d wrote:

  can. of. worms.

  i say, if they don't think they can write good spider-man stories with a married peter parker, end ...

• At December 3, 2007, fanboy d wrote:

  i can't believe there's an argument FOR divorce...taints the character's growing-up role model status surely.

• At December 3, 2007, Jordan D. White wrote:

  Near perfect post. Well done.

• At December 3, 2007, BDaly wrote:

  Parker's life should suck, so have MJ cheat on him.

• At December 3, 2007, Snouffelaire wrote:

  and is it me or Wally West is a good example of "married superhero" that works ?

  (oh wait... that Flash ...

• At December 3, 2007, Frank wrote:

  I agree with your points. And I don' think most people would have a problem with the idea of ...

• At December 3, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  The problem really is that once you decide Spider-Man is a "Coming of Age" story, you've pretty much locked it ...

• At December 3, 2007, Jack Potts wrote:

  Personally, I think for most people opposed to the marriage, it's not that Pete GOT married, it's that he married ...

• At December 3, 2007, Rusty Priske wrote:

  I'm with Post #3.

  Peter Parker is a well developed character that can work on different levels. Let the coming of ...

• At December 3, 2007, Greg Manuel wrote:

  In answer to John Seavey: I don't necessarily think making Spider-Man's story one of progression ruins the storytelling engine, because ...

• At December 3, 2007, Greg Manuel wrote:

  Answering Jack Potts: I think the gripe that fans may have about Peter scoring a supermodel is all that relevant...I'd ...

• At December 3, 2007, Greg Manuel wrote:

  gah...meant to say ISN'T all that relevant.

• At December 3, 2007, TF_loki wrote:

  Wally West as married superhero is one thing. But he's only been married for a quarter of the time Peter ...

• At December 3, 2007, Martin wrote:

  "Spider-Man in stories no one remembers fondly!"

  I loved the Ross Andru issues!

• At December 3, 2007, counterpoint: anti marriage for spider-man [tripp millican] | madeofglass wrote:

  [...] me vs. the spider-marriage :: [...]

• At December 3, 2007, Beta Ray Steve wrote:

  Why is the possibility of divorce such a non-heroic thing? It could be done in a very decent manner: MJ ...

• At December 3, 2007, BDaly wrote:

  ... or they could have her raped by one of Spidey's B-list villains.

• At December 3, 2007, Cyric Darksun wrote:

  So in Sensational Spider-man (before this OMD crap) there was an issue where Peter held a seance with Madame Web ...

• At December 3, 2007, Pedro Bouça wrote:

  The recent animated series pretty much go with the "MJ as only love of Perter Parker ever". The darn marriage ...

• At December 3, 2007, Paul wrote:

  "Wally West as married superhero is one thing. But he’s only been married for a quarter of the time Peter ...

• At December 3, 2007, Omega Alpha wrote:

  "… or they could have her raped by one of Spidey’s B-list villains."

  And then killed and stuffed into a refrigerator. ...

• At December 3, 2007, Jeff Holland wrote:

  First off, I want to say how impressed I am that this thread has across the board been insightful and ...

• At December 3, 2007, T. wrote:

  Know how to make the marriage work? Don’t hire Howard Mackie and Tom DeFalco to write your comics, don’t work ...

• At December 3, 2007, TF_loki wrote:

  Wally got married in 99. Man, it doesn't seem that long ago. Sheesh I'm old. But that point about Legacies ...

• At December 3, 2007, LanghorneFats wrote:

  Umm, this is classic Quesada, and I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that people are falling for it AGAIN.

  At no point ...

• At December 3, 2007, Ford MF wrote:

  You know, there're reasons lots of people have a hard time seeing comics as an adult literature. And it's ...

• At December 3, 2007, BDillon wrote:

  Have to say that there are a lot of good points on both sides of this issue. Only thing ...

• At December 3, 2007, Jeff Holland wrote:

  Langhorne Fats does have a very good point, one I'm surprised hasn't come up more often - this is what ...

• At December 3, 2007, Mike wrote:

  Annnd...it's Omar Karindu for the win.

• At December 3, 2007, Dan (other Dan) wrote:

  If someone had shown me Untold Tales of Spider-Man when I was in fifth grade, I probably wouldn't have stopped ...

• At December 3, 2007, Chris Simpson wrote:

  Some good points made for both sides here.

  Whilst I love MJ as a character, I do miss some of the ...

• At December 3, 2007, Andrew Collins wrote:

  What this basically comes down to is- "What Spider-Man did I grow up with and want to see again?" That ...

• At December 3, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  For me, I’ve lived 20 of my 30 years with the marriage and think it should stay the way it ...

• At December 3, 2007, km wrote:

  I'm kind of bemused by the notion that there has to be some kind of romantic tension in Peter's life ...

• At December 3, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  TF_loki said:

  "The first 5 years of married Pete were pretty good but it’s stalled since then."

  Yes, that would be because ...

• At December 3, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  As much as I love the Spider-Marriage, because I grew up with it, it's probably not good for the industry ...

• At December 3, 2007, Victor O'Niallain wrote:

  I'm not a great fan of these stories that try to "erase" facts we readers so enthusiatically witnessed in our ...

• At December 3, 2007, km wrote:

  Well, again, marriage doesn't automatically = 'total maturity' by a long shot; it actually increases growth - emotional and mental ...

• At December 3, 2007, km wrote:

  Something else odd about Raimi's quote that occurred to me after I hit send: Isn't Spidey's whole gig about what ...

• At December 3, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  I don't buy it. There's no reason why Spider-Man couldn't still operate on the same levels that you point ...

• At December 3, 2007, Jeff Holland wrote:

  It's possible that the whole point of Peter getting married was a means of putting a whole new set of ...

• At December 3, 2007, EvilDeathBee wrote:

  I disagree with pretty much the entire argument.

  1) "Here’s my theory: The reason super-hero comics survived and prospered when westerns ...

• At December 3, 2007, Greg Manuel wrote:

  *Looks over at EvilDeathBee, points at own eyes with two fingers and gestures back and forth* See...you and me? We're ...

• At December 3, 2007, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  I’m agreeable to either time passing or time not passing, but Marvel has to make up its mind one way ...

• At December 3, 2007, Andrew Collins wrote:

  MarkAndrew said:

  "So did I. But I’m a black-hearted individual with not a speck of nostalgia in my soul."

  Ha ha, well ...

• At December 4, 2007, red-Ricky wrote:

  You know, I think people (and Marvel Execs) are missing the big picture.

  Marriage or no marriage, the fact of the ...

• At December 4, 2007, Mantistotem wrote:

  KM,

  I love you :) You posted just about everything that I was thinking while reading this thread. Saved me a ...

• At December 4, 2007, Master Mahan wrote:

  I have to agree that Marvel should at least do *something* with Spidey's marriage. It's entirely possible to write good ...

• At December 4, 2007, BDaly wrote:

  "As much as I love the Spider-Marriage, because I grew up with it, it’s probably not good for the industry ...

• At December 4, 2007, BDaly wrote:

  Until the stars turn cold.

  OR

  Until my aunt's on her death bed.

• At December 4, 2007, Patient Boy wrote:

  (Maybe Foggy Nelson’s former girlfriend from the “Born Again” arc).

  Glori O'Breen. Like many of Matt Murdock's ex-girlfriends, she's dead.

• At December 4, 2007, Lynxara wrote:

  What confuses me about this is the argument that Spider-Man appeals better to young readers if he's single. Frankly, I ...

• At December 4, 2007, Todd Lawrence wrote:

  A character is subject to "real" victories, "real" tragedies and a life (even a fictional life) of lasting change and ...

• At December 4, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  Todd, I'd submit that the other thing that makes Spidey special- apart from the everyman aspect- is that he was ...

• At December 4, 2007, Todd Lawrence wrote:

  Captain Marvel and Kid Eternity would like a word with you, Rohan.

  Undeniably, there is an aspect of "kid hero acting ...

• At December 4, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  Yeah, I totally misphrased that, Todd- I meant he was the first superhero his age (high school/college age) who wasn't ...

• At December 4, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  I should add- obviously, getting rid of the marriage won't magically de-age Spidey, which is the main 'problem' Marvel seems ...

• At December 4, 2007, km wrote:

  Awww, Mantistotem, thanks.

  I'm wondering if, in the course of debating what age Spidey works best at, we're not overlooking ...

• At December 4, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  Actually, KM, USM is different from the Lee/Ditko Spidey in that Pete is (slightly) less of a geek than he ...

• At December 7, 2007, rich wrote:

  "For the first 7 or 8 years of the feature really did have Peter go through life changes ... And ...

• At December 13, 2007, rich wrote:

  "The next truly classic, truly well-remembered storyline is the death of Gwen and the beginning of Spider-Man/Mary Jane romance."

  Hmmm ... ...

• At December 14, 2007, Morgan wrote:

  This whole mess has me thinking Quesada's had about enough time as EIC.

  This is a horrible, hacky solution to cowardly ...

• At February 20, 2008, Comics Should Be Good! » I like Spider-Man: Brand New Day, but I’m not married to it. wrote:

  [...] I also find the argument that you can’t tell interesting stories with Spider-Man, as our friends in the U.K. ...

• At February 21, 2008, Ben Herman wrote:

  Spider-man is fighting it out with Huck Finn and Harry Potter to be THE most important coming of age story ...

• At March 31, 2008, Don wrote:

  Spider-Man at its heart is a science book. To use magic just because it exist in the Marvel Universe is ...

• At May 5, 2008, Chumleigh wrote:

  A married Peter story could easily be a coming of age, power and responsibility story. People don't stop coming of ...

So the big thing in comics these days is the struggle between what is now known as "decompressed" storytelling and its opposite, which never had a name but is now called "compressed" storytelling. The reason compressed storytelling never had a name was because everyone knew it as "comics" storytelling - it was the standard, and nothing really deviated all that much from it. Of course, I'm not the greatest comic book historian, so if you can show me a romance comic book from the 1950s that exhibits decompressed storytelling, you're a better person than I am (and you need to move out of your parents' basement).

However, in the past decade or so, decompressed storytelling has come into vogue. What's the freakin' difference, you might ask. Well, compressed storytelling takes as its central point the idea that a story needs to be told in 22 pages - the length of your average comic book. That is why it's compressed, don't you know. With the advent of longer books, more "literary" aspirations on the part of writers (who read too much Proust in college), and, especially, the arrival of the trade paperback format in earnest, decompressed writing has come into its own. Writers like Brian Michael Bendis, Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, and J. Michael Straczynski said: "We don't need to tell a story in 22 pages. That is an artificial construct." So they (and many others, but this ain't a list) began to write stuff that didn't necessarily fit into 22 pages, or even 44. They began to write stuff that got resolved in 6 issues ... or 8 ... or 12. One of the reasons they could do this was the collecting craze that hit comics. Back in the day, comics were almost instantly disposable. You simply didn't save them, which is why Action Comics #1 is worth so much. Now, we have acres and acres of long boxes in our garages or bookshelves and bookshelves devoted to trades, so we can remember what happened six months before when a conversation in a book started and is just now wrapping up. It's all good!

To any comic book reader, this is old news. What I want to look at today is the differences between these two styles of storytelling. I ranted a few weeks back about things not happening in all of my purchases, and it pissed me off. But today, I want to show you why these things piss me off explicitly, and show you why this idea of "decompressed" storytelling as gone too far, even for the masters of the genre.

First, completely at random, I opened my Essential Spider-Man Volume 2: issues #21-43 and Annuals #2-3. Here's what I got (Me again, I swapped in a color scan I made of the same page - BC)

Then, also completely at random, I picked a page from a current (as of August 2005 - BC) comic:

Okay, I lied about the second one. I didn't pick it at random. I went looking for it. But let's take a look at both of these.

I'm a writer. Maybe not a very good one, but still. So I know something about the basics of storytelling. One thing I adhere to pretty strictly is that a writer should not waste the audience's time. We have a lot of reading options, so a writer who wastes our time is just useless. This does not mean you should have the throttle down all the time, mind you. This just means that every word (since I write prose) should either propel the plot forward or tell us something about the characters or at least make the sentence work better. That's why when I write (not here, since here I generally don't do drafts) I try to get rid of "to be" verbs. They waste time. Sometimes they are necessary. Often (mostly) they aren't. Anyway, in a comic book, things are a bit different. Art goes along with the words, so there might not be any words, but the art is propelling the story along or telling us something about the characters. That's fine. We have all read comics with no words in them. It doesn't mean they don't tell a story.

Okay, the Spider-Man page. What do we learn from this page? That's the truest test of whether a comic book is wasting your time or not. If you open a page at random, can you learn anything about the story that would make you want to continue? Or, if you don't learn anything, is the art so spectacular that it makes you want to continue (splash pages sometimes serve this function). Page 12 tells us:

The guy with the moustache doesn't like Spider-Man ("You overrated clown! You bumbling incompetent!").

The guy with the moustache is self-absorbed ("Who cares about you!? That furniture set me back a fortune!").

The superhero in question is named Spider-Man, and he's fighting the Scorpion (unless they're named Spidey and Scorpy, which is how they're referred to on this page).

For some reason, the cops are wusses ("Hold your fire! Jameson's in no immediate danger!").

The guy with the moustache is named Jameson, and his first initial is J.

The Scorpion is an ex-con ("I'm not gonna be tossed in the stir again ...").

The Scorpion and Spider-Man can both stick to walls (panel 5)

Jameson is a coward ("Boy! Jameson sounds mighty brave today!" "Sure ... Since we got here!")

Jameson is some sort of businessman.

Jameson knows Spider-Man quite well, and probably has some sort of knowledge about the Scorpion.

Spider-Man cracks jokes while he fights.

That's quite a bit of knowledge. Even if you have never opened a comic book before and you happen to see this page floating along the street after it was ripped out of a book and thrown away, you could get a lot of what's going on. Now, let's look at the page from Ocean. What do we learn?

It's a city in the future (a bagel breakfast cost 9 dollars, some futuristic cars and ad scrolls, the parking meters, the coffee cup disintegrates before it hits the ground).
The main character is black and looks like Avery Brooks, as someone pointed out to me when issue #6 came out. (Sorry, I can't remember who it was.)

Umm ... yeah, that's it. Four panels for that???? If you found this comic page floating along our hypothetical street after someone in a fit of pique after spending 3 bucks on this ripped it out and hurled it to its fate, you would know absolutely nothing about this comic book except that it's set in the future. That's it. Would that make you want to buy the book?

Since I couldn't scan everything in, let's break down, in more detail, both books and what we learn (bear with me - I know this is long, but that's the way it is):

ASM #29: Peter needs new clothes; Peter is poor; Peter digs Betty Brant; the Scorpion escapes from jail and swears vengeance on Jameson and Spider-Man; scientific equipment is being stolen around town; Betty has a crush on Ned Leeds, who has been in Europe but is now back; Peter is jealous of Ned; Jameson created the Scorpion and fears the law because of it; Peter fakes being scared of bad guys so no one will suspect he's Spider-Man; Jameson has a plan to get Spider-Man to fight the Scorpion; Spider-Man swings around the city making himself a target; the Scorpion's costume enables him to climb walls; the Scorpion can propel himself from roof to roof by using his tail; Jameson claims Spider-Man and the Scorpion are partners; the Scorpion plans to kill Jameson while Spider-Man is out swinging around, but Spidey figures it out; Jameson is a coward; Spidey doesn't like Jameson (and vice versa); Spidey has a bit of a temper problem; Jameson is cheap; Spidey can use his webbing in innovative ways (he makes bolas from it); Spidey is very agile; Spidey's webbing is waterproof; Peter lives with Aunt May; Jameson is a liar; Aunt May totally babies Peter; Aunt May has a health problem.

Okay, now Ocean: There are coffins with people in them in the ocean, which is under a sheet of ice on some moon somewhere out in the solar system; the main character's name is Nathan Kane; the story is in the future; lots of space trivia that Ellis (and all his characters) love; there are bases on the moon and Mars; in the future, identification is implanted in the wrist; someone wants to kill Kane but he takes care of them because he's a bad mother ... shut your mouth!; Kane is a special weapons inspector for the UN; the people who wanted to kill Kane weren't just miners; Kane is on Deimos; Kane doesn't like guns; the ocean is on Europa, a moon of Jupiter; there are corporations at Europa as well as the government; Kane gets busy with the ladies; the station commander's name is Fadia Aziz.

We learn quite a bit in both books, but does anything happen? In the Spider-Man book, the Scorpion breaks out of prison, comes up with a plan to take revenge on the two people he hates the most, fights Spider-Man, and gets defeated. However, we also check in on Peter's money situation, his romantic life, and his home life. We also get a lot of character development of Jameson, Peter, and even Aunt May. In Ocean, basically a guy flies to Europa. That's it.

Times have changed, I suppose. Ellis is telling a science fiction epic, and wants to get us really into the futuristic world and how things work and what's going on. That's fine. However, we get a very good sense of 1960s New York from the Spider-Man books, and it doesn't take 22 pages to do it! Peter hangs out with his friends for two panels, and we can get a sense of what it's like. We don't need pages and pages of a spaceship taking off to understand what's going on.

Despite all this, I like some "decompressed" stories. My biggest issue with it is when it takes over the "compressed" side completely. This is the shit that's really killing comics, because it drives more and more people away from the front-end stuff, i.e. the monthlies, and more into the back-end, i.e. the trade paperbacks. If you're reading Ocean in trade paperback format, you don't care that Ellis takes 22 pages to "set the mood," because you know you can read the whole story in one sitting. Reading it in 6 issue chunks is unbelievably frustrating, however, especially when he fucks up the ending, which he did. When I read his similarly-themed (but much better) Orbiter, I didn't care that he was taking his time, because it was a graphic novel, told as a single story. I didn't have to wait six months for the pay-off.

The interesting thing about this is that people claim that comics in the 1960s were for kids, while comics today are for adults. Well, in the first panel of page 12 of Amazing Spider-Man #29, there are 45 words. I'm not saying that more words means more intelligent, but it's interesting that kids were expected to sit down and read a comic book back then, whereas today's adults can just gaze at Sprouse's beautiful artwork and not worry about taxing their brains with too many words. Just something to mention.

I don't want to go back to the way it used to be. Seriously. I've been reading the Essential Spider-Mans, and I enjoy them, but the breakneck speed with which Lee and Ditko and Romita flew through them gets annoying. I don't mind stopping and catching a breath now and then. Unfortunately, with today's comics, so much of it is catching your breath that there's no more room for the breakneck speed. The pendulum has swung too far to the other side. If Marvel and DC want their writers to "write for the trade," they should simply give up the monthly format. The serial nature of comics demands something happen every month. I'm sorry, but it does. If Ellis wants to tell a slow-moving story like Ocean, he should write it as a graphic novel (and, of course, get the ending right). Yes, we need a balance, as Lee's overuse of caption boxes grates occasionally. Don't accept "decompressed" storytelling just because Bendis tells you it's good for you! Force him to make something happen in his books!

63 Comments

• At October 25, 2007, Mecha-Shiva wrote:

  Didn't read this the first time around, but I have to agree with almost everything in here. The fact ...

• At October 25, 2007, Chris Simpson wrote:

  This is the first time I've read this article and agree with almost every point.

  It would be nice to think ...

• At October 25, 2007, Christine wrote:

  I'm all for the happy medium as well. While I prefer most of the modern elements of comics today over ...

• At October 25, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Personally, I do want things to go back to the "compressed" side. I loved the pace of Silver Age comics, ...

• At October 25, 2007, Anthony Strand wrote:

  The thing that bothers me is that so many writers feel they need to stretch things out to fill a ...

• At October 25, 2007, Beta Ray Steve wrote:

  One problem with the decompressed style is it ignores time. A 6 issue Daredevil arc takes place in 6 months ...

• At October 25, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  Good points here by all.

  I prefer stories to actually suit the kind of tale they're telling. Sometimes it's nice ...

• At October 25, 2007, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Mike Grell used lots of silent and one-line panels in Green Arrow & Jon Sable, yet managed to tell a ...

• At October 25, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  The very best comics in terms of technique do something that sounds utterly paradoxical: they employ cmpression and decompression simultaneously. ...

• At October 25, 2007, Christine wrote:

  "I prefer stories to actually suit the kind of tale they’re telling."

  This is a very good point. The writing needs ...

• At October 25, 2007, avengers63 wrote:

  I have no problem at all with the plot * story being drawn out over several issues... as long as ...

• At October 25, 2007, suedenim wrote:

  “We don’t need to tell a story in 22 pages. That is an artificial construct.”

  That's a valid point, but ...

• At October 25, 2007, suedenim wrote:

  Omar touches on a subject I've thought about a bit, and possibly a better way to frame the issue than ...

• At October 25, 2007, Brad wrote:

  There does seem to be a movement back towards 'compressed' storytelling. Which ironically (but not really) Ellis lead. The Marvel ...

• At October 25, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Decompression = Writers trying to be Dave Sim.

  Really.

  Cerebus did the decompression/writing for trade stuff first, and did ...

• At October 25, 2007, Mark wrote:

  I also agree with Omar--it's possible to compress and decompress at once. If the artwork contains enough details, it provides ...

• At October 25, 2007, suedenim wrote:

  I've noticed a bit of a trend toward "recompression" too, occasionally even too much. For example, IDW's Star Trek ...

• At October 25, 2007, Andy Vaughn wrote:

  I agree with Beta-Ray Steve in the fact that all of these so-called "grandiose" TPB operas have been staged so ...

• At October 25, 2007, Jeff Ryan wrote:

  Addendum to the Dave Sim decompression thing: he even out the time. After a two-year storyline that took place over ...

• At October 25, 2007, jazzbo wrote:

  I don't think a compressed story neccesarily has to be complete in one issue. Most of the old Marvel stories ...

• At October 25, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  We don’t need to tell a story in 22 pages. That is an artificial construct.

  This would be true if comics ...

• At October 25, 2007, Patrick wrote:

  About writing for the trade, in some ways the decompression bothers me even more then. As you said, you can ...

• At October 25, 2007, John Trumbull wrote:

  I hate, hate, HATE 90% of "decompressed" storytelling. Most of it is just belaboring a point or horribly self-indulgent.

  Writing ...

• At October 25, 2007, Graeme Burk wrote:

  If you don't like it, don't buy it. No one's forcing you to read that issue of Mighty Avengers, honestly.

  I ...

• At October 25, 2007, Graeme Burk wrote:

  Fetishizing the movie-camera POV, the six-issue-exactly arc, and even, yes, the long dialogue scene is in the long run as ...

• At October 25, 2007, Matthew E wrote:

  The thing about 'writing for the trade' is this: a trade doesn't have to contain one six-issue story. That's only ...

• At October 25, 2007, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  I think Bendis has honed his decompression skills to a very predictable practice that actually goes past standard decompression. ...

• At October 25, 2007, Doug Atkinson wrote:

  It doesn't hurt to remember that compression has been badly overdone in the past as well. One of the ...

• At October 25, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  Not to pick unfairly on Bendis, as he is quite talented as a writer, but he actually has simply pasted ...

• At October 25, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  Quick question for any and all: Why the heck do people equate the amount of time it takes to ...

• At October 25, 2007, Aaron C wrote:

  I think the people who are saying if you don't like...don't buy it are missing the point.

  This is ...

• At October 25, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Exactly, Aaron.

  "If you don't like it, don't buy it."

  "I already don't buy it, and 800,000 people just like me don't ...

• At October 25, 2007, Alex Scott wrote:

  It's interesting to read this in light of the post just a few days ago on Death Note, as well ...

• At October 25, 2007, SonTenks wrote:

  "That said, the Spiderman one is from a time when every issue was somebody’s first,"

  And therein, to me, lies the ...

• At October 25, 2007, Alex Scott wrote:

  Another thing: if you think 6-12 issue arcs are too much, consider that a typical storyline in a Shonen Jump ...

• At October 25, 2007, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  But seriously: I think the problem isn’t so much decompression, it’s that a lot of Western creators, quite frankly, suck ...

• At October 25, 2007, Graeme Burk wrote:

  I think the people who are saying if you don’t like…don’t buy it are missing the point.

  This is what is ...

• At October 25, 2007, Alex Scott wrote:

  "Surely every issue should be able to be someone’s first"

  Here's the thing, though: we live in a time now where, ...

• At October 25, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  Quick question for any and all: Why the heck do people equate the amount of time it takes to read ...

• At October 25, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  The second story, the Supergirl/Dominators/Wanderers story, lasted about fifteen or so and could have been wrapped up in half that. ...

• At October 25, 2007, Alan Coil wrote:

  Mainly, it's a real pisser when a 2-issue story is dragged out to 6 issues just because 6 issues is ...

• At October 25, 2007, Lothor wrote:

  AIR in the 70s-80s the "done in one" comics would often start in the middle of a book and end ...

• At October 25, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  Remember reading comics before 'padding' was part of the vocabulary we used?

• At October 26, 2007, Stuart Moore wrote:

  You can find DC letter columns from the late '60s where the fans complain about "padding" in Marvel books. (I ...

• At October 26, 2007, suedenim wrote:

  Lothor's correct, there was a lot more serialized storytelling going on back then than we think. Reading Essential Marvel ...

• At October 26, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  Seavey said...

  “If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.”

  “I already don’t buy it, and 800,000 people just like me don’t ...

• At October 26, 2007, fourthworlder wrote:

  If you look at the best Fantastic Four period from the sixties, there was basically one continual story that ran ...

• At October 26, 2007, Scavenger wrote:

  The problem, imo, about "decompression" is that too often nothing happens for issues. Look at Dark Phoenix...it's a single ...

• At October 26, 2007, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Every comic does not need to be someone's first (I'm thinking of mini-series, particularly), but every comic should have enough ...

• At October 26, 2007, Joe Rice wrote:

  It is the nature of some folks to see everything in two absolute shades.

  It very, very rarely is a helpful ...

• At October 26, 2007, Lynxara wrote:

  Mr. A wants to have a word with you, Joe.

• At October 26, 2007, Aaron C wrote:

  Of course the plots will be continual, thats the nature of serialised media.

  The problem is not ...

• At October 27, 2007, Joe Rice wrote:

  Except good writers can "write for the trade" while still making monthly installments viable entertainments/pieces of work.

• At October 27, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  To follow up on the estimable Mr. Rice's points, I often find that the stuff that seems badly paced in ...

• At October 27, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  Uh, I should note that I'm following up Joe's points by reference to the sorts of comics I suspect he ...

• At October 27, 2007, Joe Rice wrote:

  I don't even own a bargepole at all. Way to make me feel inadequate, Omar. Jeez.

• At October 27, 2007, Lynxara wrote:

  Well, here's the thing: any storytelling device works in the hands of a "good writer". "Good writers" by definition are ...

• At October 28, 2007, Christine wrote:

  "There is nothing wrong with pointing out the general faults of decompression in the hands of mediocre-to-bad writers… since, by ...

• At October 28, 2007, Luis Dantas wrote:

  If you look at the best Fantastic Four period from the sixties, there was basically one continual story that ran ...

• At January 6, 2008, Eddie C wrote:

  I think one of the best examples of modern storytelling in comics is anything by Brian K. Vaughan, but especially ...

• At June 24, 2008, Viagra online stores. wrote:

  Viagra online stores....

  Viagra online stores....

• At June 30, 2008, Danaragon wrote:

  The Japanese have been doing decompression for a very long time, and it works in Japan because the Japanese "read" ...

• At January 29, 2009, RickJones wrote:

  Omar, please tell us which We3 issue you referred to early in this post. I would like to look it ...

Dick linked to a few back-and-forth posts on a blog and LiveJournal that I'm not going to get into, and then launches into a discussion of "fun" comics and the dialectical position taken by many comics fans.  He's inspired, he writes, by linking to Abhay's review of Doctor 13: Architecture and Mortality.  I read the Dr. 13 book, and while I liked it, I don't think I liked it as much as many other people I have read did.  It was charming, but I think Azzarello got a bit too cute with the one-liners.  Cliff Chiang's art was nice, though.  And the metafictional aspects were decent if a bit obvious.

                        

Abhay goes into the fact that Doctor 13 is the latest in the genre of comics known as "Comics Have Abandoned Their Charming Past, and the Present is Therefore Fucked."  He wants to give it a better name, something that ends in "-core," and only one commenter attempts it, with "Pollyanna-core" or "Rose-tinta-core."  I don't know, I'd call it "whinecore."  But that's just me.

Abhay goes over the history of this genre, surprisingly missing Flex Mentallo (although someone brings it up in the comments), and then the comments debate whether he misses the point of Doctor 13.  Both of these posts, however, imply that DC and Marvel don't do "fun" anymore, and even if they do, there's a level of irony in them that can't be helped because of the writers' prejudices and exposure to all the "grim-'n'-gritty" comics of the past few decades.  Dick and Abhay might argue with my inference of the posts, but it's not necessarily what they think, but what I'm reading into the posts.

Leaving all that aside (especially if I'm completely off-base, as I usually am), the notion of "fun" comics is something that percolates up every so often, and I think it gets tossed around without really defining what "fun" comics are.  So, what are "fun" comics?  That's the problem: no one can really agree on a definition.

I'm occasionally accused of not liking "fun" comics.  That's certainly an opinion, but it usually comes down to me not liking something that other people like, and therefore I'm accused of "not getting it" because it's a "fun" comic.  Whatever, say I.  Usually, however, the person doesn't really offer an explanation of why that particular comic is "fun."  Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows I like "fun" comics.  Just because I don't happen to enjoy, I don't know, Dwayne MacDuffie's writing doesn't mean I don't like "fun" comics.

So what do we mean when we speak of "fun" comics?  Thanks to my keen observational skillz (yes, with the "z"), I have gleaned some ideas about what people mean when they say that.  Let's ramble!

1. "Fun" comics are funny.  This isn't necessarily true, of course.  However, humorous comics are, almost by definition, "fun."  There's the occasional book with black humor that might not be "fun," but otherwise, humorous books are "fun."  She-Hulk is mostly a "fun" book.  In fact, Dan Slott seems to hold a monopoly on "fun" comics at Marvel.  I guess he got so depressed writing Arkham Asylum: Living Hell for DC that he needs to purge by writing "fun" comics for Marvel.

    

2. "Fun" comics tell superhero stories without angst or irony.  After the many deconstructions of superheroes over the past, say, 30 years (if not more), it seems as if you can't tell a superhero story without some kind of irony.  Everyone knows about Watchmen, so it's difficult to read a superhero story without thinking about how silly it all is.  This is why, on one level, a book like Civil War doesn't work.  These days, if a writer writes a superhero story that shows a hero simply winning a battle against a bad guy joyfully and triumphantly, it becomes a "fun" comic.  We revel in the heroic nature of the story because we can enjoy it without worrying that it's creepy.  "Yay!" we say.  "The Magenta Mongoose beat up Count von Jerkyface and saved the school full of Guatemalen nuns and school children!  He's so awesome!"

    

3. "Fun" comics remind us of our childhood.  Ah, this is where we get deeper into it.  This certainly ties into the notion of superhero stories free of angst or irony, and gets closer to what I think people mean.  This is odd, however, in that comics have been somewhat "dark" for many years, even before the "grimmification" of them in the mid-1980s.  So whose childhood are we talking about?  I was born in 1971.  I have no idea how old the other people who write for this blog are (Brian is younger than I am, but that's all I know).  Hell, I don't even know if they are using their real names, for crying out loud!  I mean, come on - "Cronin" sounds like some kind of tough-guy name from some 1970s detective show, and "Hatcher" has to be made up, right?  What's he hatching, exactly?  Similarly, I don't know how old the people who read and comment on the blog are.  But, because I'm the Center of the Universe, let's assume 1971 is a decent median birth year for the writers and readers.  When were comics ever "fun" for the vast majority of people born within ten years, either way, of that date?  If you were born in 1971 and you read comics when you were a kid, you got late-1970s stuff like Englehart on Detective or Claremont on X-Men.  You got Scorpio committing suicide in Defenders.  Granted, I have very little knowledge of most 1970s-era comics, but the majority of mainstream stuff doesn't strike me as particularly "fun."  I'm not passing judgment on the quality, mind you, but rather the "fun" quotient of the books.  I have often mentioned that I didn't start reading comics until I was 17, which makes me somewhat of an anomaly, as far as I can tell.  So my first comic featured a phone number you could call to decide whether or not Batman's sidekick would die.  Not "fun" at all.  The first Uncanny X-Men comic I bought featured Wolverine nailed to a big wooden X.  Not terribly "fun."  So I never read "fun" comics when I was young, or even when I started reading comics.  Whenever I hear people waxing poetically about "fun" comics they read when they were but lads and lasses, I wonder what they're talking about.  I'm not questioning their memories, exactly, but I do wonder precisely which comics they recollect so fondly.

    

4. "Fun" comics remind us of the Silver Age.  This is a bit deeper than #3.  The Silver Age of comics is the "proto-childhood" for us all, whether we were there to experience it or not.  So we feel nostalgic for comics that we never read when they first came out, but first came in contact with when we were already old enough to realize the reach of comics back into the past.  For some reason, many comic book readers gravitate toward the Silver Age.  I'm not sure why.  MarkAndrew coined a great term for how I feel about the old days of comics: "reverse nostalgia," meaning I denigrate anything that was published before, let's say 1980, and laud the stuff published since then.  I love that term even though I don't necessarily agree with it.  I like Golden and Silver Age comics (I just bought the fourth volume of Batman Chronicles, which is reproducing every Batman comic in chronological order, and it's a fantastic series of books), I'm just not overwhelmed by love for them.  My biggest problem, I suppose, is that I don't get it.  I read the first 40 or so issues of Fantastic Four, or the Superman and Batman comics of the 1950s, and I don't understand why everyone salivates over them so much.  Perhaps this is because I can't appreciate the newness of it all, especially when it concerns the early Marvel stuff.  Maybe I'm too jaded.  Maybe I started reading comics too late in my life.  I don't know.  I cannot understand what is so revolutionary about Lee's writing and, especially, Kirby's art.  I get the revolutionary ideas behind the early Marvel stuff, but I don't understand the Kirby Love.  I apologize, but I don't.  I also can figure out the various themes running through the comics - fear of nuclear war, the unknown of space, the new counterculture - but that doesn't mean the comics were well-written or nice to look at.  I've said before that I think Neal Adams is the first true modern mainstream comic book artist, because his drawings look like people actually doing things.  I could probably amend that statement to say Steranko is, but I guess we could go all the way back to Eisner.  However, until the early 1970s, comic books just don't look very good.  The proportions are off, the action is poorly staged, the figures are blocky, and the panel layout inhibits perspective and dynamism.  But I recognize, however, that the comics from the late 1950s and early 1960s are "fun" in that they tell simple stories of good and evil, with a lot of craziness involved.  I don't think they're necessarily good comics (although they can be), but I understand why people think they're "fun."  They remind us of what we think of is a simpler time.  Comics from the 1950s and early 1960s are Republican Comics - they recall a time that never existed, but to which we all want to return.  I'm not sure why people who didn't experience them first-hand recall them so fondly, however.  Can anyone tell me?

    

5. "Fun" comics have certain "fun" elements.  This is the last criterion for "fun" comics - the inclusion of certain "fun" things, thereby making the comics themselves "fun."  These elements include (but are not limited to): pirates; ninjas; martial arts (which may or may not be used by the ninjas); talking apes (talking animals, really, but apes are the best, the more foul-mouthed the better); dinosaurs; fat people; Mexican wrestlers; snooty French people; M.O.D.O.K.; Z-list characters from, you guessed it, the Silver Age; goofy Nazis (real Nazis are still for "serious" comics); A.I.M. (but not necessarily Hydra); and nerds, especially comic book nerds.  If you put one or more of these things in your comic, everyone will call them "fun" and ramble about how it reminds them of the best Silver Age comics.  Why did everyone get pissed about Identity Crisis?  Not necessarily because a villain raped a character (although that's a big part of it).  People were pissed because it was Dr. Light, a Z-list character from, you guessed it, the Silver Age, raping a woman whose shenanigans with her husband embody "fun" comics (read the Elongated Man mini-series that "Bill Reed" loves so much - very good comics, and kind of "fun").  Brad Meltzer didn't just write an unpleasant, disturbing, and, in the context of the series, inexplicable scene, he took characters that people thought of as "fun" and, you know, shit all over it.  The disconnect between what we think of as these characters and the actual scene made people go nuts.  As I've mentioned, I didn't go nuts over the scene because of that, because I don't really have much connection with the Silver Age.  I objected to the rape because it was idiotic.

    

There's another thing that people think of when they talk about "fun" comics, and that is it must be published by a company they've heard of, preferably one that was publishing comics during the Silver Age.  Therefore, some people (not all, of course) claim that only DC or Marvel comics can be "fun."  This gets back to what Dick was kind of touching on - superhero fans claim that indie books can't possibly be "fun," because all indie creators are hopelessly obsessed with the utter darkness of the world and all their books are concerned with incest and throwing people down wells.  That attitude is why some people accuse me of not liking "fun" comics - because many of the "fun" comics I like don't come from DC or Marvel.  Some of them do, of course, but then again, many don't.  I still say if you claim nobody does "fun" comics anymore after you've been made aware of the existence of Scurvy Dogs, The Middleman, Action Philosophers!, and Rex Libris, then you should shut up.  There are plenty of "fun" comics, both from the Big Two and from smaller publishers.  The point is to find them.

    

But should we look for them?  I much prefer to read "good" comics, whether they're "fun" or not.  I can easily switch from enjoying Gamekeeper, which features a scene in which fighting dogs turn on their masters, to Cable & Deadpool, in which Bukcy Barnes keeps wondering what the "H" Bob's jumpsuit stands for.  I can easily switch from reading a "fun" Garth Ennis comic in which zombie baby seals attempt to kill our heroes to a "serious" Garth Ennis comic in which a priest commits suicide to escape from the Devil only to wind up in Hell anyway.  I'm not sure why there's an insistence on comics being "fun."  Of course, maybe there isn't.  Maybe I'm just seeing it where it doesn't exist.  Comics should, after all, be anything they can be.  "Fun" is just a small part of the entertainment spectrum.  Not all comics should be "fun."  Comics should be good.  Which sounds like a good clarion call.  Or blog name.

    

My question, after all this rambling, is what makes a comic "fun"?  Do you insist on reading "fun" comics, or do you care all that much?  If so, why do insist on it?  And why are people who didn't exist during the late 1950s-early 1960s so obsessed with the Silver Age?  You can be obsessed all you want - more power to you - but as someone who doesn't get it, what's the deal?  I'm curious.  And that's why we're here, right - to share our opinions!  And what's your theory - is Cronin a tough-as-nails private dick who's always about to get evicted from his office because he can't make rent and who has a slight drinking problem?  "Next week on Cronin: A mysterious woman from Cronin's past re-enters his life with an offer of a job.  But does she bring money ... or murder?????"

(As usual, many thank to the Grand Comics Database for the older scans.) 

40 Comments

• At October 8, 2007, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Quick point about "realistic" super-hero art- check out the works of Mac Raboy and Lou Fine for examples of Golden ...

• At October 8, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  Interesting stuff, Greg, and while I can't agree with the Silver Age hatorade, I'm with you on most of your ...

• At October 8, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  Personally, I count Ennis's Hitman, the Giffen/DeMatteis JL books, 60s Marvel, and Evan Dorkin among many others in my "fun" ...

• At October 8, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  "I’d say fun comics are those that embrace absurd genre elements unapologetically."

  Nice. Comics that do that are usually fun, and ...

• At October 8, 2007, km wrote:

  I can't really contribute to the metatextual or nostalgia angles, because mine is primarily cartoons and the occasional Spider-Man or ...

• At October 8, 2007, km wrote:

  Reading your post and thinking about what super-hero comics are considered “fun,” I’d say fun comics are those that embrace ...

• At October 8, 2007, winterteeth wrote:

  I have to agree that funny seems to be synonymous with fun. The only Marvel comics I read now ...

• At October 8, 2007, Alex Scott wrote:

  It's hard for me to really nail down what I mean when I think of "fun" comics. Mainly, I ...

• At October 8, 2007, Todd Lawrence wrote:

  Great post. I agree that since most people's definition of "fun" is largely subjective that it's more difficult to ...

• At October 8, 2007, Lothor wrote:

  superhero fans claim that indie books can’t possibly be ”fun,” because all indie creators are hopelessly obsessed with the utter ...

• At October 8, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Comics that are “just fun” are those you enjoy reading over and over when you don’t want the heavy lifting ...

• At October 9, 2007, Mongoose wrote:

  I think the commenter who said that 'fun' comics embrace the ridiculous elements of the genre without apology hit the ...

• At October 9, 2007, mrjayberry wrote:

  Mostly I aim for an enjoyable read when I pick up a comic book. I think sometimes that includes "fun" ...

• At October 9, 2007, TF_loki wrote:

  “I’d say fun comics are those that embrace absurd genre elements unapologetically.”

  Yup.

  I mean at the moment I'd say my fun ...

• At October 9, 2007, fanboy d wrote:

  a fun comic is like a good family movie. like the incredibles.

• At October 9, 2007, Lingster wrote:

  Wait, wait...Dr. Light did WHAT!?

  If he did something like that to my wife, I'd lobotomize the SOB.

• At October 9, 2007, T. wrote:

  You look at just about any other action manga, like Naruto, Bleach, or One Piece, and you’ll see something similar.

  These ...

• At October 9, 2007, Alex Scott wrote:

  There's another significant aspect I forgot to mention: the heroes' indomitable faith in themselves. When Naruto, Ichigo, or Luffy ...

• At October 9, 2007, Jeff R. wrote:

  To me, Doctor 13 was far more in the tradition of the first Ambush Bug miniseries than Pictopia and it's ...

• At October 9, 2007, T. wrote:

  There’s another significant aspect I forgot to mention: the heroes’ indomitable faith in themselves. When Naruto, Ichigo, or Luffy are ...

• At October 9, 2007, Evan Waters wrote:

  Though I'm tempted just to stick with "embracing ridiculous elements" etc., here are some of my thoughts:

  "Fun" comics are bit ...

• At October 9, 2007, Doug Atkinson wrote:

  "Q: "Dark" comics: Rape, murder, war, politics, heady issues, etc. Should comics just be escapist and fun?

  "A: Should movies? ...

• At October 9, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  It’s a shame such a bias exists against manga among American superhero fans, because those manga titles remind me more ...

• At October 9, 2007, T. wrote:

  Really? The art resembles Kirby or Ditko? How about Buscema? Byrne? Romita?

  Or does it look like manga?

  Just curious, is ...

• At October 9, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Just curious, is this a sincere inquiry or are you just being you? I really can’t tell.

  I'm always being me. ...

• At October 9, 2007, T. wrote:

  They were being made for children, and I don’t fault them for it. But why would I want to read ...

• At October 9, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Actually, I think the writing and art in manga are much more suited for adults than in American superhero fare. ...

• At October 9, 2007, Evan Waters wrote:

  Regarding the Giffen quote Adkinson drug up: I don't think anyone's saying that there should be no dark and gritty ...

• At October 9, 2007, Alex Scott wrote:

  "They were being made for children, and I don’t fault them for it. But why would I want to read ...

• At October 9, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  Wait, Arkham Asylum: Living Hell wasn't fun? I had a hoot reading that book, it had great new characters, ...

• At October 9, 2007, Pól Rua wrote:

  What I object to isn't so much the lack of 'fun comics', but the homogeneity of current mainstream comic books.

  It's ...

• At October 9, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  Exactly, Pol. I'm not a fan of when any of the arguments- "comics should be grim'n'gritty" or "comics should be ...

• At October 9, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  stealthwise: I would say there's a big difference between having fun reading a book and that book being a "fun" ...

• At October 10, 2007, ninjawookie wrote:

  Fun comics are the industry's answer to quirky movies. I could just shoot myself after typing that.

  But really, fun comics ...

• At October 10, 2007, Lynxara wrote:

  I have to chime in and say that, yeah, the "comics should be fun" bandwagon can just go to hell. ...

• At October 10, 2007, wil wrote:

  I'll go out on a limb here and say that Civil War is the most 'fun' comic in ages. It ...

• At October 10, 2007, The Gigcast » Blog Archive » webcomic Wire - 10/10/07 wrote:

  [...] CBR and Greg Burgas investigate what fun comics are. [...]

• At October 14, 2007, Tony wrote:

  I think "fun" is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

  I love "Fun" comics, but the two biggest examples ...

• At October 23, 2007, Comics Should Be Good! » Death Note: You Guys Was Right, this Comics is Good. wrote:

  [...] Honestly, I did have some trepidation when I picked these up. This series was recommended in the comments to ...

• At March 13, 2009, Felicity wrote:

  That article was Â-core. At least, that's how it displayed on my terminal: a whole ton of "Â"s cluttering up ...

Dazzler is certainly an interesting comic, with plenty to recommend it.  The art isn't one of them, as for most of the run, Frank Springer supplied workable but unspectacular pencils that lacked a lot of dynamic fluidity and looked, frankly, old-fashioned (Springer was in his 50s at the time, so maybe it's not surprising).  At the very end Paul Chadwick picked up the art chores and things improved dramatically, but the book was circling the drain by then and wasn't saved.  Danny Fingeroth wrote the book early on, Springer contributed some scripts, Mike Carlin wrote some issues, and Archie Goodwin finished up the run.  Marc Bright and Geof Isherwood showed up for some guest pencils, too.  After the double-sized issue #21, the book floundered a little and became a comic-by-committee, which never works for too long.  Dazzler might be most famous for the series of stunning covers Bill Sienkiewicz did for issues #27-35, and when you're best known for your covers, that can't be good.

    

What makes Dazzler interesting, however, is the way Fingeroth and Springer chose to present our heroine.  Alison Blaire never wants to be a superhero, which, when you consider she starred in a pretty mainstream superhero book in the Marvel Universe for 42 issues, is pretty impressive.  Until the very end of the comic, she denies any desire to be a hero, and although Fingeroth and later writers kind of beat the idea into the ground, it's refreshing to read such an anti-superhero comic that is, ostensibly, about Alison learning how to be a hero.  She's not a coward, of course, but there's one issue in which she actually ducks a fight and hopes Warren Worthington III will want to get involved, because he's a hero and she's not.  Early in the series, she fights or interacts with many of Marvel's heavy hitters, but she's always looking for a way to stop fighting or find a different way out of the predicament, and she always is forced into action because the bad guys keep getting in the way of her career.  Damn them all!

    

The evolution of the artist: Bill Sienkiewicz cover for issue #9, November 1981, and for issue #27, July 1983.

Marvel threw Alison right into the thick of their universe, with the Enchantress showing up as her first villain, and then Doctor Doom.  In both stories, the villains don't necessarily want to fight Dazzler, a pattern that fits in with her desire to be left alone so she can pursue her singing career.  She tries to sing, and bad guys show up and cause her to use her mutant powers.  And, as I mentioned, very often she doesn't want to fight and tries to find a way out of it.  Therefore, when the Hulk shows up, Alison flees from him, tries to distract him, but then uses her light powers to calm him down and end the threat.  Galactus shows up in issues #10-11, but not to fight Alison.  He wants her to retrieve his herald, Terrax, who has fled into a black hole, and he needs Alison's light powers to counter the effects of the black hole.  She convinces Galactus to spare Terrax after she brings him back, even though he was under a death sentence for defying the Big Guy.  When the Enchantress returns and kidnaps Alison in issue #16, she "defeats" her captor by outsinging her in front of Odin and the other Asgardian gods.  But in between those two stories, she enlists the aid of Jessica Drew to find her mother, and when she and Spider-Woman end up in a death trap, Alison wusses out and practically sobs like a baby for Jessica to help her.  It's a remarkably unsettling portrayal of the heroine of the book.  It shows, once again, that Fingeroth and Springer are showing a person who is uncomfortable with her powers and doesn't want to be a hero.

                            

Another interesting thing Fingeroth did with the book was take Alison completely out of her comfort zone.  This was probably a bad move in the long run, as it seemed to lead directly to the book's cancellation, but it was still a pretty radical move back in the day for a mainstream comic.  In issue #26, Alison's half-sister, whom she just met, accidentally kills a man (well, the official cause of death is a heart attack, but she blames herself and probably should) with her newly-discovered mutant powers.  Well, they might be mutant powers - we never actually learn the truth in the series.  Anyway, she and Alison flee New York instead of facing the music, and they end up in Los Angeles.  For ten issues, Alison tries to make a new start on the West Coast, severing all her ties with her old friends in New York, including those with her manager and her band.  Even though she has a single on the charts, she completely ignores her singing career in order to become an actress.  She and her sister have some adventures in Los Angeles, until Alison ditches her when she refuses to leave her biological father, who's a bit of a scumbag.  Finally, toward the end of the run, she is picked up by a bounty hunter, O. Z. Chase, for leaving New York.  She and Chase form a bond and get caught up in a strange story about a couple who are trying to create their own race of mutants.  Or something.  Alison is trapped in this story, and Goodwin's only solution is to "kill" her off.  Alison fakes her death so she can start her life over.  She hopefully (and naively) believes that if the world forgets about Alison Blaire, the mutant, then Dazzler, the performer, can start her career again.  She obviously doesn't live in the Internet Age!

                          

Even more than the first half of the series, the second half shows Alison turning away from the heroic.  She simply tries to live her life, and never seeks trouble.  Trouble, of course, finds her, but she attempts to get out of its way and ignore her powers.  This becomes even more difficult after the events of the graphic novel Dazzler: The Movie, in which the fact that she's a mutant is revealed to the world (and which, unfortunately, I don't have).  In the spirit of the book, when the Inhumans try to enlist her help in issue #32, she rejects them initially, even though she owes Black Bolt for helping her defeat the Absorbing Man in issue #19.  She finally does the right thing and helps the Inhumans, but it's very strange that Mike Carlin and Jim Shooter, who co-plotted #32, allow their heroine to be seen in so unheroic a light.  Finally, when she gets caught up at Camp Silence in the final arc, she meekly submits to the bad guys because they have taken her mother hostage.  She eventually fights back, but it's not all her doing, as Chase and Henry McCoy help her out.  Finally, as a minor point about the unusual way Marvel chose to present their heroine: Dazzler doesn't have a "superhero" costume until issue #38.  Yes, she has the disco suit that she wore in her first appearance, with its excellent flared collars and snap-on roller skates, but that's not a "uniform" like, say, Batman's garb is.  She wears it when she performs, and very often, enemies attack when she's performing.  If she's attacked while not performing, she fights in the clothes she's wearing.  After she leaves New York, she doesn't appear in "costume" for many issues: the last time she wears the "disco" outfit is issue #26, and she gets her more familiar blue costume in issue #38.  Fingeroth and his fellow writers simply ignored the use of costumes.

                          

All of this unheroic behavior can be seen as chauvinistic, I suppose.  The poor female needs a man to save her!  It's rather odd that in the final story arc, Alison does less than Chase and the Beast, but for most of the story, that criticism doesn't ring true.  Dazzler solves the problems, Dazzler fights the bad guys, Dazzler wins the day, but, as I pointed out, she doesn't really want to.  It isn't that she can't.  Perhaps it's chauvinistic that she doesn't want to be a hero while a male character craves it, and that's another good point.  Alison, however, is a single woman trying to make her way in the world, and she struggles with paying the rent, with men not taking her seriously, and with parental disapproval, as her father wanted her to go to law school and disowned her when she chose a recording career.  Her relationships are even somewhat mature for their time.  Yes, she gets starry-eyed over dreamy men, but when her first boyfriend, Dr. Paul Janson, dumps her because he doesn't think she's serious enough about life, her attitude changes.  Alison gets upset about getting dumped, but from then on, she's very tough when it comes to men, even those who appear to be decent guys.  She lets herself get swept away by some guys who appear to live thrilling lives, but when she realizes what flakes they are, she ends it.  Alison doesn't allow herself to get into bad relationships, which is nice to see.  The other men in her life are as varied as in real life.  Her agent, Harry Osgood, appears to be a buffoon early in the run, but he shows nice depth as the series moves along and becomes a good friend to Alison.  Her manager, Lance Steele, is a male chauvinist pig, but he's loyal to Alison and he isn't a complete jerk, even though he gets less development than Osgood.  Alison's bandmates remain background characters for the most part, but her father is a nice character who comes to realize that Alison is a fine person who should be allowed to do her own thing.  And O. Z. Chase is a fascinating character, and he and Alison form a very nice non-romantic relationship in a brief time.  So the men in Alison's life do not define her, except maybe in the way she reacts to her father.  Even many of the ancillary women in the book, such as Alison's sister and the friends she makes in Los Angeles, are portrayed in a relatively decent light.  If the way Alison is shown in Dazzler isn't perfect, it's much more complex than you might expect.

                          

Obviously, there's a lot wrong with Dazzler.  It's an early 1980s mainstream Marvel comic book, after all, with all the built-in problems that that entails.  The art isn't great, the narration and dialogue is heavy-handed at times, and the soap opera elements are often pretty darned soapy.  However, it followed somewhat in the tradition of the 1970s Marvel books, where creators were given a bit more free rein, and therefore Fingeroth, Springer, and the other men who worked on the book (no women worked on the comic, although Mary Wilshire contributed a cover to issue #37) were able to attempt something a little different than the normal superhero book.  Dazzler survived early on, no doubt, by the stars of the Marvel Universe who showed up in the book - not only the villains, but the Fantastic Four (Johnny was a big fan), Hank McCoy, and several Avengers - but it lasted because the creators weren't afraid to take some risks.  I shouldn't really say it was a failure, because at 42 issues, it was remarkably long-lasting for a book featuring a female lead with very little history.  I want to say that after the second volume of She-Hulk (60 issues), it's the longest-running Marvel book with a female lead.  Can anyone back me up?  So it was successful, to a point.  However, I wonder if it was a bit ahead of its time.  Fans claimed they wanted something different, but when Alison didn't act like a "mainstream" heroine, they rebelled and left the book.  Sound familiar?  The brief arc by Goodwin and Chadwick at the end is an apparent attempt to rectify that situation, but even then, Alison was still a bit less heroic than she needed to be.  With Dazzler, however, Marvel saw that you could publish a book that wasn't necessarily about superheroes, but about a person who happened to have powers struggling with her own life, and people would be interested.  This became a trend in the 1990s and into the present day, and I wonder if any of the creators who decided to go in that direction were influenced by Dazzler.  I can't imagine that the series was so far under the radar that comics creators today didn't know about it.  Marvel has recently published an Essential volume, which might be pushing it, but it's certainly a different kind of book than you might expect.

Of course, whoever came up with Dazzler's catch-phrase should be taken behind the woodshed and beaten:

              

  

                                  

It doesn't quite have the same ring as "Avengers Assemble," does it?  Oh well.  Nothing's perfect!

33 Comments

• At September 26, 2007, Tom Russell wrote:

  I think Fingeroth is vastly underrated as a writer. I love his work not only on Dazzler, but also ...

• At September 26, 2007, Ryan H wrote:

  Ah., truly, what would comic special effects be without sets of expanding circles?

• At September 26, 2007, mattbib wrote:

  "I shouldn’t really say it was a failure, because at 42 issues, it was remarkably long-lasting for a book featuring ...

• At September 26, 2007, M Bloom wrote:

  You're forgetting Spider-Girl, mattbib. That book ran for 100 issues before being canceled and immediately relaunched for no apparent reason.

  I've ...

• At September 27, 2007, Journalista - the news weblog of The Comics Journal » Blog Archive » Sept. 27, 2007: The Brain wants all Earth people destroyed! wrote:

  [...] [Commentary] Was Dazzler ahead of its time? Greg Burgas makes an almost believable case, if you don’t think about ...

• At September 27, 2007, Graham Vingoe wrote:

  I wanted to Like Dazzler a lot- she was an interesting character in her intro issues of X-men but you ...

• At September 27, 2007, mattbib wrote:

  Dazzler should team up with Dakota North.

• At September 27, 2007, James wrote:

  "Go for it" is not that bad for the early 80's.

• At September 27, 2007, Eric wrote:

  Issue 42 has an amazing caption on the cover: "Because you demanded it, the last issue of Dazzler!" Interesting ...

• At September 27, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Ah, Spider-Girl - the little series that could. I forgot about it. Shouldn't there be a web site ...

• At September 27, 2007, Val wrote:

  Greg I dont know of any sites that compares the lengths of Marvel's various series together on a single page ...

• At September 27, 2007, Ford MF wrote:

  Wow. Impressive analysis that makes we want to go back and revisit all those old stories.

• At September 27, 2007, avengers63 wrote:

  Dazzler is one of those books I always wanted to get, but just can't bring myself to. The character ...

• At September 27, 2007, Michael Aushenker wrote:

  Off the top of my head, I believe the '70s SPIDER-WOMAN ran for 50 issues, making her the big # ...

• At September 27, 2007, Shawn Garrett wrote:

  This was a very entertaining write up. As a Marvel Zombie in my early teens (in th early 80's), I ...

• At September 27, 2007, Ezra wrote:

  Why did Marvel go with a disco-themed heroine right when disco music was going through its death throes? Did ...

• At September 27, 2007, Evan Waters wrote:

  From what I understand, the proper launch of Dazzler's series was delayed a bit by the dawdling of the record ...

• At September 27, 2007, avengers63 wrote:

  We must take great care with what is published. There is an amazing power in words. That power ...

• At September 27, 2007, kymaera wrote:

  Besides the previously mentioned exceptions, there are a few others that might qualify as longer depending on your criteria. ...

• At September 27, 2007, Andrew Collins wrote:

  I used to have some Dazzler issues as a kid and loved them. I recently bought the Essential volume, but ...

• At September 27, 2007, Brad Curran wrote:

  This was a good write up, and it's nice to see you getting snarky linked attention from ijournalista again. Because ...

• At September 27, 2007, Novaya Havoc wrote:

  Love you, Greg!

  Some points on early Dazzler, some directed at the comments:

  The disco ties were fully dropped by Dazzler #5, ...

• At September 27, 2007, Bully wrote:

  Great article. I think you ascribe more planning to the character arcs than the writers were actually giving the book, ...

• At September 27, 2007, suedenim wrote:

  The little stuffed bull speaks truth!

  I really think having her as an X-Men hanger-on is about the *worst* use of ...

• At September 27, 2007, Convergence » links for 2007-09-28 wrote:

  [...] Dazzler: Ahead of its time? i read most of these after i inherited someone’s collection (tags: ComicBooks retro writing) ...

• At September 27, 2007, Anonymous wrote:

  I liked Dazzler in The X-Men because she wasn't very good at being a superhero

• At September 27, 2007, Novaya Havoc wrote:

  Dazzler was shoe-horned in as token X-Idiot and generic X-Woman #215 in X-Men. Not a good fit, but I ...

• At September 28, 2007, mattbib wrote:

  I agree with you on Dazzler: The Movie. It was a really great story and, in retrospect, was dealing with ...

• At September 28, 2007, Bishop wrote:

  If you are looking for a website that lists every Marvel Comics series, including the lengths of the series, try ...

• At September 28, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Thanks, Bishop! And thanks for the good information about the series, Novaya Havoc. It's interesting to get some ...

• At September 28, 2007, The Dan with Two Brains! wrote:

  Dazzler's series was very much ahead of its time, especially after #21. Those weren't the best issues of the series, ...

• At October 4, 2007, Continuity Error! › Giant-Sized Link Pull List: 10/4 wrote:

  [...] Comics Should Be Good!: The countdown wraps up with Marvel characters #25-#21, #20-#16, #15-#11, #10-#6, #5 The Thing, #4 ...

• At October 30, 2008, VINNIE INKED HER SO I LOVE HER wrote:

  Although not as sexy as Colletta's earlier romance women, Dazzler definitely looked better than any other comic-wench of the 80s.

  Dan

  http://ismarkevaniermentallyill.blogspot.com/

Every so often, someone will ask, "Where is today's version of a comic in which Superman or Captain America deck Bin Laden?" They point, with nostalgic pride, at the cover to Captain America Comics #1, or to Siegel and Shuster's oft-reprinted Superman strip from a 1940 issue of Life Magazine featuring the capture and Hague-style trial of then-allies Hitler and Stalin. (As an aside, the crime for which they're punished is "modern history's greatest crime -- making war on unarmed nations!" The news of Nazi and Stalinist genocide hadn't made it big yet, apparently.)

I'm here to argue that we oughtn't bother with such bizarre posturing by proxy. I'm here to argue for the long-overdue death of nostalgia for the WWII propaganda comic.

Portraying Cap punching Osama on the cover or interior of a comic, like Frank Miller's recent announcement that he's sending Batman after the murderous demagogue's organization, seems quite silly and meaningless in a a world where the real Al Qaeda virtually daily blows up a bunch of civilians or soldiers.

And before you ask, I have some trouble with the Cap vs. Nazis stuff as well. And those problems are exactly those that'd inhere to nearly any direct portrayal of "Cap vs. Bin Laden" as well.

It's the same problem one gets when one sees Kruschev comedically ranting about how he'll destroy Iron Man and crush freedom in old Tales of Suspense issues, or in that awful West Coast Avengers story where historical monsters including Stalin and Himmler came back from Hell with costumes and powers and proceeded to run around having punch-ups with Wonder Man and Tigra. It's just, at a certain level, deeply stupid and offensive.

It invariably amounts to the pretense that these guys are no different than comic-book supervillains and can be dealt with in the same way. Of course no one sane or decent likes Stalin, bin Laden, Hitler, or the rest. But most of those people don't need a clumsy cartoon to make them feel better by having pretend heroes beat up unrealistic, pretend versions of real dangers to humanity.

At a basic level one has to remember that all of those old stories featuring a caricatured, cowardly, blowhard Hitler 1) came out before most people knew the extent of the Nazi regime's anti-Semitism, and long before any of the creators or buyers of the comic knew of the Shoah; and 2) already seem rather trivializing of the monstrosity of the real Hitler and the deaths of real people when you consider that at the same time the average comics fan of the 1940s was reading about Cap punching cartoon-Hitler in the face, the real Hitler was oppressing millions and his troops were shooting real bullets at real troops; and 3) the average age of a comics reader at that point in time was somewhere between 6 and 10 years old; no one much older read the things until Stan Lee and the 1960s came around, and, if anything, comics had an even worse reputation as juvenilia back then than they have for quite a while now.

Does anyone read the vaudeville-accented, utterly silly Hitler of those comics -- hell, of even a number of 1960s Cap comics -- and think that caricature in any way resembles the real Hitler or does justice to the real sacrifices made to stop him, the very real horror he caused? Or is he at best a mere shorthand for "comic-book evil" requiring minimal work on the writer's part and at best a madly errant effort to make people with minimal power and some degree of insecurity over the final outcome of a conflict feel as if they were winning all the same?

Viewed in that light, it's at best misguided and at worst rather tasteless.

Consider also the general message one might take from such a comic: real soldiers are useless, and it would take a superhero to actually threaten these tyrants and terrorists. It elevates the enemy to the status of a grand super villain, when the enemy was never that grand or that omnipotent...nor, sadly, that absurd and comical.

More to the point, it's a profoundly uninspiring message in today's context, where it's infinitely harder to simply pretend that a clash of symbols can solve a problem of reality. Such stuff provides imaginary, childish hope at the expense of practical, adult solutions. Patriotism is no longer interchangeable for most people with jingoism, and propaganda of that sort no longer functions even as working propaganda. Nor do most people read reality in the terms of heroic epic.

Bin Laden, like Hitler, will probably always stand in (in Europe, America, well, pretty much everywhere wihtout a significant population os Islamist militants) as a byword for unspeakable evil, but the binary doesn't, for most today, automatically confer nobility and virtue on whoever opposes them. And that conferral of nobility is the other side of the allegorical transfer meant by pitting comics' paragons of morality against reality's icons of monstrosity and atrocity. That's the danger of propaganda; it fools us into believing in our absolute virtue without being bothered to demonstrate it, without being forced to check it against our actions and their results.

Old-style propaganda comics aren't bad because they're anti-bin Laden or anti-Hitler, they're bad because, like all propaganda, they at some level aim at producing psychological relief by way of the inherently disempowering impulse to avoid a real confrontation and real complexities in favor of a pretend showdown where victory is easy and the foe is both absurdly large-scale and inanely non-threatening.

In short, it's not only kids' stuff, but badly-done kids' stuff. And I don't think contemporary comics or their readers or the war effort will benefit from reviving any of it today.

I'm sensible enough to realize that Nazi iconography and, yes, comic-book Hitler are effectively now fictions almost totally detached from the original reality; that Hitler in the Marvel Universe really isn't the real Hitler, but instead just one more super-villain who occasionally wears a colorful costume and spouts a melodramatic rant and wields a Kirby ray gun; but you see, that's just about the only way he works in the MU: as something that really isn't the real Hitler in any way, shape, or form, but instead as an astoundingly reductive allegory for prejudice that Captain America defeats by refusing to give in to his hate, or Nick Fury beats up and shoves through a space-station airlock.

Nor am I arguing that superhero comics can't do real-world problems and threats; they do 'em all the time. What I'm arguing is that superhero comics generally have to do these problems as reductive allegories; that the price of bringing gun control into the Marvel Universe is that it becomes Superhuman Registration; that the price of writing a story where Batman confronts terrorism is that neither his methods nor his opponents will really be all that much like any real military operation or any real terrorist, nor will they wind up being all that distinguishable from his last go-round with Ra's al Ghul (who is, really, already a vaguely Arabic terrorist, isn't he?). Putting the face and name of the real enemy on such thin fictions is, at some level, profoundly dishonest. Pretending that pretend, often impossible methods have direct relevance to real problems likewise seems dishonest, and more than that, willfully stupid.

To do politics, let alone war, superheroes need instead to take into account just what the translation of those issues into the terms of the artifices of the genre will do upon what I might term a re-translation. There are stories that I think have done this aspect halfway well, to be sure. I won't name them here, at the risk of sparking an even bigger and certainly more tangential argument than this post might.

No, I'm here to argue against the return of a type of story that really isn't as inspiring or as clever or, ultimately, as good as some people seem to remember it.

71 Comments

• At September 14, 2007, T. wrote:

  Before I even opened the article, I decided to count down the paragraphs before the words "Frank Miller," "patriotism" or ...

• At September 14, 2007, Jason Edwards wrote:

  And how does everyone feel about that fact that they're STILL fighting Nazis in mainstream comic books (See the initial ...

• At September 14, 2007, Bryant wrote:

  Discomfort with Patriotism? That's what you boil this down to? That's a pretty good straw man there.

  It's not ...

• At September 14, 2007, Steve wrote:

  As far as the trivialization of real life tragedy argument goes, I don’t buy it. Serial killers are real life ...

• At September 14, 2007, T. wrote:

  Well, the rape complaints were more because it was exploitative and crass than the fact that it was rape. ...

• At September 14, 2007, sodamyat wrote:

  Did 9/11 even happen in the Marvel U? Because if so, I missed the explanation for why the Stamford Incident ...

• At September 14, 2007, Levantine wrote:

  Yes, 9/11 happened in the MU.

• At September 14, 2007, sean wrote:

  T - the problem is, the only depictions of Middle Easterners we ever get in our media depict them as ...

• At September 14, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  T., I have to address your arguments. My concern is essentially with the failure to take into account the ...

• At September 14, 2007, Hey Now wrote:

  There is a definite Modern Leftist slant in Mainstream comics. From having Luthor become President during Bushs term to the ...

• At September 14, 2007, sean wrote:

  Yes, 9/11 happened in the MU. It made Doctor Doom cry.

  But it makes no sense that it happened. ...

• At September 14, 2007, T. wrote:

  T - the problem is, the only depictions of Middle Easterners we ever get in our media depict them as ...

• At September 14, 2007, sodamyat wrote:

  Of course, I know that 9/11 is supposed to have happened in the Marvel U. My question was somewhat rhetorical. ...

• At September 14, 2007, Ryan wrote:

  I thought that was a great little essay, Omar. Very thought provoking - good job.

  For me, the main problem with ...

• At September 14, 2007, Jamaal wrote:

  Neoconservatives and Republicans are not an ethnic group. That analogy doesn't really work.

  Even if it did, I ...

• At September 14, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  For your edification, comments of mine from 2005 after the first six issues of Hudlin's Panther were published:

  ---------------------------

  It's potted, woefully ...

• At September 14, 2007, Edward Liu wrote:

  T says: "When Marvel Knights had its launch of Captain America, it tackled terrorism and 9/11 with moral equivalency and ...

• At September 14, 2007, V wrote:

  Ra's Al Ghul is an abstraction, just as many generic Arab terrorists portrayed in comics and other media are. Abstractions ...

• At September 14, 2007, Graeme Burk wrote:

  For the sake of sheer pedantry, it was Look magazine (not Life magazine) that the Siegel and Shuster Superman v. ...

• At September 14, 2007, Stu wrote:

  I generally agree with many of the sentiments in the original post. But I've gotta say -- I want ...

• At September 14, 2007, Evan Waters wrote:

  Re: #12- "As for the dehumanization of Arabs and others, how do you think a rape victim feels picking up ...

• At September 14, 2007, sodamyat wrote:

  Re: #19- "Um... what?"

  How about reaching for the issue of Miracleman where Johnny Bates gets raped, or the issue of ...

• At September 14, 2007, Paul wrote:

  Interesting article.

  I don't think the issue is quite as cut-and-dried, though. To decry the old 1940's propaganda books ...

• At September 14, 2007, Paul wrote:

  "Jingoism?" Is that the word you meant to use, sodamyat? And why did you name yourself after a ...

• At September 14, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  V, you seem to have managed to read exactly the opposite of my point. Ra's isn't an abstraction, he's ...

• At September 14, 2007, sodamyat wrote:

  Not offended by his work as a whole. I actually think he is a good writer who relies too much ...

• At September 14, 2007, T. wrote:

  Omar...your piece doesn't address the caricaturing of real life Neocons and Republicans, which was exactly my point. It defends ...

• At September 14, 2007, Jon H wrote:

  Omar wrote "Consider also the general message one might take from such a comic: real soldiers are useless, and it ...

• At September 14, 2007, Jamaal wrote:

  T,

  I don't think you should conflate patriotism with propaganda. People can be patriots and have different viewpoints on ...

• At September 14, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  T. said: I think people are hating black-and-white patriotism.

  The problem is that I'm not sure what you mean when you ...

• At September 14, 2007, T. wrote:

  When I say "black and white patriotism," I mean viewing the world in black and white, objective good and evil, ...

• At September 14, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Yet I don’t see Reggie Hudlin’s Black Panther for example getting a fraction of the vitriol of Frank Miller’s announcement.

  Yes, ...

• At September 14, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  When I say “black and white patriotism,” I mean viewing the world in black and white, objective good and evil, ...

• At September 14, 2007, sean wrote:

  "Neocons and republicans only get depicted as one dimensional demagogues who just hate everyone different for no particular reason. They ...

• At September 14, 2007, sean wrote:

  "As for the dehumanization of Arabs and others, how do you think a rape victim feels picking up a copy ...

• At September 14, 2007, sean wrote:

  "It would seem an approach portraying a specific terrorist, like bin Laden, with a proper consideration of motivation and psychology, ...

• At September 14, 2007, sean wrote:

  "On the other hand, is [bin Laden] any more “real” than the Batman?"

  I understand the point you're going for, but ...

• At September 14, 2007, sean wrote:

  "When I say “black and white patriotism,” I mean viewing the world in black and white, objective good and evil, ...

• At September 14, 2007, sean wrote:

  "Neocons and republicans only get depicted as one dimensional demagogues who just hate everyone different for no particular reason. They ...

• At September 14, 2007, T. wrote:

  Yes, you do. We all do. Hudlin’s Black Panther has gotten more than its fair share of vitriol.

  Yes. And ...

• At September 14, 2007, T. wrote:

  That’s not a *real* double-standard. As soon as you can point to a location in the world where hundreds of ...

• At September 14, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  But most of those people don’t need a clumsy cartoon to make them feel better by having pretend heroes beat ...

• At September 14, 2007, fourthworlder wrote:

  BIFF!

  KERPOW!

  AARRGGHHH!!

  ZZZZRRAACCKKK!!!!

  (Sorry, but for a comic book thread I thought this was all getting a bit dry.)

• At September 14, 2007, fourthworlder wrote:

  That being said...

  How about a story where Captain America isn't actually dead but has gone back in time, to stop ...

• At September 14, 2007, fourthworlder wrote:

  I've got a great admiration for Frank Miller's art and his ability to tell a story, but way way back ...

• At September 14, 2007, pakaal wrote:

  It’s so funny. I’ve been watching comments appear on this page for a couple hours now, and nothing had quite ...

• At September 14, 2007, Evan Waters wrote:

  One problem, of course, is that Batman V. Bin Laden can't be that much of a fight. Sure, getting to ...

• At September 14, 2007, fourthworlder wrote:

  Did anybody NOT think that the Invisible Man deserved what he got from Hyde?

  OK, maybe that's a little strong...

  (That's what ...

• At September 14, 2007, fourthworlder wrote:

  Speaking of which, I wish there was a poll where I could vote for Hyde and Miss Murray, two more ...

• At September 14, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  A very nice piece, Omar, and I agree with most of it. Cap fighting Hitler is more inherently dishonest than, ...

• At September 14, 2007, Krod wrote:

  T-

  I really don't care to get into it here, but you're not alone in your views.

• At September 14, 2007, Omar Karindu on “Hitler vs. Comic Book Hitler; o… — Blog on best biography. all sorted and discussion on different writers and their biography wrote:

  [...] Our pal Omar wrote this up at the Comics Should Be Good forum here, but I thought it was ...

• At September 14, 2007, Jon H wrote:

  "Such stuff provides imaginary, childish hope at the expense of practical, adult solutions."

  I suspect an amusing depiction of Hitler getting ...

• At September 14, 2007, Jon H wrote:

  T wrote: "But with the Batman anti-terror book, the response was a lot more passionate, a lot more overwhelmingly negative ...

• At September 15, 2007, Ian wrote:

  “But you basically think that tragedy and persecution exempts one from rampant stereotyping, while having privilege means another is not ...

• At September 15, 2007, Freeform2 wrote:

  Ian, I think the statement "In the US, Christianity is the establishment therefore there is more leeway when it comes ...

• At September 15, 2007, Kelson wrote:

  A few days after 9/11, when it was already clear how big an effect the aftermath was going to have ...

• At September 15, 2007, Jon H wrote:

  "Portraying Bin Laden as a super-villain therefore risks stereotyping both Muslims and Middle-Easterners."

  Not necessarily. If it were that simple, then ...

• At September 15, 2007, Jon H wrote:

  Oh, also: "Hitler represented a secular idea, a form of government."

  I'd argue that people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao aren't ...

• At September 15, 2007, Freeform2 wrote:

  Jon H,

  "Context matters. A lot."

  I agree... to me that pretty much boils it down.

  And also, "Hitler, Stalin, and Mao aren’t ...

• At September 16, 2007, funkygreenjerusalem wrote:

  I really want to see Batman punch Osama in the face. I think seeing “our” symbol beat up “their” symbol ...

• At September 16, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  It’s this sort of us vs them idea that got America the joy’s of the past few years, and also ...

• At September 16, 2007, Davidwynne wrote:

  Wow. I just read this whole thread in one sitting.

  T... Like many people who share your views, you have a ...

• At September 16, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  But, yeah, I do ABSOLUTELY see America vs. the Al Qaeda as us vs. them. Some big shit went down ...

• At September 16, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  We shat on them, they shat on us, so we shat on them again… can you figure out what the ...

• At September 16, 2007, fourthworlder wrote:

  Bombing Iran will essentially be a declaration of war against both Russia and China.

  Sure do hope Batman's on our side ...

• At September 16, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  And I am absolutely fine with the reductive allegory terrorists = evil.

  Because it’s true.

  But these particular terrorists were heroes ...

• At September 17, 2007, T. wrote:

  T… Like many people who share your views, you have a serious persecution complex.

  Great nonrebuttal there.

  Markandrew… Your last comment? Man. ...

• At September 17, 2007, Nitz the Bloody wrote:

  Ignoring the super-charged political aspects and focusing on the aesthetic ones, I could stand seeing real-world bad guys in superhero ...

• At September 17, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Hey! Someone fixed my weird triple post. Thanks, Cronin!

  But these particular terrorists were heroes in the ...

• At September 17, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  No, George Washington was a FREEDOM FIGHTER.

  Or something.

  But I see your point. There are shades of grey between terrorist and ...

If anyone has written a good piece on how much they LIKED Gruenwald's Captain America, send it my way! Equal time, and all that!

11 Comments

• At September 13, 2007, avengers63 wrote:

  I always thought Gruenwald was a consistently good writer. So there was an aspect of his characterisation or a ...

• At September 13, 2007, Professor Fury wrote:

  Hey, thanks for the link, Brian! It may not have been clear from my post on the end of Gru's ...

• At September 13, 2007, Andrew Collins wrote:

  "Captain America And Snake Reagan" is one of the great unrealized comic book projects of our time.

  Seriously, it's been ...

• At September 13, 2007, Michael Pullmann wrote:

  It's OK not to like the end of Cruenwald's Cap run. It was terrible.

• At September 13, 2007, The Dane wrote:

  Second the preference for Cap/Diamondback. Plus Kieron Dwyer was awesome on Cap.

• At September 13, 2007, Lorin wrote:

  The Cap/Diamondback relationship was always a favorite of mine, and I always felt that Crossbones had a lot more personality ...

• At September 13, 2007, Anonymous wrote:

  Those were the days...The Red Skull & his "Skeleton Crew," The Serpent Society, "Streets of Poison." The list goes ...

• At September 13, 2007, The Dane wrote:

  Yeah, the "Superia Stratagem" killed it for me. I weathered "Streets of Poison" unhappily, but my faith was renewed ...

• At September 13, 2007, The Mutt wrote:

  Diamonback was one of the most do-able women in comics history.

• At September 13, 2007, Bryan wrote:

  "Superia Stragem" was a little too over the top, even for Captain America. I really disliked the whole "death" of ...

• At September 21, 2007, Scott MacIver wrote:

  Oh. My.

  I want Captain America vs the Snake-Reagan so badly. Someone email Robert Kirkman.

"Don't compete with your readers to see if you can surprise them," was my main point, as doing so almost always leads to crazy ideas done simply because "no one would ever guess I would do THAT!"

Okay, that being said, I also mentioned that it was silly to build a story around a twist that was too obvious. I still agree with that, but what if a twist was just PART of a story? At what point does the obviousness of a twist become detrimental to the story itself? SHOULD a twist being obvious count against the story?

I will admit that I write this with an example in mind - the current Black Canary mini-series. It has been a pretty enjoyable read, but issue #3 and #4 involved one of the most blatantly obvious "twists" that I can recall in a recent comic book. It is about as obvious as a comic ending with the title character being killed, only for the next issue to reveal how the hero evaded the fatal trap (See the last two issues of Fantastic Four for an example of this tried and true method). In those instances, we don't hold it against the writer for the "twist" of the hero not actually dying, mostly because it is not really meant as a "twist," as the writer does not actually expect us to believe that the character is actually dead.

But in Black Canary, it reads as though the twist IS intended to throw the reader, and I'd be mightily surprised if it did to any reader.

So, would that count as a negative aspect of the comic?

Is it necessary, to be considered a successful twist, for the twist to be actually surprising, even if otherwise, the twist is executed well in the comic?

31 Comments

• At August 17, 2007, Matt D wrote:

  I like being surprised as much as the next guy but it was a little frustrating hearing people complain about ...

• At August 17, 2007, avengers63 wrote:

  Lately, it's become like pro wrestling. Twists & turns are coming for no apparent reason. It's all too ...

• At August 17, 2007, Bill Angus wrote:

  If you're referring to The Longbow Hunters, Mike Grell has said repeatedly that Black Canary was not raped - off ...

• At August 17, 2007, Hisham wrote:

  If the intent of the author is to have a plot twist, then it should be something actually surprising.

  However, ...

• At August 17, 2007, kevhines wrote:

  When it comes to twists in comic books - Thunderbolts #1 takes the cake.

  I remember reading the book, and enjoying ...

• At August 17, 2007, Ron wrote:

  at poster #2, you're thinking of identity crisis.

  and about spider-woman, i think it was pretty clear that she was going ...

• At August 17, 2007, avengers63 wrote:

  Spider-Woman has also been in bed with Hydra, right before the Civil War. If she's a double agent, she ...

• At August 17, 2007, Mark wrote:

  I agree with both "The Return of Barry Allen" and Thunderbolts. Like Kevhines, while reading issue #1, I remember thinking, ...

• At August 17, 2007, Michael wrote:

  Wacky idea, but twists should be good.

  I pretty much saw the reveal of the traitor in the original Runaways lineup ...

• At August 17, 2007, Matt D wrote:

  I think the big thing is that they should be played fair.

  The clues need to be there. It needs ...

• At August 17, 2007, Anonymous wrote:

  I think you need to distinguish between twists and cliffhangers. The latter is what you are describing (and what I ...

• At August 17, 2007, Bill Reed wrote:

  Twists don't necessarily have to be surprising, but they *do* have to be fulfilling.

• At August 17, 2007, Ian wrote:

  "The real point was that it was a good twist. She apparently switched sides to the registration camp. "

  Yeah but ...

• At August 17, 2007, kevhines wrote:

  Yes, a good 'twist' makes you re-evaluate everything you read before.

  The perfect example is the Sixth Sense, which I think ...

• At August 17, 2007, chdb wrote:

  Thunderbolts #1 actually got pretty much guessed by fandom, back in the day, even before the issue hit the stands. ...

• At August 17, 2007, Daly wrote:

  Yeah I thought Avengers was pretty logical. Spider Woman said she was going to go to Tony Stark- so she ...

• At August 17, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  I think the best twists, by definition, have to be obvious--if you're looking at them. The skill of the author ...

• At August 17, 2007, StereotypeA wrote:

  I dislike when the twist comes from information being withheld from us.

  Since someone mentioned M. Night Shamlamadingdong's Sixth Sense, I'll ...

• At August 17, 2007, Mecha-Shiva wrote:

  I think the biggest problem is that a twist is not a reason for a story to exist. A ...

• At August 18, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  Mike Grell has said repeatedly that Black Canary was not raped - off or on camera - just, not raped, ...

• At August 18, 2007, Jacob T. Levy wrote:

  I found Black Canary to fall flat, for just this reason. We already know, out-of-story, that Canary says 'yes' ...

• At August 18, 2007, Greg Geren wrote:

  I read the Black Canary mini, and also saw the twist coming. I don't think it fell flat, because ...

• At August 18, 2007, Conor E wrote:

  So, if I choose to believe that Peter Parker was a cannibalistic serial killer off panel, it's valid? Wow, Lee ...

• At August 18, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  The writer's intentions stop at what's printed on the page, just as a director's stop with what's shown on the ...

• At August 18, 2007, Bill Reed wrote:

  I believe, yo go, that you're referring to the frightening force known as "fanwank." Or one definition of it, anyway.

• At August 19, 2007, avengers63 wrote:

  Call it what you want, it's a valid point. Off-screen is off-screen. Hitchcock was the master of using ...

• At August 19, 2007, Doug Atkinson wrote:

  In the Urban Legends Revealed article on the subject, Grell mentions someone complaining that he had shown Canary being raped, ...

• At August 19, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  Oh, of course it shouldn't - but then, the original creators' only carries so much weight, as well. Especially when ...

• At August 20, 2007, avengers63 wrote:

  And that's the EXACT thing I was hinting at when I mentioned Alfred Hitchcock. What the viewer/reader fills in ...

• At August 20, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  The twist in Identity Crisis is hilariously sloppy and I feel kind of embarassed for anyone who was genuinely engaged ...

• At August 20, 2007, jkfff wrote:

  i thought one of the best twists i've read was the in kirkmans invincible when omni-man turns out to be ...

Enjoy!

To refresh, I use a bipartite test to determine if Women in Refrigerators (WiR) has occured.

1. (Objective) A female character is killed/maimed/tortured/raped etc. for the main purpose of eliciting a desired reaction from a male character.

2. (Subjective) I do not believe that the same death/maiming/torture/rape would have occurred had the female character been a male.

So let's begin!

Phantom Lady being killed

WiR. No

Why?/Why not? She was just one of the Freedom Fighters who were slaughtered.

Pantha getting her head punched off.

WiR. No.

Why?/Why not? Just one of a bunch of deaths of Titans. It was pretty hokey, but it seemed pretty indiscriminate as to who was getting killed.

Jade dying.

WiR. Yes.

Why?/Why not? Jade's death during Infinite Crisis was almost solely to make Kyle Rayner change as a character. He gave her her powers, so when she dies, he got the power back, which supercharged him, making him become Ion.

Batgirl becoming a villain

WiR? I say no.

Why?/Why not? I think you could stretch #1 and say that the main reason that Cassandra Cain was made a villain was to mess with Batman and/or Robin's head. However, this is the same sort of silliness that has happened with all types of comic characters for ages, male and female. Heck, didn't Jason Todd JUST come back as a villain? So I think it would have occurred if Cassandra Cain was a male character. Still, quite bad writing there.

Batgirl becoming a villain due to Deathstroke pumping her with chemicals.

WiR? I still say no.

Why?/Why not? This one is a lot closer to WiR, as you could make a good argument that the idea of Deathstroke doing it to specifically who he considers to be Batman's "daughter" as being a sexist thing, but I think it is more a general thing. Batgirl was screwed by just being the most replaceable character in the Bat-titles, which you could argue is an example of sexism, in that female comics sell worse than comics starring men, but that is going way past WiR, I think.

Laurie Collins is killed.

WiR? Yes

Why?/Why not? Laurie Collins was a mutant student at Xavier's School for Mutants. She was involved with a fellow mutant named Josh (his codename was Elixir). She was killed by a sniper in front of Josh, causing him to basically snap, leading him to gain new powers (his old powers were healing ones, he now gained powers that could KILL). The story in the comic for Laurie's death was that the bad guys had a vision of her defeating them, but it is clear in the comic that the main purpose of her death was to cause Josh to snap, thereby advancing his character. And I don't think the scene would have occurred with a male classmate of Josh's.

Moondragon got pretty messed up during Annihilation

WiR? No.

Why?/Why not? Nothing that happened to Moondragon seemed all that out of the ordinary for the series, where a number of characters were being similarly affected.

Isis killed by the Four Horsemen

WiR. Tough call, but I'm going with no.

Why?/Why not? The point of introducing Isis and Osiris was to give Black Adam his own Marvel Family, and then take them away from him and see what he'll do. So to that point, part one is certainly fit. But since Osiris' death was also involved, it seems a bit tough to say that Isis' death had to be a female, since her brother was ALSO killed. Then again, it was HER death that made Adam go kill an entire country, while he was still hanging on to his sanity when it was just Osiris who was dead. Hmmm...it's a tough one. I'm going with no WiR, but I'm willing to listen to opposite takes on it.

Batwoman was stabbed

WiR. I'm going with no.

Why?/Why not? I think it just seemed like it was a standard plot device. There could be an argument made that she was a WiR with a twist, as she was stabbed to elicit a specific response from Renee Montoya...and there's definitely something to be said for that, but also, Batwoman got her own revenge in the comic, so I dunno...I mean, it's not WiR because it is not done for a male character, but even if Renee Montoya was a male (and Batwoman wasn't a lesbian), I don't think it would fit.

Aunt May gets shot, goes into a coma

WiR: This is a tough one...it sure seems to fit, doesn't it? I'm still saying no.

Why?/Why not?: This has all the trademark qualities of a WiR, in that May getting shot was solely to see what it would do to Peter Parker, AKA Spider-Man. The only reason I am excluding it is because of the "wouldn't happen with a male character" part, in that Spider-Man is probably the most famous example OF a character reacting due to a male character's death, his Uncle Ben. So killing his Aunt years later seems to be a bit similar to Ben's death, and I think it takes it out of the typical WiR paradigm.

Thanks, Mike, for the suggestion!

Feel free to point out some other examples that I have missed!!

54 Comments

• At April 9, 2007, Michael wrote:

  Aunt May?

• At April 9, 2007, Dan K wrote:

  MJ got pretty badly fridged in Reign.

• At April 9, 2007, Adam Jones wrote:

  Should we just start calling Kyle Rayner "The Fridge"?

• At April 9, 2007, Tom Russell wrote:

  I fully support calling Kyle Rayner "The Fridge", but only if it's pronounced, "Da Fridge!!!", with at least three exclamation ...

• At April 9, 2007, M Bloom wrote:

  Dating Kyle Rayner is one of the only things in the DCU that's 100% fatal.

  And I don't care if it's ...

• At April 9, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  You didn't mention Looker's death, which doesn't fit, but is still the greatest crime in the history of comic books.

• At April 9, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I've decided that Looker's death didn't occur. I think it is unproven, consarnit!!!

• At April 9, 2007, Adam Jones wrote:

  What about Gert dying in Runaways? I mean, essentially it made Chase Stein less of a joke, powered him ...

• At April 9, 2007, jlg wrote:

  I have to disagree on Pantha. By your definition: "killed for the main purpose of eliciting a desired reaction from ...

• At April 9, 2007, Mason Kramer wrote:

  Weirdly, your list has caused me to rethink my position on Isis as WiR. While Isis was, indeed, the last ...

• At April 9, 2007, Lynxara wrote:

  Man, I have a hard time associating Women in Refrigerators syndrome with "fun"...

  (Interesting post, though.)

• At April 9, 2007, Ion wrote:

  "Dating Kyle Rayner is one of the only things in the DCU that’s 100% fatal."

  It's 125% fatal. Donna has ...

• At April 9, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  I agree with your Isis determination. It's not that HER death specifically sent him over the edge, it's that she ...

• At April 10, 2007, Ryan H wrote:

  A comment on some of the comments above. I think for something to be WiR, it has to occur ...

• At April 10, 2007, Dave wrote:

  Laurie Collins dying the was the best thing to ever happen in NXM, solely because it permanently ended that sure-to-be-horrible ...

• At April 10, 2007, fanboy d wrote:

  i got what you were saying, but i wasn't really onboard with actually using the term until Dan K's post. ...

• At April 10, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Good point, Lynxara. Intellectual exercises are fun for me, but I can understand how the term seems out of place ...

• At April 10, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I have to disagree on Pantha. By your definition: “killed for the main purpose of eliciting a desired reaction from ...

• At April 10, 2007, Matt D wrote:

  It's not comics, but since SO many bad things happen to female characters on Heroes, I figured I'd toss in ...

• At April 10, 2007, Eric Grant wrote:

  I appreciate this examination of the term, but I just wanted to chip in that the thing about WiR is ...

• At April 10, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Actually, I'd say that WiR is a clearly identifiable symptom of the issue that comics protagonists tend to be male, ...

• At April 10, 2007, Adam Jones wrote:

  Did Ms Marvel's psychiatrist ask her out on a date? If so, that's some really poor writing, due to ...

• At April 10, 2007, jlg wrote:

  I think you’re giving Geoff Johns way too much credit (is credit even the right word?) for that scene. I ...

• At April 10, 2007, Chris wrote:

  Any thoughts on:

  Earth-2 Lois Lane in Infinite Crisis?

  Dream Girl in Legion of Superheroes?

  As for Isis, can it be considered WiR ...

• At April 10, 2007, Matt D wrote:

  As was the point of Alex being stuffed into Kyle's fridge in the first place no? That's likely what she ...

• At April 10, 2007, Joe Rice wrote:

  I don't see how creating a woman to die just so the man can get REAL MAD is any better ...

• At April 10, 2007, Chris wrote:

  It might not be better from a sexual politic point of view, certainly creating a female character just to die ...

• At April 10, 2007, caleb wrote:

  Very interesting post. I wonder, have more female heroes/supporting characters than male ones died in the last year (or ...

• At April 10, 2007, Dave wrote:

  Any thoughts on the WiR status of Hulk #105?

• At April 10, 2007, Matt D wrote:

  That's a Planet in Refrigerators issue

• At April 10, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  The thing is, John Seavey, that I can think of only four real examples of a reversed WiR situation

  -- ...

• At April 10, 2007, Clint Adams wrote:

  Someone said far up "that is why there aren't any "cool" female characters."

  I beg to differ, the "cool" female characters ...

• At April 10, 2007, Clint Adams wrote:

  And beyond that, I'm sure that there have been many male characters that were created just for the effect that ...

• At April 10, 2007, Dan K wrote:

  Killing off a supporting character to give the lead a bit of emotionally depth is a devise which has been ...

• At April 10, 2007, Matt D wrote:

  It's a whole lot harder to continue to write about a happy couple than it is to just add a ...

• At April 10, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Donna Troy's husband also died (although by that point, I think he was her ex-husband. But still, he clearly died ...

• At April 10, 2007, f. chong rutherfod wrote:

  Regardless of whether or not the female characters listed fit Cronin's altered WiR definition, the fact remains that with those ...

• At April 10, 2007, sean wrote:

  "Sue Storm dressing in a peekabo spandex outfit and going a bit mental after Reed seemingly died during DeFalco’s FF; ...

• At April 11, 2007, Anonymous wrote:

  He just as easily could have had Baby Wildebeest be the one who got his head punched off, and Pantha ...

• At April 11, 2007, Mela wrote:

  Laurie Collins dying the was the best thing to ever happen in NXM, solely because it permanently ended that sure-to-be-horrible ...

• At April 11, 2007, Dean Trippe wrote:

  I think you're a little too lenient in some of those decisions.

  I don't use WiR specifically to refer ...

• At April 11, 2007, Eric Grant wrote:

  The thing is, even if WiR is simply and artifact of comics being overwhelmingly dominated by male characters, well, that's ...

• At April 11, 2007, Clint Adams wrote:

  My wife happened to like Identity Crisis. She thought the death of Sue was a great motivating factor for ...

• At April 11, 2007, DanCJ wrote:

  I don’t use WiR specifically to refer to all of those, but the basic vibe of “Powerful Female…KILL HER/DEPOWER HER/MAKE ...

• At April 11, 2007, jlg wrote:

  Well there is also the fact that Baby wildebeest had a hole punched through his chest and Red Star did ...

• At April 11, 2007, Tom Foss wrote:

  I don’t see how creating a woman to die just so the man can get REAL MAD is any better ...

• At April 11, 2007, david brothers wrote:

  Between the super-slow build-up to what’s bound to be not very interesting (pheromone fight! woo!)

  We had a different term ...

• At April 11, 2007, Anonymous wrote:

  Except this was after Pantha was killed right in front of them, eliciting the response for RS and BW to ...

• At April 11, 2007, jlg wrote:

  Well it’s not considered WiR, by Brian’s definition, because it wasn’t just the death of Pantha that caused the new ...

• At April 11, 2007, Anonymous wrote:

  I suppose I approach deaths like Isis and Batwoman's with more metatextual cynicism. Since the "Someone's gonna die before the ...

• At April 12, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  More to the point, was Spoiler ever OUT of the fridge? I've long thought of her as the WiR postergirl, ...

• At April 12, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Eric Grant said:

  "The thing is, even if WiR is simply an artifact of comics being overwhelmingly dominated by male characters, ...

• At July 29, 2007, J-Man wrote:

  @Post 06: Looker? I can think of a lot of criminal comic blunders, but the death of Looker just ...

• At August 7, 2007, Thenodrin wrote:

  The way I see it, the real insult about WiR is this:

  Is the dead character a woman because it is ...

Grant Morrison's recent output for Wildstorm made me think, which is never a good sign.  It made me think of the God Of All Comics and just what the hell he's doing.  I thought the first issue of The Authority was boring (I didn't buy issue #2) and I enjoyed WildCats while still recognizing it wasn't anything great.  But that's just me.

But I don't want to talk about The Authority.  I don't really want to talk about WildCats, either, except that it brings me back to Joe Casey, which brings me back to Gødland.  See?  I can tie things together with the best of them!

  

Regular readers may recall that I really enjoy Gødland.  It was my favorite ongoing series of 2006, and it's still doing fine this year.  I come not to bury the book, but to look at it in the context of what Joe Casey has done recently.  Because, in case you missed it, Casey has been doing some of the more groundbreaking work in superhero comics in recent memory.  Yes, not Grant Morrison.  Joe Casey.  Before we get to that, I want to track a couple of trends in superhero comics over the past few decades and wonder why these trends haven't become more prevalent.  The two trends are deconstruction and postmodernism.

Yes, I'm using fancy (and possibly clichéd) terms.  Deal with it!  I was an English major, so I'm allowed to fling those things around casually.  I rule!  "Deconstruction" is a term that people are tired of hearing, which is certainly a reasonable complaint.  Simply put, to deconstruct something means to break it down into its component parts and examine what makes a work of fiction tick.  In recent years, it has been trendy to not accept the - let's face it - inherent goofiness of superhero comics.  We need to psychoanalyze the characters, explain their powers scientifically, and account for why they are able to perform such wondrous feats.  We even go back to before this was trendy and deconstruct pure fantastical superhero comics.  I'm as guilty as anyone.  Deconstruction, however, can serve to allow us insight not only into what makes people dress up in fetish gear, but how these facets of their personality can illuminate our own screwy psyches.

                   

The Godfather of Deconstruction is, of course, Alan Moore.  In Marvelman (which was changed to Miracleman in the U. S. because of a certain comic book company), he introduced the idea of superhero as Messiah/Conqueror.  No one had ever taken superheroes to their logical extreme with such brutal realism, and everyone who has since is working in Moore's shadow.  This was not pure deconstruction, as Moore didn't necessarily psychoanalyze Mike Moran, but he did show us the dichotomy of the "secret identity" and how putting on a costume frees Moran from basic human morality.  There are two utterly tragic scenes in Marvelman - when Moran tries to convince Liz to join him in the superhuman future, and she clings to the laughable concept that maybe he should have stayed true to his marriage vows even though, technically, he wasn't the same person when he was diddling Avril over London; and when Margaret Thatcher says they can't allow the new super-people to interfere with the market, and Marvelman says, "Allow?"  With one word, Thatcher realizes that she is obsolete, and the real tragedy is when Avril scolds Marvelman and tells him they're supposed to be above that kind of pettiness.  But, of course, they aren't, as Gaiman makes clear in "The Silver Age" (and even, to a degree, in "The Golden Age").  Moore is pointing out that superhumans, for all their strangeness, cannot escape their cultural programming.  It's an interesting take on superheroes, and blew the roof off of what was possible with the genre.

                 

Moore began more deconstruction with Swamp Thing #21, "The Anatomy Lesson," in which he showed how idiotic a conceit the idea originally was.  Yes, the original stories are nice gothic horror, helped by Wrightson's art, but Moore did something very few people had done before: he sat down and considered how Swamp Thing could function in some sort of stand-in for the "real" world.  He thought about Swamp Thing, in other words, instead of just accepting the conventions of the super-hero genre.  In doing so, he introduced a new, better Swamp Thing, one that could be used to tell far more interesting stories than had been already done.  In his deconstruction, he didn't necessarily examine what made superheroes tick, but he did try to explain how something like Swamp Thing could exist.

            

These two titles led, of course, to Watchmen, which is the ultimate deconstruction of superheroes.  What Moore understood, and what several other writers haven't, is that it's not enough to simply break superheroes down and show what makes them go.  You have to put them in a good story (which Watchmen is) and you also have to show why, despite all their human foibles, they are necessary (at least in the context of the superhero world, something else Watchmen does).  Moore wanted to show that these people who put on costumes might be a bit messy in the head, but they rise above their complexes and they overcome their fears to act as true heroes.  Watchmen is a terribly complex work, but at its core it is deconstructionist.

Ironically, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and even "Year One" (in Batman #404-407) were also deconstruction, even though they are somewhat diametrically opposed to Watchmen.  Miller took Batman at the beginning and the end of his career and delved into why he started what he did, why he continued, and why he returned.  Batman is a treasure trove of neuroses, and although Miller would probably tell you he was just writing a good noir tale (or two), it's fascinating to see how well he understands the disturbing corners of Batman's personality without beating us over the head with it.  Miller might not describe his bookend take on the Caped Crusader in such high-brow terms, but that's what he does.  In DKR, he breaks down why a hero is always a hero, despite the ravages of time.  He also sets up the dichotomy between Batman and Superman that has been with us ever since: the God of the Sun and the God of the Underworld.  Prior to this, Batman and Superman had been two sides of pretty much the same coin, but Miller pointed out their fundamental differences, and, despite Jeph Loeb's efforts on Superman/Batman, we have never gone back.  Frank Miller's take on their relationship, which is a deconstructionist take, is just so much more interesting than any of the previous ones.  In "Year One," Miller went the other way, and constructed his hero, which is just another way to deconstruct.  We were able to follow along as familiar tropes were revealed to have darker meanings, and familiar characters were given deeper backgrounds.  These two Batman projects, coming as they did on a flagship character, set the bar high and also, like Watchmen, spawned innumerable, mostly lesser imitations.  DC is still looking for lightning to strike again: There are no fewer than five "Year One" mini-series in the pipeline (Green Arrow, Metamorpho, Teen Titans, Black Lightning, Huntress).  Deconstruction is still with us, even if we think we've seen it all before.

           

Enterprising writers recognized that once it had been done once, there was little place left to go.  How often can you point out the fetishistic nature of spandex costumes before it becomes trite?  Enter Grant Morrison and his wacky postmodern ideas!  Morrison came into comics at the height of this "Deconstructionist" period, which for lesser writers meant "grim-and-gritty."  It's ridiculous to join the two, but that's what a lot of writers in the late 1980s did - breaking down what made superheroes tick meant putting them in the "real world," with all the inherent bloodiness.  Morrison certainly wasn't immune to this - Arkham Asylum being the prime example of excess - but he also had a love for the pre-Crisis DC Universe and the idea of irony-free superheroics.  When he got his big break in American comics with Animal Man, he was apparently given carte blanche to do whatever he wanted with an obscure character.  So he deconstructed Buddy Baker ... with a twist.  Animal Man quickly became a postmodern masterpiece.

      

But what does that mean, "postmodern"?  Unfortunately, no one agrees on a good definition.  The best way to describe it is fiction that is aware of itself as fiction.  Thus, the author and audience become participants in the text itself, with various effects.  Others have defined it differently, but generally, that's as good a definition as we're going to get.  Literature has done some marvelous things with the idea of the text being a living, breathing entity that changes based on the reader and even the time at which a singular reader enters it.  The idea of the reader actively engaging the text has given us several great works of literature, including Slaughterhouse-5, If on a winter's night a traveler, Picture This, Dictionary of the Khazars and other books by Milorad Pavic, and even horror books like House of Leaves.  Postmodernism is just a term by which we can categorize certain aspects of fiction.  It's handy, even if it's ill-defined.

How does this relate to comics?  Well, comics have always been somewhat postmodern, as their relationship with the audience has always been far more immediate than "high-brow" literature, and therefore the connection between the creators and readers has always been a bit more symbiotic, if you will.  Comics have, for decades, brought the reader into the comic book experience, with omniscient narrators and even characters speaking directly to the reader.  In many ways, comics showed what can be done with the idea of the reader actively taking part in the experience of the text itself.  This is most evident in letter columns, especially Marvel's policy of "no-prizes," where readers were encouraged to explain continuity errors made by the creators themselves, thereby becoming part of the creative process.  Perhaps the fact that comics were seen as utterly disposable entertainment, along with their serial nature, helped make them more fast and loose with the "rules" - Choose Your Own Adventure books, which were for children, were also "postmodern" and didn't care about violating the "laws of fiction" - and this helped create a strange world in which readers were interacting with the writers and artists.  If a reader didn't like where a title was going, it's conceivable he or she (more than likely he) could change the direction of that title, even if the changes were only subtle.  Later on, comics became even more "postmodern:" Creators dropped themselves into stories - Chris Claremont has shown up in more than one issue of X-Men; there was that fun story in which Bat-Mite visited the DC offices and made life unbearable for the people working there; and John Byrne made She-Hulk realize she was actually in a comic book.  In each of these instances, the idea of comic book characters interacting with their creators is played for laughs, and in the case of She-Hulk (in which the joke is sustained throughout the series), it becomes little more than a trick among a creators' entire bag of tricks.  Clever, yes, but ultimately simply part of the status quo.

                 

Morrison did something different with Animal Man.  The series became a true postmodern masterpiece as it wore on and Morrison decided to turn Buddy Baker into a) his own personal mouthpiece for social issues, notably animal cruelty; and b) a commentary on recent (at that point) comic book history and its effect on both the characters and the reader himself.  As Buddy becomes aware of his status as a comic book character, it's not a liberating event like in Jennifer Walters' case; it's a traumatic event that costs him everything good in his life simply to satisfy the whim of "God" - in this case, the writer and the readers.  Morrison drew the audience into his comic book not only because he wanted to involve us in Buddy's fate, but because he wanted to indict us in the "darkening" of comics themselves.  We become complicit in the fact that the Crisis on Infinite Earths took away all the great stories of the past, and we can no longer simply sit back and allow DC to do it to us.  We are accomplices.  Buddy goes on a Grail Quest, at the end of which must sit the creator.  Morrison, in issue #26 (aptly if prosaically called "Deus Ex Machina"), claims that he has run out of ideas, but the issue has been carefully built to, and when Buddy meets Morrison, it is the ultimate blending of reality and fantasy, with Morrison no longer being the creative force, but also the passive force upon which the ultimate creators - the implication being that it's the readers - work.  We can no longer be sure which is reality and which is fantasy, which is truth and which is fiction.  Morrison lives in a world without magic, yet Foxy answers his flashlight signal at the end - conveniently after he has left.  Morrison tells Buddy about his cat and how it died and how he realized he (Morrison) could use it in an Animal Man story.  It's a poignant tale, but it's Morrison the (fictional) character telling the story, and therefore Morrison the writer could be making up even the existence of the cat to elicit an emotional response.  These layers of reality and meaning make this issue, and the series as a whole, a true postmodern classic.

       

Animal Man didn't exactly lead to a flowering of postmodern comics, but it at least showed what could be done in the medium.  Morrison continued to be at the forefront, however, with works like Invisibles and The Filth, in which he attempted to rewrite history and change the way we view reality.  Many of the themes he used in other books reached an apotheosis in Flex Mentallo, which is perhaps the most postmodern book ever written.  Flex Mentallo is only four issues long, but it expands upon the ideas of Animal Man and becomes a critique of comic book history, its "degredation," and whether or not we as readers are in any way culpable.  It offers no real easy answers, but does hold out the possibility of reconciliation with our childhood desires and our adult needs.  The idea that Wallace Sage, by which Morrison means every reader of every comic book, is creating the world as he goes, allows the audience to actively participate in the book.  We become part of the process of creation, and the comic becomes more of a personal artifact with meaning in our own lives.  The genius of Flex Mentallo is that we feel, as we read it, that we are assisting Morrison and Quitely as they create it, even though it is already completed.  We have become essential to the making of the comic.

      

Few writers took up this clarion call of expanded meanings of comic books.  Alan Moore wrote brilliant pastiche in 1963 and followed it up by recreating the Superman of the 1950s in Supreme.  Neither of these books were truly postmodern, but they did bring the audience in and allowed a select group of comic book readers - those with a knowledge of the history of the medium - to laugh along with Moore.  Peter Milligan put himself into a few issues of Shade, the Changing Man as Miles Laimling (the last name is an anagram) and commented on the nature of reality and comic books and other such things.  Other writers continued to use the "tricks" of postmodernism without really getting into the ideas behind it.  At the turn of the century, however, Morrison went to Marvel and began work on X-Men.  At the same time, Joe Casey began working on Uncanny X-Men.  It was an interesting synchronous beginning, because Casey had picked up the gauntlet thrown by Morrison and run with it, beginning with Wildcats.

                    

Casey's work on Uncanny X-Men was not terribly interesting, and when it's compared to Morrison's X-Men and Milligan and Allred's mind-blowing X-Force (another fine postmodern book), it looks even worse.  However, just prior to getting the Marvel gig, Casey had taken over Wildcats from Scott Lobdell and Travis Charest.  He and Sean Phillips went in a new direction and turned the book into something fascinating and, to an extent, postmodern.  Despite its pedigree and some nice stories by Alan Moore, Wildcats had never been about more than a big superhero bash.  Moore did come up with the idea of the war between the Kherubim and Daemonites being over without anyone telling the WildC.A.T.s themselves, which is a great idea, and once the war was over and the main Kherubim - Marlowe and Zealot - rejected their life on Khera, there wasn't a lot of places to go with the book.  So Casey killed Marlowe, allowing Spartan - in a new identity as Marlowe's nephew - to take over the Halo Corporation.  Casey's move led to a brilliant new comic book - the superhero as corporate entity.  Others had done similar things with this before, but Casey took it a step further and showed that superheroes could have a positive effect on the world of business and, more comprehensively, the world in general.  This wasn't Marvelman or the Squadron Supreme or the Authority taking over the world by force in order to "fix" it.  This was Jack Marlowe introducing products that would make the world better.  Casey wanted to show what happens when capitalism made things better.  Sure, Marlowe had a secret power source, which made his batteries last forever, and he sold the batteries, making money in the process, but he used the money to invest in industries for the betterment of all.  In a comic book world where big business is often looked at as sinister - Wilson Fisk (yes, he's a gangster, but also a businessman), Lex Luthor, Justin Hammer, et al. - Casey changed the paradigm to show that it didn't have to be that way.  Wildcats wasn't truly postmodern, as it wasn't aware of itself as a text, but it was a bold step away from what had been done before, and showed what could be done with superheroes.  It failed, of course, despite a relaunch with snazzy art by Dustin Nguyen and later Duncan Rouleau.  Casey never took it as far as it could go, and fell back into the standard superhero patterns, which left it with nothing to distinguish itself from the myriad other books out there.  But it appears that Casey had learned his lesson.

          

Casey's next project was Automatic Kafka, which for nine hallucinatory issues showed us what an adult superhero parody could be like.  Combining Casey's razor-sharp scripts with Ashley Wood's psychedelic artwork produced a comic that took elements of several previous comics and blended them into something marvelous.  Kafka is a harsh examination of superheroes and a culture that worships celebrity and bloodshed, and it sold not even a little bit.  Instead of trying to "fix" Kafka by changing its tone, Casey and Wood killed it, showing up in issue #9 to tell their hero that he just wasn't marketable.  Kafka's pathetic line about how he's a superhero, so he ought to sell is a nice coda to the series.  Casey and Wood freely admit that they're ripping off Morrison (among others) by appearing in the comic, but that's one of the hallmarks of postmodernism: it's not only aware of itself as a text, but it's aware of the texts that have come before, and therefore postmodern writers have no problem ripping off other works and acknowledging it.  The key is fitting this into an original work of art.  Readers of the final issue of Automatic Kafka would probably know about the previous times a creator appeared in a comic, so Casey and Wood cut off their cries of "plagiarism" by acknowledging it themselves.  The fact that they're copying from others adds to the surrealism of Kafka, and it helps create a comic that is disturbingly familiar yet totally unique.  Kafka is a failure as a superhero comic book, actually, but it's a masterpiece of commentary on the comic book industry and the people who read comics.  So of course it failed.

       

   

While Casey continued to write typical mainstream superhero stories, he rolled up his sleeves and got to work again with another postmodern comic, The Intimates.  This book, which lasted a grand total of 12 issues, is not as brilliant as Kafka, but it is still far more interesting than a lot of superhero books that are published, and it stands as a nice postmodern look at superheroes-in-training.  The story itself is standard superheroics, but Casey attempts to turn his book into a strange book/television hybrid, with a 24-hour-news-channel-style crawl at the bottom of each and every page (well, not every page, but almost all of them).  In this crawl, Casey comments on the characters, other books he's writing, and the state of comics themselves.  He also addresses readers' concerns about the crawl itself, as people complained about it because it was hard on the eyes to read (and it was).  The fact that these kids are training to be superheroes in a world where superheroes are commonplace, and that they have to learn not only how to use their powers but how to deal with the publicity of being a superhero, makes for a nice idea that gave Casey plenty of opportunity to comment on the essence of superhero comics themselves.  The Intimates is not as excellent as Milligan's X-Force, to compare it to a close contemporary, but it shows, once again, Casey's willingness to test the boundaries of how comic books can be presented.  The readers of The Intimates are anything but passive - Casey drags them into the book and invites them to comment on the proceedings.  Granted, all comic books do that, but Casey is also an active participant in this process, and it's right there as part of the book, instead of being relegated to a letters column.

     

The Intimates went the way of the dodo, and Casey tackled his next project: Gødland.  Gødland is in many ways far superior to The Intimates.  Giuseppe Camuncoli's art on the former book is fine, but somewhat slick.  Tom Scioli's art on Gødland is majestic and crazy, which is just what the book needs.  Gødland is wild roller coaster ride, but at the same time, it's a step back in terms of what can be done with the genre.  There is nothing revolutionary about Gødland, and that's a shame.  I doubt if Casey sits down and thinks to himself that he's going to revolutionize superhero comics.  If he did, he wouldn't be very good.  I'm sure he's simply telling the story he wants to tell, and that's fine.  But I would argue that Gødland is less revolutionary than its predecessors because of the prevailing culture of comic books, and this is where I blame Grant Morrison, if only a little.

           

What did Morrison really do with the X-Men?  Not much, in the grand scheme of things.  His forty issues on X-Men, despite being a wonderful story, are possibly his most conventional work (even his run on JLA was slightly more off-beat), so of course it's probably his most commercially successful (I don't have the sales figures).  During his run, a regime change at Marvel meant that the company pulled back from pushing the envelope, and several books from the early part of the century that tried to explore different aspects of what it means to be a character in the Marvel U. (X-Men; X-Force/X-Statix; X-Factor; Alias; Priest's Black Panther, just to give a few examples) were allowed to run their course without replacing them with anything similarly boundary-pushing.  The Marvel Universe reverted to safe superheroics that can easily be perpetuated when one creative team is replaced by another.  Superhero comics that push the boundaries usually have a logical end, and when they do end, it's just easier to hit the reset button instead of ending the series altogether and trying to come up with something new.  Morrison moved on from Marvel and returned to DC.  As the godfather of postmodern comics, this move should have allowed him to break barriers, as DC - through its imprints that aren't plugged into the regular DCU - has always been more willing to give these kinds of experiments a chance.  Morrison had a golden opportunity to continue with the kind of groundbreaking storytelling he had done years earlier at DC.

                 

What did we get?  Seaguy.  This is a good start, as it hearkens back to his earlier postmodern work - a mind-bending puzzle of a comic that invites the readers to look deeper at the symbolism behind the events happening on-panel.  Morrison has always been good at casually dropping symbols into his work, and Seaguy is loaded with them.  It is a bold story in that it challenges us to reconsider our own habits of consumption, and warns of side effects we may not understand.  As he did with Flex Mentallo, Morrison involved the audience actively.  The series, though brief, offered us a peek at what Morrison could still do about creating a comic that was outside our expectations and therefore good for us.

                 

The follow-ups, however, were less encouraging.  We3 and Vimanarama are entertaining in their own right, and show us some interesting things artistically (Quitely does a magnificent job on We3, in particular, while Bond's style is marvelous for the Hindu-Kirby thing of Vimanarama), but in terms of story, there is nothing that breaks the mold.   He uses some tricks of postmodernism, but as we've seen, a lot of comics do that.  Morrison's next endeavor was Seven Soldiers.

    

Seven Soldiers is an epic in storytelling, but in the end, it's fairly conventional.  Morrison again plays with the tricks of making a text aware of itself and making the audience an active participant in the experience, but ultimately, that's all they are.  Zatanna addresses the audience, true, but it has become shorthand for Morrison, without the emotional impact of Buddy Baker seeing the audience.  In the final issue of the epic, Morrison toys with a true interactive reading experience with the crossword puzzle in the pages of the Guardian, but again, this is a trick without much heft.  The puzzle does not illuminate much about the text itself.  Zatanna's invocation of the audience as participants in the final battle against the Sheeda again has little emotional impact.  Seven Soldiers is a stellar piece of work throughout, but Morrison is not challenging the structures of how comics work, despite his contention of making the DCU something alive (he did say that, didn't he?).  There is some very good work in the 30 issues of the epic, but when we are finished, we're not any closer to a new form of comics.  That's okay, but it points back to the title of this post.  Because while Seven Soldiers was going on, Morrison began work on All Star Superman.  When he finished with Seven Soldiers, he moved on to 52.  What can we learn from these choices?  All Star Superman is almost pure pastiche.  It's a fine comic book, but whereas Morrison's love for the Silver Age turned Animal Man into something different in comics, there is nothing revolutionary about All Star Superman.  Similarly, 52 is unworthy of Morrison - it pays the bills, I suppose, but that's about it.  It's something that should be left to the superhero fetishists like Geoff Johns and Mark Waid - it's what they're good at (and, to be honest, writing good superhero stories is harder than it looks).

This begs a few questions: why is Morrison "partly to blame" for the death of the postmodern superhero, and why does it matter?  I would argue that Morrison's stature in the comic book world is why he is partly to blame.  He is a rare writer who can change the way comics are written simply by his output.  There are only a few writers like that, and too often these days they are regurgitating what has come before.  Mark Millar, who can be a talented writer (read his Swamp Thing if you don't believe me), wastes his time with ham-fisted political commentary.  Warren Ellis has never really shown much of an interest in doing anything truly revolutionary with his work, although he might be able to.  Alan Moore dabbled in postmodernism with League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Promethea, but he has largely vanished from the comics scene.  Many of the other powerful writers in mainstream comics (Loeb, Johns, Brubaker) are either not interested in pushing the envelope or are incapable of it.  Morrison is a rare talent in that he is very popular among mainstream comic book fans, but he's also very good at stretching the boundaries of what is possible in comics.  Again, I'm not suggesting that Joe Casey sat down to write Gødland and thought, "I'm not going to push the boundaries of comics because Morrison has stopped doing it," but perhaps he recognized the moment had passed and it was time to write something that is sheer entertainment.

But why does this matter?  I would argue it matters because mainstream comics are slowly withering on the vine.  Sales are down, new readership is down, and DC and Marvel seem to rely on fake news stories to increase sales of a particular comic book.  There is nothing long-term in their planning, and there probably has to be a paradigm shift or they will die.  Maybe not in the short term, which is where most people worry about things, but soon enough.  The lack of experimentation means that they have become stagnant, and other, more interesting forms of entertainment have passed them by.  Comics, after all, encourage (or should encourage) reading, and they are a marvelous way to get people to read and learn without making it appear they are.  But by simply recycling "whatever worked in the past," comics become redundant and static and dull.  What comes out of the superhero comic does nothing to engage the reader, even on a rudimentary level.  They are sold to more people than a small independent book, but they make a much smaller impression.  Mainstream superhero comics have a perfect opportunity to challenge readers in a variety of ways, but Marvel and DC take the path of least resistance.  As with any other money-making venture, they have no intrinsic right to exist.  For some reason, they can't read the writing on the wall.  Perhaps a short burst of media attention is enough of a drug that they don't care to look ahead.

The point is not to simply make comics that are aware of themselves as texts.  Not every comic should be "postmodern."  The point is to push the envelope.  There is room in comics for old-fashioned superhero comics (like Gødland, Invincible, and Noble Causes, some of the better examples) as well as stuff that challenges the status quo.  Kids, ironically, are far more accepting of "pushing the envelope," because they haven't been conditioned to what is and what isn't "normal" in a comic book.  Recycling ideas turns quickly into diminishing returns.  Being part of the vanguard of new forms of comic books might be cost-prohibitive in the very short run, but it will pay off greatly in the future.  Writers who have the sort of power within the comic book industry, like Grant Morrison, don't necessarily have an obligation to challenge the normal parameters every time out - All Star Superman, after all, is a hoot to read - but it would be nice to see them test the accepted norm of what can be done in comics.  Automatic Kafka and The Intimates and to a lesser extent Wildcats were failures commercially, it's true.  Casey, apparently, has not reached the place in the hierarchy where he can dictate the kinds of comics he wants to write and have it accepted unequivocally, especially at DC (it's noteworthy that the three comics I just mentioned were published by DC under the Wildstorm imprint, while Gødland is an Image book).  Morrison is, and I hope to see him use it more often in the future.  52 didn't need Morrison.  Morrison didn't need 52.  Comics need Morrison and others to write something different.  We'll see if that's what they're going to get.

              

Or, you know, I could be full of shit.  It's possible.

108 Comments

• At March 19, 2007, Chris Tolworthy wrote:

  Fantastic stuff! The best essay I've read in a long time. My own interest is in real-time comics, so I ...

• At March 19, 2007, Chris Tolworthy wrote:

  Typo! I meant "I shall quote heavily" or something like that.

• At March 19, 2007, Bill Reed wrote:

  Ha.

  Very nice piece; I loved reading this. And you hit on some of my favorite comics, too. I hope you ...

• At March 19, 2007, Ye Olde Iowa wrote:

  Great essay and a nice invocation of your English degree (it's something we lit-nerds probably don't do often enough). ...

• At March 19, 2007, Dan wrote:

  The title of this article had me scared--I thought you were going to tell me Godland was cancelled!

  Any thoughts on ...

• At March 19, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  My thanks to Ye Olde Iowa, who pointed out the distinction between "postmodernism" and "metatextuality," because that was driving me ...

• At March 19, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  Well, right: one of the earliest novels, Don Quixote, is quite metatextual, especially in its second book.

  The next big step, ...

• At March 19, 2007, The Mad Monkey wrote:

  Ummm...it was Steve Bissette and John Totleben, not Wrightson, on Moore's Swamp Thing...

  Although that would've been extremely cool to see...

• At March 19, 2007, sleeper wrote:

  What a fantastic article, and features the two most interesting writers in comics: Casey and Morrison. Great job.

  I'm especially ...

• At March 19, 2007, Andrew Collins wrote:

  "Ummm…it was Steve Bissette and John Totleben, not Wrightson, on Moore’s Swamp Thing…

  Although that would’ve been extremely cool to see… ...

• At March 19, 2007, XyphaP wrote:

  The dirth of new and exciting comics isn't only because the vanguard has turned its fickle eye of innovation away ...

• At March 19, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Yeah, as a fan of the medium I'd like to see more experimentation in mainstream comics.

  An' I'm with ...

• At March 19, 2007, Gil Jaysmith wrote:

  There's been a long enough gap since Morrison's last 'personal' series that I suspect he's got something in the works. ...

• At March 19, 2007, T. wrote:

  To be honest, I think the decline of postmodernism in comics is a good thing. It became so overused ...

• At March 19, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Wait, it's Grant Morrison's fault that other writers can't write on the scope he does?

• At March 19, 2007, Michael wrote:

  I dunno, Greg. In a milieu where dreary, derivative, poorly-executed attempts at deconstruction and post-modernism is the prevalent attitude, doesn't ...

• At March 19, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Good point, Ye Olde Iowa, about postmodernism and metatextuality - it's difficult to separate the two, and it would be ...

• At March 19, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  That's certainly possible, Michael!

• At March 19, 2007, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  It's an interesting piece of analysis, but it's a bit utopian. I am as sure as it's possible to be ...

• At March 19, 2007, Gil Jaysmith wrote:

  *chuckle* If Ellis's only major contribution to comics has been The Authority, I would say that makes him responsible for ...

• At March 19, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Great article, Greg! You've got me curious to try some of the titles you mentioned that I haven't already read, ...

• At March 19, 2007, dave wrote:

  Are we taliking about COMICS here, as a medium, or are we talikng about the gnre of SUPERHERO comics?

  'cos if ...

• At March 19, 2007, bbsr wrote:

  This has been touched on by Ye Olde Iowa and others but your failure to provide a distinction between metatextual ...

• At March 19, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Dave -- If you're talking only MAINSTREAM comics that's a good argument. On the other hand, if you ...

• At March 19, 2007, markus wrote:

  Please, every time you write one of these, go through them again at the end and replace every instance of ...

• At March 19, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  I thought it was interesting that you complained that comics have fallen into "recycling" as a habit, and cited post-modernism ...

• At March 19, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Dave and Markus - I think I made it clear that I was talking about "North American" superhero comics. ...

• At March 19, 2007, T. wrote:

  I'd argue that the self-referential postmodern meta stuff is actually what's shrinking the market, not what it needs to survive ...

• At March 19, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Marcus -- Yeah. Exactly right. An' almost beautiful.

  T -- Agreed completely, of course. I ...

• At March 19, 2007, Rebis wrote:

  Sleeper wrote, "And you might be one of the few people I can think of besides myself who considers ANIMAL ...

• At March 19, 2007, Bill Reed wrote:

  I’d rather see the next Stan Lee or Jack Kirby than the next Grant Morrison.

  Grant Morrison *is* the next Jack ...

• At March 19, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  T. - I don't want every comic to be self-referential, obviously. The ones that do it don't even do ...

• At March 19, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Bill Reed said:

  "Grant Morrison *is* the next Jack Kirby. Arguably."

  I'd argue against that, at least in the context I intended ...

• At March 19, 2007, GarBut wrote:

  Re. Ellis:

  Someone mentioned Morrison's THE BULLETEER, from 7S, as being a wasted potential. Someone else mentioned Ellis's 'singles' as being ...

• At March 19, 2007, The Kirbydotter wrote:

  Oh please... No, Grant Morrison is certainly NOT the next Jack Kirby.

  I think his importance is overrated.

  He seem to ...

• At March 19, 2007, veghead wrote:

  Still waiting for you to write something of substance, Burgas.

• At March 19, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Have you read WE3 though? I was muchmuchmuch more moved by WE3 than New Frontier. Though Greg kinda ...

• At March 19, 2007, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  With Kirby, linear plot and dialogue seem secondary to explosive action and passion. Morrison throws in better dialogue, plot twists, ...

• At March 19, 2007, dave wrote:

  Markandrew... can I meet you halfway and say "anglophone comics"? Superhero comics are not mainstream, not anymore. Warren Ellis is ...

• At March 19, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  "Please, every time you write one of these, go through them again at the end and replace every instance of ...

• At March 19, 2007, dave wrote:

  Sean:

  The tendency of American comics commentators to use the term comics as interchangeable with superheroes is absolutely bloody maddening to ...

• At March 19, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Mike - my point is that someone like Morrison, who is interesting AND commercially viable, has kind of stopped pushing ...

• At March 19, 2007, dave wrote:

  greg-

  sorry, I'm typing this at work, so my posts are coming out a bit half-baked. I wasn't suggesting that we ...

• At March 19, 2007, dave wrote:

  Oh and as for Animal Man, I personally can vouch for finding it completely impenetrable till I hit about twelve ...

• At March 19, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Dave: I can understand that, I just don't think it's necessary to add a proviso to every discussion about superhero ...

• At March 19, 2007, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  I think it’s a bit sad that kids aren’t getting into them as much. That’s just me. You’re right that ...

• At March 19, 2007, dave wrote:

  sean-

  It's not a proviso, it's just using the right word. If you're writing about superheroes, it's really not that hard ...

• At March 19, 2007, dave wrote:

  Greg H-

  YOU DA MAN

  TESIFY BRUTHA

  seriously you just said exactly what I've been trying and completely failing to say.

• At March 19, 2007, XyphaP wrote:

  dave: Animal Man was fuckin' brilliant when I was 11. The work has plenty of subtlety, but it's not a ...

• At March 19, 2007, dave wrote:

  X-

  Re: Animal Man: Fair enough, different strokes for different folks, I guess. I must admit I often wonder about the ...

• At March 19, 2007, ninjawookie wrote:

  You are absolutely right about kids not having to read comic books to get their superheroes.

  johnny DC seems to ...

• At March 19, 2007, Joe Gualtieri wrote:

  Greg, though I disagree with a lot of your conclusions, this was a wonderful essay on two of the best ...

• At March 19, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Dave - Google Gilbert Hernandez and Chris Ware. It's not Manga. I was thinking more of stuff ...

• At March 19, 2007, Aaron Kashtan wrote:

  "Simply put, to deconstruct something means to break it down into its component parts and examine what makes a work ...

• At March 19, 2007, Aaron Kashtan wrote:

  "Kevin Huizenga and David B. (just to name a few regualrly fantastic comics creators pushing envelopes) can never make comics ...

• At March 19, 2007, Bill Reed wrote:

  Too much brain, not enough heart.

  I need to care about the characters I read about. I need a good storyteller ...

• At March 19, 2007, Aaron Kashtan wrote:

  "The only reason I write about that is because, despite Warren Ellis’ anger about it, superhero comics are the dominant ...

• At March 19, 2007, Gil Jaysmith wrote:

  What Dave's said, really. And I'd like to emphasise that the UK still has newsstand distribution for its homegrown comics, ...

• At March 19, 2007, Gil Jaysmith wrote:

  I'd like to back up Aaron's points. The number of superhero comics I've read in my life (even including things ...

• At March 20, 2007, T. wrote:

  That’s what ‘comics’ (i.e. US superhero comics) need to worry about in capturing a bigger market - not whether they’re ...

• At March 20, 2007, dave wrote:

  MarkAndrew:

  Believe it or not, I am already perfectly aware of Chris Ware and Gilbert Hernandez. It is quite possible that ...

• At March 20, 2007, sharon wortman farnham wrote:

  I liked all of the Superman comic books growing up Superboy,superman, superwomen , supergirl I can still remember seeing the ...

• At March 20, 2007, Shawn Garrett wrote:

  Thank you for the great essay and the lively discussion. I'm a Morrison fan from waaaay back (bought ANIMAL MAN ...

• At March 20, 2007, Dan wrote:

  Rock Bottom:

  I asked earlier (way earlier!) about thoughts about Joe Casey's OGN; here are my thoughts (some spoilers, but I ...

• At March 20, 2007, The Kirbydotter wrote:

  That last post made a lot of sense to me.

  I especially liked the "Too many Stans and not enough Jacks" ...

• At March 20, 2007, dave wrote:

  Shawn G:

  See, people like yourself make me so ashamed at my lack of eloqunce. Everything in your post is abolutely ...

• At March 20, 2007, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Shawn - man, that's a good comment. Regarding Seven Soldiers, I thought it was very satisfying (I wouldn't have ...

• At March 20, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Re: Shawn Garrett's comments:

  I know I've said both these things before, but I'll say 'em again...Subsequent writers and editors mostly ...

• At March 20, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Dave - Well, you started talkin' about Manga in response to me. What am I supposed to think? ...

• At March 20, 2007, dave wrote:

  Markandrew:

  Yeah, that's right, that's all Ellis is doing. Writing Thunderbolts.

  *cough*DesolationJonesFellCrecyRocketPiratesIgnition City*cough*

  Just because Ellis doesn't deal in trendier-than-though "alternative" comics (which ...

• At March 20, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  I'm not Chris Ware's biggest fan.

  But are you arguing: (

  A) That Ware's visual design sense is NOT completely unique? ...

• At March 20, 2007, Aaron Kashtan wrote:

  "[...] trendier-than-though “alternative” comics (which at this point are becoming as stagnant and self-referential as superhero stuff (it was ground-breaking ...

• At March 20, 2007, Shawn Garrett wrote:

  for John Seavey:

  Yes, I had a feeling that I didn't take enough time to really explain what I meant about ...

• At March 20, 2007, Shawn Garrett wrote:

  I have a small question to ask as an addendum and it kinda ties into this formalist experimentalism thread here.

  I ...

• At March 20, 2007, Omar Karindu wrote:

  Uh, that JLA bit with the Atom was a fill-in writing job by Mark Waid. It wasn't Morrison.

  But the ...

• At March 20, 2007, Evan Waters wrote:

  I'm not sure if a lack of deconstructionism and postmodernism is the malaise currently affecting superhero comics (though I must ...

• At March 20, 2007, dave wrote:

  Okay, just to clarify, my Crumb/Ware comment was entirely about content. Thematically they both cover very similar ground- the neuroses ...

• At March 20, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Shawn Garret: Neat post, pretty much 'zactly what I was thinking about Kirby and Morrison, just better thought out ...

• At March 20, 2007, dave wrote:

  MarkAndrew- John didn't say that, I did.

  First off, what does science fiction have to do with power fantasies?

  Secondly, Ellis does ...

• At March 20, 2007, Aaron Kashtan wrote:

  Thanks for the reply, Dave. My quick responses are:

  Love and Rockets is not soap opera. It's not actually genre ...

• At March 20, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Nah. I like Warren Ellis just fine. I jes' think he could do better. And it struck ...

• At March 20, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  And, I suppose, props for working in different genres. Which elevates him above Geoff Johns pr Mark Waid in ...

• At March 20, 2007, T. wrote:

  Personally, I thought Animal Man just degenerated into gibbering, self-indulgent crap by the end. I found Morrison's representation of ...

• At March 21, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Shawn Garrett mentioned in passing:

  "In MARVEL BOY, there’s a great throwaway line about Reed Richards recently discovering “The Positive Zone” ...

• At March 21, 2007, dave wrote:

  MarkAndrew:

  First, to get it out of the way: the reason I talked about Ellis in my original comment is because ...

• At March 21, 2007, dave wrote:

  Aaron-

  Again, this is about personal taste- when you say :

  "Anyway, what’s wrong with real life? Why can’t it be just ...

• At March 21, 2007, Aaron Kashtan wrote:

  "It just gets more respect from acedemics, who are ultimately just people with bits of paper to say they’re cleverer ...

• At March 21, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Dave - Ok. That makes more sense. I though you were just pickin' Warren Ellis out of ...

• At March 21, 2007, Jack Norris wrote:

  MarkAndrew said:

  I’m thinkin’ you might need a college level mythology class or two to really get his most advanced work, ...

• At March 21, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Jack Norris - Yeah, true enough. I take it back, and replace it with "You really should have ...

• At March 21, 2007, T. wrote:

  You're welcome.

• At March 21, 2007, Aaron Kashtan wrote:

  For that matter, Dave, I don't know where you got this idea about academics being rich people. In order to ...

• At March 22, 2007, DanCJ wrote:

  I think it’s something you read more to convince yourself that you’re smart than because you actually can’t wait to ...

• At March 22, 2007, DanCJ wrote:

  Gawd that last post is full of typos but you know what I mean!

• At March 22, 2007, dave wrote:

  "In other words, yet again you’re claiming authority on a subject about which you know nothing. Also, you’ve offended me."

  I'm ...

• At March 22, 2007, dave wrote:

  MarkAndrew-

  I'm gonna drop the subject after this, 'cos it's got nothing to do with the original post; and the only ...

• At March 22, 2007, Evan Waters wrote:

  Can we call a halt to the academic/non-academic fight? I've got a BA in English, and I've no prejudice against ...

• At March 22, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  DDave- I offered a pretty intricate and, shit, ACCURATE assumption of how Ware's stuff works.

  Your argument is, again, ...

• At March 22, 2007, dave wrote:

  You know what? I'm really lost as to what your point is. Go back and read my last post again. ...

• At March 22, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Eh. I'm viewing this as an opportunity to talk about how art works.

  You're just kind of... um..... there, dude. ...

• At March 22, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  ... Although my basic point did get kind of lost in all this:

  A) I agree with Greg. Comics ...

• At March 23, 2007, dave wrote:

  You, sir, need to learn the difference between a discussion and a debate.

  You are not reading my posts from a ...

• At March 23, 2007, dave wrote:

  Shit, I can't help myself. I need to follow that up.

  "The CONTEXT in which you compare Crumb to Ware could ...

• At March 28, 2007, Crystal W. wrote:

  Wow, I don't think I've ever felt this much like a small minded simpleton among comic readers in my life. ...

• At July 29, 2007, J-Man wrote:

  @22: the problem with abandoning shared universes and continuities is that readers always seem to demand more stories featuring the ...

• At August 15, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  J-Man said:

  "Can we all just quit with the manga circle-jerking? It’s big right now, and for a few more minutes, ...

• At April 14, 2009, j summers wrote:

  sad to hear about Godland, hope to make a go of my own comic book, which l believe cotinues where ...

• At April 14, 2009, j summers wrote:

  l will also make sure that if l use the word "continue" again, l will always avoid forgetting my "n"s

There are bunches o' people out there in the cyberworld (you know who you are!) who are a bit peeved by the portrayel of Superman in the latest movie.  Then there are those who are cranky about superheroes in general (thanks to our evil rivals for the link; confound them for their keen journalistic eyes!).  Those people need to chill.  Why?  Because it borders on "that's not how it was done when I was a kid!" whining, but more importantly, it's because of my fancy word in the title - it's a paradigm shift.  And we shouldn't worry about those!  They're harmless!

I want to look at these shifts and how mainstream comic books reflect the zeitgeist and occasionally lag behind it a bit.  Comics are, after all, part of popular culture, and popular culture is not created in a vacuum.  We may bemoan the loss of Superman's heroism, but don't blame the creators - blame the zeitgeist!  It's more fun, because you get to use words like "zeitgeist."

So, with absolutely no research, let's begin!

1938-1941: The worship of heroes.  Why 1938?  Come on, people, Action Comics #1!  Sure, there were comic books before then (not long before then, but before then) and there were "heroes," but let's set a nice starting point, and that is Action Comics #1.  It appeared in June of 1938, and its signature hero, Superman, was created by Siegel and Shuster.  They created Superman in 1934, but it took a while to sell the idea.  Superman, however, was a smash.  Why?

Well, in 1938 America needed heroes.  FDR's big social programs had failed to pull the country out of the Depression, which was actually worse in 1937-1939 than it had been under Hoover.  Europe was troubled, and the U.S. no longer looked like the Paradise it had seemed only a decade earlier.  The pulp heroes of the 1920s reflected Americans' fascination with organized crime and the men who fought it, and this continued into the 1930s.  But Americans were looking for someone to worship, and Siegel and Shuster gave them a purely American god.  I've mentioned before the pairing of Superman and Batman as the Zeus and Hades of our American mythology, and the Christological aspects of Superman, even in the beginning, cannot be ignored.  This was a wholly American deity, and Americans embraced him.  When Batman appeared, as he had to, a year later, the pantheon had its opposing poles.  Superman was Zeus, lording over us all and dispensing lightning justice, while Batman ruled the underworld, dragging souls down with him.  The fact that they were both orphans made them attractive to Americans, too, reflecting the American soul, which rejects ancestry in favor of individuality.  Superman was powerful because he was an alien, but the point was that he was unique.  Batman was a self-made hero, and we responded to both of them.

Is this the Superman that people cling to?  Possibly.  He fought very few super-villains, however, and spent most of his time battling corrupt politicians in favor of labor unions.  Yes, this Superman was a socialist!  That's not terribly surprising, given the attitude of the country and the ethnicity of his creators.  I'm sure Gerard Jones has explored this in much greater detail and depth than I ever could (I own the book but haven't read it yet), but let's consider the times.  Superman is a farm boy, and farmers were hit hard by the Depression.  Siegel and Shuster were Jewish and probably more accepting of socialism than many other Americans would be.  The Depression was seen as the failure of capitalism.  Politicians had caused it and hadn't fixed it.  Is it any wonder that Superman would reflect these attitudes?  Kristallnacht occured in November 1938, too, and two Jewish boys must have wondered what was going to happen to their co-religionists in Germany.  Superman was the hero who would protect those who could not protect themselves.

This duality of hero-worship - Superman and Batman - was added to when Captain America came onto the scene.  While Superman embodied American values, he wasn't American, and while Batman was American, he was still rich and therefore vaguely untrustworthy.  Captain America was created by two Jews, Kirby and Simon, perhaps specifically to carry out their wish-fulfillment.  The famous (and arguably greatest of all time) cover of Captain America #1, of course, shows Cap punching Hitler - and it came out months before Pearl Harbor.  The United States, stung by the petty squabbling of the Powers at Paris in 1919, had retreated into isolationism while fascism rose in Europe, but the Jewish contingent in New York paid attention to events in Germany, and while Superman is a desire for a god to rescue us, Captain America is a desire for a soldier who could fight the Nazi threat.  They were explicit archetypes of a specific time period, and they were functional for only a few specific things.  This is what the article I linked to above is wishing for - a time when heroes beat up bad guys, because the bad guys were easy to find.  It's certainly easy to beat up Hitler.  It's a little more difficult to fight fascism.

1941-1949: The patriotic era.  World War II was a goldmine for superhero fiction, and again, this might be the era that complainers today want to return to.  It's strange to look back at a horrific event with fondness, but it seems like that's what many people do - this was a "good war," and wouldn't it be nice to go back to that time?  Perhaps it's not so strange - December 1941 was, after all, the last time we have actually declared war - isn't it nice to know that we haven't been in one since then? - and our armed conflicts since then have tended to be a bit messier than this one.  Maybe that's why people recall the superhero comics of this era fondly - they were simpler, not unlike the war.  It's nice to have an enemy, after all, and a fleet from an actual country attacked us, so we could focus on a real enemy.  Superheroes had an enemy, too, and Captain America was the perfect hero to fight the war.  The times demanded absolute devotion to the American ideal - there was no more time for even the slightest moral ambiguity, which is what we had a hint of in early Superman comic books.  Superman gained a nemesis (Lex Luthor), other heroes showed up to fight agents provocateurs and other vile enemies of the American Way, and comic books became flag-waving propaganda pieces, not unlike a lot of popular culture.  Not only was it unpopular to point out American failings, it became downright dangerous as the era went on.  Americans finally had their heroes, but as in the aftermath of September 11 (for a brief time), they didn't want to hear about bad things that might be happening in the country - there was an external enemy to fight!  In a way, World War II was a devastating blow to superhero comics, because any slight maturing of the art form was jettisoned in favor of proving patriotism.  By the time comics moved slowly back toward exploring other areas of fiction, the country's mood had changed again, and they didn't have a chance.

1950-1961: We bury our heads in the sand.  The 1950s are, of course, the idyllic time for many people who are growing older (baby boomers) today, because those were the days in which they grew up, and most people think the age in which they grew up was the best time ever.  Hell, I think the 1980s were the greatest time ever.  Because of the overwhelming number of baby boomers, however, the 1950s take on even a greater patina of American innocence, despite many problems with the age.  You could argue that this was still a patriotic time, and I wouldn't argue with you, but the reason I would differentiate this from the immediate post-war era is because of the Korean War.  McCarthyism had already begun to take shape in the late 1940s, and by the time Senator Joe got around to it, he just gave it a name.  But the fear of Communists that was there in the late 1940s took a form in the 1950s with the aggressive expansion of the Soviet Union, the Korean conflict, and the crushing of the Hungarian rebellion in 1956.  All of these events, combined with an uneasy feeling about the bomb, gave the 1950s a more paranoid edge than the 1940s.  We still wanted superheroes, but we were beginning to distrust the "other" more and more, so we wanted our superheroes to be completely divorced from reality.  This is, of course, the Silver Age, and this is, I think, what many people are talking about when they lament the loss of heroism in comic books.  Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like most of the bitching about Superman and his ilk always includes a rant about how "that wouldn't have happened in the Silver Age!"  I picture these comic book fans sitting on their porches trying to keep their false teeth in while hitting whippersnappers with their canes.  Comics simply reflected the prevailing culture, which wanted to turn away from the carnage of World War II, the fear of the bomb, and the ambiguity of the Korean War (the first war since the War of 1812 that we didn't "win").  Television reflected this, movies reflected this, and music reflected this.  We may fondly remember it, but if you look at much of 1950s popular culture with a critical and not a rose-colored eye, it's not that good.  I Love Lucy?  Please.  It's crap.  Complete escapist entertainment - not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not something that stands any test of time.  The comics are the same way.  If you read those comics today (I haven't read many of them, to be honest, but I've read a few), the thing that strikes you is how immature they are.  Again, you can argue that they were written for children, but the people today who long for a return to the Silver Age are not children and do not want comics for children today.  There's nothing terribly wrong with Silver Age comics, but they reflect the fears of that society.  Therefore, heroes fought aliens, because we were convinced that things from another world (including "things from other worlds" on our own planet - meaning Commies) were trying to destroy our American way of life.  The 1950s were a weirdly insular time, despite America's new role on the world stage.  It was as if the United States was accepting its global role but its people could not quite do that yet.  The superheroes of the 1950s are quite possibly the most irrelevant versions of the archetype ever.  Yet the clamor is for their kind to return.  Why?  I'll get to that.

1961-1969: Atomic energy and space flight!  Then Marvel decided to change everything.  Fantastic Four #1 reflects the two new fears and/or obsessions in America - the growing threat of nuclear annihilation, not only from an external enemy but from an accident on our own soil, and Kennedy's desire to go to the moon.  The comics also reflected the perception of Camelot - a brightness that was undeserved, perhaps, but we're talking about perception here, not reality.  Marvel's early comics are steeped in radiation - both its wonders and its horrors.  Sure, Peter Parker gets radiation sickness, but the symptoms of that sickness are pretty freakin' cool, even if he doesn't think so.  Straight "superheroes" had become increasingly irrelevant - the DC stories we remember from the 1960s weren't the straight superhero ones, they are the ones like Drake's Doom Patrol.  Marvel and DC are perfect examples of how the culture was changing.  Despite using creators from the 1940s (Lee and Kirby), Marvel was, like a great deal of the culture, obsessed with the future, and their stories reflected this.  Even after Kennedy's assassination and the increasing troop presence in Vietnam, Americans in the 1960s looked confidently toward the future, something they had done every since World War II, but now they had gotten over their fears about it to a certain degree.  The science fiction aspects of the 1960s no longer show a lot of anxiety about alien races and the future, but more hope.  Marvel's comics reflected that, as well as the break with tradition that new rock bands represented.  If Marvel was the Beatles, DC was Pat Boone.  During the 1960s a great deal of people still feared the "other" and resisted change, and DC, for much of the decade, showed this.  Again, they were behind the curve, but so was a great deal of the country.  As the decade moved forward, though, even the old guard had to come to terms with the fact that we were now in space, we were hopelessly lost in Vietnam, and those damned kids weren't shutting up when they were told to!  What to do????

1969-1986: The rise of the counter-culture.  Marvel, you could argue, was on the cusp of the counter-culture prior to 1969, but I would reject that argument, because despite the freshness of the early Marvel stuff, it was still pretty unhip.  It embraced newness, sure, but the newness of the establishment, not of the rebellious.  That changed in 1969, as both Marvel and DC decided to embrace the counter-culture, just as other forms of pop culture did the same.  The two best examples are, of course, the Spider-Man drug issues - whether Code-approved or not - because it actually dealt with something that was relevant, and the O'Neil/Adams Green Arrow/Green Lantern pairings, because it tried to examine the country and what was happening in the country.  We can also look at Cronin's favorite, the all-new Wonder Woman, because even though it sounds like those Diana Prince stories were a bit ridiculous (yes, they also sound awesome, but something can be awesome and ridiculous at the same time), it was a bold move by DC and signaled a break from the past.  In the 1970s comics went a bit weirder, and even though I don't know a lot about the period, I do know that Steranko's influence extended outward to others, and Starlin, Gerber, Wrightson, Kirby, Ditko, and others flexed their muscles.  The late 1960s and 1970s are a bizarre lost gold mine of wonderful artistic direction - television gave us Laugh-In, All in the Family, the Mary Tyler Moore Show, and others, while directors were given a freedom by major studios that they never had and never would have again.  Music was expanding, too, with weird prog bands like Yes and Genesis rambling on for what seemed like hours (have you ever actually listened to Tales From Topographic Oceans?) while disco exposed mainstream America to gay culture for pretty much the first time.  Marvel and DC reflected this weirdness, even in their icons. Jim Roeg can probably talk about this in much greater detail than I can, but even I know about Clark Kent's move to television, and Batman, of course, went all dark on us.  O'Neil's decision to make Batman more of the creature of the night is important, because although the Seventies were a time of great creativity, it was also a dark time for the country.  We finally realized that our government was not only capable of betraying us, it did betray us.  Vietnam went FUBAR, the economy went in the tank, and the Starland Vocal Band had a big hit.  Oh, the humanity!  It's not surprising that comics took a darker turn.  They, like a lot of pop culture, reflected this anxiety that we were feeling more and more.  Americans didn't really want a hero anymore, because our heroes had let us down.  In the 1930s, our heroes let us down but we still believed in a deus ex machina.  By the 1970s, we had torn down the curtain and realized that the guy pulling the strings was a pathetic loser.  Is it any wonder comic books started to become more cynical?  In the early 1980s, this trend continued even though we had a bit of an upswing in patriotism under Reagan and thanks to the 1980 Winter and 1984 Summer Olympics.  However, it was patriotism tinged with that cynicism, because once lost, innocence can't be regained.

1986-Present: The Information Age!  You'll say that this era of comic books begins with Dark Knight and Watchmen.  You, however, would be wrong!  The foundation for this strange age of comics we now currently live in is Crisis on Infinite Earths.  With Crisis, comics entered a brave new world in which the old heroism was no longer viable but fans looked back on it with nostalgic longing.  This corresponds with the explosion of information sources, which makes heroism less likely.  I'll explain.

With the rise of the Internet and the fracturing of the monolithic television and print journalism sources, we are privy to more information about any one thing than ever before.  This is both good and bad.  It makes it much more unlikely that a politician can get away with stuff that is unconstitutional or even bad policy - someone is bound to call him or her on it early in the process.  This is a good thing, but this can also go to the extreme - and we as Americans love extremists, no matter what we claim - and hamstring people who are actually trying to make a difference.  In this age, each president - Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II - has discovered that it's a lot more difficult than it used to be to get policy through.  We are exposed to hundreds of television stations, so we can find stuff on the tube now that we could never before.  We don't have Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite telling us how it is - we can figure this out for ourselves.  In comics, this makes it much less likely that something will come from out of left field and stun us - but it also means we have much more access to a variety of types of comics.  It also means we can comb through archives of comics much more easily and discover things we couldn't before, which makes us continuity nerds.  It also means writers have to come up with better stories than "Superman beats up an alien and saves the world," because we know it's been done 7000 times before.  This information overload has also had a curious effect on our view of the future.  We no longer embrace the future, as we did in the 1950s and even into the 1960s. Part of the inspiration for this post came from an article in the June 2006 issue of History Today, in which the author argues that we have grown to fear the future.  Whether you agree with the thesis or not, it's interesting to see how the sci-fi genre, especially, has dealt with this.  We got from 2001: A Space Odyssey to Blade Runner to The Matrix.  A definite paradigm shift.  In comics, we go from the somewhat benign Thanagar of the early Hawkman adventures to the police state of Hawkworld.  Krypton shifts from a world of marvels, where everyone has superpowers (as the first page of Action Comics #1 tells us) to a cold, emotionless, poisoned place.  This fear of the future manifests itself as a love of the past, and this is when the information age combines with nostalgia to have a crippling effect on comics, and we get reboots and resurrections because no one wants to allow these heroes to move on.  Comics, again, reflect the culture, and the culture no longer sees the future as something bright and shiny and, most importantly, good.  It is something to be feared, and therefore we retreat into the past, where everything was "simple" and "better." 

As for heroism, in an age where we can find out every single thing about every single person, heroism becomes much more subjective.  To use a hypothetical example, what if there had been a firefighter at the World Trade Center who rescued, I don't know, 25 people single-handedly?  Yay, he's a hero!  Back in the day, that would have been enough.  Now, we can dig up everything on this person.  Would he still be a hero if he had killed someone in a drunk driving accident 20 years earlier?  Would he still be a hero if he cheated on his taxes?  Would he still be a hero if he beats his wife?  We will know all of these things in this new age, if we want to know.  Our cynicism of an earlier age has matured into a belief that nobody is a pure hero.  We go back and re-examine "heroes" from an earlier age.  We discover more and more things about our history, and we learn that we have always been this way, but it was much harder to discover these things.  I'm always amused by a certain segment of the population decrying "revisionist" history.  "Leave poor George Washington alone!" they say.  "He's an American hero!"  The point is that all history is revisionist history.  We are constantly discovering new things about all sorts of history, and to ignore it is dishonest.  But these people who want their history books full of dead white men (and, I should note, I LOVE dead white man history, but I also recognize that there's a lot that we miss if we only concentrate on that) are also the ones who want their superheroes to act like the pure heroes of yesteryear.  In this culture, however, that is impossible.  Not difficult.  IMPOSSIBLE.  If we were to get a superhero who acted purely like a hero, we would dismiss it as "childish" and "anachronistic."  The closest we get to it - All Star Superman, I suppose - is done so a bit ironically.  That's not to say it isn't done well, but it's certainly done with a bit of tongue in cheek.  Angst sells, nobility does not.  It's the same in every medium, and it does not matter how much certain people rail against it.  We will never have a Silver Age Superman again, and we will never have Jimmy Stewart again.  We will never have Michael Landon again.  We will never have Fred MacMurray again.  The Cleavers are dead.  Long live the Simpsons!

September 11th changed the culture just slightly.  It was unlike Pearl Harbor in that a specific country did not attack us, and therefore we could not focus our anger on a specific target.  We didn't declare war on anyone.  We looked for heroes and found them in the people who helped with the rescue efforts and even those who are currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.  But like my hypothetical example above, we learn that not everything is as it seems.  We yearn to look to our government to be the heroes, but unlike World War II, we can't, because of this constant stream of information coming at us.  Would we have been able to follow FDR unreservedly if we had known some of the less noble aspects of his character?  Possibly, because of the very real threat of Japan and Germany.  But we can no longer do that, because every time Bush or his government makes a mistake, it is instantly transmitted and magnified.  I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm simply stating a fact.  Deep down we might want heroes, but possibly deeper down we want to tear them down.  It's the same thing in comics.  On the one hand, we have this uncomfortable feeling of nostalgia for a golden age we may or may not have experienced (how many comic book readers today were even alive in the 1950s?), but on the other hand, we buy up Civil War by the truckload, a book in which no one is acting heroically (I haven't read them, but I have flipped through each issue, and it doesn't look like even Captain America is acting heroically).  Again, there's nothing wrong with this - it's just a different way of looking at the world.  But the world of pure heroism is gone for good.

Personally, I have no problem with that.  I have read comic books from the past, and they were for children.  If we want comic books to be for adults, we have to make up our minds that they are going to be for adults.  DC and Marvel could publish exclusively comic books for children, and that would be fine.  I wouldn't read any of them, but that would be fine.  A culture's mythology changes to fit that culture until that culture dies.  The Greek gods are static only because no one tells new stories about them.  If we want our superheroes to remain an ideal, then we have to stop telling stories about them, because they are always going to reflect what we are feeling as a society.  I will take that.  I will take today's Batman, even with all his angst, over the alien-fighting, walking-down-the-street-in-broad-daylight, getting-pies-thrown-at-him Batman.  I will take Deadwood over Gunsmoke.  I will take Arrested Development over The Honeymooners.  I will take Foo Fighters over Bill Haley and the Comets.  I will take Uncanny X-Men over "Flash of Two Worlds."  If these things make you unhappy, you should start building that time machine, because it's the only way you're getting them back.

Thoughts?  Vitriol-filled rants?  How off base am I?  This is a friendly, open blog where everyone can rant equally even though I'm sure that, despite my complete lack of research into this phenomenon, I've already convinced everyone I'm right!

46 Comments

• At July 23, 2006, T. wrote:

  I haven't even read the article yet or checked for comments yet, but I'm sure based on its length and ...

• At July 23, 2006, Emptyeye wrote:

  Pages upon pages of writing about a paradigm shift in comics, and I pick up on what?

  "(have you ever actually ...

• At July 23, 2006, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  Actually, I'm with you on most of this. I suppose where we might mildly disagree is the idea that straight-up, ...

• At July 23, 2006, Anonymous wrote:

  You get a lot of stuff right, particularly with some of the origins of the archetypes and the shifting ideals, ...

• At July 23, 2006, T. wrote:

  I think the argument is more that straight heroics don’t SELL. Batman is seen as ‘cooler’ than Superman, and Wolverine ...

• At July 23, 2006, mr write wrote:

  um, crisis sucks hard. dc noticed it's universe was convoluted, full of crap and mad elittle sense so decided to ...

• At July 23, 2006, Dan wrote:

  Uncanny timing. I am the moment having a debate with a person about Superman. I say we live in a ...

• At July 23, 2006, Anon wrote:

  I understand the idea of what you're talking about, "a paradigm shift", but I'll put it this way: I'm not ...

• At July 23, 2006, T. wrote:

  Anon,

  I agree. Pre-paradigm shift these books had circulation in the millions. Post paradigm shift the circulation is in ...

• At July 23, 2006, Peter Hensel wrote:

  Anonymous: I didn't get from teh article that Burgas was comparing each comic era directly to the actual year's events ...

• At July 23, 2006, Omar Karindu wrote:

  A very thought-provoking essay, much of which makes a lot of sense to me. One of the things I ...

• At July 23, 2006, Greg Burgas wrote:

  T: I forgot to get into sales, because I knew someone would bring it up. I would not track ...

• At July 23, 2006, T. wrote:

  You also bring up manga and “The Incredibles.” I can’t speak to manga, but what little I’ve seen doesn’t seem ...

• At July 23, 2006, Fortress Keeper wrote:

  If mainstream comics (i.e. Marvel & DC) REALLY want to be for adults, then they'll do more than play around ...

• At July 23, 2006, Peter Hensel wrote:

  T: All your examples are just exceptions. They're also pretty far from the insulated comics market, the point of the ...

• At July 23, 2006, T. wrote:

  Peter, a few points,

  First, manga action comics outselling American superhero comics is no exception, it's the norm. And manga ...

• At July 23, 2006, Peter Hensel wrote:

  "First, manga action comics outselling American superhero comics is no exception" is a statemnt I did not mean to imply. ...

• At July 23, 2006, T. wrote:

  Peter, i didn't find your comment vitriolic at all. I personally thought we were having a polite discussion (although ...

• At July 23, 2006, Greg Burgas wrote:

  As for your contention about sales and manga, T., again, I'd love to see a study about the buying habits ...

• At July 23, 2006, T. wrote:

  Good points, Greg. But even if everything you say is true, consider this: if marketing is a big part ...

• At July 23, 2006, Bill Reed wrote:

  Today, I was flipping through the channels, and was lucky enough to catch Rocko's Modern Life, something that Nickelodeon rarely ...

• At July 24, 2006, Andrew Hickey wrote:

  I think there's a new 'paradigm shift' in comics happening at the moment, mostly due to Grant Morrison. There are ...

• At July 24, 2006, joncormier wrote:

  Greg, this is really a great post. I'm with you on it all. The one luxury we have ...

• At July 24, 2006, Matthew E wrote:

  I had a couple of thoughts on the above.

  First, I've seen in a couple of places that some people thought ...

• At July 24, 2006, Kevin Street wrote:

  Very interesting article, Mr. Burgas! I agree with a lot of what you said, and I'm quite impressed with your ...

• At July 24, 2006, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Kevin, that's a very good point, and I briefly thought of it while writing this, but then forgot (and it's ...

• At July 24, 2006, The Indestructible Man wrote:

  "As a two-hour movie, “The Incredibles” works beautifully. As a single issue, the idea of a hero with no pretensions ...

• At July 24, 2006, gabesummers wrote:

  see this is why a weirdo like me lurks on this blog.great article.this is the kinda stuff i like to ...

• At July 25, 2006, T. wrote:

  Really, if it was an Objectivist story, Syndrome ought to be the hero. He’s the guy who pulled himself up ...

• At July 25, 2006, Matthew E wrote:

  This probably isn't the best place to discuss this in depth; if we want to kick it around much more ...

• At July 25, 2006, Kevin wrote:

  >Syndrome shouldn’t be the objectivist hero because in >the world of The Incredibles because money isn’t the >most important possession, ...

• At July 25, 2006, Kevin wrote:

  Mind you, maybe it's a Marvel/DC thing. The Incredibles is a FF analogue, and feels more Marvel-style, whereas I'm a ...

• At July 25, 2006, Matthew E wrote:

  That's a very skillful job of bringing us back on topic; well done.

  You made some very good points about the ...

• At July 25, 2006, Kevin wrote:

  Well, when I said that the Incredibles were an FF analogue, I mean the concept as a whole (crime fighting ...

• At July 25, 2006, T. wrote:

  (And Rand’s protagonists don’t tend to learn much, because character development was pretty low on her priority list.)

  Very, VERY wrong. ...

• At July 25, 2006, Kevin wrote:

  So Rand's idea of character development seems to be:

  Character: I'm not sure if I really am totally awesome.

  (Stuff happens)

  Character: Wow! ...

• At July 25, 2006, Matthew E wrote:

  Well, when I said that, I was thinking of two things:

  1. Galt and Howard Roark. They don't really change. Dagny ...

• At July 26, 2006, Anon wrote:

  Uh, I've never seen the Incredibles, so I can't comment on that, but getting back to the paradigm shift/Superman topic, ...

• At July 26, 2006, T. wrote:

  Kevin...basically that IS the growth. ;-)

  But to me, the eradication of all previous self-doubt and the achievement of total ...

• At July 26, 2006, Kevin wrote:

  [i]But to me, the eradication of all previous self-doubt and the achievement of total self-acceptance is probably the most profound ...

• At July 27, 2006, Matthew E wrote:

  The ironic thing is that I believe that Rand, or any other declared Objectivist, would agree with you about that ...

• At August 19, 2006, Omar Karindu wrote:

  Maybe this is just a super-compressed version of what everyone is saying already, but I think there's NO Great American ...

• At August 28, 2006, Hunter L wrote:

  food for thought.. how many pure-of-heart mythological characters have retained popularity through the ages?

  Norse, Greco-Roman, Celtic.. seriously.. I can't think ...

• At September 19, 2006, Matt wrote:

  Foo Fighters over Bill Haley and the Comets? Uncanny X-Men over “Flash of Two Worlds”?

  Foo Fighters are generic "rock"; Bill ...

• At November 20, 2006, RMoore wrote:

  I would like to make a comment. Superman is America. He has always reflected this country, sometimes perhaps ...

• At August 7, 2007, Thenodrin wrote:

  I think that the Incredibles fits perfectly in this theory.

  The Incredibles isn't about a super powered couple trying to get ...

Among the godfathers of the project is Grant Morrison. Morrison, a man who loves to tie his works into larger ideas, such as the tarot card links to the Arkham Asylum graphic novel, or the Kabbalah/Mystic Spiral parallels in his Seven Soldiers of Victory maxiseries (a theory forwarded here).

Do you think that in the giant miniseries 52 he would simply abandon such methods?

Of course not.

The significance of the number fifty-two is manifold, but I believe the most obvious connection is the correct one: the standard Anglo-American deck of cards.

Stay with me. I'm going somewhere with this.

Each character in the miniseries represents a single card in the deck, and reflects the values connoted by that card. Take series star Booster Gold. A cursory examination of the character would lead one to believe that Booster, with his mercenary outlook and general foolishness, is clearly the Jack (formerly known as the "knave") of diamonds. Diamonds=money, knave=dumbass.

You could think that...but you'd be wrong.

According to the Rouen deck, the Knave of Diamonds is Ogier, a knight of Charlemagne; according to the Parisian deck, he is Hector of Troy. Hector, the last hero of a dying city, is clearly not Booster. Ogier, a man whose name is silly, could indeed stand in for Booster Gold, another man with a silly name, but the Ogier of legend is a Dane. Booster is clearly not Danish, as his speech is free of that cool "o" with a slash through it, a telltale sign of Danitude.

So what card does he represent? What aspect of humanity is Michael Jon "Booster" Gold? Without question, he is the Ace of Clubs. Duh. The numerological significance of the number one fits Booster--it symbolizes the individual, the aggressor. Booster, stripped of his friend and his ties to the superhero fraternity, is truly a man alone. The club? The club is not a weapon of war, but rather the abstraction of an acorn. What is the acorn, but an oak waiting to be born? Who is Booster Gold, if not the individualist who is unready, the seed ready to become the mighty oak, albeit a mighty oak in yellow ski goggles? He is the One, the Solitary, both the highest and the lowest, the key to a royal flush or a really good blackjack hand.

Then we have his companion, the robot Skeets. Skeets is clearly the nine of diamonds. Hell, he just looks like the nine of diamonds, doesn't he? As we all know, the nine symbolizes...

(SFX: deet deet!)

Wait, wait. Hold on. Time for meds. Doot dee doo...

(gulp)

(HJ rereads the first four issues of 52)

Uh...heh...never mind.

Ahem.

But I stand by my theory that the series 'Mazing Man was all an elaboration on the deeper allegorical meanings of Connect Four.

"Pretty sneaky, sis."

Pretty sneaky, indeed.

16 Comments

• At June 6, 2006, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Booster could be Hector, because I think, as someone who is currently reading The Iliad to his daughter and therefore ...

• At June 6, 2006, Peter Hensel wrote:

  You really had me going for a while there, Harvey. Shame you had to pop some meds

• At June 7, 2006, Matthew E wrote:

  I'll say this: I'll be surprised if we don't get some kind of deck-of-cards tie-in before this series is done. ...

• At June 7, 2006, moose n squirrel wrote:

  I think it would be pretty lame for "52" to actually mean something more within the context of the story. ...

• At June 7, 2006, Peter Hensel wrote:

  Jerkwater isn't implying the lame type of number tie-in you're talking about, Moos n Squirrel, but tie-ins to the number's ...

• At June 7, 2006, Tom wrote:

  Gosh I miss 'Mazing Man.

  Tom

• At June 8, 2006, Brian Cronin wrote:

  How awesome was it that the latest issue of 52 actually DID make reference to the number "52"!

• At June 8, 2006, T. wrote:

  awesome as in "awesome," or awesome as in "pretty frickin stupid?" i'd vote the latter.

• At June 8, 2006, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Awesome in that, right when we're discussing the topic - it actually shows up!

• At June 8, 2006, moose n squirrel wrote:

  "Jerkwater isn’t implying the lame type of number tie-in you’re talking about, Moos n Squirrel"

  Maybe, but with the lame number ...

• At June 8, 2006, T. wrote:

  It's even worse than the first month of "One Year Later" where everyone in every book kept saying "Man, what ...

• At June 17, 2006, Apodaca wrote:

  Wait, people are complaining about the story being metatextual? People are complaining about getting more story?

  I don't get it at ...

• At September 19, 2006, Matt wrote:

  I think the most obvious connection to the number 52 is not a deck of cards but rather the number ...

• At September 29, 2006, Harvey Jerkwater wrote:

  Yes, that's true. Which is why this is a gag column.

• At September 28, 2007, Mike Shields wrote:

  Well, you guys do know that the number of cards in the deck is based on the weeks of the ...

• At September 28, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  One year - or 52 weeks? ;)