Now here's my issue, though - I think that if you DO do that, you should at least "have" to explain the change, and here's why...

The main argument in favor of allowing characterization changes, and it is an argument I'm basically in favor of, is that you have to give writers the freedom to write the story they want to, and they can't be expected to be beholden to continuity.

However, when you take an established character and make a major change to said character, what you're doing IS intentionally EVOKING continuity. You are using Character X because you WANT the continuity behind that character. You could just create a new character for the story, but you WANT to use an established character instead because of that very same continuity.

So when you opt to USE the continuity of the character, THEN I think you should be expected to at least address the changes you're making with the characterization of the character.

65 Comments

• At September 29, 2009, Jim wrote:

  I disagree with the idea of changing the character. Not that I'm the same as I was years ago, but ...

• At September 29, 2009, The Dude wrote:

  I completely agree with the rule.

  I'd say that the changes that sting the most are the minor ones, little ...

• At September 29, 2009, Chris Tolworthy wrote:

  As an FF fan, I note that sudden changes mean a "what if" arc. Like "what if Johnny Storm got ...

• At September 29, 2009, danjack wrote:

  What if Sue Storm was a porn star? i would totally by that ongoing series!

  DFTBA

• At September 29, 2009, Wesley Smith wrote:

  When a new writer takes on a character or team, change is inevitable. Every writer is going to bring his ...

• At September 29, 2009, The Mutt wrote:

  C'mon, Brian. No fair to write this and not give examples.

• At September 29, 2009, MarkAndrew wrote:

  You're wrong Cronin! Kirby's Captain America was awesome!

• At September 29, 2009, Wesley Smith wrote:

  Pick just about any title that's had more than one writer in the past ten years, and you'll see it. ...

• At September 29, 2009, zach wrote:

  I generally don't like major changes to characterization because there are so many characters to work with in comics. ...

• At September 29, 2009, Bernard the Poet wrote:

  I've just finished reading the Showcase editions of Brave and the Bold and I haven't enjoyed reading comic book stories ...

• At September 29, 2009, Joshua Long wrote:

  I can only help but think this post was made due to Loeb's "contributions" to the comic world. Almost every ...

• At September 29, 2009, Eric TF Bat wrote:

  Look, character changes are easy, right? Use the DC Comics model:

  If the character is female, arrange for a male ...

• At September 29, 2009, Michael wrote:

  How are we defining "explain?" Because if it's Gail Simone's "Catman was tired of being a loser, so he junked ...

• At September 29, 2009, Richard wrote:

  I've only read the aforementioned GL/Batman related exchanges via online previews, and I have no great love for either character, ...

• At September 29, 2009, Sijo wrote:

  This isn't really about continuity: it's about good writing. Regardless of whether you are using a regular character or a ...

• At September 29, 2009, Omar Karindu, with the power of SUPER-hypocrisy! wrote:

  Bob Haney could do this and make it work precisely because you knew it wasn't some new and ongoing personality; ...

• At September 29, 2009, MarkAndrew wrote:

  I'm doing a thing that touches on this.

  Anyway, as a reader, I don't care at all. I ...

• At September 29, 2009, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  I agree with the general premise, with a few exceptions. Most Golden Age heroes, for example, had little personality beyond ...

• At September 29, 2009, Nitz the Bloody wrote:

  it's worth nothing that the changes that are most reviled-- not subject to mere fan outcry, but qualifying under TVTropes' ...

• At September 29, 2009, jazzbo wrote:

  I'm with you, Brian. For the first couple of years after I got back into comics, it seemed like the ...

• At September 29, 2009, stephen cade wrote:

  Wow--good little article.

  How many times could a writer have just created a new character instead of ruining a good existing ...

• At September 29, 2009, Dave wrote:

  I think I agree in principle, but this seems like the sort of thing that would be hard to implement ...

• At September 29, 2009, "O" the Humanatee! wrote:

  I've got a lot of thoughts on this matter, but for the moment I'll limit myself to this: One reason ...

• At September 29, 2009, Eric wrote:

  Denny O'Neil on The Question:

  "Making the character my own: sigh. I knew, and told everyone, that I couldn’t do Steve’s ...

• At September 29, 2009, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Wise words from O'Neil.

• At September 29, 2009, Rob Ocelot wrote:

  Reader tolerance of sudden characterization changes seems to go hand in hand with the creators telegraphing these changes in other ...

• At September 29, 2009, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  One reason a writer might want to write an existing character rather than create a new one is that nowadays ...

• At September 29, 2009, "O" the Humanatee! wrote:

  @Funky Green Jerusalem:

  Batman on his worst day will automatically sell a lot more copies than Pineapple Upside-Down Cake Man. Perhaps ...

• At September 30, 2009, Wesley wrote:

  The problem with Pineapple-upside-down-Man argument is Image Comics and other publishers that give writers more complete control over their characters ...

• At September 30, 2009, Omar Karindu, with the power of SUPER-hypocrisy! wrote:

  I'm with FunkyGreenJerusalem here: if your original story or character needed the Batman brand to sell, I'd question the quality ...

• At September 30, 2009, Omar Karindu, with the power of SUPER-hypocrisy! wrote:

  Oh, and to whoever mentioned it above: the Sandman being brainwashed back into crime wasn't Byrne's idea. Byrne's idea ...

• At September 30, 2009, Gary wrote:

  Eric quoted Denny O'Neil RE: The Question

  Denny DID something to The Question, though. The changes were explained - near death ...

• At September 30, 2009, T. wrote:

  A great example of this is Fabian Nicieza's New Warriors, especially Speedball. Speedball just appeared as a radically different ...

• At September 30, 2009, T. wrote:

  A lot of the examples cited in this comments section don't work because although they are major changes in portrayal, ...

• At September 30, 2009, Dan Bailey wrote:

  >>What if Sue Storm was a porn star? i would totally by that ongoing series!

  I definitely remember Greg Land "drawing" ...

• At September 30, 2009, snakeman99 wrote:

  Most notable offenders (in my mind, and in no particular order):

  1. John Byrne's Hawkeye on West Coast Avengers - ...

• At September 30, 2009, "O" the Humanatee! wrote:

  @ Wesley: That's a good point (well, except for the "only reason" part), which I'd wondered about while writing my ...

• At September 30, 2009, "O" the Humanatee! wrote:

  By the way, I agree with all those who say this would be easier to talk about with examples. What ...

• At September 30, 2009, T. wrote:

  Here's another example, Robert Zimmerman's strange reinvention of Kraven the Hunter's son Kraven Jr as some weird metrosexual power shmoozer.

• At September 30, 2009, "O" the Humanatee! wrote:

  @T.: To be fair, Bob Dylan was known for his artistic experimentation....

• At September 30, 2009, T. wrote:

  Argh! I meant Ron Zimmerman. Good catch O.

• At September 30, 2009, Bernard the Poet wrote:

  Okay, lets take Batman: - in the 'Forties, he was a pulp hero ,who sometimes carried a gun. In the ...

• At September 30, 2009, T. wrote:

  I don't think any of these drastic changes of tone and characterisation were ever really explained. Does it really matter? ...

• At September 30, 2009, Omar Karindu, with the power of SUPER-hypocrisy! wrote:

  Bernard: Batman never carried a gun after late 1941, and his cheery 1950s image was pretty well set in stone ...

• At September 30, 2009, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  And who's to say that a writer's "dramatically different" version won't sell better?

  When was the last time that flied?

  1986?

  I ...

• At September 30, 2009, stephen cade wrote:

  The Question doesn't really count--as Ditko's Questionn, and O'Neil's was DC--and he did the symbolic thing--that's reason enough.

• At October 1, 2009, wwk5d wrote:

  "For over twenty years, Magneto was just a generic Marvel villain, who created death-traps and "bwa-ha-ha", Chris Claremont completely re-wrote ...

• At October 1, 2009, Nick Evans wrote:

  @snakeman99: bear in mind that Hawkeye/Ronin has "died" in the intervening period, which seems a fair excuse for a personality ...

• At October 1, 2009, Edward Love wrote:

  There have been quite a few writers and comics I have bailed on because they chose to tell a "continuity" ...

• At October 1, 2009, entzauberung wrote:

  wwk5d: "There wasn't any complaints also because it didn't happen over-night, it was a lengthy character arc that went on ...

• At October 1, 2009, wwk5d wrote:

  But that shows how to change a character the right way. He didn't just have Magneto show up in # ...

• At October 1, 2009, entzauberung wrote:

  Reiteration: Magneto in Uncanny X-Man #150 is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CHARACTER than he was before that issue. I thought that ...

• At October 1, 2009, T. wrote:

  I admit, my memory of X-Men #150 is not that strong as it's been decades since I've read it, but ...

• At October 1, 2009, "O" the Humanatee! wrote:

  [Apologizing in advance for not knowing how to use the right HTML tags here]

  Me: And who's to say that a ...

• At October 1, 2009, wwk5d wrote:

  Exactly, T. He starts out as the same Magneto we've seen before, but as the issue progresses, we see him ...

• At October 2, 2009, Ted wrote:

  OtH, FYI, the tags for quotes are , just without the spaces. Its for italics, I don't ...

• At October 2, 2009, Ted wrote:

  Well that didn't work at all. I'll try again. The tags for quotes are

  ...

• At October 2, 2009, Ted wrote:

  Ugh. Ok its (blockquote) and (/blockquote) but with greater than and less than signs, not brackets.

• At October 2, 2009, entzauberung wrote:

  In one of the first pages of Uncanny #150 Magneto describes his goals to a captive Cyclops as bringing peace ...

• At October 2, 2009, T. wrote:

  He does express regret at the death of Jean Grey, but if I remember correctly Scott Summers doesn't believe his ...

• At October 2, 2009, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Ugh. Ok its (blockquote) and (/blockquote) but with greater than and less than signs, not brackets.

  Yep, Ted.

• At October 2, 2009, Carl wrote:

  Morrison's Batman changes WERE explained. In Infinite Crisis, he reached a point where he nearly came close to shooting ...

• At October 2, 2009, T. wrote:

  So I'm guessing Brian's not going to share with us the examples that inspired this post, huh?

• At October 2, 2009, wwk5d wrote:

  With regards to Magneto, what T said. If he was an example of Brian was describing, he'd have probably walked ...

• At October 2, 2009, entzauberung wrote:

  Well, in that case, such occurences are extremely rare. If Brian means that, I don't know why he wrote the ...

You don't HAVE to argue every silly point out there.

Really.

Lord knows that I don't.

If I don't think a point is worth dignifying with a response, I don't. I just leave it at that.

I know there is this feeling that if someone says something and it isn't responded to, then it somehow, like, gains validity - like, "No one told Poster X his point was idiotic - therefore, if we are not there to say it is NOT true then it must BE true!" It doesn't work like that. A dumb argument is a dumb argument, whether you respond to it or not.

That is not to say that you should not engage people with whom you disagree. Of course you should. If you disagree with someone on a point, go right ahead - argue the point. But only if you think the other person's position is worth arguing. Otherwise, there's nothing to be really gained. One of the hallmarks of this blog (I hope, at least) is to further intelligent discussion - if you're dealing with someone who you don't think is furthering the discussion, then do not bother with him/her. And especially don't pull the ol' "I'm responding just to tell you that I'm not responding to you" - no, don't - just don't respond period. I know it will make you feel like they're "getting away" with something by not having their delusional rantings challenged, but they're not - their point is just as stupid, so what do they get out of it? They're the ones with the dumb point- there is no "victory" there.

Likewise, I'm totally cool if you think someone says something offensive and you want to respond. That's totally different than making a ridiculous argument, that's actually saying something rude or cruel or whatever. Feel free to take issue with that (like that guy we had awhile back who was calling gay people an insulting term).

But if it's just someone making a dumb point, trust me, it will not give their silly position validity by not responding to them.

So I don't think you should bother.

26 Comments

• At July 20, 2009, Sijo wrote:

  Actually, Brian, I'm sort of the opposite opinion.

  After all, if someone says something dumb, the natural impulse is to correct ...

• At July 20, 2009, Josh wrote:

  In the same spirit, Sijo ... It's racist, not racistic :P .

• At July 20, 2009, layne wrote:

  Wrong again, Cronin! http://xkcd.com/386/

• At July 20, 2009, kris wrote:

  I disagree, Sijo. One of the issues with the internet is you have no idea who you're talking to. It ...

• At July 20, 2009, Rob Schmidt wrote:

  I trust this posting has absolutely nothing to do with my comments on SCALPED. ;-)

• At July 20, 2009, Michael P. wrote:

  I'd like not to, but Joe Quesada just keeps talking, and people seem to give what he says a lot ...

• At July 20, 2009, Omar Karindu, with the power of SUPER-hypocrisy! wrote:

  I strenuously disagree with Brian's post, and will now proceed to malign his intelligence and person with various obscene colloquialisms.

• At July 20, 2009, T. wrote:

  Totally off-topic but good news:

  Incorrigible Hulk by Peter Bagge finally being released after being shelved for years.

• At July 20, 2009, Nitz the Bloody wrote:

  " I strenuously disagree with Brian’s post, and will now proceed to malign his intelligence and person with various obscene ...

• At July 20, 2009, P. Boz wrote:

  I would like to disagree with everyone. I also posit that all who disagree with me are of the ...

• At July 20, 2009, Dan Bailey wrote:

  >>I strenuously disagree with Brian’s post, and will now proceed to malign his intelligence and person with various obscene colloquialisms.

  His ...

• At July 20, 2009, Mr Wesley wrote:

  The problem isn't that you or I have to argue EVERY silly point out there. The problem is that every ...

• At July 20, 2009, Chris Jones wrote:

  I completely agree...along with admitting that that's one of the things I have the most trouble with on blogs/message boards, ...

• At July 20, 2009, Alan Coil wrote:

  The type of post I am most likely to skip over is the post that debates e v e r ...

• At July 20, 2009, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  But, but, but, how else can I show everyone that I am *RIGHT!!!*

• At July 20, 2009, Brian Cronin wrote:

  So we can all agree that we shouldn’t rise to silly arguments, but we can’t agree what arguments are silly.

  We ...

• At July 20, 2009, Corey wrote:

  There's some kind of meta thing going on here where I feel like if I don't post a response to ...

• At July 20, 2009, Mr Wesley wrote:

  @Brian:

  Okay, I guess I can see your point, but you're going to have to show me some examples if you ...

• At July 20, 2009, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Sorry, Wes, giving examples would basically be going against the whole idea, which is "if you think a point is ...

• At July 20, 2009, Bill Reed wrote:

  I was going to write up a response to this post, but then I thought better of it. Tee hee.

• At July 20, 2009, Sijo wrote:

  -"We don’t need to agree on which arguments are silly, I’m saying that each person, in their minds, can tell ...

• At July 20, 2009, Scavenger wrote:

  Look, all I know is that someone deleted my Bondage Duck picture!

• At July 20, 2009, Eliot Johnson wrote:

  By the same token, Geoff Johns really does not need to fix every silly continuity issue out there.

• At July 20, 2009, Alan Coil wrote:

  Sijo said:

  "But that brings another “bone of contention” in forums: grammar. I have always felt web forums are the equivalent ...

• At July 20, 2009, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  I don't even think this post is worthy of a response, but I will make one anyway!

  My “problem” is when ...

• At July 20, 2009, Quick Thoughts Daily: 2009-07-20 « Speed Force wrote:

  [...] remembering: You don’t HAVE to argue every silly point out there (via CSBG) [...]

To set up the quote, Tom was talking about a "Year One" Hulk Annual by John Byrne that had some changes to the Hulk's origin, including effectively changing an earlier Hulk story by Peter David.

Tom says:

Months later, once John had left HULK, Peter David asked to do a scene in an early issue of CAPTAIN MARVEL, a series in which Rick Jones was the co-star. In the sequence, Rick is reading a copy of this Annual and laughing his head off at how wrong they'd gotten all the facts. There was a certain satisfaction to letting Peter do that, but that was a bad call as well. There's a place and a time for such criticism, but within the stories themselves isn't it.

(emphasis added)

I absolutely agree, and I was struck by how concisely Tom put it.

I don't have a problem with creators speaking their minds about comics and other comic creators. But when they begin to take their issues with other creators into the comics themselves, I think that's crossing a line into pettiness, which is not a good thing. If a change to a character/story is so offensive, then fine, reverse the change if you think it is important enough. Just don't use your story to take shots at another creator/creators.

There's plenty of places where you can get your views across (blogs, message boards, interviews) that there should be no need for it to appear in the comics themselves.

79 Comments

• At March 18, 2009, Jeff Ryan wrote:

  In a Spider-Man comic, Erik Larsen had Doc Ock immobilize the Hulk with special adamantium arms and them wallop the ...

• At March 18, 2009, Jeff Holland wrote:

  On the one hand, I totally agree with Brevoort - it's unprofessional, it's tacky, and it can even distract from ...

• At March 18, 2009, Scott wrote:

  It's hard to draw the line between cheap shots and friendly kidding, though. In a recent Nova issue, Rich ...

• At March 18, 2009, Manglr wrote:

  Amen, there is a time and a place to break the fourth wall, but that ain't it.

• At March 18, 2009, Dunc wrote:

  Paging John Byrne for your 2 o'clock appointment....

• At March 18, 2009, Rob M wrote:

  I don't agree, given the example you choose. Peter David's run of Captain Marvel was in many ways an ...

• At March 18, 2009, Adam wrote:

  There was also the time Betty got the Hulk a disguise: a green helmet with a fin on it. ...

• At March 18, 2009, Ryan Day wrote:

  Does John Ostrander killing Grant Morrison count?

• At March 18, 2009, Roquefort Raider wrote:

  You know, I agree with what Peter David did. Unless Rick Jones said things like "this author is an idiot", ...

• At March 18, 2009, Duff McWhalen wrote:

  I don't see that example as unprofessional. These guys are cartoonists (both of those guys even wrote She-Hulk at one ...

• At March 18, 2009, Joe Rice wrote:

  WHAAAAAAAT?!?!? Peter David petty about something?!?!?!?

• At March 18, 2009, Chris Schillig wrote:

  Didn't Byrne also blow up Jim Shooter's hometown of Pittsburgh in THE PITT mini-series, set in Shooter's New Universe? If ...

• At March 18, 2009, Dan Felty wrote:

  I disagree, but I think we are considering different segment of comics.

  Insulting or lampooning another creator can help make good ...

• At March 18, 2009, Scavenger wrote:

  So Tom Breevort is speaking out about a creator in one book dissing another creator's book, both books being things ...

• At March 18, 2009, Dingo wrote:

  Scavenger: Yeah he is. The title of the blog post was "Comics I Screwed Up pt 2".

• At March 18, 2009, DanLarkin wrote:

  Hmm. While I think it's a probably pretty good editorial policy for Brevoort or whoever to not allow this kind ...

• At March 18, 2009, SanctumSanctorumComix wrote:

  There HAVE been times when charged, negative commentary of other creators was used to hiLARious results.

  I'm referring to E-MAN (his ...

• At March 18, 2009, Shawn wrote:

  Peter David and John Byrne have had a standing rivalry since before PAD was even a writer. Teh thing is ...

• At March 18, 2009, Joe Rice wrote:

  You have a weird idea of what's funny.

• At March 18, 2009, Stephen wrote:

  I think there was a bit in a Spider-Man issue written by JMS that had a radio announcer saying how ...

• At March 18, 2009, Thenodrin wrote:

  There are insults and there are jokes and without the behind the scenes knowledge, it is really difficult to distinguish ...

• At March 18, 2009, Lawrence wrote:

  I think the example cited is pretty tame. It's not really an insult to another creator, but towards a specific ...

• At March 18, 2009, jose wrote:

  I remember an issue of Shadowhawk where two characters, a former Valentino editor at Marvel, was walking through Manhattan Park. ...

• At March 18, 2009, HammerHeart wrote:

  Yeah, Peter David had some light fun with Larsen and John Byrne lampooned Shooter - but even in this, Jack ...

• At March 18, 2009, Dave wrote:

  Agreed. A real pro would be MORE hesitant, more reluctant, more cautious about degrading, mocking, or unnecessarily eliminating the ...

• At March 18, 2009, DanLarkin wrote:

  The worst thing about most of this stuff isn't that it's inappropriate; it's that it's bad writing. One of the ...

• At March 18, 2009, The Dude wrote:

  Hell, I don't even think comic creators should insult each other outside of comics.

  Just because it happens in lots of ...

• At March 18, 2009, Zach wrote:

  I wonder if Jones laughing wasn't David's critique on Byrne, but rather his attempt to have "the last word" so ...

• At March 18, 2009, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Yeah, seems a bit silly, as did the Red Raven thing in the next piece.

  Although, honestly, I'm not completely ...

• At March 18, 2009, Annoyed Grunt wrote:

  Taking a dig at at someone is one thing but the “Petty Larsenry” example was the one I was going ...

• At March 18, 2009, TimCallahan wrote:

  I always thought Kirby's digs at Roy Thomas were far more cruel than the Funky Flashman character itself.

• At March 18, 2009, Jay Tea wrote:

  I think a better example would be the time Peter David was depicted (by Joe Quesada, I believe) as a ...

• At March 18, 2009, Joe Rice wrote:

  Yeah, Peter David isn't homeless!

• At March 18, 2009, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I always thought Kirby’s digs at Roy Thomas were far more cruel than the Funky Flashman character itself. TOTALLY.

  I think ...

• At March 18, 2009, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Yeah. I don't really know the situation... Maybe Thomas put a dead duck in Kirby's gas-tank or something... ...

• At March 18, 2009, Randy wrote:

  Didn't Alan Moore Make fun of stan lee's editorial positions in 1963. Also, Larsen totally deserved that hate.

• At March 18, 2009, Brad Curran wrote:

  You should know that David only accepts insults in the form of Hulk comic books, Joe. So, you'd better get ...

• At March 18, 2009, Brad Curran wrote:

  "Didn’t Alan Moore Make fun of stan lee’s editorial positions in 1963. Also, Larsen totally deserved that hate."

  The only thing ...

• At March 18, 2009, Joe Rice wrote:

  What's the story on the Kirby/Thomas stuff?

• At March 18, 2009, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Jack came up with this con man character in Mister Miracle based on Stan. That was fairly lame in and ...

• At March 18, 2009, Joe Rice wrote:

  Ah, I knew about Funky but not Houseroy. Heh.

• At March 18, 2009, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  One guy removed a story from continuity, one guy put it back in.

  Pretty easy way of doing it.

  I think a ...

• At March 18, 2009, Tijmen wrote:

  "Didn’t Alan Moore Make fun of stan lee’s editorial positions in 1963. Also, Larsen totally deserved that hate."

  Dude, I like ...

• At March 18, 2009, buttler wrote:

  Houseroy should have saved the day in All-Star Squadron's big JLA/JSA Crisis crossover.

• At March 18, 2009, Rohan Williams wrote:

  Yeah, Roy Thomas really did get a raw deal in Mister Miracle (I was expecting the Funky Flashman stuff, but ...

• At March 18, 2009, Randy wrote:

  @ tijmen.

  I probaly should have explained myself more over that off handed comment.

  I was talking about the man himself.

• At March 18, 2009, Tijmen wrote:

  @ Brian Cronin:

  Not really sure I agree with your theory just yet. What do you think of the recent example ...

• At March 18, 2009, Tijmen wrote:

  @Randy: really? Why the Larsen-hate?

• At March 18, 2009, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Obviously, that was just a joke, not a potshot at Alan Moore. Right, so it would not be an insult ...

• At March 18, 2009, Alan Coil wrote:

  Hey, that's comedy gold--Brevoort telling other people to stop taking shots at other creators.

• At March 18, 2009, Alan Coil wrote:

  "The title of the blog post was “Comics I Screwed Up pt 2?."

  Wake me when he gets to pt 73. ...

• At March 18, 2009, Alan Coil wrote:

  "Even putting aside the fact that David and Larsen have a history of unfriendly sniping..."

  Whereupon Larsen opens his checkbook, smiles, ...

• At March 18, 2009, Paul McEnery wrote:

  Geez, it's just an Easter Egg for the fans, who might well be interested in any inter-creator rivalry -- and ...

• At March 18, 2009, Jacob T. Levy wrote:

  I mostly think that making fun of other stories is fair game. (That's not what "Houseroy" did-- that's insulting ...

• At March 18, 2009, Tijmen wrote:

  @ Brian: if not an insult, it's not exactly the same as getting a street named after you in Powers ...

• At March 18, 2009, Doug Atkinson wrote:

  One fairly mean-spirited attack on a creator that hasn't aged well is the Cogburn character in "Destroyer Duck." It's apparently ...

• At March 18, 2009, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Not to mention David's recent return to the Hulk, in which he had Nightmare declare that an unspecified number of ...

• At March 18, 2009, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  This may have been a biting satire at the time, but now that Byrne has quit Marvel half a dozen ...

• At March 18, 2009, Stefan wrote:

  How did John Ostrander kill Grant Morrison? I'm really curious.

• At March 18, 2009, Ken Raining wrote:

  Morrison famously wrote himself into the last issue of his Animal Man. That meant he was now a part ...

• At March 18, 2009, Sijo wrote:

  I guess the point ultimately is: we (fans AND pros alike) need to keep the creator and his materials separated. ...

• At March 18, 2009, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  I do agree that, if I were an editor, and I caught something that (intentionally or not) might be interpreted ...

• At March 18, 2009, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Yeah, agreed with that. If you find yourself doing this kinda shit all the time... Well, you might not ...

• At March 18, 2009, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Ok. That was pretty harsh. The Peter David middle of the mainstream-comic-writer-talent-spectrum, not the Alan Moore end.

• At March 18, 2009, layne wrote:

  Ah, beaten to both Houseroy and Booster Cogburn* references, buggeration! Both are fairly harsh parodies, but I think the argument ...

• At March 19, 2009, Tuomas wrote:

  "Also, what about All-Beard and No-Beard in Seven Soldiers?"

  I guess it's possible All-Beard and No-Beard were supposed to be Moore ...

• At March 19, 2009, Doug Atkinson wrote:

  "He quit them to be a cog in DC’s machine, but did he leave the times after that?"

  Yeah, saying "half ...

• At March 19, 2009, Patent Dragon wrote:

  One example of a related matter immediately springs to mind: Image's DART limited series. The whole storyline is a scarcely ...

• At March 19, 2009, Stefan wrote:

  Tuomas - Huh? Zatanna #1 as an attack on Promethea? I don't see this as even a remote ...

• At March 19, 2009, Birmy wrote:

  It seems like there's fodder for, like, ten Comic Book Legends columns in the comments here alone.

• At March 19, 2009, Ben Herman wrote:

  Neither does Byrne’s Doom belittling Claremont’s Doom and anyone stupid enough to believe that Claremont’s Doom is the real Doom.

  Well, ...

• At March 19, 2009, Tuomas wrote:

  Stefan: in Zatanna #1, I think Zatanna's and the other magicians' trip through different magical realms is quite similar to ...

• At March 19, 2009, aaron wrote:

  Ordinarily, I agree. However, the David/Byrne example stops making sense (haha), because David's Captain Marvel (much like Slott's She Hulk) ...

• At March 19, 2009, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  But is it actually an insult to Byrne, or just a way to retcon a story nice and quickly without ...

• At March 21, 2009, AERose wrote:

  COMIC BOOKS.

  SERIOUS BUSINESS.

• At March 21, 2009, Peter David wrote:

  Nothing happens in comics that hasn't been happening in the world of writing since...well, since there was writing. Aristophanes ...

• At March 21, 2009, Peter David wrote:

  "I think a better example would be the time Peter David was depicted (by Joe Quesada, I believe) as a ...

• At March 23, 2009, DanCJ wrote:

  Anyone who makes “Shame! Shame!” noises about writers snarking other writers or the work of other writers is either ignoring ...

• At March 30, 2009, David wrote:

  I like things that work whether or not you know the back-story: for instance: in the New Mutants, Claremont's response ...

It seems to me that the mainstream writers who are on the lower tier than the (let's say Jason Aaron because I used him for the last one - do note, though, that these things are always changing - the hot writer of today was usually the "I'll take anything you have!" writer of yesterday) Jason Aarons of the world, they have to take pretty much any assignment given to them, so they end up pulling some awful assignments that end up being bad because the material is so weak. And they end up being knocked for not "saving" the project while the artist is just that artist who drew that awful comic by that writer.

So just keep that in mind if I happen to pick some writers this month who have some pretty bad comics on their resumes.

21 Comments

• At January 4, 2009, MarkAndrew wrote:

  And, like you said before, writers work on more projects, and they don't have much control over the look of ...

• At January 4, 2009, GarBut wrote:

  I find it fascinating when a writer whose work I love is paired with an artist whose work I at ...

• At January 4, 2009, K. Ross wrote:

  Though it is possible for an artist to be hurt by a working on a bad comic. For example ...

• At January 4, 2009, McK wrote:

  Case in point: Batman: Hush and Superman: For Tomorrow

  Both are very poor, but sold well because Jim Lee is a ...

• At January 4, 2009, stealthwise wrote:

  Fair point, as long as this month's writing stars doesn't feature AJ Lieberman or Bruce Jones.

• At January 4, 2009, Stephen wrote:

  "And I stand by my opinion that Batman: Long Halloween/Dark Victory would barely be remembered if not for Tim Sale. ...

• At January 4, 2009, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  I think Long Halloween & Dark Victory suceed because of four factors:

  1) Tim Sale. Even a good house-style artist (e.g. ...

• At January 4, 2009, I AM FeAR wrote:

  "Case in point: Batman: Hush and Superman: For Tomorrow

  Both are very poor, but sold well because Jim Lee is a ...

• At January 4, 2009, McK wrote:

  Again, to each their own, but that one’s pretty much critic-proof at this point due to popular acclaim, and usually ...

• At January 4, 2009, McK wrote:

  All Star Batman and Robin…. even Lee cant save that one.

  But opinions about the story aside... it remains a top ...

• At January 4, 2009, Omar Karindu, back from an Internet Thogal ritual wrote:

  Of course, the real problem with many fans' love of The Long Halloween is that Loeb gets much credit for ...

• At January 4, 2009, Omar Karindu, back from an Internet Thogal ritual wrote:

  ‘Course, some of us sickos actually LIKE the Goddamn Batman…

  Oh, I can get liking it ironically, or for sheer "balls ...

• At January 5, 2009, J to the AAP wrote:

  It’s not as if anyone read much Hunter Thompson after the Nixon book, either. Well, I did and I thought ...

• At January 5, 2009, Blackjak wrote:

  I think both writers and artists can be assigned to the wrong projects...

  Bruce Jones was completely wrong for Checkmate... ...

• At January 5, 2009, McK wrote:

  Bruce Jones was completely wrong for Checkmate…

  Why does Bruce Jones continue to get work at DC? This is his ...

• At January 5, 2009, Thenodrin wrote:

  Lets also try to keep in mind that one person's Superstar is another person's Person to Avoid.

  I can't think of ...

• At January 5, 2009, Bright-Raven wrote:

  "Why does Bruce Jones continue to get work at DC? I mean, there must be other writers out there, right…?"

  Possibly ...

• At January 5, 2009, Bright-Raven wrote:

  Brian:

  While there is some level of disproportionate criticism towards writers than artists, I tend to find that it's more commonplace ...

• At January 6, 2009, Dalarsco wrote:

  It's because as a storytelling medium comics are thought of by most people as good or bad based on the ...

• At January 6, 2009, Bright-Raven wrote:

  "Of course, there are also those who dislike Morrison’s run on NXM because they can’t stand the inconsistent art."

  Of course, ...

• At January 6, 2009, DanLarkin wrote:

  I'm confused about how something can be well-crafted and prettily written and still crap.

However, the second tier writers appear to be on a different level than the second tier artist - on the internet, at least.

To wit, Jason Aaron is basically a household name on the blogosphere while R.M. Guera is much less so.

Now there's many different possible reasons for this.

As noted in the last post, writers work on more books, so they have more chances to get their names out there, so while Jason Aaron and R.M. Guera are both big parts of Scalped, Aaron also can do multiple other books to get attention, while Guera has just Scalped.

In addition, writers seem to do more interviews than most artists [EDITED TO ADD: And yes, their main skill - writing - also comes in quite handy in a written medium such as the internet].

Whatever the reason, this directly affects my picks for A Month of Writing Stars. While for the Artist Month I was able to pick guys like Pete Woods and Steve Lieber and actually have people say stuff like "Wow, this guy is good, I will check out his work!", the comparable writers to those guys would be people like Jason Aaron or Dan Slott, and those writers are clearly too famous to spotlight on something like this ("You folks should really check out this Matt Fraction guy. Did you ever hear of Christos Gage?")

14 Comments

• At January 4, 2009, Stu wrote:

  Writers also _write_, which the Internet is very well suited to pass on. Which is not to say that artists ...

• At January 4, 2009, michal.dvorak wrote:

  I don't know about the whole internet but I can tell you why writers are more "famous" to me: it's ...

• At January 4, 2009, Anonymous wrote:

  I'm not sure Simonson, Miller and Byrne are good examples of "popular artists who are on the same level as ...

• At January 4, 2009, Matt wrote:

  Anonymous, Frank Miller drew the first Wolverine mini (written by Chris Claremont) if i am not mistaken

• At January 4, 2009, Ian A. wrote:

  I'd say it depends on your classifications of "presence" and "second tier."

  Do you qualify the former by how many ...

• At January 4, 2009, Joe Rice wrote:

  Let's not forget the percentage of aspiring/frustrated comics writers in the internetosphere. So of course they identify/worship writers.

• At January 4, 2009, jazzbo wrote:

  And conversely, I'm sure there's no frustrated artists online, either, which would add to the writers being more famous.

  In all ...

• At January 4, 2009, jazzbo wrote:

  And I guess this is along the same lines, but I also think it's pretty clear by now that the ...

• At January 5, 2009, Felicity wrote:

  For me, the art is non-negotiable. If the art is bad, I don’t care who the writer is. There is ...

• At January 5, 2009, Blackjak wrote:

  Maybe this is also why "badly written" stories with "Good art" sell better than the internet pundits think it should... ...

• At January 5, 2009, Omar Karindu, back from an Internet Thogal ritual wrote:

  Comics, as a collaborative medium, are rather like film: the best script in the world will be destroyed by bad ...

• At January 5, 2009, Carl wrote:

  I think spoilers might have something to do with it. I'll read an interview with a writer, because I ...

• At January 5, 2009, Funk Doctor wrote:

  One other factor is the language barrier. Every comic writer (in our market) speaks English, while huge numbers of ...

• At January 5, 2009, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Great point!

  Yeah, there are tons of reasons for it.

  It was just interesting when I am putting together a list of ...

Okay, so right from the get go, I don't think you should ever state that a work is bad before it comes out. Nor do I think you should state that a work is bad without first having read/watched it (I think I'll even extend that to "having seen promos/trailer for the work").

However, I think "that looks bad" is perfectly reasonable if you, well, think it looks bad. Likewise, I have no problem (heck, I do it myself) with predicting quality of future works based on information you've previously acquired from past works, so long as you are only PREDICTING quality rather than making declarations of the quality of the work.

If I pick up a Jason Aaron comic book, before I open it up, I figure that the odds are that it will be well-written, based on his past work leading up to this new issue. On the flip side, if I pick up a comic by (name withheld*), I know the odds are that it will be poorly-written, based on his/her past work leading up to this new issue. So if I wish to say something like, "I am not looking forward to Writer V taking over Book W" or its counter, "I am looking forward to Writer X taking over Book Y," then I think that is completely acceptable.

A slightly more problematic point is the question of citing the critical consensus. I think it is acceptable, so long as you are pretty clear that that is what you are doing - citing the critical consensus, not stating your stance on the matter. So if a comic is getting totally panned by the critics, I think saying "Apparently, Comic Book Z is not very good" is acceptable, but yeah, probably better to be clearer, just to avoid any possible confusion.

*The name wasn't really withheld, that was a joke - I didn't even think of a particular name.

17 Comments

• At December 30, 2008, Rene wrote:

  I think it's perfectly acceptable, given Frank Miller's last couple of works, plus the almost unanimous critical consensus about the ...

• At December 30, 2008, Matt D wrote:

  If you are familiar with the work of writer X (and I don't just mean you dislike one creative decision ...

• At December 30, 2008, Lord Paradise wrote:

  "I don’t remember ever liking a movie that is 100% panned by the critics. "

  I loved Speed Racer, but:

  A) I ...

• At December 30, 2008, DanCJ wrote:

  Are you mad? Writer X is crap. He can't hold a candle to writer V!

  I enjoyed Toys. ...

• At December 30, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  my newspaper gave the Spirit four stars

  I'm sure there are going to be a lot of reviewers who rate The ...

• At December 30, 2008, Rene wrote:

  "A) I don’t know if 37 on Metacritic counts as “100% panned” — my newspaper gave the Spirit four stars."

  No, ...

• At December 30, 2008, Michael Mayket wrote:

  I'm pre-judging things right now and loving it!

• At December 30, 2008, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  You know, this is only ever an issue when fans are working themselves up to stomp on something they've seen ...

• At December 30, 2008, Sijo wrote:

  Definitely, the only way to have a completely fair opinion on a comic story is to have read it personally ...

• At December 30, 2008, T. wrote:

  Well, first off I never really trust critics that much. If critic consensus meant anything, Superman Returns and the ...

• At December 30, 2008, T. wrote:

  Oh and I agree with Sijo, DC Events under Didio usually disappoint in the end, with the exception of 52, ...

• At December 30, 2008, wil wrote:

  I think a major point that when I finally go and see the Spirit when it comes out in a ...

• At December 30, 2008, Rene wrote:

  "and his earlier work that is so fondly remembered is the result of his editors and collaborators having more power ...

• At December 30, 2008, sgt pepper wrote:

  Plus Miller's been in the business for what, 20 or 30 years? Obviously people change over time, whether successful ...

• At December 30, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  I think people make way too big of a deal about other people justifying their opinions on movies and comic ...

• At December 31, 2008, Vincent Paul Bartilucci wrote:

  First off, great comments Mr. Hatcher.

  I haven't seen The Spirit yet. Not sure if I will before ...

• At December 31, 2008, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  I get the feeling that it’s a movie that I might ordinarily enjoy … if it wasn’t supposed to be ...

This doesn't mean that characters don't grow as characters, just that their circumstances/status quos tend to eventually regress to the mean.

You can have Julia Carpenter have an extended run as Spider Woman. You can even have a brand new character like Mattie Franklin get her own book as Spider Woman. Eventually, though, Spider Woman will be Jessica Drew once again, as Jessica Drew as Spider Woman is the "mean."

Luke Cage and Danny Rand are eventually going to become best buds again.

Hal Jordan is eventually going to become Green Lantern again.

Steve Rogers is eventually going to be Captain America again.

Superman is eventually going to cut his hair/lose the electric blue powers.

(Here's one that hasn't happened yet, but will, certainly - Bart Allen will eventually be Impulse/Kid Flash again).

Occasionally, there are changes to the status quo that are accepted as the "classic" take on a character, and won't be changed. Stuff like Swamp Thing being plants with a consciousness rather than a mutated human or Dick Grayson not being Robin anymore (heck, nor will the other original Titans go back to their old identities - no reversion to Aqualad). And while Grant Morrison might have attempted to revert to the original status quo for Magneto, the "mean" for Magneto has changed to the Claremont take, so you know that is the one that would ultimately show up again (maybe not as fast as it did, but still).

Not the most controversial of theories, of course, but hey, if Dan Larkin wants you to write something up, you write something up!!

46 Comments

• At August 23, 2008, the Phantom-Longbox wrote:

  This is explained by creators, like John Byrne's "back to the basics" approach for when he takes on a project ...

• At August 23, 2008, edc wrote:

  the nature of commercial, serial fodder.. that is why I liked elseworlds, superman and wonderwoman having a child.. batman being ...

• At August 23, 2008, edc wrote:

  what about that other phenomenon, comics drifting to movie?

  suddenly the xmen wear leather jackets, supes has a funny belt and ...

• At August 23, 2008, Sijo wrote:

  This has always been a given. But I always considered it a plus, not a limitation. Like a safety net ...

• At August 23, 2008, Dan K wrote:

  This theory becomes more interesting when you have more than one "classic" take on a character. For example Lex Luthor: ...

• At August 23, 2008, BPJerusalem wrote:

  @edc: It could be that comics drifting to comics is an effect of this theory. After all, the hope/logic ...

• At August 23, 2008, DanLarkin wrote:

  Thanks, Brian!

• At August 23, 2008, Bernard the Poet wrote:

  "In serialized comics, given enough time, comics will eventually regress to the mean. The “mean” in this instance is defined ...

• At August 23, 2008, Chris Bradley wrote:

  I actually think it's a function of nostalgia. Comic book artists and writers define these characters by their introduction ...

• At August 23, 2008, Bernard the Poet wrote:

  Also, sometimes a change in the status quo is unavoidable. For twenty years, the Invisible Girl was a remarkably ineffectual ...

• At August 23, 2008, Rene wrote:

  I would say Betty Brant is the sort of thing that sometimes comes to certain characters before their status quo ...

• At August 23, 2008, GarBut wrote:

  I thought this was going to be a post on the inevitability of anger/rage/violence in superhero comics -- protagonists BECOMING ...

• At August 23, 2008, Bernard the Poet wrote:

  I really like Chris Bradley's 'formative experience' theory. Following the Adam West show, a decision was made to return Batman ...

• At August 23, 2008, Lawrence wrote:

  I'm curious to see where Wally West will end up now that Barry Allen has returned. Will he become the ...

• At August 23, 2008, Chris Tolworthy wrote:

  It's all about the merchandising. These are brands, not people. Sadly.

• At August 23, 2008, Thenodrin wrote:

  I find it interesting just exactly that the "mean" is for given characters. And, I think it has a lot ...

• At August 23, 2008, Chris Bradley wrote:

  Bernard,

  I kinna like it, too, obviously. ;)

  What I think is happening, now, tho', is we might be getting to ...

• At August 23, 2008, Lynxara wrote:

  Absolutely, completely the way superhero comics work. What amazes me is when creators will try to bring back aspects of ...

• At August 23, 2008, John Trumbull wrote:

  Good theory. I've often thought something similiar myself.

  I wonder... does anyone here think the Clark Kent/Lois Lane marriage will ...

• At August 23, 2008, Chris Bradley wrote:

  Lynara (and John T to a lesser extent),

  Exactly. The Wonder Woman Invisible Jet is precisely the sort of thing ...

• At August 23, 2008, John Trumbull wrote:

  You know, I was one of the folks who never saw a reason for Krypto -- Until I penciled a ...

• At August 23, 2008, Chris Bradley wrote:

  John,

  I'm not trying to be judgmental! I mean, really, the Joker is one of those characters that was largely ...

• At August 23, 2008, Rene wrote:

  I wonder if there is a "20 year" aspect to the theory?

  Like, even the most long-standing changes will become endangered ...

• At August 23, 2008, John Trumbull wrote:

  No offensive taken, Chris! And I agree with you -- there isn't too much reason for the Invisible Jet ...

• At August 23, 2008, Rene wrote:

  The invisible jet is a cool idea, just not for Wonder Woman.

• At August 23, 2008, Chris Bradley wrote:

  Rene,

  I would guess there's something like a 20 years aspect to it, yeah. But I think it's more a ...

• At August 23, 2008, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Yeah. The Invisible Jet is a cool, unique, slightly goofy idea that is *completely* iconigraphically unique to WW. ...

• At August 23, 2008, R. J. Sterling wrote:

  Stop saying 'revert BACK', people, PLEASE. It's just 'revert'. 'Revert' means 'turn back'.

• At August 23, 2008, Harold wrote:

  It would be interesting to see comic characters aging and being replaced a la Gasoline Alley.

• At August 23, 2008, ZZZ wrote:

  I think the common wisdom is that when a comic book reader grows up and becomes a writer, he (or, ...

• At August 23, 2008, Scavenger wrote:

  For those who keep saying "Dick Greyson will never become Robin again" just ignore the post RIP "Nightwing" title (assuming ...

• At August 23, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Rich's rumor is that Dick becomes Batman, not Red Robin.

  Jason Todd would become Red Robin.

• At August 23, 2008, Chris Bradley wrote:

  I think the Hulk is probably one of the best examples of a character with multiple default states that change ...

• At August 24, 2008, wwk5d wrote:

  I think the mean will keep changing, as people point. It'll change as cycles come and go. Maybe in 10 ...

• At August 24, 2008, John Seavey wrote:

  I think that the "mean", in this case, is the first (or perhaps most basic) impression that most fans have ...

• At August 24, 2008, Rene wrote:

  Like Bernard the Poet said previously, some "means" are inherently too limited, though,

  Sue Storm-Richards as the helpless housewife, for instance. ...

• At August 24, 2008, Adam wrote:

  I agree with Chris Bradley's comment on the Hulk. You'd think his default would be the low-intellect brute on ...

• At August 24, 2008, Black Manta wrote:

  I really see this as a result of sales. A concept becomes boring. Sales drop. A new/bold/exciting change is introduced. ...

• At August 24, 2008, edc wrote:

  @BPjerusalem

  good point.

• At August 24, 2008, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Even the movie-based changes- organic webshooters, leather X-Men costumes, mutated Penguin- go away after a few years.

• At August 25, 2008, Stephen wrote:

  "You’d think his default would be the low-intellect brute on the run from General Ross and the army. However, we ...

• At August 25, 2008, Rene wrote:

  I didn't read Bruce Jones's run, but I thought Banner was in control of the Hulk, and the Hulk wasn't ...

• At August 25, 2008, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Bruce Jones wrote the Hulk as a silent monster (a la the tv version), but gave Banner more access to ...

• At August 25, 2008, Stephen wrote:

  Hm. I seem to remember Jones' Hulk being out of Banner's control - at least at first, since there was ...

• At December 6, 2008, Ki Harsono Siswocarito wrote:

  the theory of comics is good, I think the best term of the science of comics is comicology. Think about ...

• At August 7, 2009, Linkage: Didio, Ramos & More « Speed Force wrote:

  [...] Cronin of Comics Should Be Good presents the Cronin Theory of Comics – Comics Tend to Eventually Regress to ...

If I think someone is wrong about a comic, I'll say they're wrong. If they say I'M wrong about a comic, I'll explain why I think I'm right.

What I won't do is say "you're just saying that because ____."

I'm not going to infer what motivates people's opinions regarding comics.

And I would appreciate the same courtesy from our readers.

If you find yourself falling back on "groupthink" as an argument, you really don't have much of an argument. Just explain why you think someone is wrong to like/dislike the comic in question. "Groupthink" is one of the laziest and flimsiest arguments out there, and it is specifically ANTI-discussion, as what is the point of discussing something if you're asserting that the other party is lying about their opinions?

Everyone mostly likes Watchmen, right? Everyone mostly likes Batman Year One and Born Again, right?

Is that "groupthink"?

You won't see it argued, because most people AGREE with liking those comics.

"Groupthink" only comes up when a group of people don't agree with YOUR stance on a particular comic (whether you like it or dislike it). THEN suddenly a large group of people liking/disliking a comic is "groupthinking."

And that's bogus.

Don't drag discussions down into pejorative inferences.

112 Comments

• At August 7, 2008, Alex Cox wrote:

  It's almost as bad as this one...

  "People only like (insert title) to seem hip/intelligent/cool/etc..."

  groan....

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Yeah, that's it exactly.

  "You're just saying that because ____ (you want to seem hip/intelligent/cool/etc.)"

  Just make your arguments, people.

  And if you ...

• At August 7, 2008, Jer wrote:

  This is about Morrison isn't it?

  runs off to check the Final Crisis #3 Review comments

  HA! I KNEW it!

  If I ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I honestly don't even mind if people, like, THINK it.

  That's fine, I'm not expecting people to, like, cleanse their ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  I've come across a lot of comic vendors with this attitude...

  Customer: Oh cool! I love character X

  Vendor: ...

• At August 7, 2008, Jer wrote:

  Yeah, I know what you're saying. But it's lazy reasoning to fall back on something like that as an ...

• At August 7, 2008, John Seavey wrote:

  You're absolutely right! Someone who doesn't like Final Crisis shouldn't like it because it's a muddled, incoherent mess of Silver ...

• At August 7, 2008, Axel M. Gruner wrote:

  Stay away from conformist nonconformism?

• At August 7, 2008, Mecha-Shiva wrote:

  Another problem with it is... I mean you don't go to a stark trek convention and accuse people of liking ...

• At August 7, 2008, Greg Burgas wrote:

  Well, I know I'VE done it, and gotten flak for it (you remember, don't you, DL&M?). But I agree.

  However, ...

• At August 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  If I had a nickel for everyone who has accused me of only liking Morrison’s stuff because everyone else likes ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  I dunno, Brian.

  There's a very thorny scenario going on current in relation to the two big current works of Grant ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Yeah, "you don't get it" is bad, too, unless it's being used as "you don't understand it," which is a ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  At the same time, I’ve also had the logic “why don’t you just stop complaining and wait for the end” ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  Spiffy, you're absolutely right... If you just don't like something, you shouldn't be forced to like it...

  If we ...

• At August 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  However, you should also rant against the people who, if I (and I’m just using myself as an example, because ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Great point, that does appear just as often as groupthink comments No, it does not.

  Not nearly as much, really, ...

• At August 7, 2008, Dan wrote:

  Or, we could think that the stories aren't confusing and enjoy sharp dialog and big ideas. Reading a Morrison ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  Blackjack, I don't get the sense that most people are trying to force me to like anything. Again, I ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  T.: My comment about the kiddie steps and the pool, had nothing to do with depth... It was just ...

• At August 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  Ah, understood Blackjak. I misinterpreted.

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  Spiffy: Sorry, bad writing again... Having a bad day at work... not thinking straight...

  "Force" is wrong...

  "expected" ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  The kind of comment I've found disturbing in some of the FC/RIP discussion threads?

  Here's one from a FC thread. ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  Of course! But when you're on the bandwagon, you often don't think that you are!!

  And god forbid if you ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I don't mind the first post you quoted.

  He's saying that the comic is clear, so if you are saying ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  My point Blackjak is that while its easy to see people talking about the masses liking something and labeling it ...

• At August 7, 2008, Michael wrote:

  This goes beyond comics, too. For example, I'm getting really tired of hearing it attributed to intended Obama voters.

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  Brian, the first one actually bothered me more. The argument SEEMS to be, "if a dozen of us got ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  The guy is saying the comic is unclear - that's not a subjective statement, so bringing in others is fine.

  "I ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  Spiffy...

  They are one and the same... they are both "Groupthink"... Both just saying the other group is wrong...

  A ...

• At August 7, 2008, DanLarkin wrote:

  Liking something is subjective. "Getting it" is not. So it's kinda of an apples and oranges thing to compare ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Yeah, Dan, but again, it depends on how the term was used.

  If it is used as "you don't get it ...

• At August 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  No, it does not.

  Perhaps I notice that type of argument more because it offends my sensibilities and you notice ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  T, you are considered PART of the groupthink in the other instances!

  That's what I'm saying - it comes up in ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  "you don't get it because you don't understand it" seems a bit elitist though...

  I'd rather someone asked "what didn't ...

• At August 7, 2008, Anonymous wrote:

  T.

  If you don't like something, why are you so defensive about it? You don't have to read a bunch of ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  “you don’t get it because you don’t understand it” seems a bit elitist though…

  I’d rather someone asked “what didn’t you ...

• At August 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  T.

  If you don’t like something, why are you so defensive about it? You don’t have to read a bunch of ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  No sorry you're right... (I seem to be apologising a lot today...)

  It just struck me in ...

• At August 7, 2008, CaptainAardvark wrote:

  The first post quoted seems clearly pejorative to me;

  “there are plenty of us who had zero problems figuring these things ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  DanLarkin, the concept of "Getting" something is actually a bit murkier than that, I think.

  One side is arguing that comprehension ...

• At August 7, 2008, montoya wrote:

  I don't think that I've ever seen "you don't like it because you don't understand it" deployed in a non-pejorative ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  The key word to me is ‘failing’ - that it’s nothing in the writing or art or anything along those ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I don’t think that I’ve ever seen “you don’t like it because you don’t understand it” deployed in a non-pejorative ...

• At August 7, 2008, CaptainAardvark wrote:

  Ah, I haven't read the thread in question. That sounds fairly clearcut, although I'd still agree that it's not really ...

• At August 7, 2008, Nessor Sille wrote:

  I realized a while ago that even the average-to-poor Morrison comics would be judged apples of gold by most of ...

• At August 7, 2008, Rhod wrote:

  The "You don't get it" argument really annoys me. Its incredible how many people think its acceptable to hurl an ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  Just try criticising a Will Eisner comic...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I realized a while ago that even the average-to-poor Morrison comics would be judged apples of gold by most of ...

• At August 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  T.

  If you don’t like something, why are you so defensive about it? You don’t have to read a bunch of ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I do not engage in the behavior I'm complaining about. That's my point. I said it up there:

  If I think ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  Brian? Slightly off topic, but what is the record number of comments on one topic in one day??

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Dunno, probably somewhere in the mid 100s.

  The retcons one had 80-something just yesterday.

• At August 7, 2008, T. wrote:

  I do not engage in the behavior I’m complaining about. That’s my point. I said it up there

  I don't know ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Oh, okay, gotcha.

  I thought you were including me in when people suddenly single you out for the “you’re better than ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  The other fellow thought it was unclear who the mummified mobster was, so that fellow pointed out that it was ...

• At August 7, 2008, Blackjak wrote:

  But surely we don't want signposts to everything? that'll just ruin a comic... I hope (for those that ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  True. But this was more about an argument between several posters about whether or not it was clear that ...

• At August 7, 2008, Kelson @ Speed Force wrote:

  Does it seem obvious to me that this would be “clear” to someone who was a casual DC reader, picking ...

• At August 7, 2008, Nessor Sille wrote:

  "In other words, you’re making the groupthink argument."

  Observing that many of the posters here really like everything Grant Morrison writes ...

• At August 7, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  I don't think I've ever heard such a reply after saying how I don't like Morrison's Batman or how conflicted ...

• At August 7, 2008, Dan wrote:

  Kelson@Speed Force:

  As a casual reader (Final Crisis and All Star Superman are the only comics I'm reading monthly), I think ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  Dan, the fact that you already know about The New Gods and Seven Soldiers is what GIVES you that leg ...

• At August 7, 2008, Tyson wrote:

  I don't comment here all that much anyway, but I've pretty much decided to never comment on Morrison's work here. ...

• At August 7, 2008, Mike Loughlin wrote:

  Calling people intellectually inferior for not getting Morrison or liking Morrison is childish. Dismissing Morrison as too obtuse is understandable. ...

• At August 7, 2008, Rene wrote:

  The only thing I don't understand is why people seem to spend so much energy reading and watching and thinking ...

• At August 7, 2008, Bill Reed wrote:

  Shut up and drink your Kool-Aid, Brian.

• At August 7, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  What a strange turn this discussion has taken. Brian says, "Here is a form of argument that I think is ...

• At August 7, 2008, jazzbo wrote:

  I agree for the most part that using groupthink as an arguement is bad, and is usually done in place ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  What a strange turn this discussion has taken. Brian says, “Here is a form of argument that I think is ...

• At August 7, 2008, Dan wrote:

  Spiffy:

  I don't know that my experience is all that far from the norm. I tend to follow creators rather ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  Rene said:

  "The only thing I don’t understand is why people seem to spend so much energy reading and watching and ...

• At August 7, 2008, Vincent Paul Bartilucci wrote:

  An accusation that I'm engaged in groupthink doesn't bother me a bit. I like what I like. ...

• At August 7, 2008, Random Stranger wrote:

  Geez that was a lot of responses. Okay, getting to my points:

  While accusing people of groupthink isn't an argument ...

• At August 7, 2008, Tyson wrote:

  Sean Whitmore & Brian Cronin -

  Well, if Brian's post was taken in complete isolation, some of the subsequent discussion ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  Hey, in the forums I just got told that because I made criticisms of a writer, I had "an axe ...

• At August 7, 2008, Dan Bailey wrote:

  >>there are places online where someone saying that Emperor Morrison has no clothes would get them run out on a ...

• At August 7, 2008, Dan Bailey wrote:

  Hmmm. I only just now saw Tyson's comment about the reactions to his own lack of adulation for SEAGUY.

• At August 7, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Sean, given how vocal I’ve been, I have to think I’m the target of that point (am I being paranoid? ...

• At August 7, 2008, Mike wrote:

  Are you referring to people who have admitted to indulging in groupthink? Because if you aren't referring to someone who's ...

• At August 7, 2008, jazzbo wrote:

  You know why I think we've had so many semi-heated discussions on this blog recently? Because we haven't had Snark ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  A good debate never hurt anyone, as long as it was an honest one.

• At August 7, 2008, jazzbo wrote:

  I agree. I was just using it as a lame excuse to ask for Snark Free Corner back. It's one ...

• At August 7, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Mike, unless I'm misreading you, you've gotten the argument backwards.

• At August 7, 2008, Mike wrote:

  I see that. Brian's essay quotes "groupthink" like it isn't a word, and it isn't a word I can ever ...

• At August 7, 2008, Tyson wrote:

  Mike -

  Straw man is the logical fallacy of refuting something your opponent did not say, then acting like that ...

• At August 7, 2008, Spiffy wrote:

  Good point about the Strawman tactics. I hate to say it, but I see it all too often on ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Like, oh, this place. (In more than a decade of pretty prodigious posting in various venues, the only time I’ve ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Hey, in the forums I just got told that because I made criticisms of a writer, I had “an axe ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I see that. Brian’s essay quotes “groupthink” like it isn’t a word, and it isn’t a word I can ever ...

• At August 7, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Come on, Dan, you were only accused of “trolling” (and not by me! I only said it was a really ...

• At August 7, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Nah, I believe Dan when he said that he just took it to be a general "just talk about Morrison" ...

• At August 8, 2008, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  Although it is a bit disappointing to see him now frame it as though he was being picked on for ...

• At August 8, 2008, David wrote:

  Just felt like throwing out an argument for groupthink...

  I believe that it is valid to point out that someone not ...

• At August 8, 2008, wwk5d wrote:

  "Calling people intellectually inferior for not getting Morrison or liking Morrison is childish. Dismissing Morrison as too obtuse is understandable. ...

• At August 8, 2008, Graeme Burk wrote:

  I love how your "Theory of Comics" are basically bully pulpit editorials on blog threads where you felt criticized Brian.

  Which ...

• At August 8, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Well,

  A. It's "Cronin Theory of Comics," presumably there is a hint there that this is my personal take on ...

• At August 8, 2008, Chris Tinkler wrote:

  Hi Brian,

  Nice column... though, at times there does feel like there's a bit of a hive mind here (especially on ...

• At August 8, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Like I told someone early on (Jer, right?). I really don't mind if you have whatever personal biases you might ...

• At August 8, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Oh well. You’ll have a Theory of Comics about this in a couple of weeks I suspect.

  I have one right ...

• At August 8, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Seriously, though, Graeme, while yeah, you're the only one who specifically says "groupthink," if it was just you, I wouldn't ...

• At August 8, 2008, Mike wrote:

  Straw man is the logical fallacy of refuting something your opponent did not say, then acting like that refuted what ...

• At August 8, 2008, markus wrote:

  I can't agree with the original post. It assumes that one's partner is a rational disputant, which IMO is true ...

• At August 8, 2008, Dan Bailey wrote:

  >>Nah, I believe Dan when he said that he just took it to be a general “just talk about Morrison” ...

• At August 8, 2008, Rene wrote:

  Tyson -

  Sorry, I didn't want to appear like I was trying to shut people up. And really, I wasn't even ...

• At August 8, 2008, Andy wrote:

  Markus-

  While I agree with you on the point that there are idiots out there, I don't think Brian was arguing ...

• At August 9, 2008, Tyson wrote:

  "Yes, and when you attribute groupthink to someone who hasn’t demonstrated groupthink, that accusation of groupthink qualifies as a strawman."

  No, ...

• At August 9, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  How about everyone just assumes that when they're missing something, they're probably just MISSING SOMETHING, and not be insulted by ...

• At August 9, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  Also, I don't really understand this repeated assertion that the blog is filled with Morrison fans.

  Brian and Bill - avowed ...

• At August 9, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  I really don’t understand this feeling of persecution or being ostracized.

  It's more fun that way.

• At August 11, 2008, Mike wrote:

  Yes, and when you attribute groupthink to someone who hasn’t demonstrated groupthink, that accusation of groupthink qualifies as a strawman.

  No, ...

• At August 29, 2008, Jono11 wrote:

  I think ruling out groupthink is pretty hasty. It's pretty well-established that pop-culture groupthink is a reality. Britney ...

Why not just "we don't plan on doing that"?

Joe Quesada, after House of M/Decimation (courtesy of Newsarama)-

Editorially, Quesada added, there is now a mandate that no new mutants can be created wholesale - only five or six new mutant-based characters that were already in the pipeline will be seen. And that the ones going away won't be coming back...

"As long as I'm here as Editor in Chief, they're not coming back,"

Since that statement, Polaris, Professor X, Magneto and Quicksilver have all regained their powers, through various and sundry methods.

So, "as long as I'm here, only the not so popular mutants will not be coming back"?

Like I said above, it's not a big deal, and I understand that it is totally driven by fan expectations - if you DON'T say something definitive, then they take that as definitive the OTHER way - "If you won't say that the mutants will not regain their powers, then that means that they definitely WILL regain their powers!" So I am not really blaming editorial for this state of affairs, but it is still pretty silly, and I'd prefer it be avoided if possible.

36 Comments

• At May 16, 2008, Graeme Burk wrote:

  The problem with your theory, Brian, is that you're expecting the entertainment business to behave like it's a public trust ...

• At May 16, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I'm not blaming Quesada for doing it - like I said, he's put into the situation due to fan expectations. ...

• At May 16, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  Yeah, exactly. You never have to bullshit. It's a strategy to be employed at your discretion.

  And is he really keeping ...

• At May 16, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  Still waiting for Ennis to "out-Preacher Preacher", or is that more marketing side hype compared to the mutant and "dead ...

• At May 16, 2008, Dan Bailey wrote:

  >>I honestly don’t know if Quesada has done the same for this comment or threatening to split the internet in ...

• At May 16, 2008, Elliot Kane wrote:

  I think the difference is that everyone knew Stan was just kidding around. It was like a joke we ...

• At May 16, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  I'll still give him the benefit of the doubt until the day when everyone starts smoking again. He has ...

• At May 16, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  Hawkeye - took me a while to figure this out.

• At May 16, 2008, Annoyed Grunt wrote:

  "Still waiting for Ennis to “out-Preacher Preacher”, or is that more marketing side hype compared to the mutant and “dead ...

• At May 16, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  Ben Grimm tosses the Sentry a cigar in the preview for Mighty Avengers #14.

• At May 16, 2008, Richard wrote:

  In all fairness, and a bit of playing devil's advocate here, have you ever made a promise or claim that ...

• At May 16, 2008, Rhod wrote:

  Richard: the point is that, rather than declaring ' no new mutants' and then realising several years down the line ...

• At May 16, 2008, gopher wrote:

  It always hurts my feelings when an executive whom I've never met tells me less than the 100% literal truth ...

• At May 16, 2008, Dan Bailey wrote:

  >>Joe Quesada has tried very hard to come away from that style of marketing (with the banning of footnotes and ...

• At May 16, 2008, Elliot Kane wrote:

  Richard...

  There are ways of putting things that don't leave you looking bad, though. I'd bet you say to your ...

• At May 16, 2008, Michael wrote:

  Since when does Magneto have his powers back?

• At May 16, 2008, Sijo wrote:

  There is also the case of editors not exactly promising something, but hinting at it hard enough that the fans ...

• At May 17, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Since when does Magneto have his powers back? The Collective.

  And at the end of the last arc in Uncanny before ...

• At May 17, 2008, wwk5d wrote:

  Didn't he also promise "Dead Means Dead", and enforced it once Morrison wanted to use Colossus during 'New X-men'? Then ...

• At May 17, 2008, Michael wrote:

  Yeah, I call BS. That's fan speculation. I'll believe it when it's actually in the books.

• At May 17, 2008, deepspace.t wrote:

  As an aside, its interesting when reading interviews with Didio (who's also prone to this sort of hyperbolic nonsense) and ...

• At May 17, 2008, Vic wrote:

  if countdown was supposed to be the dc line's spine, clearly at some point bane broke dc's back

• At May 17, 2008, Rawinder wrote:

  wwk5d,

  It was Morrison's decision not to revive Colossus; he says as much in his "New X-Men manifesto." As far as ...

• At May 17, 2008, wwk5d wrote:

  Yeah, Rawinder, but I remember buying the "E is for Extinction" trade when it first came out (not sure if ...

• At May 18, 2008, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  I stopped believing on the hype after I learnt that Age OF Apocalypse wasn't going to be forever like I'd ...

• At May 19, 2008, Joe Gualtieri wrote:

  Graeme, you're right that Marvel's not a public trust, but what Quesada (far moreso than Didio), Breevort, and some of ...

• At May 19, 2008, wwk5d wrote:

  Yeah, I think the whole "No More Mutants" was what was supposed to crack the internet, not Hawkeye's resurrection.

• At May 19, 2008, Jeff Ryan wrote:

  It still bugs me that, more than a decade ago, Reed richards and Dr. Doom disapreared in a big fight ...

• At May 19, 2008, Lorendiac wrote:

  It does seem to me that if I had been in Quesada's shoes, when being asked about post-Decimation plans for ...

• At May 19, 2008, Elliot Kane wrote:

  I completely agree with you, Lorendiac. And with PAD. Very well put, both.

• At May 19, 2008, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  Once DC started to bring back Jason Todd, to great acclaim (still don’t see how that happened), Marvel adding an ...

• At May 19, 2008, wwk5d wrote:

  The other problem with constantly bringing people back from the dead is that it takes anyway any sort of drama ...

• At May 19, 2008, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  When I started reading comics, Spiderman was married, Kyle Rayner was Green Lantern, Magneto was dead etc etc

  Kinda sad that ...

• At May 20, 2008, Sijo wrote:

  Ehh, I accepted the fact that most superhero comics involve a Status Quo a long time ago. I don't mind ...

• At May 20, 2008, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  Status Quo is one thing, but avoiding/reverting any change, or even illusion of change, is just ridiculous.

• At May 30, 2008, TimGunn wrote:

  two thoughts

  1. the worst was Iceman after House of M, when they showed him losing his powers and two weeks ...

He did an interview with George Perez for Wizard (which I believe had been archived online here), and Winick was nice and extremely respectful to Perez. It was a real cute interview.

Also, if you've ever read Pedro and Me, Winick comes off as a sensitive, kind person. That was basically what he came off as on the Real World as well (only tack on boring there, too).

All of this, though, has no bearing on whether his output as a comic book writer is any good. I think that the majority of his mainstream comic book work has been quite dreadful (which is amusing, as the majority of his NON-mainstream comic book work has been quite good). That seems fair enough, right? He can be a nice guy, but it doesn't make his comics any good.

That said, the reverse also holds true, and that's what appears to be harder for readers/fans to believe/concede.

If you think a writer's work is sexist/homphobic/racist/et al, then that's different, as that may fairly be considered a reflection upon a writer him/herself.

But otherwise, just because a writer does poor work, just criticize the work, leave the writer alone - after all, they are separate entities from their work.

NOTE: This is different from previous theory "Treat Comic Creators Respectfully." That's just straightforward - treat them with respect. This is specifically "Do not pass judgments about creators based on their work."

118 Comments

• At January 31, 2008, plok wrote:

  Just saw a page of Dave Sim's "Glamourpuss": breathtaking stuff, no way around it.

• At January 31, 2008, plok wrote:

  Um, although I only saw one page...there seem to be quite a few people who think it looks like crap, ...

• At January 31, 2008, Brian Mac wrote:

  Just for the record, I haven't read any of Winnick's DC stuff, but I really liked his original run on ...

• At January 31, 2008, Andrew Collins wrote:

  I know some people don't like Winick due to his politics or occasional preachiness, but if I've ever had a ...

• At January 31, 2008, David M wrote:

  Brian, the creator/work divide is a really tricky issue, especially when you consider that in a medium like comics there ...

• At January 31, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  I didn't know that about Orson Scott Card. Ignorance is bliss.

  I also didn't know Winick from the Real World, ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  You know, it's funny you mention Winick, because even before I ever read his work or knew he wrote comics, ...

• At January 31, 2008, Alex wrote:

  The 'Boy Genius' comic was fantastic, but i have no idea what its called. He really shouldn't be spending so ...

• At January 31, 2008, Jeff Holland wrote:

  Alex, it was "Barry Ween, Boy Genius." I dunno, didn't really hit me. It felt a lot like "Calvin peeing ...

• At January 31, 2008, BDaly wrote:

  I've heard Liefeld's a nice guy, though some of his statements and actions have made me think he's a bit ...

• At January 31, 2008, Ye Olde Iowa wrote:

  This works both ways, too. I personally love Brian Azarello's writing. He has done some really great stuff.

  Unfortunately, ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Ye Olde Iowa - the irony to me is that based on what comes through in his writing, that's exactly ...

• At January 31, 2008, MushroomJones wrote:

  Being a nice guy will not get me to buy a sub-par book. I love the Titans but the ...

• At January 31, 2008, E.D. wrote:

  I don't think there's much wrong with letting one's negative feelings about a creator on a personal level (eg. Card, ...

• At January 31, 2008, Rob wrote:

  What, no comments on Miller yet? I've only been reading only reviews of comics for a couple years, but I ...

• At January 31, 2008, jazzbo wrote:

  I will let my negative feelings about a creator personally affect whether I buy their product or not. Much like ...

• At January 31, 2008, Michael wrote:

  "Barry Ween" did have a lot of juvenile humor, but behind that it had some good material about how hard ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Can someone PLEASE give me a legitimately "fascist" or "far right wing" quote from Frank Miller. It seemed like ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Also, please stop misusing "fascist" people. It does not mean "really mean to minorities" or "not a nice guy" ...

• At January 31, 2008, comb & razor wrote:

  the "fascist" accusations against Miller did not start with "Holy Terror, Batman!" though... i'm pretty sure i've heard the word ...

• At January 31, 2008, comb & razor wrote:

  argh! hit the return button by mistake!!!

  anyway, i was about to add that beyond the primary defintion being a member ...

• At January 31, 2008, Krod wrote:

  Separating a creator from their work can be good.

  I think it's also wise to separate creators from popular internet perception ...

• At January 31, 2008, Jesse wrote:

  I sometimes wonder if I have the opposite problem. For instance, I know little of Mark Millar as a person ...

• At January 31, 2008, jazzbo wrote:

  That's funny, Jesse, because I came up with the exact same impression of Millar based on his writing. Good to ...

• At January 31, 2008, Rob wrote:

  As far as Millar goes, my disappointment with his writing leads me to *not care* what he's like in real ...

• At January 31, 2008, Thenodrin wrote:

  This thread reminds me of a statement I heard when I first started writing horror games for TSR. I mentioned ...

• At January 31, 2008, jazzbo wrote:

  I've had several short horror stories/novellas published, and been to a few horror conventions where I met several other horror ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  anyway, i was about to add that beyond the primary defintion being a member of or sympathizer for a certain ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Oops.

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  This post should fix the blockquote thing. Sorry.

• At January 31, 2008, Jesse wrote:

  T.,

  Cool down for just a moment. I wasn't implying there was any connection between the fact that he was liberal ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "It seemed like people just jumped on this bandwagon because he was going to be mean to Al Qaeda in ...

• At January 31, 2008, jazzbo wrote:

  So you can determine my political views based on a 2 line comment about a comic book writer? And you ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "That secondary definition is wrong"

  Um... the English language is, for lack of a better word, alive. If enough people ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "I’ve looked up fascism in many respectable dictionaries"

  You must be even more fun to be around than your posts make ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "You guys have this simplistic, self-aggrandizing view of politics"

  Once you start using the word progressive perjoratively, or just the word ...

• At January 31, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  This is exactly the kind of debate I'd want Colbert to smash if he were president of Marvel Universe.

• At January 31, 2008, Paul Newell wrote:

  Really? I would’ve thought it came about when he did a comic celebrating Spartans as heroic defenders of Athenian democracy.

  Go ...

• At January 31, 2008, comb & razor wrote:

  That secondary definition is wrong and usually spread by progressives, usually the same ones that claim you have to wield ...

• At January 31, 2008, Rob wrote:

  Ok, maybe bringing up Miller WASN'T such a good idea...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "The idea’s he used in Dark Knight Returns sparked the whole Miller/fascist thing."

  I could see how DKR, Elektra: Assassin & ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  Rob - I'm surprising nobody has beaten up on you about Morrison yet...

  Let me just say, go buy 'We3'. ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Jesse, your words were "I know little of Mark Millar as a person other than he’s SUPPOSED to be very ...

• At January 31, 2008, Krod wrote:

  Phew, finally a common usage standard---letting the meaning define the word instead of the word defining the meaning. That ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  In DKR, Batman is not a fascist. Is he an extremist? Sure. Violent? yes. Maybe ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Comb and razor:

  Here is the full definition of fascism from American heritage Fourth Edition, which is the latest. I ...

• At January 31, 2008, comb & razor wrote:

  Note the usage of the word “OR.” Not “and” but “or.” As in either reactionary or dictatorial. One or the ...

• At January 31, 2008, comb & razor wrote:

  oh yeah... just to be doubly sure, i checked the Oxford English Dictionary, probably the most respectable of respectable dictionaries ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Dictatorial can be left or right. The point is, when you say "reactionary OR dictatorial," and dictatorial can mean right ...

• At January 31, 2008, Jeff Holland wrote:

  Remember when this thread had something to do with creator personalities and how they relate to the books they write?

  Those ...

• At January 31, 2008, David M wrote:

  Amen, Jeff, amen.

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Remember when this thread had something to do with creator personalities and how they relate to the books they write?

  Those ...

• At January 31, 2008, comb & razor wrote:

  T,

  that's an extremely tenuous argument that probably wouldn't withstand much critical probing, but i don't think there's any need to ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "In DKR, Batman is not a fascist. Is he an extremist? Sure. Violent? yes. Maybe even right wing. But he ...

• At January 31, 2008, SonTenks wrote:

  To head back towards the subject:

  I feel that I'm lucky, in a way, living in Australia. We have, oh, ONE ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  That's funny -- I've been the opposite guy, the guy who brings a bunch of stuff hoping to get a ...

• At January 31, 2008, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  I just thought I'd add my 2 cents to the whole fascist thing it has only in the last decade ...

• At January 31, 2008, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Conversation 1

  Eh. Most of my favorite artists, in any medium, are huge assholes.

  I've told you guys my favorite musician ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "Hitler was the leader of the national socialist party"

  Woah, hoss, slow down. "National socialism" is *extremely* different from socialism. ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "italian fascism came about from left leaning political leaders"

  In what sense? The fact that he was a nationalist? ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  Note that I am not arguing that it is impossible for a liberal to be a fascist. I am ...

• At January 31, 2008, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  Well,up until the last decade or so,I would say miltarism was a left wing treat.Look at Stalin he was definitely ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  I wouldn't call it "patently" absurd. There's a new book out called "Liberal Fascism" that makes that exact argument.

  Personally, ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  In what sense? The fact that he was a nationalist? A militarist? A corporatist? Or an anti-communist?

  I'm sorry, but I ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "I would say miltarism was a left wing treat."

  So you're giving the left President Reagan? President Eisenhower? Winston ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "Military and leftism are not mutually exclusive, hence the term “liberal hawk.”"

  T - you're far more reasonable than jay (and, ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "There’s a new book out called “Liberal Fascism” that makes that exact argument."

  Thank you for bringing that to my attention; ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "JFK was all those things. Is he right-wing?"

  I don't think you're actually interested in my opinions about JFK but, based ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "I do agree that the main reason fascism is more associated with the right is that its become the knee-jerk ...

• At January 31, 2008, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  Actually,I'm was just throwing some thoughts out there.National Socialism does not have much to do with socialism it was a ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  Sean, the reason I believe this is so is because since the 60s, baby boomers and their form of progressive ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  It’s funny that you don’t want to be divisive, but you want to blame everything on the left.

  I don't ...

• At January 31, 2008, Evan Waters wrote:

  Incidentally, Hitler having been a vegetarian means absolutely nothing. He didn't do it for ethical reasons, he did it because ...

• At January 31, 2008, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  But,he did inject vegaterianism into his youth programs.Besides,there is no ethical arguement for vegaterianism.Veganism,yes.

• At January 31, 2008, Rob wrote:

  Y'know, when I was collecting the Planet Heist mini a few years back, at no point did the words authoritarian, ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "I wouldn’t call Reagan all that miltaristic"

  If you wouldn't say that the president who increased the military budget to the ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  T - If I weren't leaving the office, I'd probably enjoy having this conversation further (though I bet everybody else ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "Besides,there is no ethical arguement for vegaterianism."

  And the hits just keep on comin'...

• At January 31, 2008, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  He did try to get rid of nuclear weapons as a milatery option and after all you can't hug your ...

• At January 31, 2008, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  Well,let's hear some ethical reasons then.

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  (I decided to add one more)

  "A lot of lefties do call everything to the right of them “fascist.” A lot ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "FDR wasn’t militaristic?"

  In what sense? He built up industry and sold a lot of weapons to the British because ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "Well,let’s hear some ethical reasons then."

  People who are vegetarian for ethical reasons feel that, when an animal reaches a certain ...

• At January 31, 2008, sean wrote:

  "He did try to get rid of nuclear weapons as a milatery option"

  The argument could easily be made that this ...

• At January 31, 2008, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  I guess your right he wasn't compared to ALL the other world leaders in the 1930s.But, he also wasn't all ...

• At January 31, 2008, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  I'm pretty sure your talking about veganism.

• At January 31, 2008, MarkAndrew wrote:

  People who are vegetarian for ethical reasons feel that, when an animal reaches a certain level of awareness or intelligence, ...

• At January 31, 2008, Michael wrote:

  "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants." - A. Whitney Brown

• At January 31, 2008, garbonzo wrote:

  So, setting aside the whole Fascism debate (and my need to run to he thesaurus and dictionary to follow huge ...

• At January 31, 2008, garbonzo wrote:

  As for the vegetarian thing, I figured i wouldn't like it if someone or something ate me, so why should ...

• At January 31, 2008, Omega Alpha wrote:

  What Brian said applies to any art, really, although many don't see it. Chinatown or The Pianist don't suck because ...

• At January 31, 2008, Mark wrote:

  I almost hate to comment on the original topic but I didn't stop buying work by Mark Millar because of ...

• At January 31, 2008, comb & razor wrote:

  i dunno about this idea that the association of fascism with the Right is a recent, Boomer-generation invention.

  quoth Benito Mussolini, ...

• At January 31, 2008, garbonzo wrote:

  Austen's work I skip based on the sheer crappiness of it. Don't know much about the guy, other than ...

• At January 31, 2008, T. wrote:

  comb and razor -

  screw it, i'll stay in the debate. the thread has been already dominated by this discussion ...

• At January 31, 2008, comb & razor wrote:

  T-

  fine... i'll accept that.

  i'm really not too interested in dissecting the literal philosophical definition of a concept with as tortured ...

• At January 31, 2008, Evan Waters wrote:

  Wait, we're using Jonah Goldberg as a credible source on ANYTHING?

• At January 31, 2008, plok wrote:

  I've rarely read anything so LAUGHABLY UNCONVINCING as the quote you offer from Goldberg there, T. Is that what ...

• At January 31, 2008, Mark wrote:

  "Beyond that, if you were a Martian and you came to planet Earth with a clipboard"

  I guess if I were ...

• At January 31, 2008, mightygodking wrote:

  I wouldn’t call it “patently” absurd. There’s a new book out called “Liberal Fascism” that makes that exact argument.

  Yes, and ...

• At January 31, 2008, JC wrote:

  I met Brian Azzarello at a con last week and I was very disappointed; not that I expected him to ...

• At January 31, 2008, plok wrote:

  So fascism and communism are equivalent names for the same evil, JC? Only one likes private enterprise, and one ...

• At January 31, 2008, Martin wrote:

  Maybe I'm bigoted, but I really can't stand Adolf Hitler's art after finding out he was a vegetarian. I just ...

• At February 1, 2008, plok wrote:

  Don't be such a Nazi about it, Martin! After all, just because someone's a vegetarian, it doesn't automatically mean ...

• At February 1, 2008, T wrote:

  Seriously, at one point in “Liberal Fascism”, Goldberg argues that Mussolini wasn’t a fascist. You know - Mussolini, who invented ...

• At February 1, 2008, T wrote:

  so let me just offer a handshake for a level-headed, well-reasoned debate.

  Likewise.

• At February 1, 2008, plok wrote:

  "The main complaint I hear from it isn’t that it has bad arguments or bad research but that he glosses ...

• At February 1, 2008, J.C. wrote:

  Plok, I wouldn't say they are equivalent evils. Again it boils down to the nature of the people running ...

• At February 1, 2008, DanCJ wrote:

  Then I found out that part of the story involved making Tony some kind of full-body brain (and contradicted the ...

• At February 1, 2008, T. wrote:

  In other words, it has bad arguments, and bad research. Right?

  Wrong. From the excerpts I read, it has good ...

• At February 1, 2008, plok wrote:

  T.: but all that stuff like seat belts, that's actually NOT fascist, you know?

  (Also, please try not to say ...

• At February 1, 2008, T. wrote:

  T.: but all that stuff like seat belts, that’s actually NOT fascist, you know?

  (Also, please try not to say things ...

• At February 1, 2008, Evan Waters wrote:

  "If the government is forcing you to do it and micromanaging you, it’s a fascist measure."

  So, is paying taxes or ...

• At February 1, 2008, plok wrote:

  Indeed. This is the same kind of overheated, imprecise, and inaccurate use of "fascist" that you were lately protesting. ...

• At February 1, 2008, plok wrote:

  Oh yeah, but if every instance of government "micromanagement" is fascist, then I suppose the natural consequence would be that ...

• At February 2, 2008, Ron Moss wrote:

  Normally I would agree with the argument put forward by Cronin.

  However, Judd Winnick was once on a reality TV show ...

• At February 4, 2008, DanCJ wrote:

  He shows for example of how fascism can come from the left: for example using the government to force people ...

• At March 12, 2008, Kanedoras wrote:

  And this is why my history professors retired the term "fascism" when addressing an actual political system and now use ...

To open, do note that I am really against the basic concept of "Big event? I guess we have to kill somebody." I think it is generally a ridiculous concept that hurts comics by depriving readers (and future writers) of interesting characters just to add momentary importance to an event. That said, for better or for worse, it works, sales-wise. So we're going to keep seeing it.

Anyhow, here are some theories of mine on the topic.

1. You should try not to kill any character that there is likely a whole pile of writers craving a chance to write said character.

Kitty Pryde is the first example that comes to mind, but Jean Grey in Morrison's New X-Men is another good one, I think.

I have never seen Morrison's thoughts on Jean, so I do not know if he intended Jean to stay dead. I would imagine he didn't, but I dunno. In any event, she's still dead - which is odd.

It is debatable, but Colossus and Martian Manhunter MIGHT fit into this category (Ted Kord did not).

2. You should try not to kill any character that has been written well by another writer within the last year.

I get it - sometimes, you figure that a character isn't being used, so that character might be a bit expendable. Fair enough.

I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. So that's why I think a character making a notable appearance within the same YEAR as you planning to kill him/her off is a fair compromise position.

This also allows the exception that if you, yourself, are the one who has been handling the character for the past year, it's a little easier of a pill for the reader to swallow.

This is why I wouldn't have Sue Dibny or Ted Kord killed. They were just being used by Giffen and DeMatteis THAT YEAR very well, so it seemed silly to have DIFFERENT writers kill them off.

Very annoying.

3. If a supporting characters lasts 30 years, you best have a very good reason for killing them.

It is so hard to make it as a supporting character in a comic book. People are going to want to kill you off left and right. So to make it THIRTY YEARS as a supporting character is quite an achievement, and a demonstration that many writers found said character quite valuable.

Therefore, if you want to get rid of them, you better have a really good reason to do so.

This is why I disliked Karen Page's death.

Alfred, Foggy Nelson, Commissioner Gordon, Mary Jane Watson, Aunt May, Perry White, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, J. Jonah Jameson, Robbie Robertson, Betty Brant - these characters should be considered practically parts of their respective comics by now.

Do not kill them off - unless, of course, you have a darned good reason to do so.

4. If you need to kill off a minor supervillain, imagine someone else is putting together a new Masters of Evil/Injustice League in a few years. If the character you're thinking of killing would be seriously considered for such a group - don't kill him/her.

There is a bit of a shortage amongst villains on the lower tier, like Absorbing Man, the Wrecking Crew and Tiger Shark. Don't kill them off.

5. Quit killing Chuck Dixon creations.

Now Hellhound was just killed, too! Cut it out! The dude spends all this time introducing new characters, only to have them all killed off!!
__________________________________________________________

Okay, that's all I can think of right now. As you can see, I left a TON of openings for deaths, even ones I disliked - these are just some instances where I think comic book death should be monitored more closely in the planning stages.

In fact, here are a few characters whose deaths annoyed me, but I can understand them:

Banshee - Not a big-time character, no one had really written him in awhile.
Bart Allen - Not his fault, but had been basically ruined to the point where he was NOT a character anyone would really want to write anymore.
Ronnie Raymond - No one was lining up to write Ronnie, and had not been featured in awhile.
The Darkstars - I REALLY hated it when Diggle killed them, but I had to admit, no one was trying to revive them, and they hadn't appeared in years.

LONG TERM PLANS EXEMPTION - By the by, none of this applies to writers who have long term plans in place to deal with the "death" and return of a character, such as Superman, Magneto (Morrison never intended Magneto to actually die, it was just a meta-commentary thing), Psylocke and Steve Rogers.

36 Comments

• At January 25, 2008, The Indestructible Man wrote:

  Regarding your example of Firestorm -- remember that Mike Carey had been trying to get a Ronnie Raymond series off ...

• At January 25, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Now that you mention it, I do recall some talk of a Firestorm series back then. That said, it's one ...

• At January 25, 2008, Daniel O' Dreams wrote:

  I kind of got the impression from Morrison's last story arc that he definitely intended her to stay dead, at ...

• At January 25, 2008, Daveg7777 wrote:

  I don't believe Chuck Dixon created Hellhound. If memory serves me correct, Jordan Gorfinkel (who was a Bat-editor at ...

• At January 25, 2008, Craig wrote:

  "Basically it seemed to be saying bring her back and you invalidate my entire run."-Daniel O'Dreams

  Didn't Marvel editorial do that ...

• At January 25, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I don’t believe Chuck Dixon created Hellhound. If memory serves me correct, Jordan Gorfinkel (who was a Bat-editor at the ...

• At January 25, 2008, J to the AAP wrote:

  I kind of got the impression from Morrison’s last story arc that he definitely intended her to stay dead, at ...

• At January 25, 2008, Tom Fitzpatrick wrote:

  You know what they say:

  "Kill 'em all, and let the fans sort 'em out."

  Well, something like that. ;-)

• At January 25, 2008, Michael wrote:

  I'll add "It's OK to kill them if they should have stayed dead in the first place." Mainly to validate ...

• At January 25, 2008, John Seavey wrote:

  Actually, I'm of the opposite point of view there; if they've already been killed and brought back once, then killing ...

• At January 25, 2008, T wrote:

  My theory on the whole Jean Grey thing is that Morrison intended her to stay dead, and my rationale is ...

• At January 25, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  I gotta agree with John.

  A fairly prominent mutant was killed off this week, in what was presumably meant to be ...

• At January 25, 2008, will_butler wrote:

  @John Seavey:

  "All Marvel has to its name is viable intellectual properties, and it’s just plain stupid to get rid of ...

• At January 25, 2008, avengers63 wrote:

  I'm not going to give any long-winded input on this, and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but ...

• At January 25, 2008, joshschr wrote:

  I just want BKV to bring 355 back in Y #60 next week.

• At January 25, 2008, Hisham Zubi wrote:

  Hey Brian,

  In regards to Morrison's "death of Magneto" I'm curious if you're referring to his "death" at the beginning of ...

• At January 25, 2008, Eric wrote:

  Sean Whitmore-

  I think you really hit on something. Because not only was it painted like that character died and ...

• At January 25, 2008, Lothor wrote:

  Peter David killed off seminal character Betty Ross-Talbot-Banner; she mostly stayed dead except for one story arc by Bruce Jones, ...

• At January 25, 2008, DanCJ wrote:

  Jean Gray's whole thing is dying and coming back. I'm amazed it's taken so long to bring her back, ...

• At January 25, 2008, Filipe wrote:

  For what it's worth Ronnie Raymond was used in Kelly's JLA not long before his death, but Kelly wrote him ...

• At January 25, 2008, Jeff Ryan wrote:

  Boy, don't even get me started on Resurrection Man...

• At January 25, 2008, Garrett Martin wrote:

  If a supporting characters lasts 30 years, you best have a very good reason for killing them.

  So was there any ...

• At January 25, 2008, Omar Karindu wrote:

  My impression is that Morrison intended to really kill off Magneto at the end of his run. At the very ...

• At January 25, 2008, Chris Griswold wrote:

  Firestorm was in Joe Kelly's awesome JLA run after Batman's hacked T-spheres hired a bunch of new people to be ...

• At January 25, 2008, Chris Griswold wrote:

  Oh, and I've said it before, but Xavier and Magneto are best when they are dead. (Or when Xavier is ...

• At January 25, 2008, Ian wrote:

  Austen gave Xorn a brother he did not affect the character at all. Also, he only did THAT at ...

• At January 25, 2008, Ian wrote:

  As for Happy dying... hardly anyone even noticed. I think that right there means it was okay to kill ...

• At January 25, 2008, John Seavey wrote:

  Will Butler said:

  "I understand totally where you’re coming from, but unfortunately, your comment illustrates exactly why I read very, very ...

• At January 25, 2008, Apodaca wrote:

  I’ll add “It’s OK to kill them if they should have stayed dead in the first place.” Mainly to validate ...

• At January 26, 2008, Dean wrote:

  There are cases when character death pretty clearly worked well (i.e. Bucky, the original death of Jean Grey and Barry ...

• At January 26, 2008, Omega Alpha wrote:

  "My theory on the whole Jean Grey thing is that Morrison intended her to stay dead, and my rationale is ...

• At January 26, 2008, Daniel O' Dreams wrote:

  1) Her dying would take her to the next level, transcending flesh and the human world and becoming a Goddess ...

• At January 26, 2008, Daniel O' Dreams wrote:

  Uh... that's a confusing post. sorry. I thought I did the quote/unquote thing properly. Guess not!

• At January 27, 2008, Gloria wrote:

  Personally, I think it's better to send a character abroad/on holiday/to exile than killing him/her: this way he/she can be ...

• At January 28, 2008, suedenim wrote:

  Another rule of thumb might be if there's *any* doubt on the other rules, try to leave an "out" of ...

• At January 31, 2008, Thenodrin wrote:

  I think that before a writer kills off a character, he should have to get permission from the character's creator.

  Theno

I am aghast at some of the terribly disrespectful things that are being said towards Joe Quesada for his crime of messing around with Spider-Man continuity.

I do not know Joe Quesada personally. Odds are the commenters saying awful, mean things about him do not, either. So while I do not think actually knowing the man would make personal insults appropriate, at least I could understand it a bit. "I met Joe Quesada once, and he punched my mom in the face - that asshole!" That I would understand. "Ooops Another Day thing is yet another cake made of turds delivered on a Fuck You platter by Joey the Q" by the tastefully named commenter "Quesada, Quesadilla, Same Shit Different Name"? That is bad.

The tons of posts I know my pal Sean Whitmore has to delete on the Comic Book Resources Spider-Man forum where people insult Quesada personally?

That is also bad.

Rail against the work all you like, folks - but keep it to the work. Treat the creators themselves respectfully.

Unless they punched your mom in the face, I suppose.

32 Comments

• At December 31, 2007, Elijah wrote:

  Well, Peter David did once personally insult my mom. No joke. (Well, it was on a forum, but still.) It ...

• At December 31, 2007, Chuck wrote:

  He punched Spider-Man fans in the face with this story, does that count? J/K. I do hate this ...

• At December 31, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  It IS kind of insulting to be told that all this crap is my fault. I demanded nothing!

  Seriously, though, personally ...

• At December 31, 2007, Bill Reed wrote:

  Well, Joe Quesada *did* punch my mom in the face, but I'm totally more pissed about One More Day.

• At December 31, 2007, Krod wrote:

  I read a story on a forum a while ago where a guy was pissed at Mike Grell for shoving ...

• At December 31, 2007, Kevinroc wrote:

  The people that make these kinds of personal comments make the rest of us look bad. Even though I hated ...

• At December 31, 2007, Jack D. wrote:

  Let's say you take a beloved photo or poster to a framing shop to have a professional job done so ...

• At December 31, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  you can’t reasonably declare limits on other people’s emotional investments and how they react when their expectations go horribly awry.

  Of ...

• At December 31, 2007, Beta Ray Steve wrote:

  The bottom line is, you should never post something about a creator you wouldn't say to them personally.

• At December 31, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  I met Brian Cronin once. He punched my mum in the face.

  "Should I be allowed to treat the movie theater ...

• At December 31, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Actually, I think there's a bottomer line.

  "Don't take it so fucking personally. It's fiction."

• At December 31, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Not really, because the theatre manager didn’t make Juno, and you had no emotional investment in the characters before seeing ...

• At December 31, 2007, Rohan Williams wrote:

  The whole point of a character that's lasted 40 years is for the readers to have an emotional investment in ...

• At December 31, 2007, Jack D. wrote:

  And the inverse problem is that a lot of people -- hello -- try to be so friggin' considerate and ...

• At December 31, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  There's a difference between passionate dissent and being an asshat. And there's also a difference between belittling an asshat and ...

• At December 31, 2007, red-Ricky wrote:

  You know, I couldn't care any less about the way fans are treating Quesada.

  Specially when I remember him making some ...

• At January 1, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Next ComiCon, I am so gonna hire a prostitute to push Quesada over....

• At January 1, 2008, Luis Dantas wrote:

  Nice points here.

  On the one hand, it seems clear that personal insults are way out of line. A distinction ...

• At January 1, 2008, Katherine F. wrote:

  My number one rule of life is: there is no excuse for acting like an asshole. "But OMD really sucked!" ...

• At January 1, 2008, Tom Russell wrote:

  I agree with Brian. And one should remember that no one sets out to write a bad story, and ...

• At January 1, 2008, Vig wrote:

  Personally, i feel that PERSONALLY attacking/insulting a creator is uncalled for.

  A long time ago, i was one of those guys ...

• At January 2, 2008, Timothy Burke wrote:

  Keeping criticism to the story when the story is not only bad, but represents a bad judgement about audiences as ...

• At January 2, 2008, Ben Herman wrote:

  Joe Quesada is so mean, he once shot a man just for snoring. No, wait, that was John Byrne. ...

• At January 2, 2008, Lynxara wrote:

  I've always thought it was kind of ridiculous to review stories primarily in light of the people who worked on ...

• At January 2, 2008, yo go re wrote:

  you can’t grasp the concept of a bad Grant Morrison comic (they exist) or that Creator Pinata of the Day ...

• At January 2, 2008, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I don’t think he is. I went back up to re-read the original post to make sure, but he’s specifically ...

• At January 2, 2008, text wrote:

  Sounds to me like people are veering off into dangerous Kathy Bates-in-Misery territory over the whole OMD fiasco. Relax ...

• At January 3, 2008, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  I think Brian Cronin is confusing “don’t talk like an immature douchebag” with “don’t talk about an individual creator’s mistakes ...

• At January 3, 2008, Timothy Burke wrote:

  Then there's no need for making this be about what you say about creators, and in some sense, no need ...

• At January 3, 2008, Alan Coil wrote:

  Joe Quesada deserves everything that gets heaped on him because he killed Santa Claus.

• At January 31, 2008, David wrote:

  yo go gre - I completely agree. As a worshiper of Morrison (and Moore, Whedon, and Bendis), I immediately ...

• At October 13, 2008, IronManFan wrote:

  Everyone has the right to free speech regardless of whether they are a celebrity or not. And we have the ...

That attitude describes the same attitude that I think comic writers ought to have with regards to continuity.

Too often, you will have comic book writers go out of their way to acknowledge other stories that do not add anything beneficial to their story, because the other stories are in continuity."

The example I gave two years ago when I first discussed this issue was Gail Simone explaining how Black Canary's actions in an issue of Birds of Prey, which might look odd if going off her actions in the comic book mini-series, Identity Crisis (She gives Batman a lot of grief, which would seem to be an odd knowing that Dinah was among the group of Justice League members who erased Batman's memory because Batman walked in on them giving Dr. Light a lobotomy), was in keeping with the characterization of Black Canary.

It was a fine explanation and I had no problem with it (although, to be honest, it did not even occur to me that the scene would play out as hypocritical), but really, all I could think of while reading it was that the whole scene really had no reason for existence other than to deal with a story from ANOTHER COMIC BOOK.

While, really, Simone should not have to worry about the effect of Identity Crisis upon her characters. She should not have to worry if the characterization of one of her book's stars is retroactively messed with in some other comic, she should be free to ignore it.

SHE shouldn't change because some other book sucked.

Dwayne McDuffie should not have to feel the need to explain in Reginald Hudlin's changes to Black Panther continuity in the pages of Fantastic Four, and I hope we will NOT see that in next month's Fantastic Four (which features Klaw, who was pretty dramatically changed during Hudlin's revamp of Black Panther's origin), although I fear that we will.

Grant Morrison summed up the approach best when he described where his JLA Classified arc (the one that led into Seven Soldiers) existed with DC continuity:

Aquaman has no beard and John Stewart is Green Lantern so it's pretty much set in some kind of current continuity but I'm afraid it's not the gloomy 'adult' world of Sue Dibny's shredded lycra pants; so keep well away if it's attempted rape you crave. Cannibalism, yes, rape, no. My DCU is a day-glo, non-stop funhouse, where the world is threatened every five minutes and godlike beings clash in the skies like fireworks.

And that's the way it should be done.

Use what you want, don't use what you don't want.

Don't feel the need to change your story because someone else wrote a stupid story that involves your characters.

Don't change because someone else sucks.

56 Comments

• At August 2, 2007, Captain Qwert Jr wrote:

  With all other companies, depending on what they want to do, fine. Superman and Batman are so big, they are ...

• At August 2, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  With Marvel, strict continuity is a requirement. It’s one of the foundations, it is built onAnd that's a fine dictum ...

• At August 2, 2007, Michael wrote:

  Also, given that the really strict inter-book continuity didn't come until the Thomas/Engelhart/etc. era of the late '60s and early ...

• At August 2, 2007, Mecha-Shiva wrote:

  I agree that continuity shouldn't, in theory, get in the way of quality. But Marvel and DC put a ...

• At August 2, 2007, Captain Qwert Jr wrote:

  First, let me repeat myself: This only really applies to Marvel. DC and so many others never should have tried ...

• At August 2, 2007, D. Eric Carpenter wrote:

  As long as a story or series is internally consistent, I have no problems with continuity issues. The perfect ...

• At August 2, 2007, Jeff Ryan wrote:

  Without fully suggesting doing what Brian doesn't seem to welcome--which is to turn every new story into a stewing of ...

• At August 2, 2007, jaythe1letterwonder wrote:

  I think the biggest problem with creating strict continuity besides limiting the stories writers can do.It also makes it very ...

• At August 2, 2007, HammerHeart wrote:

  Captain Qwert, if Marvel' continuity is so "solidified", why don't we see any mentions of Namor's puff-himself-up-like-a-blowfish powers or the ...

• At August 2, 2007, Bryan Long wrote:

  Eric Carpenter, I've also found myself turning toward smaller, self-contained titles. Part of it, is, I think, that my tastes ...

• At August 2, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Actually, they dealt with that in a Cap story in 'Tales of Suspense'--Cap had Iron Man remove the magnets because ...

• At August 2, 2007, T. wrote:

  Great points. And not to pile on Gail, but I had this exact problem with how she handled Prometheus ...

• At August 2, 2007, Scavenger wrote:

  T.: except then she's open to criticisms that she's ignoring whats happened to the character elsewhere.

  Brian: so you're saying that ...

• At August 2, 2007, T. wrote:

  oops, i meant to blockquote the last paragraph of john seavey's preceding comment and then respond to it. i've ...

• At August 2, 2007, Scott wrote:

  Conversely, creators should *not* ignore parts of a character's continuity that really don't suck, and are in fact among the ...

• At August 2, 2007, Thenodrin wrote:

  I think that continuity should be followed, but that a story shouldn't slavor to poor continuity to the detriment to ...

• At August 2, 2007, Jacob T. Levy wrote:

  But Simone's so *good* at the patches and fixes! Like Ostrander most of the time, like Geoff Johns much ...

• At August 2, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  I believe Morrison addressed this again when talking about Countdown in an interview, expressing his discontent over the portrayal of ...

• At August 2, 2007, Cove West wrote:

  The Lee/Kirby argument is a little unfair. To use "they were making it up as they went along" to ...

• At August 2, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  I think that each title should have it OWN continuity, ala the All-Star books, but I guess that's not the ...

• At August 2, 2007, Josh wrote:

  It's one thing for a writer to ignore 1 sucky story affecting a character you're writing. but it's another ...

• At August 2, 2007, Tyson wrote:

  Theno said:I think that continuity serves a good purpose. But, I don’t want to read Writer B’s No-Prize style explanation ...

• At August 2, 2007, EvilDeathBee wrote:

  "I think that each title should have it OWN continuity, ala the All-Star books, but I guess that’s not the ...

• At August 2, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Sounds like you're describing Hypertime, Brian.

• At August 2, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Yeah, that's what I mentioned in the first time I did this piece, Dan, back in 2005. But since then, ...

• At August 2, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  I'm right there with you. Hypertime is the Occam's Razor of continuity.

  I want to hug it.

• At August 2, 2007, T. wrote:

  T.: except then she’s open to criticisms that she’s ignoring whats happened to the character elsewhere.

  Sure, that may happen if ...

• At August 2, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  Hypertime is the most logical solution. It's the only way to reconcile things that make no sense whatsoever, no matter ...

• At August 2, 2007, Tim Callahan wrote:

  Douglas Wolk implies in his book that, really, a single comic book issue isn't a chapter in just that series. ...

• At August 2, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  "I agree that it’s absurd to expect every story to fit into continuity, since continuity cannot possibly make sense at ...

• At August 2, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  This is both hilarious, and relevant.

  http://homepage.mac.com/mperpetua/.Public/lettercolumn.jpg

• At August 3, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  This is both hilarious, and relevant.

  http://homepage.mac.com/mperpetua/.Public/lettercolumn.jpg Yeah, I remember that bit.

  Funny stuff, although I think it's also a BIT ...

• At August 3, 2007, Fran wrote:

  I think most of the times there is no a good story worth of ignoring past sories. I mean, recent ...

• At August 3, 2007, Captain Qwert Jr wrote:

  [quote]HammerHeart: Captain Qwert, if Marvel’ continuity is so “solidified”, why don’t we see any mentions of Namor’s puff-himself-up-like-a-blowfish powers or ...

• At August 3, 2007, Russell H wrote:

  The main problem at the moment is that both of the big two are or have recently been involved in ...

• At August 3, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  My problem with Hypertime is that the phrase, "It's all true," is in practice synonymous with "It's all false." (Whoa. ...

• At August 3, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  "Yeah, I remember that bit.

  Funny stuff, although I think it’s also a BIT harsh of a response to some kid ...

• At August 3, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  "It started to fray not because it became too complicated (It’s very simple, really), or because the writers had such ...

• At August 3, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I don’t know, Brian, my instinct is to believe that an editor should nip that kind of thing in the ...

• At August 3, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  Ah, that evergreen tension of serialized fiction, do we trust the writers to serve the story or serve the fans?

• At August 3, 2007, D. Eric Carpenter wrote:

  Don't get me wrong--I can enjoy huge, cosmic storylines that depend on inter-title continuity. I can enjoy Crises and ...

• At August 3, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  The Metal Men thing is a total revamp, you notice like All New Atom and Uncle Sam and the Freedom ...

• At August 3, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  ATOM HOTEP said:

  "I think this comes from an attachment to the entities and properties of the corporation rather than the ...

• At August 3, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  "On the contrary–I think that you can only emotionally connect or react to a story if the writer is willing ...

• At August 4, 2007, Fran wrote:

  Does anyone know any comic-book story that sucked because of following a tight continuity?

  I only know stories sucking because of ...

• At August 4, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  Green Lantern Rebirth is so anal about continuity that it's not possible for me to enjoy it.

• At August 4, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  I'd agree with that one, but I'd point out that it's not just that it's anal about continuity, it's that ...

• At August 4, 2007, ATOM HOTEP wrote:

  Actually you forgot the most important part of the story, which was telling you incessantly how cool and great Hal ...

• At August 4, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Y'know, substitute "Cooke" for "Johns", and you've just described 'New Frontier'. :)

• At August 6, 2007, plok wrote:

  Bah! Barry Allen runs fast in New Frontier, John, did you forget that?

  Also I'd really like to know about ...

• At August 8, 2007, Thenodrin wrote:

  I agree with the 28 Days Later comment. (Did you get to see the original ending, BTW? Before they ...

• At September 24, 2007, Thenodrin wrote:

  Brian,

  Did you stop doing these? I was really enjoying them.

  Theno

• At August 11, 2008, chair wrote:

  dtohik

• At August 13, 2008, iron wrote:

  jxuzb nghqj lipv

• At August 13, 2008, dental wrote:

  onbl

• At August 13, 2008, iron wrote:

  qfzh ijpf afupz

Essentially, the concept is this - there is only a certain amount of grief that a character can suffer before it just overwhelms the entire basis of the character. Therefore, to avoid this, writers will just simply choose to erase the effects of a particular character's death.

To wit, Commissioner Gordon's main point of grief is that the Joker crippled (and perhaps tortured - I do not know what the current stance is on that point) his daughter, Barbara (Batgirl/Oracle) Gordon.

His wife ALSO being murdered by the Joker is just way too much, and as such, it just doesn't get referred to, because doing so would just be overwhelming Gordon with grief.

In the late 80s, after Jason Todd was killed, Batman basically went a bit nuts - that a child in his charge was murdered, it was too much for him to handle. So, later, when a SECOND child in his charge, Stephanie Brown (who was Robin for a short period in time), was murdered, Batman would, theoretically, REALLY lose it, right? You can't go nuts over ONE kid dying, then be okay when a SECOND kid dies, right?

But since no one wants to write a nutso Batman, they just have erased the memory of Stephanie Brown from Batman's history. He just DOESN'T react to her death. No real reason, he just doesn't.

Peter Parker constantly laments the deaths of Uncle Ben and Gwen Stacy, but note that he almost never reflects upon the death of his best friend, Harry Osborn, right? That's because even a character as built upon grief as Peter Parker can't spend THAT much time grieving, so Harry is basically erased from his history.

It really makes you wonder, though, what the point of killing off good characters like Sarah Essen and Stephanie Brown are, if their deaths end up not even really having any effect upon those close to them?

22 Comments

• At July 23, 2007, d.b. wrote:

  Why is it so hard to make a good, likable character yet at the same time so easy to just ...

• At July 23, 2007, Elijah Fly wrote:

  I wish Peter Parker would forget about Gwen Stacy (or mention her less). I'm 25, and she died before I ...

• At July 23, 2007, Alejandro wrote:

  2.Elijah Fly said …

  I wish Peter Parker would forget about Gwen Stacy (or mention her less). I’m 25, and she ...

• At July 23, 2007, Jordan D. White wrote:

  Spider-Man has lamented Harry's death, but it has been a while. His character is fairly robust, though, and can ...

• At July 23, 2007, Michael wrote:

  I dunno. I think the reason they're not mentioned is because their deaths were just cheap ploys, not meant to ...

• At July 23, 2007, Ian wrote:

  Well now I know who Spoiler is.

• At July 23, 2007, Glenn Simpson wrote:

  I think that they are just moving on with their lives, like real people ought to.

• At July 23, 2007, Ian Astheimer wrote:

  Bruce and Steph were never all that close, so I'm not surprised that he didn't go batty over her demise. ...

• At July 23, 2007, Andrew Collins wrote:

  Why do they forget? Superboy Punch. Or Zatanna Mindwipe. That's the answer I'll go with.

• At July 23, 2007, Paperghost wrote:

  I've always hated that ending to No Mans Land. If you're going to run with something so extreme - plugging ...

• At July 23, 2007, mordicai wrote:

  Well, the charge that sexism is behind the erasure of some of those deaths, Stephanie Brown in particular, has been ...

• At July 23, 2007, Cove West wrote:

  Another reason why Essen's and Spoiler's deaths have been mostly forgotten is that immediate subsequent stories of their grievers have ...

• At July 23, 2007, Will wrote:

  For me the most egregious example was when Jubilee, after having her parents, love interest and best friend all die ...

• At July 23, 2007, Joe Gualtieri wrote:

  A couple of points:

  1. Gordon did shoot the Joker at the end of NML... in the knee caps. Theoretically, the ...

• At July 24, 2007, Omega Alpha wrote:

  I think Corsair is the next candidate for the grief about his death being erased. Hepzibah is a D-lister who ...

• At July 24, 2007, Paperghost wrote:

  "1. Gordon did shoot the Joker at the end of NML… in the knee caps."

  Yeah, but that sucks. If (by ...

• At July 26, 2007, Weldon wrote:

  I just don't understand why the publishers think we NEED the 'sliding 5 year window' of estabilished continuity.

  What is WRONG ...

• At July 31, 2007, J-Man wrote:

  Gordon really should mention his wife's death as often as he mentions his daughter's injury. No arguments there.

  But Batman ...

• At August 10, 2007, Thenodrin wrote:

  The problem with expecting characters to age at the same rate that the readers do is that the setting doesn't ...

• At April 17, 2008, Dean wrote:

  I would rather see characters age in real-time. If a character was 15 when he was created in 1963, then ...

• At July 23, 2008, Frankie23 wrote:

  This article takes on an amusingly ironic tone when one considers that most of those dead characters mentioned (specifically Jason ...

• At November 19, 2009, Logan wrote:

  I have always followed Thenodrins reasoning on comic time passing in real time. Especially given that many adventures carry over ...

Let me explain.

The concept of "You changed Character X!" has been a constant complaint since the beginning of serialized comic books (which was roughly Marvel Comics in the 60s).

Steve Gerber got complaints when he brought back the Guardians of the Galaxy in the pages of Marvel Presents that he was ruining their established characterizations.

Fabian Nicieza got complaints during the early issues of New Warriors about how he was ruining Nova's established characterization.

Other changes got more pleasant responses from fans. Like Chris Claremont's changes to Magneto's characterization, or the changes in Sue Richards and Janet Van Dyne from ditzes to heroines who could seriously be considered peers of their fellow males heroes (a change that was more dramatic in the case of the Wasp).

However, in these cases, either the characters involved were minor (see Grant Morrison's changes to Triumph, or Giffen/DeMatteis' changes to, well, pretty much every member of the JLI), the changes came gradually (the Invisible Woman becoming actually, you know, competent and Wally West becoming, well, also competent) or there was some sort of revamp involved(many of the Post-Crisis personality changes).

Chuck Austen's comics changed that.

Austen comics followed what Sean nicely described as an "algebraic approach to comics."

I want C (plot) to happen, and I want B (inciting incident) to be the cause, and I will change A (character) however I have to to make that happen.

In Avengers, characters would act dramatically different than they did from, say, two-three issues earlier.

In Action Comics, Lana Lang would be trying to break up Clark and Lois' marriage out of nowhere, and Lois would be acting like an astonishing bitch to make such a separation seem possible.

In JLA...I don't think I even want to get into "The Sobbing of the Gods," except to note that Ron Garney did a really nice job on the artwork.

Fans complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained and complained (this could go on for a few entries, so I will just stop it right now. Suffice to say, people complained).

Ultimately, Austen ended up off his titles.

But a funny thing happened - while people complained a lot about Austen's comics, they still sold basically the same as before. So while Marvel and DC decided that he was not the right writer for their comics, they seemed to be saying that perhaps other, possibly better writers could use the SAME approach as Austen!

Since then, the "algebraic approach to comics" seems to be precisely what Marvel and DC have used on their titles, from Avengers Disassembled to Identity Crisis to Infinite Crisis to Civil War, it seems like Plot C has been determined, with Reason B being decided as the motivating factor, and so Character A will have to be changed however necessary to make the formula work.

And fans complain and complain and complain (etc.) and sales remain basically the same.

This does not mean that the comics with this approach are BAD (and it does not mean that they are GOOD, either). It just means that the same approach that Austen took to his comics, which was something dramatically different than Marvel and DC had done before, is now the standard being used by Marvel and DC on most of their comics today.

36 Comments

• At July 13, 2007, Paul O'Brien wrote:

  "But a funny thing happened - while people complained a lot about Austen’s comics, they still sold basically the same ...

• At July 13, 2007, T. wrote:

  Personally, I think Mark Millar's work at Marvel is the originator of the algebraic approach.

• At July 13, 2007, Frank wrote:

  Well, you could break down any general approach to writing into an equation, so it's not to say that this ...

• At July 13, 2007, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  That's definitely the approach Millar takes to his writing.

• At July 13, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  Paul,

  Given that you've been analyzing sales for a while, did the X-men movies actually have any REAL impact on the ...

• At July 13, 2007, kymaera wrote:

  I used to be the type that would follow a comic through the low points. Austen changed that for ...

• At July 13, 2007, chroom wrote:

  For Austen-hatred on another level, it's worth trolling through the reviews archive of The X-Axis (www.thexaxis.com).

• At July 13, 2007, Ben Herman wrote:

  I think this explains very well why Chuck Austen's very best work at both Marvel and DC was the U.S. ...

• At July 13, 2007, Ben Herman wrote:

  Where did Sean Whitmore comment upon Austen's Avengers run, anyway? I'm curious to read that post/blog/analysis.

• At July 13, 2007, Eric wrote:

  "Since then, the 'algebraic approach to comics' seems to be precisely what Marvel and DC have used on their titles, ...

• At July 13, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  This isn’t entirely true. Austen was fond of pointing out that his sales on UNCANNY X-MEN were just fine, but ...

• At July 13, 2007, garbonzo wrote:

  I still argue that Chuck Austen's best writing (and art) came from his earliest work: porn comics. It was ...

• At July 13, 2007, Nitz the Bloody wrote:

  Had Austen's comics been written with the intent of comedy instead of drama, it would have been considered the Family ...

• At July 13, 2007, Andrew Collins wrote:

  garbonzo said:

  "I still argue that Chuck Austen’s best writing (and art) came from his earliest work: porn comics. It was ...

• At July 13, 2007, Prankster wrote:

  Seriously, people REALLY REALLY need to stop buying comics they don't like. And start taking a chance on smaller comics ...

• At July 13, 2007, Doug Atkinson wrote:

  Sales on Austen's JLA dropped by about 10,000 over the 6 issues, but it's hard to prove anything by that; ...

• At July 13, 2007, RHJunior wrote:

  Of COURSE sales remained the same. They've already run off all but the most diehard, pathetically desperate fans--- the ones ...

• At July 14, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  I want C (plot) to happen, and I want B (inciting incident) to be the cause, and I will change ...

• At July 14, 2007, Yankee Jones wrote:

  I don't think the ‘algebraic approach to comics’ is as recent a development as you make it out to be.

  See ...

• At July 14, 2007, mtdeeley wrote:

  Frankly, I thought Austen was good on Uncanny X-men. His cast was primarily made up of lesser-known or second-tier ...

• At July 14, 2007, Tony wrote:

  Hmm, I never realized it before, but that entire Algebraic approach is precisely why I hate (Hate, HATE) Teen Titans.

  I ...

• At July 14, 2007, David B wrote:

  I never read Austin's run on the X-men, but I beg to differ with mtdeeley, above:

  Angel was most certainly NOT ...

• At July 14, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  His work was flawed, and never as good on the series he did later. But I liked it better than ...

• At July 14, 2007, Mantistotem wrote:

  I think that what's happening now with Marvel and DC is a slightly different equation. Instead of it being Plot ...

• At July 15, 2007, Bully wrote:

  He also drew a 2-parter for Scott McCloud’s Zot that was pretty spiffy too.

  Holy cow, I loved that...that's the ...

• At July 15, 2007, TF_loki wrote:

  I quite enjoyed his X-men and Avengers runs. Not great but fun.

• At July 15, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  If there was anything that Chuck Austen's X-Men and Avengers runs weren't, it's fun. They were all centered around characters ...

• At July 15, 2007, T. wrote:

  I really don't understand why Brian is crediting this approach as a Chuck Austen creation. I think Bendis and ...

• At July 15, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I note that writers have been "messing" with characterizations of characters for years, but it was almost always minor characters ...

• At July 31, 2007, J-Man wrote:

  I have to concur that Bendis, and to a lesser extent Millar, are much more responsible for this than Austen. ...

• At August 8, 2007, Bill Easter wrote:

  Cronin, if people like Chuck Austen, Brian Michael Bendis, and/or Mark Millar then leave them be. Why is it ...

• At August 8, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Chuck, calm down. Isn't it time to let some of this go? Comics fans don't like you. ...

• At August 8, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Bill, nothing in this piece suggests that one cannot enjoy the works of any of those three writers.

  Heck, of the ...

• At August 9, 2007, Mark Venue wrote:

  Austen was not the first to use this "Algebraic approach". Many other writers in the past have twisted established characters ...

• At August 9, 2007, JJ Utley wrote:

  I agree with Brian when he says Austen took this to an extreme never seen before. As Brian says:

  "In Avengers, ...

• At May 26, 2009, RHJunior wrote:

  "Yet sales remained the same"?

  Isn't that another way of saying that the company has not been growing?

  Or, perhaps, that you ...

My main (heck, I think it may actually be my ONLY) reason is that it is just too nebulous of a definition. Can anyone pin-point what it means to be writing comics like fan-fiction, with the inference being that it is a BAD thing? The way I have often seen it read has been more like "I just don't like this writer's writing, so I am calling it fan-fiction, because it sounds really dismissive."

I don't deny the impact of fan-fiction upon criticism. In fact, one of the most popular terms that I like to use COMES from fan-fiction criticism, namely, Mary Sue, which is when a writer literally writes themselves (or a avatar of themself) into a fan-fiction. Likewise, I asked you folks awhile back to help me with a new definition for an offshoot of Mary Sue, which is when a writer uses a "pet" character in much the same way that fan-fiction writers used characters based on themselves (and, of course, this doesn't preclude the inclusion of a character based on the writer/writer's significant other in the comic, either).

However, as a descriptive term, "fan-fiction" seems about as descriptive to me as "super-hero." In other words, it is not very descriptive at all.

Especially in the post Roy Thomas era, where basically every comic book writer working was first a comic book FAN, so how could they NOT be influenced by their own fan experiences?

How is that a bad thing, per se? The problem to me doesn't seem to be having fans of comics write comics, but rather fans of comics write comics poorly.

I mean, to say New Excalibur is "fan-fiction" seems odd to me, as writing about the characters that he wants to write about was basically how Chris Claremont wrote the Uncanny X-Men for seventeen years. So how is it "fan-fiction" now?

I get criticisms of writers like Geoff Johns who often appear to be a bit too concerned with continuity, so if that is what writing "fan-fiction" means, than I can understand that - but that isn't how it is used all the time, right?

If someone could pinpoint what the term means so that we can apply it critically, that'd be great. I'd appreciate that.

But for the time being, it really appears that "fan-fiction" is just supposed to be universally reviled by everyone, so that just by using the term, a critic can express his/her displeasure with a writer's work.

And that is not all that good of a critique.

61 Comments

• At June 18, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  I Agree.

  I agree a lot.

  I've pounced on people for using the word "Fan-fiction" at least twice on our board.

  Basically, to ...

• At June 18, 2007, Sanagi wrote:

  I'd say it's a valid criticism if a writer makes bad plot choices for the sake of fan service.

• At June 18, 2007, Michael wrote:

  MarkAndrew said pretty much what I wanted to say. "It was like fanfiction" is really no more specific a statement ...

• At June 18, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I’d say it’s a valid criticism if a writer makes bad plot choices for the sake of fan service. Therein ...

• At June 18, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  What does "fan service" mean?

• At June 18, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  What does “fan service” mean? Presumably, he means when a writer writes something with the intent of addressing fan requests, ...

• At June 18, 2007, Michael wrote:

  Well, "fanservice" actually refers to gratuitous panty and bust shots in manga and anime. But American audiences have adapted it ...

• At June 18, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Yeah, good point, Michael, "fan service" is most likely too nebulous, as well.

  Better to just say "I do not think ...

• At June 18, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  I think "it was like fan-fiction" means that the characters are written to be far more powerful, cool, and all-around ...

• At June 18, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  And, I forgot to add, I think it's pretty obvious that if the comparison is being made in a derisive ...

• At June 18, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Well, “fanservice” actually refers to gratuitous panty and bust shots in manga and anime.

  That's what I thought.

  I ...

• At June 18, 2007, Scavenger wrote:

  Mark: Fan Service is ( I believe) originaly a manga/anime term applied to art elements that are in a story ...

• At June 18, 2007, Scavenger wrote:

  The problem with the term is like all things, it's in the eye of the beholder.

  Panther/Storm wedding...is it like bad ...

• At June 18, 2007, Jeff R. wrote:

  In the case of the 5YL/TMK Legion (which is the most frequent target of such criticism), it's mainly because Goofy ...

• At June 18, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  An example of fan fiction…Don Rosa’s entire body of work. Heck, it’s basicly Carl Barks fan-wank continuity porn to the ...

• At June 18, 2007, david wrote:

  Perhaps what people mean when they say "it was like fan-fiction" is that the story in question seems amateurish. ...

• At June 18, 2007, M Bloom wrote:

  It seems to me that the "it's like fan-fiction" line is a sort of knee-jerk reaction to complain about a ...

• At June 18, 2007, acespot wrote:

  For most of the last twenty years, the term "fan-fiction" meant a story using the trademarked characters of others - ...

• At June 18, 2007, Chad Nevett wrote:

  I've always taken the term to mean something written where it seems like the "inner fan" has won out over ...

• At June 18, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Mary Sue-ing is something else entirely though, as when Devin Grayson created a character in Nightwing who was quite obviously ...

• At June 18, 2007, T. wrote:

  I like it as a criticism. Once someone says it, I get a general picture of what the book ...

• At June 18, 2007, acespot wrote:

  Not Tarantula - Sofia!

• At June 18, 2007, acespot wrote:

  Basically, naming a work as "fan-fiction" is no different than saying "I didn't like it. I don't know why, ...

• At June 18, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Well, considering we're talking about comparing something TO fan-fiction, that post is pretty much invalid.

• At June 18, 2007, Kelson wrote:

  Critiquing a comic book by calling it "fan fiction" is like critiquing a film by calling it a "comic book ...

• At June 18, 2007, T. wrote:

  I’ve always taken the term to mean something written where it seems like the “inner fan” has won out over ...

• At June 18, 2007, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  I'd say it's a valid criticism, despite being vague and undoubtedly misused by many people. It's also really hard ...

• At June 18, 2007, T. wrote:

  Basically, naming a work as “fan-fiction” is no different than saying “I didn’t like it. I don’t know why, I ...

• At June 18, 2007, BizarroBeachHead wrote:

  I will say that the term only really works when everybody has a shared understanding of what amateur writing, cliche ...

• At June 18, 2007, acespot wrote:

  See, BBH is able to qualify what he terms as "Bad Fan Fiction" in a few words. So why ...

• At June 18, 2007, thekamisama wrote:

  most people writing comics came in as fans.

  so most of it is more or less fan fiction, ain't it?

  they just ...

• At June 18, 2007, Yankee Jones wrote:

  I think calling something fan-fiction is a completely valid critique for all the reasons T stated.

  When you read something like ...

• At June 18, 2007, T. wrote:

  See, BBH is able to qualify what he terms as “Bad Fan Fiction” in a few words. So why not ...

• At June 18, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  For most of the last twenty years, the term “fan-fiction” meant a story using the trademarked characters of others - ...

• At June 18, 2007, Michael wrote:

  "OK. Given my revised definition of “Fanservice” I think this should be called “Scott Pilgrim syndrome.”"

  Works for me.

• At June 18, 2007, Michael wrote:

  "For example, is “fanfiction” any more vague or subjective than “unfunny?”"

  Yes, because at least "unfunny" is at least a general ...

• At June 18, 2007, T. wrote:

  Yes, because at least “unfunny” is at least a general indicator of quality. “Fanfiction” is completely neutral without a more ...

• At June 18, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Yes, because at least “unfunny” is at least a general indicator of quality. “Fanfiction” is completely neutral without a more ...

• At June 18, 2007, T. wrote:

  “It’s like Fan-Fiction” is craft analysis. It’s comparing the craft of whatever’s being reviewed to the general level of a ...

• At June 18, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  I was actually gonna point this out earlier, but decided my post was long enough as it was.

  I’ve ...

• At June 18, 2007, Ben Herman wrote:

  "I’m guessing this post originally came about from me calling Dwayne McDuffie’s work extra-competent fanfiction in the Declarative Rabbit thread"

  Hmmm, ...

• At June 18, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  “I’m guessing this post originally came about from me calling Dwayne McDuffie’s work extra-competent fanfiction in the Declarative Rabbit thread” ...

• At June 18, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  I totally get the criticism with "fan-fiction" as a criticism, but I don't think that it's a complete critique in ...

• At June 19, 2007, Jack wrote:

  I tried to think of comics where the cheap dismissal of them as being like fan-fiction was heavily bandied, and ...

• At June 19, 2007, acespot wrote:

  The problem is that, as pointed out by some, "fan fiction" characterizes an entire genre of writing. (One could ...

• At June 19, 2007, acespot wrote:

  Case in point: "McDuffie though, has all the bad aspects of fanfiction, except it’s competently executed enough that the laughably ...

• At June 19, 2007, Jaap wrote:

  I'm not going to read all the 46 posts now, so if it has been said before I apologize.

  I ...

• At June 19, 2007, Yankee Jones wrote:

  "Yes, fanfiction is indicative of quality. Fanfiction is usually amateurish and masturbatory. If you are a professional and someone calls ...

• At June 19, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Here's why the fan-fiction comparison, without any explanation, doesn't work as criticism:

  1. Not everyone agrees with, or is even aware ...

• At June 19, 2007, Ian wrote:

  The term fan-fiction is brought into question (appropriatly) but people have been throwing around "Mary Sue" and "Pet Characters" like ...

• At June 19, 2007, T. wrote:

  I don't think new characters are necessarily synonymous with pet characters or Mary Sues. It all depends on whether ...

• At June 19, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Here’s why the fan-fiction comparison, without any explanation, doesn’t work as criticism:

  Well, no comparison without explanation really works as criticism. ...

• At June 19, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  Yes, because at least “unfunny” is at least a general indicator of quality. “Fanfiction” is completely neutral without a more ...

• At June 19, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  most people writing comics came in as fans.

  so most of it is more or less fan fiction, ain’t it?

  they just ...

• At June 19, 2007, acespot wrote:

  Actually, a more basic identifier of fan fiction is UNAUTHORIZED. There are fan fictions out there by professional writers ...

• At June 19, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  No, my definition still covers that. Notice how I said "if you're hired to write THAT STORY".

• At June 19, 2007, T. wrote:

  God help me...I agree with Apodaca!!

• At June 19, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Yes, if your new character comes along, and is outrageously overqualified for their age or experience, is extremely powerful and ...

• At June 20, 2007, Apodaca wrote:

  God help me…I agree with Apodaca!!

  Funny, I've thought that a few times when I've agreed with you.

  I guess even us ...

• At June 26, 2007, Kieron Gillen wrote:

  Late to this I know, but...

  Greg: "I don’t deny the impact of fan-fiction upon criticism. In fact, one of the ...

• At July 31, 2007, J-Man wrote:

  Are there a few good bits of fanfic out there? Yes. Do they represent the majority of fanfic? ...

However, serialized fiction does not work that way (at least not according to the Cronin Theory of Comics, that is, natch). An individual comic, if it is bad, does not suddenly become good because it tied into a bigger story.

You can choose to tell a graphic novel, or you can tell a serialized story. If you tell a serialized story, you have to live and die with each serialized part of the story. If they are bad individually, then they are bad. The story as a whole might very well be good, but that doesn't make Countdown #51 good because Countdown #25 might be.

A whole pile of exposition meant to pay off months from now just makes this a whole pile of exposition with zero pay-off.

That's not a good comic book.

It might very well make a good comic book epic, but individually, they are not good comic books, and that is how serialized fiction is judged - as a whole, yes, but also as each part individually.

To suggest that the readers who disliked it are just being impatient is pretty close to being an insult to the folks who paid $3 a pop to read set-up for LATER issues (and heck, in one issue, they paid to get a scene that already appeared in an earlier comic - the Karate Kid/Batman fight).

That is, if anyone keeps reading past these first few dreadful issues.

66 Comments

• At May 24, 2007, Tim Callahan wrote:

  I couldn't disagree more with you this time, Brian. I don't mind the slower pace of the early Countdown ...

• At May 24, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Why does it have to be a satisfying issue in-and-of-itself? Why is that a rule? Because it is serialized fiction.

  That's ...

• At May 24, 2007, Michael wrote:

  Brian, you're 100% right. The nature of good serial fiction requires what Danny Fingeroth calls "a discrete unit of entertainment." ...

• At May 24, 2007, Michael wrote:

  Or, to put it another way: They're giving us shitty comics now to prepare us for the good comics coming ...

• At May 24, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  It'd be a neat trick if later issues of the series somehow made me think that the three issues I've ...

• At May 24, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  Simply put, one installment should be a satisfying experience in and of itself, not just in relation to all of ...

• At May 24, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  I haven't read Countdown.

  But I think the "Individual Books Meant to Be Read As A Larger Unit" model worked pretty ...

• At May 24, 2007, Levantine wrote:

  I think the reason people don't realize each individual piece of a serialized story needs to be good is because ...

• At May 24, 2007, stealthwise wrote:

  Yeah, the "Heroes" example works well for me, because I watched the first four episodes, was bored out of my ...

• At May 24, 2007, Don wrote:

  I think Grant Morrison said once that "every comic is someone's first comic" and, by that, each one should be ...

• At May 24, 2007, Billy F wrote:

  In Countdown's defense, the first two issues sucked, but the third issue was better. Not great mind you, but ...

• At May 24, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  In Countdown’s defense, the first two issues sucked, but the third issue was better.

  Ah, but did the third issue ...

• At May 24, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  I think Grant Morrison said once that “every comic is someone’s first comic” and, by that, each one should be ...

• At May 25, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  I hear next they’re just gonna try releasing comics one page a week. After a month you get an awesome ...

• At May 25, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  I think Grant Morrison said once that “every comic is someone’s first comic” and, by that, each one should be ...

• At May 25, 2007, Tim Callahan wrote:

  But I don't even think the first three issues of Countdown WERE lame. They didn't have a million things ...

• At May 25, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Sorry, but I think you're completely and totally wrong, here.

  There was no exposition anywhere in the first three issues of ...

• At May 25, 2007, Bully wrote:

  Well said, Brian.

  I'd add a subtlety to this that it's especially important to apply this concept to the first few ...

• At May 25, 2007, Gil wrote:

  I definitely agree with Cronin's overall point. The early issues of 52 were set-up issues, as well. But ...

• At May 25, 2007, Andrew Hickey wrote:

  The big difference between Cerebus and Countdown (other than that Cerebus is, as a whole, possibly the finest work ever ...

• At May 25, 2007, I am MODOK wrote:

  I dropped this series too. I'm hoping that when favorites like Mr. Miracle and Ion show up, I'll be able ...

• At May 25, 2007, Billy F wrote:

  "In Countdown’s defense, the first two issues sucked, but the third issue was better.

  Ah, but did the third issue ...

• At May 25, 2007, sleeper wrote:

  I can't speak to the quality of COUNTDOWN because I haven't read it, and after seeing the initial reviews, I ...

• At May 25, 2007, sleeper wrote:

  Oops. I spelled the word "palette" incorrectly, and that's not even the right word. I meant to say ...

• At May 25, 2007, sleeper wrote:

  "If it’s only going to be worth my money after an issue that comes out six months from now, why ...

• At May 25, 2007, MarkAndrew wrote:

  Hmm. I spent all of last night trying to think of examples other than Cerebus of comics that don't ...

• At May 25, 2007, sleeper wrote:

  MarkAndrew - You might be on to something. I'll see if I can't think up some more examples.

  Feel free ...

• At May 25, 2007, Andrew Hickey wrote:

  MarkAndrew - you may be right about the accessibility of Cerebus, as I read it all as trades. But there's ...

• At May 25, 2007, Paul wrote:

  "What you’re doing is like looking at a 1″ by 1″ square of Van Gogh’s Starry Night and complaining that ...

• At May 25, 2007, sleeper wrote:

  "If the story only works as a trade, just release it as one."

  -Andrew Hickey

  I totally agree. I've been wanting ...

• At May 25, 2007, Cayman wrote:

  I agree with Brian. I've bought three poor issues of Countdown in the naive assumption that eventually something worthwhile would ...

• At May 25, 2007, Patent Dragon wrote:

  This kinda makes me glad I didn't buy into the weekly comic thing... again.

• At May 25, 2007, Nick wrote:

  I've read the first two issues of Countdown and I'm already dropping it. That never happened to me with ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Yeah, sorry, MarkAndrew, if you thought that I was saying issues that were bad individually could not become good when ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Seavey - you said "I think you’re completely and totally wrong, here."

  But then you just spoke to "there is no ...

• At May 25, 2007, Paul wrote:

  "And Paul, what you’re saying is exactly what Andrew Hickey just said."

  Yep. I commented without reading what he wrote. ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  If the product is released individually, it is proper to judge the product as the company releases it.

  If the individual ...

• At May 25, 2007, Doug Atkinson wrote:

  The statement "Every comic is somebody's first" has always annoyed me, because it's attempting to be a prescriptive statement and ...

• At May 25, 2007, T. wrote:

  Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be "Every comic is potentially somebody's first."

• At May 25, 2007, Loren wrote:

  Bendis has a six-issue structure per story: the first issue is set-up, the next two are build-up, the next two ...

• At May 25, 2007, yo go re wrote:

  I agree that a single issue of a comic doesn't need to be good on its own any more than ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I think Lost is a perfect example of this point, except that I would say that I DO expect every ...

• At May 25, 2007, Paul Newell wrote:

  The only problem I have with your whole point is that you could say the exact same thing about every ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  So why focus just on Countdown?

  See the link in the beginning of the piece.

  Dini argues the opposite of my ...

• At May 25, 2007, Paul Newell wrote:

  And by the way. I didn't see anywhere in that interview where Dini says "when Countdown is read as a ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  That's exactly what he says when he explains that the early issues are slow because they are prologues to the ...

• At May 25, 2007, Paul Newell wrote:

  However, serialized fiction does not work that way (at least not according to the Cronin Theory of Comics, that is, ...

• At May 25, 2007, Paul Newell wrote:

  That’s exactly what he says when he explains that the early issues are slow because they are prologues to the ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I think daytime soap operas fit into the mold quite well. The daily format may lead to low expectations of ...

• At May 25, 2007, Paul Newell wrote:

  OOPS! Forgot to add, I think you're reading a lot into that statement he made. I didn't read it the ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  OOPS! Forgot to add, I think you’re reading a lot into that statement he made. I didn’t read it the ...

• At May 25, 2007, Paul Newell wrote:

  Sure I'll say that. But I still disagree with your interpretation of what serialized fiction should be.

  What happened in the ...

• At May 25, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  What happened in the issue of Daredevil?

  It was a whole issue that read like the end of a Colombo episode, ...

• At May 25, 2007, Sean Whitmore wrote:

  I think Lost is a perfect example of this point, except that I would say that I DO expect every ...

• At May 26, 2007, Andrew Hickey wrote:

  "The actual story of Lord of the Rings starts with Chapter Two."

  And if Tolkien had released chapter one on its ...

• At May 26, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Ha! I was all, "Who the heck is Andrew quoting here?"

  Paul must have snuck a comment in while I was ...

• At May 26, 2007, Paul Newell wrote:

  I don't get the "promoted as something substantially different" bit either. What exactly was it promoted as if not a ...

• At May 26, 2007, Paul Newell wrote:

  And if Tolkien had released chapter one on its own, and sold it for £1.50...

  Well his publisher did against his ...

• At May 26, 2007, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  Well it did….Until about 20 years later when it was embraced by the hippy baby-boomers.

  Which was due to the paperback ...

• At May 27, 2007, John Seavey wrote:

  Brian Cronin said:

  "But then you just spoke to “there is no exposition in Countdown,” so I am not sure of ...

• At May 27, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Ha! I actually SORTA thought that was what you were getting at, but I wasn't sure.

• At May 27, 2007, Greg Hatcher wrote:

  I probably shouldn't even bring this up since you all are having so much fun with it as it stands...

  ...but ...

• At May 27, 2007, Alan Coil wrote:

  "An individual comic, if it is bad, does not suddenly become good because it tied into a bigger story."

  You should ...

• At May 28, 2007, Andrew Hickey wrote:

  "The horse is out of the barn. Today’s long stories require chapters, some of which may be better than others."

  Well, ...

• At May 28, 2007, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Oh, totally, Greg. The whole "Cronin Theory" thing I mean to be my personal take on what SHOULD be, ya ...

• At May 28, 2007, Andrew Hickey wrote:

  "don’t get the “promoted as something substantially different” bit either. What exactly was it promoted as if not a comic ...

What I don't think has a (good) place in comic discussion is the detailed plot synopsis. A plot synopsis, by itself, is a bit of a sketchy issue for me - I do them, but I try to keep it as bare-bones as possible, just so that people will understand what the heck I'm talking about when I discuss what I liked and disliked about the comic. Saying that I think there were problems with seeing Bizarro show up and kill people in Infinite Crisis #1 involves me mentioning that that, in fact, occured in Infinite Crisis #1.

But when I see detailed plot synopses out there for "discussions," it just boggles the mind. I understand there's something to be said for reading the comic for yourself, but when you have practically line for line what happens in a comic book - that's bizarre! And I struggle, really, with determing what's MORE bizarre - the fact that people do it, or the fact that other people APPLAUD them for doing it. That this type of buzz-kill discussing is POPULAR amongst a significant portion of comic book fans.

Comic discussion should be about the ideas of the comic and how well you thought the book's creative team expressed them. It should not be, "But what happened on panel 4 of page 15? You weren't specific enough! Did Character X have any lines?"

It's not the worst thing in the world (heck, if people really want to do it on the CBR messageboards, I let them do it), but boy, is it lame. And I'm just a dude who likes to discuss comic books. I can only imagine how lame it must be for the folks who actually WRITE the durn things!

16 Comments

• At October 24, 2006, Paul O'Brien wrote:

  I think you're missing the point of that sort of comics discussion. Those guys are not reviewers or critics, ...

• At October 24, 2006, Brian Cronin wrote:

  That's a very good point, Paul.

  And I think that probably highlights why it irritates me so. Not that it ...

• At October 24, 2006, Rohan Williams wrote:

  I'm not a fan of over-detailed plot synopses either-seriously, if you didn't read the comic, why bother discussing it?- but ...

• At October 24, 2006, I am MODOK wrote:

  I know I'll read up plot summaries on titles I don't read, to generally keep up with the direction of ...

• At October 24, 2006, Ian wrote:

  With the big universes surronding these characters, people often want to know whats going on but not to the point ...

• At October 24, 2006, Edward Liu wrote:

  I find it's easy enough to follow what's happening at a broad strokes level by reading the monthly solicitations. Eventually, ...

• At October 24, 2006, Matthew E wrote:

  In any event, I think there are a lot of superhero comic book fans who have loyalty to a character ...

• At October 24, 2006, Jordan D. White wrote:

  I read a lot of the reviews columns of 52 on various sites (including CBR), and most of them begin ...

• At October 24, 2006, Tom wrote:

  I know when I discover a comics blog I like, I'll often work my way through the archives. That ...

• At October 24, 2006, T. wrote:

  On some comics I like getting detailed plot synopses because I know they'll be bad and I want to mock ...

• At October 24, 2006, Paul LaCroix wrote:

  There are places for it, like the titles Wiki, but plot details should be absent from any review or comentary ...

• At October 24, 2006, yo go re wrote:

  I'm having to drop a lot of titles I like, right now, because financial stuff has gotten really bad. I ...

• At October 25, 2006, FunkyGreenJerusalem wrote:

  Brian: "But when I see detailed plot synopses out there for “discussions,” it just boggles the mind. I understand there’s ...

• At October 25, 2006, David C wrote:

  The main problem with plot synopses is that, especially for the typical superhero comic book, it's really hard to make ...

• At October 26, 2006, Brad Curran wrote:

  "But “straight” plot synopses of comics can be pretty deadly. I remember back in the day, the magazine “Amazing Heroes” ...

• At July 30, 2007, J-Man wrote:

  "I think you’re missing the point of that sort of comics discussion. Those guys are not reviewers or critics, and ...

Where the trouble lies, though, is when the writer of Character C starts to be concerned that Character C is slower than Character A and B.

That way lies madness!!

It doesn't matter if Bronze Tiger can beat your character up!

I like Bronze Tiger. I think he was used quite nicely by John Ostrander in Suicide Squad. Part of Bronze Tiger's background is that he was a really good martial artist. Heck, that was pretty much ALL he had going for him in the abilities department. He couldn't fly or lift a car or whatever. He could just beat people up. It didn't define him as a character, but it was a pretty notable attribute. The thing is, as soon as Suicide Squad was cancelled, Bronze Tiger suddenly couldn't beat up a single notable DC character.

And I think that's just silly. Conner Hawke and Black Canary are both interesting characters. I think they're both filled with a lot of depth of characterization - really fully realized characters. So why should it matter if Bronze Tiger could beat them up? At the end of the day, they're still the better, more interesting characters, even if they might lose a fight to a character like Bronze Tiger.

But instead, it has become this status symbol that whoever is currently being featured get pumped up so that they are one of, if not THE best at whatever it is that they're specialists in. It's no longer enough to be an interesting character who is really good at a lot of things - he/she has to be categorically better than other characters.

And I think it is unnecessary. Writers should just concern themselves with writing interesting characters - it doesn't matter where they "rank" or "compare" with other heroes.

Recently, Reginald Hudlin had Black Panther outdo Dr. Doom at building armor!! Building armor!!! What the heck is up with THAT? It just seems so...needy. Not only needy, it seems almost lazy. An example of telling, rather than showing. Like when everyone would talk about how The Ray was the most powerful character in the DC Universe...until Damage was...until Takion was....you get the drift.

So here's a deal, writers, please just write interesting characters, and leave the Comparative Hierarchy to fan-discussions or message boards.

23 Comments

• At September 11, 2006, Michael wrote:

  Beating so-and-so at such-and-such is often a hint of Mary-Sue-ism.

• At September 11, 2006, Paperghost wrote:

  I'm still trying to work out why Ralph Dibny is always alluded to now as "best detective in the world ...

• At September 11, 2006, David wrote:

  On Dibney, I remember James Robinson's Starman taking great pains to show him as a great detective who still recognized ...

• At September 11, 2006, Ken Raining wrote:

  It's kinda like pro wrestling, where the guy getting the push at the moment will automatically come out on top, ...

• At September 11, 2006, T. wrote:

  In the 90s there was a stage where DC (well, Dixon especially) was ranking the top 5 martial artists every ...

• At September 11, 2006, Evan Waters wrote:

  This just occured to me, but it's like pro wrestling. How many matches you win is based on how much ...

• At September 11, 2006, Tilt Araiza wrote:

  I think some of this tendency caused the escalation in Batman being a jerk. If a writer wanted to ...

• At September 11, 2006, T. wrote:

  Yes Evan, "jobbing" is a very good term for the phenomenon where you are supposed to lose just for the ...

• At September 11, 2006, Paperghost wrote:

  "So, the Justice League jobs for Deathstroke to try and make him look better, then Deathstroke jobs for the Birds ...

• At September 11, 2006, Beta Ray Steve wrote:

  I think the JLA/Deathstroke thing was meant to show how out-of-sorts the JLA were.

  The obsession with ranking is a symptom ...

• At September 11, 2006, David C wrote:

  It just occurred to me one thing that bugs me about the "ranking" obsession. When it's used, it tends ...

• At September 11, 2006, MarkAndrew wrote:

  That IS really annoying.

  It's also weird how it's different for both companies.

  At Marvel Spider-man is more or less equal to ...

• At September 11, 2006, R.Nav wrote:

  ..but.. but... Doom is a bad guy who makes Armor. That's like his thing. He put all his character points ...

• At September 11, 2006, Omar Karindu wrote:

  All of which makes me love Journey into Mystery #112 all the more, as the entire point of the story ...

• At September 11, 2006, "O" - the Humanatee! wrote:

  "..but.. but… Doom is a bad guy who makes Armor. That’s like his thing. He put all his character points ...

• At September 11, 2006, Bright-Raven wrote:

  What can I say, Brian? It's more important to have people always trying to prove that Wolverine isn't "the best ...

• At September 11, 2006, Michael wrote:

  "Can an entire country be a Mary Sue? (Marysuevania?)"

  As I pointed out on my own blog, Hudlin's Wakanda answers that ...

• At September 12, 2006, SanctumSanctorumComix wrote:

  That's why I got to give props to MAN-THING.

  He is really good as standing around like a tree or sitting ...

• At September 13, 2006, J to the A.A.P. wrote:

  I stopped checking out Black Panther when Hudlin introduced "The Klaw!" in such an incredibly corny way it even 'out-cornied' ...

• At May 12, 2007, chroom wrote:

  For the record, Bronze Tiger could beat me up.

• At July 30, 2007, J-Man wrote:

  It DOES matter if Bronze Tiger can beat you up. Because that creates the possibility of being beaten up ...

• At May 11, 2009, ernest peterson wrote:

  Why is ever body picking the Bronze Tiger, he is the best matrial artist in the DC UNIVERS..!!!!!! no matter ...

• At September 12, 2009, Mary Warner wrote:

  I think one of the things I love about Spider-Man is that he can beat some of the most powerfull ...

"What do you mean by compete, Brian?," you might ask. Well, here's what I mean...

I recently spoke about how I thought that killing off Tech 9 in Blood Syndicate was a major mistake, and I think that the reason it occured was due to writer Ivan Velez, Jr. competing with his readers. To wit, it appeared as though he was approaching the book from an angle of, "What would the readers never expect? THAT's what I'll do, to throw a curve ball at them!"

That way, I think, lies madness (and doesn't do well for the quality of stories, either).

Joe Casey once said

Who cares if readers guess a mystery beforehand? Does that somehow invalidate the first idea you might've had before the public guessing games began? Is it really about proving that you're smarter than you're readers? That you're always thinking ahead of them? Aren't you supposed to be doing that anyway? Isn't that a primary mandate of writing comicbooks... especially superhero comicbooks?

I heartily endorse this way of writing.

Just write what you want to write. Do not concern yourself if it will "shock" readers. Do not concern yourself with how different your story is from "typical" comic stories, especially as qute often, there's a very good reason WHY a certain style of story is "typical." It is often because it just plain WORKS. So just concentrate on writing a good story. This is especially applicable when it comes to "shocks." Here's a truism - there are more readers of a comic book than there are writers of a comic book. The odds are not in favor of the writer pulling one over on the whole audience, and that's okay!

Don't get me wrong, if a story is BUILT around a "secret" that is extremely obvious, then that's silly, but that's not a problem having to do with the secret, but rather the idea of building a story AROUND the secret.

It is easy to shock your readers, if that's your goal. You can always just come up with some crazy thing out of nowhere.

It is difficult to shock your readers while writing a good comic book.

I don't think the expense of a good comic is worth the benefit of a surprise and/or shock.

17 Comments

• At July 15, 2006, John Seavey wrote:

  And also, if you don't mind my adding a coda: They will never be surprised the second time they read ...

• At July 15, 2006, Joe Casey wrote:

  I may have said that, Brian... but I've never done it.

  Others have, though. Many others.

  Joe

• At July 15, 2006, mattcomics wrote:

  Hello. Short-time reader, first time poster.

  I'm glad I'm not the only one who has felt this. What you have ...

• At July 15, 2006, Michael M wrote:

  I agree wholeheartedly.

  IMO the last couple of years have been about nothing but trying to outwit the fanboys, at least ...

• At July 15, 2006, Brian Cronin wrote:

  I may have said that, Brian… but I’ve never done it.

  See, Joe, that's why I need someone to find me ...

• At July 15, 2006, T. wrote:

  I just want to point out that there are other ways to "beat" the reader besides just shocking or outwitting ...

• At July 15, 2006, Kyle Bachan wrote:

  I agree completely. This is kind of what happened to M Night on releasing the Village or really any of ...

• At July 15, 2006, yo go re wrote:

  John Seavey said "'Armageddon 2001,' where they changed the identity of the villain mid-way through the story because the truth ...

• At July 15, 2006, L8on wrote:

  I think you're thinking of this column:

  http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=tbt&article=2334

  In it, Joe Casey says:

  Who cares if readers guess a mystery beforehand? Does that ...

• At July 16, 2006, Brian Cronin wrote:

  Sounds good to me, L8on!

  Wise words from Joe there.

• At July 17, 2006, jake saint wrote:

  I believe it is now possible to guess "shocks" beforehand based on their "surprise factor", and not from foreshadowing or ...

• At July 17, 2006, Dan Coyle wrote:

  I don't care what writers think of fans... unless they're openly contemptuous. Which makes me wonder why they even write ...

• At July 17, 2006, T. wrote:

  I see what you mean Dan, but in what Brian describes it can cause the story to suffer, even if ...

• At July 17, 2006, Dan Coyle wrote:

  Well, by "openly contemptuous" I mean what Bill Willingham said in response to Leslie Tompkins being a murderer, Any Devin ...

• At July 17, 2006, Dan Coyle wrote:

  And lest anyone think I'm ganging up on DC creators, two words for ya: "Chuck Austen", who blames all his ...

• At July 30, 2007, J-Man wrote:

  Kyle, I agree mostly, but I would say post-Unbreakable, not post-Sixth Sense. I thought Unbreakable kicked ass.

• At August 10, 2007, Thenodrin wrote:

  Re: M Night

  I think that the main reason M Night gets a lot of flak is that the viewer is ...