Superman Through the Ages! Forum

The Superman Family! => Other Superfriends => Topic started by: JulianPerez on November 16, 2005, 03:19:13 PM



Title: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: JulianPerez on November 16, 2005, 03:19:13 PM
One would imagine that when writers and artists break away from the so-called Big Two to start their own companies and create their own worlds in creator owned comics, that they would relish in the removal of the "rules" that bound them at the first two companies and start telling stories that they couldn't tell at their previous employers, just because of how the Marvel and DC Universes work. After all, there's so MUCH to superheroes, so much potential, that what the two big companies do only really scratches the surface.

One would think they would go all out and create comics about Superheroes in caveman days, mutant cowboys vs. mutant Indians, superheroes whose primary job is fighting werewolves and dinosaurs in a post-apocalyptic world. What would superheroes be like in Ancient China (the idea of superpowered guys with laser-vision fighting Kung Fu on mountains is an idea so spectacular I really hope someone does it soon)? Why not think of superheroes as a normalized, science fiction element to do worldbuilding around, like in LORD OF LIGHT?

One of the comics that really fulfills the promise of creating a take on superheroes very different from the Big Two companies, is the absolutely wonderful MONKEYMAN AND O'BRIEN, a comic which draws more from b-movies and monster yarns, featuring atypical Doc Savage-esque protagonists without secret identities or costumes, but who nonetheless have weird powers and deal with science fiction elements, like giant ants and wield wondrous gadgets and devices.

The wonderful HELLBOY by the always brilliant Mignola also is another case of a superhero comic, that nonetheless is very different from what the standard two companies put out, with an emphasis on supernatural events, and stories that are more mystery-centered and less action-centered.

Jim Shooter's underrated, excellent NEW UNIVERSE, torn down venomously by much smaller and pettier men than he, that would never dare speak against him when he was EIC of Marvel but demolished his work the moment he no longer had authority, was a case of another such universe: superheroes and superpowers treated as a science fiction element, with emphasis on plausibility, which didn't take the conventions of the superhero story for granted.

Even a tiny change in terminology really gives a superhero comic a different feel: notice how different the ABC World is as a result of Alan Moore using a term like "Science-Heroes" and "Science-Renegades."

It really says something about how narrow the comic book superhero genre is considered to be that when Kurt Busiek did ARROWSMITH, a comic book that is, in essence, a superhero story about men that fly with dragon boots and baby dragon sidekicks in World War I, filled with the fanciful fantasy elements that define superhero comics, like sea monsters and flying ships and rock trolls and satyrs immigrating to the United States - and yet nobody is calling it a superhero comic.

(Interestingly enough, Miami film critic Rene Rodriguez has pointed out that THE MATRIX is basically a superhero comic book adaptation without a superhero comic book to adapt from: it had the Kung Fu, the superpowers, the mechanical monsters, the alternate dimensions...it feels more similarities to King Kirby than an Arnold Schwartzenegger kill 'em up)

A former girlfriend that read Romance novels told me that it is very hard to find a decent Romance novel, because the best ones involve romance as the focus, but also have mysteries and suspense aspects as well. If it DOES, however, despite the book's primary focus on romance, if it involves police drama or jewel robbery even as SUBPLOTS, then the book is placed in the "THRILLER" section. The only ones that remain in the Romance section are books with stereotypical romance plots and covers. One can draw obvious comparisons to superhero comics.

Instead of showing the many different kinds of stories that superheroes can tell, what do the smaller comics do? Create Marvel/DC clone universes.

Superhero universes in the model of the Big Two have several traits distinct to them:

1) Superheroes take codenames and wear distinctive costumes that are skintight and colorful;

2) The world is assumed to be "supermarket tabloid" in style, with magic, UFOs, Bigfoot, Viking Gods, and Mole Men assumed to share the world as inhabitants;

3) Those that obtain superpowers are neatly divided into two categories: those who, independently, decide to use their powers altruistically, like a superpowered cross between a Sherriff in the Old West and Red Cross workers, and others that use their powers for selfish gain ("supervillains.")

4) There always tends to be a Superman or Captain America duplicate figure that is the rallying point for the entire setting, who is supremely morally incorruptible and noble.

5) There tends to be a Justice League/Avengers clone organization that is the meeting point for the big heroes of the setting.

6) Superhero worlds have nearly identical histories: superheroes first show up in World War II, disappear, and then return fairly recently.

It's this last one that bugs me the most because it shows that even something as arbitrary as when superheroism begins is xeroxed mindlessly, everywhere from the IMPACT line, to the Maximum Press world, to ASTRO CITY, to FLARE in heroic publishing, to things as diverse as the Freedom City manuals for Mutants and Masterminds (if I was Kurt Busiek, I'd call my lawyer, because that gaming book Freedom City was such a rip-off of his Astro City that it filled even me with rage, even down to the road signs that start and stop the book - Michael Moorcock put it best when he said that "homage" is like someone stealing your television and then saying, "hey, you have great taste in televisions.")

Yes, we all know World War II was pretty important in the history of superhero comics, but here's the thing: that does not mean that the world that YOU are creating, Mr. John Q. Comicswriter, has to have superheroes kick off at the same time. Just because superheroes stopped selling in the 1950s does not mean that superheroism on your earth has to die off at the same time. And so on.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Maximara on November 16, 2005, 06:02:43 PM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
nstead of showing the many different kinds of stories that superheroes can tell, what do the smaller comics do? Create Marvel/DC clone universes.

Superhero universes in the model of the Big Two have several traits distinct to them:

1) Superheroes take codenames and wear distinctive costumes that are skintight and colorful;

2) The world is assumed to be "supermarket tabloid" in style, with magic, UFOs, Bigfoot, Viking Gods, and Mole Men assumed to share the world as inhabitants;

3) Those that obtain superpowers are neatly divided into two categories: those who, independently, decide to use their powers altruistically, like a superpowered cross between a Sherriff in the Old West and Red Cross workers, and others that use their powers for selfish gain ("supervillains.")

4) There always tends to be a Superman or Captain America duplicate figure that is the rallying point for the entire setting, who is supremely morally incorruptible and noble.

5) There tends to be a Justice League/Avengers clone organization that is the meeting point for the big heroes of the setting.

6) Superhero worlds have nearly identical histories: superheroes first show up in World War II, disappear, and then return fairly recently.

It's this last one that bugs me the most because it shows that even something as arbitrary as when superheroism begins is xeroxed mindlessly, everywhere from the IMPACT line, to the Maximum Press world, to ASTRO CITY, to FLARE in heroic publishing, to things as diverse as the Freedom City manuals for Mutants and Masterminds (if I was Kurt Busiek, I'd call my lawyer, because that gaming book Freedom City was such a rip-off of his Astro City that it filled even me with rage, even down to the road signs that start and stop the book - Michael Moorcock put it best when he said that "homage" is like someone stealing your television and then saying, "hey, you have great taste in televisions.")

Yes, we all know World War II was pretty important in the history of superhero comics, but here's the thing: that does not mean that the world that YOU are creating, Mr. John Q. Comicswriter, has to have superheroes kick off at the same time. Just because superheroes stopped selling in the 1950s does not mean that superheroism on your earth has to die off at the same time. And so on.


I see what you are saying but I think the above is the fact that because of the slump the Comic book marked is in no one really wants to experiment. Even the RPG suppliment GURPS Supers fell into the above pattern - heroes emerge during WWII, McCarthy and the HoUA cripples them during much of the 50's the 60's sees a rebirth and so on.

The reason I believe is because WWII had so many secret projects that making superhereos part of them is easy. It was also the last epreiod where we really had a moral certainty. After that things becing to bo merky and darker.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Johnny Nevada on November 16, 2005, 08:31:51 PM
>>

6) Superhero worlds have nearly identical histories: superheroes first show up in World War II, disappear, and then return fairly recently.
<<

Well, true except for the pre-Crisis Earth-One anyway, which depending on which decade one views Superboy as having debuted in, didn't have any superheroes during World War II...


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Anonymous on November 16, 2005, 09:37:56 PM
actually i think the significance of world war II to comics is the fact the real world had someone who is recognized as the real worlds only legitamate super-villian in modern times.

super-villian in terms of a world threat not powers.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Permanus on November 17, 2005, 04:58:57 AM
I see your point, but I don't really think there's any harm in it. The superhero genre was invented just before World War II, so I suppose most comics creators kind of slip into an unconscious hommage mode, creating a reality in which the world was pretty much the way we knew it until the 1930s, and then, ker-pow, everything changed. (To be fair, this isn't always the case: Astro City certainly hints at superheroes being around since the Wild West, and one character, the Old Soldier, seems to be as old as war itself. Similarly, the recent video game City of Heroes/City of Villains mentions a French superhero dating back to the 17th century!) The look, feel and staple accessories of superhero comics -- sleek spaceships, outlandish costumes, ray guns -- were created during the 1940s, and have a sort of late Art Nouveau quality, so it makes sense that, when creating a superhero-populated universe, you sort of feel obliged to explain this by imputing its origins to that period. True, this may impose certain artistic restrictions on the genre; it's just a difficult thing to shake off.

Most genres are somehow associated with a certain era: hardboiled private detectives of the Marlowe/Spillane mold seem to suit the 1930s better. Other genres are linked to a certain era by virtue of what they are: Sword-and-Sorcery stuff has to take place in some distant past, and the Scarlet Pimpernel simply wouldn't work if his adventures took place during the Soviet revolution. War movies are bound to a given era because they have to be seen to take place during one conflict or another. People expect certain locales and accoutrements from genre fiction, and that's what they like about it. You don't watch a Robin Hood movie because you believe in redistribution of wealth: you watch it because you dig castles, archery and swordfights.

I suppose another reason why the superhero genre in particular is so tied to WW2 is that the war changed the world in a way few conflicts have, at least in modern times, and gave the world the dubious gift of the atomic weapon. In a way, the superhero is a sort of metaphor for the atom bomb: a very powerful thing that can change the world.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: TELLE on November 17, 2005, 07:48:05 AM
Quote from: "Permanus"
You don't watch a Robin Hood movie because you believe in redistribution of wealth: you watch it because you dig castles, archery and swordfights.


I would watch a Robin Hood movie set in the Russian Revolution!  It works for me.  Why choose between archery and redistribution of wealth when they work so well together?


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Gangbuster on November 17, 2005, 01:56:19 PM
Quote from: "TELLE"
Why choose between archery and redistribution of wealth when they work so well together?


LOL! Amen...

quote of the day.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on November 17, 2005, 02:52:53 PM
Then there's The Flame and The Arrow -= set in Medieval Italy and I did a modern spin on a senior computer hacker pil;fering the Bush regime and redsitributing it to Katrina victims.

Only in the Weekly World News, kids.......

good. evil. arrows. swords. BOOYAH


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 17, 2005, 04:24:01 PM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
It really says something about how narrow the comic book superhero genre is considered to be that when Kurt Busiek did ARROWSMITH, a comic book that is, in essence, a superhero story about men that fly with dragon boots and baby dragon sidekicks in World War I, filled with the fanciful fantasy elements that define superhero comics, like sea monsters and flying ships and rock trolls and satyrs immigrating to the United States - and yet nobody is calling it a superhero comic.


I don't think that says anything particularly narrow about the superhero genre -- the only reason, to my mind, to think of ARROWSMITH as a superhero story is that it's a comic book, which makes the association closer.  But Fletcher Arrowsmith fits very few of the classic superhero tropes.  He doesn't have superpowers (his "powers" are the result of training and technology; anyone can be taught to do what he does and thousands have been), he doesn't wear a costume (military uniform), use a codename, he isn't on a self-directed idealistic mission (he's idealistic, but he's a soldier, doing a job under military command).  The people he works with and fights are not unusual -- they're a normal part of his world, one that's been around over a millennium.  Tell the identical story in prose, and ARROWSMITH is solidly, unequivocally genre fantasy, no more a superhero tale than LORD OF THE RINGS or OPERATION: CHAOS.

And sure, there are exceptions to all the above superhero tropes -- characters who are considered superheroes who don't have that aspect (Batman has no powers, Doc Savage has no codename, the Hulk has no idealistic mission and on and on), but very few who don't have any of them.

That said, I think much of the appeal of World War II comes from people creating superhero worlds that "feel like" what they already like.  In the case of ASTRO CITY, it's that way because I want to tell stories in a setting similar enough to the general superhero world so that I can roam about in it as I please, while it's still mine to shape and develop.  But I want a Golden Age era because I want those resonances.

I could see creating a superhero world where the heroes first arose during he McCarthy Era, but that puts a different spin on them, one that would affect the characters even in the present, which is fine for those who'd want to tell that story, but that's not what I want for that particular series.  

And there are superheroes that have no Golden Age heritage at all -- the Power Rangers, the Charlton heroes (before they were brought into the DCU), Nexus, the Shadow, Zorro, the Topps Kirbyverse and so on.  Those who do, it seems to me, do so either for the same reasons DC and Marvel do (they were around then or are built on characters who were) or because they're emulating that kind of structure.

Or because Nazis are cool villains.

I've been playing around with ideas for a superhero shared-world setting the last few years, and I have no idea whether I'll ever do anything with it, but you'll be happy to know there's no Golden Age era to it.  There might be some characters who are the result of Nazi eugenics experiments, but they emerge generations later, and there is no Lobster Johnson or Captain America in their past.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: JulianPerez on November 17, 2005, 05:29:09 PM
Quote from: "Maximara"
I see what you are saying but I think the above is the fact that because of the slump the Comic book marked is in no one really wants to experiment. Even the RPG suppliment GURPS Supers fell into the above pattern - heroes emerge during WWII, McCarthy and the HoUA cripples them during much of the 50's the 60's sees a rebirth and so on.


Do people buy a game series because you’d get a “store brand” version of the Big Two Universes? Maybe. At least the way I figure it, if I’m going to have a Brand X Superman, I might as well have him be the ACTUAL Superman!

Quote from: "Johnny Nevada"
Well, true except for the pre-Crisis Earth-One anyway, which depending on which decade one views Superboy as having debuted in, didn't have any superheroes during World War II...


True, but not ENTIRELY true. Nightwing pointed out that BRAVE AND THE BOLD had the Earth-1 Manhunter active on Earth-1 at the same time as his Earth-2 counterpart -  making him the one World War II hero active at the same time on both earths. Also, Superboy’s early adventures are set clearly in the 1930s, at least at the beginning; like the Marvel Heroes, the date of Superboy’s adventures have “slid” further and further up as time went on. In one of the two-parters for SUPERBOY AND THE LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES (the one right after they fight Grimbor the Chainsman) the Legion returns to the era Superboy lived in, and it was clearly the 1960s, down to the black and white televisions and underground nuclear testing.

Quote from: "Permanus"
The look, feel and staple accessories of superhero comics -- sleek spaceships, outlandish costumes, ray guns -- were created during the 1940s, and have a sort of late Art Nouveau quality, so it makes sense that, when creating a superhero-populated universe, you sort of feel obliged to explain this by imputing its origins to that period. True, this may impose certain artistic restrictions on the genre; it's just a difficult thing to shake off.


This may be the most direct explanation for the phenomenon, although ray guns and rocketships were around from 1900-1960. Just the same, the World War II period seems to be the Locus for all superhero activities.

The 1930s Art Deco aesthetic is absolutely wonderful (it’s part of what makes TOM STRONG so much fun) and the patriotic “beat back the devil” directness and flag waiving of the 1940s equally so, however, superheroes are so broad that they can work with many kids of visual aesthetics, styles, and times. Lots of great superhero stuff, for example, was done with a distinct 60s counterculture vibe: Ditko’s DR. STRANGE, Jack Kirby’s JIMMY OLSEN and FOREVER PEOPLE, the AVENGERS issues that have Captain America reading Tolkien and saying “far out.”

Quote from: "Permanus"
In a way, the superhero is a sort of metaphor for the atom bomb: a very powerful thing that can change the world.


Someone once said that the world would be more different the FEWER superpowered beings there are, and the more like ours the MORE there are. The reason the Watchmen world is so different from our own is because there’s only one Doctor Manhattan. On the other hand, the reason the Marvel Universe is so much like our own, Viking Gods and Russian super-monkeys notwithstanding, is that there’s a Charles Xavier to block Magneto’s objectives, and vice-versa.

Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
The people he works with and fights are not unusual -- they're a normal part of his world, one that's been around over a millennium.


The idea that what defines superheroes is that they are special and not a normalized a part of the way the world works that society takes into account, may not necessarily be the definition of a superhero. Some interesting work is left to be done involving a setting where superheroes and the superpowered are incorporated into a setting: the fact that superheroes exist changes how the world works, in a more profound ways than the Big Two universes.

One of the things that was most interesting and innovative things about the Silver Age Green Lantern is that he is a “cog in a vast machine,” as the DC Encyclopedia put it, someone whose superheroism is incorporated into worldbuilding: the Guardians, the other Green Lanterns, and so on.

Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
I don't think that says anything particularly narrow about the superhero genre -- the only reason, to my mind, to think of ARROWSMITH as a superhero story is that it's a comic book, which makes the association closer.


Interesting point, that medium does play a role in classification. If Roger Zelazny’s LORD OF LIGHT or E.E. Smith’s Lensman books was anything other than prose novels – a movie, television show, a comic book, they would probably be called “superhero” due to the superpowered, confident protagonists and monsters.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 17, 2005, 06:44:58 PM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
Do people buy a game series because you’d get a “store brand” version of the Big Two Universes?


Probably.  They likely want the game so they can have adventures like the ones in the comics rather than to break new ground.  I'd similarly expect games based on pulp storytelling to feature the kind of thing you'd see in the pulps, including faux-Fu-Manchus, rather than, say, pulp-adventure recast in a cyberpunk world.  The latter might be interesting, but not what they're selling.

Dungeons & Dragons, after all, offers store-brand, one-stop shopping for an exhaustive catalog of elements of heroic fantasy and high fantasy, and did quite well with it.  Games that offer significant variations in the way the universe is set up -- like SHADOWRUN, say -- come off as an alternative more than as an improvement.  And even SHADOWRUN captures a pre-existing subgenre.

Quote
Quote from: "Johnny Nevada"
Well, true except for the pre-Crisis Earth-One anyway, which depending on which decade one views Superboy as having debuted in, didn't have any superheroes during World War II...


True, but not ENTIRELY true. Nightwing pointed out that BRAVE AND THE BOLD had the Earth-1 Manhunter active on Earth-1 at the same time as his Earth-2 counterpart -  making him the one World War II hero active at the same time on both earths.


Steel, the Indestructible Man, was an Earth-One hero when introduced, an Earth-Two hero when he turned up in ALL-STAR SQUADRON and an Earth-One hero again when his grandson took on the mantle.  I forget whether they explained it by saying there were two of them or that he was commuting.

Quote
Also, Superboy’s early adventures are set clearly in the 1930s, at least at the beginning; like the Marvel Heroes, the date of Superboy’s adventures have “slid” further and further up as time went on.


The big difference with Superboy is that his timeline didn't slide so much as make great galumphing leaps from time to time.  The stories were set in the 1930s until DC realized that the time gap was too long, and updated Superboy to the late Fifties or early Sixties.  After that, they slid for a bit, so that Superman, Superboy and Superbaby all met JFK.

Quote
The idea that what defines superheroes is that they are special and not a normalized a part of the way the world works that society takes into account, may not necessarily be the definition of a superhero.


Nor did I say that it is, of course.  I don't think there is any one definition of superhero that cleanly includes all those we consider to be superheroes and excludes those we don't -- I think there are hallmarks to the genre, and if a series exhibits enough of those hallmarks, we consider it a superhero series.  But the fact that Fletcher Arrowsmith does things most people can't, given specialized equipment and training, is no different in hias world to a fighter pilot in ours doing things most people can't, because they don't have the equipment or training.

There are ways that characters who match that description can still be considered superheroes -- Green Lantern, for one, as you note -- and many of the Legion of Super-Heroes don't even need specialized equipment; there are millions who can do what they do.  But they have enough other hallmarks of the genre to outweigh that.

Were Green Lantern only to fight aliens and have space missions, there were no other super-characters on Earth, and he didn't have a secret identity, then he'd feel more like an SF hero, albeit one with a pretty sharp costume.  But as a character who fights Dr. Polaris, hides his ID from Carol Ferris and joins up with the JLA, he's a superhero, in much the same way that Dr. Strange is a superhero largely because he's part of the Marvel Universe, but a fantasy character if he wasn't in that context.

Quote
Interesting point, that medium does play a role in classification.


I don't think it should, actually -- I think it's something that skews people's perceptions, brings expectations to the table that wouldn't be there otherwise.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Maximara on November 18, 2005, 01:39:17 AM
Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
Do people buy a game series because you’d get a “store brand” version of the Big Two Universes?


Probably.  They likely want the game so they can have adventures like the ones in the comics rather than to break new ground.  I'd similarly expect games based on pulp storytelling to feature the kind of thing you'd see in the pulps, including faux-Fu-Manchus, rather than, say, pulp-adventure recast in a cyberpunk world.  The latter might be interesting, but not what they're selling.


Actaully GURPS Supers went for a more extreme version of the Marvel pattern than the one DC had. Ie most of the superheroes of the 1940's were Captain America/mystery men types. So no flight powers until the mid 1950's and many other powers don't show up until the 1960's.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Permanus on November 18, 2005, 03:54:32 AM
I was thinking about Julian's original point yesterday, and was wondering if anyone had ever written about a universe in which superheroes had simply always been around. As he points out, in most superhero takes, the superhero is seen by the general public as a relatively new and exotic phenomenon. This is true even in Astro City, where superheroes are rife, but obviously a pretty recent development.

So I got to thinking about a civilisation in which superheroes have just always existed, as far back as recorded history goes(and even as far back as archaelogical evidence goes). Every generation, a small portion of humanity gets superpowers either by accident of birth, being hit by meteorites or learning the secrets of the Orient. It might be pretty nifty: there'd be nothing really special about superheroes, and people would spend more time arguing about their choice of costumes and name than their amazing feats, since it would be pretty hard for a superhero to come up with anything original. Being a superhero would be a sort of art form. Would there be any myths or even religion? Wars? Beats me.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: JulianPerez on November 18, 2005, 04:46:41 AM
Alan Moore said in a TOMORROW STORIES that "Superheroes must love the 1940s. It was the last time they were even vaguely relevant." I'm not the email type, but I really, REALLY wish Alan Moore had an email address so that I could ask him what he meant by this.

One problem, related to the dependency on World War II as anchor point for a superhero universe, that when creating a world whole-cloth, a lot of writers take the approach of viewing worldbuilding like biologists designing an ecosystem. But instead of putting in predators, herbivores and plants, they think of the world as niches that they need characters to fill: "okay, I've got my dark detective type here, my sexy witch here, my team of teen heroes here that are mostly made up of the sidekicks and ex-sidekicks of the heroes in this Justice League-type team made up of the world's Top Dogs..."

This is bothersome not just because concepts are freely borrowed, but more importantly, because it takes the approach that the "only" way a superhero world can be arranged is the way it's been done by the Big Guys. This is unfortunate, because both DC and Marvel had their universes created by a constant process of innovation.

This was especially eggregious in the IMPACT line's introduction of the Red Hood: a vigilante completely like every other heat-packing lifetime NRA member "hero" in every way to the point that there was essentially no difference between him and the other characters of this type. The only conceivable reason to add him is because there was no character like this represented in the IMPACT roster at that time. The Red Hood could have been removed and replaced by the Punisher, or by Rorshach, or by the Vigilante and his stories would have been exactly the same. Granted, this is a fish in a barrel example considering how embarassing most comics fans now find that trend of results oriented violenteers (rather hypocritically, I might add: SOMEBODY had to buy PUNISHER WAR JOURNAL because they kept on printing the dreadful things, but everybody denies that they did now), but it was created by a flaw in thinking, which is asking "what don't we have?" Instead of "what new concept can we create?"


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Permanus on November 18, 2005, 05:17:05 AM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
One problem, related to the dependency on World War II as anchor point for a superhero universe, that when creating a world whole-cloth, a lot of writers take the approach of viewing worldbuilding like biologists designing an ecosystem. But instead of putting in predators, herbivores and plants, they think of the world as niches that they need characters to fill: "okay, I've got my dark detective type here, my sexy witch here, my team of teen heroes here that are mostly made up of the sidekicks and ex-sidekicks of the heroes in this Justice League-type team made up of the world's Top Dogs..."

Yep, you're quite right there! Much as I've rather been enjoying Marvel's Supreme Power series, it's actually just Superman, the Flash, Batman, the Green Lantern and Aquaman in a different setting. Oh, and Wonder Woman off her trolley. Maybe there isn't that much more you can do with the genre.

No. Musn't think that way. there has to be.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Permanus on November 18, 2005, 05:18:34 AM
Quote from: "TELLE"
I would watch a Robin Hood movie set in the Russian Revolution!  It works for me.  Why choose between archery and redistribution of wealth when they work so well together?

I knew I should have stuck with the porno film comparison.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 18, 2005, 11:52:17 AM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
This was especially eggregious in the IMPACT line's introduction of the Red Hood: a vigilante completely like every other heat-packing lifetime NRA member "hero" in every way to the point that there was essentially no difference between him and the other characters of this type.


I'm guessing you mean the Black Hood.

Quote
SOMEBODY had to buy PUNISHER WAR JOURNAL because they kept on printing the dreadful things, but everybody denies that they did now


I bought 'em, on occasion -- anytime Chuck Dixon and John Romita Jr. are doing tough-guy comics, they're worth having.  Or if Joe Kubert's drawing any sort of exotic-locale adventure stories.  I expect it isn't that people used to buy them but now deny it, but that the people you talk to these days weren't the crowd that bought them in the first place.

Heck, I buy the Ennis PUNISHER now, in TPB form.  I have no problem with the Punisher -- the obsessed lethal vigilante's a workable concept, whether it's Bronson in DEATH WISH, Mack Bolan in THE EXECUTIONER novels, or the army of imitators that followed.  [The Lone Wolf novels, written by Barry Malzberg under a pseudonym I don't recall at the moment, were particularly good, and not just because he took the concept to its logical conclusion, with the lead character getting crazier and crazier until his friends had to gun him down in the street like a dog.]

My general problem with the Punisher (and Wolverine) isn't that they're bad characters, but that other characters tend to be badly-written around them.  Any scene where Spider-Man works alongside the Punisher, shakes his hand and swings away, is a bad scene -- but it's bad because it violates Spider-Man's character, not the Punisher's.  Spidey knows the Punisher's gonna go off and kill someone else's uncle (or father, or brother, or entire family), which is exactly what Spider-Man puts on the costume to prevent.  There's no way Spider-Man would let him go.

Same with Wolverine -- it's fair to put him on the X-Men to help him learn to be more than a feral animal.  It's fair for him to be driven to act like a feral animal.  It's wrong for Cyclops to tolerate it.

Both the Punisher and Wolverine are fine characters -- and, ironically, good examples of characters who came out of something other than the Golden-Age-spawned idea of what a superhero "should" be.  It's when other characters treat them as if they're conventional superheroes that the stories go off the rails.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Captain Kal on November 18, 2005, 01:38:42 PM
Absolutely agreed.

It's the same discordant quality of having Superman -- literally! -- shake hands with that psycho Lobo as if they're pals in an issue of MOS.  It completely violates Superman's character to do that.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: JulianPerez on November 18, 2005, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: "Permanus"
Yep, you're quite right there! Much as I've rather been enjoying Marvel's Supreme Power series, it's actually just Superman, the Flash, Batman, the Green Lantern and Aquaman in a different setting. Oh, and Wonder Woman off her trolley. Maybe there isn't that much more you can do with the genre.


I've mulled long and hard over the morality of a comic like SUPREME which creates worlds by taking the formula created by other comics and following them to the letter, just plugging new numbers in it; a giant Orchid that's the catalyst for the formation of a great superteam instead of a giant starfish, and so forth. I *love* SUPREME; it was wildly imaginative and FUNNY (Alan Moore could be a stand up comedian if he wasn't so publicity shy). It feels sort of like those people that download music: yeah, it's wrong, but hey! Free music! I suppose one can perform the "paint by the numbers" approach to superhero worldbuilding if - and only IF - no distinctive, unmistakeable concepts are directly lifted, if concepts that are JUST AS INTERESTING are put in their place to replace them. It is true that the Fisherman is clearly based on the blueprint of Green Arrow, however, it is not plagiarism because the Fisherman's concept (involving fishing puns, flyfishing, and net gadgets) is distinctive and interesting enough to stand on its own.

To an extent, all the Silver Age DC heroes are based on formula: Lois Lane equivalent girlfriend (one neatly handed out to each hero), "authority figure" profession in secret identity, kid sidekick, etc. Nonetheless, they manage to be distinctive to one another.

Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
I bought 'em, on occasion -- anytime Chuck Dixon and John Romita Jr. are doing tough-guy comics, they're worth having. Or if Joe Kubert's drawing any sort of exotic-locale adventure stories. I expect it isn't that people used to buy them but now deny it, but that the people you talk to these days weren't the crowd that bought them in the first place.

Heck, I buy the Ennis PUNISHER now, in TPB form. I have no problem with the Punisher -- the obsessed lethal vigilante's a workable concept, whether it's Bronson in DEATH WISH, Mack Bolan in THE EXECUTIONER novels, or the army of imitators that followed. [The Lone Wolf novels, written by Barry Malzberg under a pseudonym I don't recall at the moment, were particularly good, and not just because he took the concept to its logical conclusion, with the lead character getting crazier and crazier until his friends had to gun him down in the street like a dog.]


It's as true of comics as it is true of media: it's possible to be annoyed by someone that's overexposed. A backlash against MC Hammer was inevitable when commercials for his dolls were shown on his Saturday Morning cartoon.

The reason the Punisher gets under my skin is threefold:

1) He was a big deal at the time and his comics oversaturated everything. The same is true of the X-books, however, the X-Men fit in better in the context of the Marvel Universe. Wasn't there a Punisher annual that he fought in the Evolutionary War? The Punisher doesn't fight in Evolutionary Wars.

2) Political. Not to get too deeply into my own views, but sufficed to say, what the Punisher - NOT a progressive figure - represents: immediate personal satisfaction through violence, the macho aggressive vibe...it disturbs me. Mr. Busiek, you're supposed to (by all accounts) be a person on the progressive side of things; how do you reconcile your liberal political convictions with liking the Punisher?

3) The Punisher were pointed to as an example of a "new" variety of character, to cast into irrelevancy the established Silver Age characters we love. Perhaps the Punisher wouldn't rankle me quite as much if his book was published and bought by its own audience, if it wasn't for the fans (and creators) who pointed to the Punisher confrontationally as being, instead of being a distinctive character type (one that, admittedly, has potential) but as being "the next step in superhero evolution."


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Captain Kal on November 18, 2005, 03:00:16 PM
Maybe it's like how you like the Stainless Steel Rat, Julian.

You might not like the person in the real world if you met him, but you're entertained by him in a fictional novel.

I, personally, have a moral and ethical aversion to the likes of the Punisher, Wolverine, and Lobo (who originally was DC's jab at the other two -- until DC got cash crazed over how Lobo sold).  But I can't in all honesty say they don't have their own creative place in the sun or they're completely without merit.  I just wish the industry had something more positive to say esp. to kids.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 18, 2005, 03:32:07 PM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
Not to get too deeply into my own views, but sufficed to say, what the Punisher - NOT a progressive figure - represents: immediate personal satisfaction through violence, the macho aggressive vibe...it disturbs me. Mr. Busiek, you're supposed to (by all accounts) be a person on the progressive side of things; how do you reconcile your liberal political convictions with liking the Punisher?


Simple.  I don't have to agree with characters to find them interesting.

In the real world, I would be vehemently opposed to someone dressing up as a bat and beating the hell out of people he claimed were criminals.  I'd think it was a massive, massive, unforgivable ethical conflict to write newspaper stories reporting on yourself, let alone not disclosing that you were, in fact, the guy flying around in the red cape.  I think Middle-Earth would be better off with a democracy rather than the kind of leader-worship that results in guys like Saruman getting so much slack and so little oversight, so while Aragorn is a nice guy, putting him on the throne merely perpetuates an unhealthy system.  And I can't say I have a problem with rabbits being killed, skinned and eaten.

But I like good Batman stories, good Superman stories, LORD OF THE RINGS and WATERSHIP DOWN just fine.

I'm a huge fan of Donald E. Westlake's Parker novels (written under the name "Richard Stark"), and Parker's a professional thief who kills people left and right.  What makes it fun is that the plots of the novels inevitably involve him clashing with someone who's worse than he is and who deserves to be dealt with harshly.  If they were about him robbing the pension fund, it wouldn't be much fun.

But I can read all kinds of stuff that doesn't share my politics.  Heck, I can write CONAN without being in favor of casual violence or beheading people who disagree with you.  Chuck Dixon's a conservative, but he can write Green Arrow pretty darn well.  

I'd hate to read (or write) only stories about characters I agree with or approve of.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 18, 2005, 03:34:33 PM
Quote from: "Captain Kal"
Maybe it's like how you like the Stainless Steel Rat, Julian.


Slippery Jim diGriz!

Great example.  A terrific character to read about, but if he really existed, you'd want him locked the hell up.  Or at the very least, not near you or yours.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Permanus on November 19, 2005, 03:34:07 AM
Oh my God! I just realised you actually are Kurt Busiek!


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: JulianPerez on November 21, 2005, 02:20:47 AM
A character can behave badly and still be accepted as a protagonist as long as they're likeable. The Stainless Steel Rat may be a crook, but he's got personality. People cry at the end of BONNIE AND CLYDE because Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway are so good looking and charismatic.

I don't dislike the Punisher because I disapprove of his behavior. I dislike the Punisher because the primitive, macho vibe of his stories turns me off. This also is true of Hawkeye, however, Hawkeye has a much more interesting and complicated characterization, picking fights out of insecurity and agitation. Hawkeye is likeable because there's just more TO him than that.

This does bring up an interesting point, however: is it possible that there are some character traits that in and of themselves, make any character that possesses it unable to be accepted as a protagonist? I would not want to read about an anti-semite, for example, no matter how good looking and charismatic they are. Ditto for an abuser of children or women. It is for this reason that every single AVENGERS writer since Shooter has had to play "damage control" on the character of Hank Pym after Shooter made him, in a lapse of his established characterization, strike his wife. And nobody (except the Japanese) has done a rapist hero.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Permanus on November 21, 2005, 06:37:56 AM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
A character can behave badly and still be accepted as a protagonist as long as they're likeable. (...) I would not want to read about an anti-semite, for example, no matter how good looking and charismatic they are. Ditto for an abuser of children or women. It is for this reason that every single AVENGERS writer since Shooter has had to play "damage control" on the character of Hank Pym after Shooter made him, in a lapse of his established characterization, strike his wife. And nobody (except the Japanese) has done a rapist hero.

I know what you mean and have often wondered about this. Does the protagonist always have to be likeable?

Surely it's okay to portray the the main character as a person with failings and moral lapses. In fact, the "hero" of Greek mythology is not necessarily someone who performs heroic feats by our modern standards (saving children from burning buildings and all that), but is a character who is larger than life. Achilles is a hero, for instance, but he behaves like a bloodthirsty maniac, and is not portrayed as a particularly nice chap at all. As I mentioned recently in another thread, the main characters of French pulp fiction aren't always likeable or even morally in the right, just interesting to read about. Hence, Fantomas does some pretty monstrous things, like putting acid in bottles of perfume, or unflinchingly sending an innocent man to the guillotine in his stead. I suppose Fu Manchu and Hannibal Lecter are also pretty good examples of this sort of character.

I remember being fuelled by an irrational hatred for Hawkeye in a miniseries back in the 80s, because he turned out to like Mantovani. I was recently turned off Marvel's The Ultimates, because of the anti-French stance the book, and especially its version of Captain America, adopted. I still bought it, though. Similarly, there might be things about Batman that I would really dislike if I knew them --  for all I know, Bruce Wayne believes in Intelligent Design and thinks global warming is bunk. (As an incurable old leftie, I'm happy to say that the Superman of Birthright is the sort of fellow I'd probably get along quite well with.)

In a way, this holds true for all our heroes, and sometimes one has to separate one quality from a thousand blemishes. I rather admire Winston Churchill, for instance, even though he was Conservative and I'm not (and he also said some very racist things in his day); I love Schubert's music, but I have no idea what his political views were and I don't really like the fact that he frequented prostitutes. Baudelaire and Shelley wrote some beautiful poetry, but I have no doubt that they were both unspeakably horrible men.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Gangbuster on November 21, 2005, 09:10:01 AM
Being an incurable young lefty, I tend to like characters who have that moral....stuff. Superman, Green Arrow, and Swamp Thing would be good examples of this. The JLA as a whole also possesses this mentality.

But while I mostly take a "role model" approach to reading (I'd also be likely to read books by MLK or Mother Teresa) there are some characters who are just interesting.

John Constantine is a b*stard, while Bruce Wayne and Wolverine have poor social skills. Tony Stark buys his way out of every problem. Yet these characters are usually interesting to read about. Not that I do, because you can't buy comics in a store anymore, and I live perhaps 2 hours away from the nearest comic shop. But I did enjoy these stories 10 years ago, when I could buy them.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Captain Kal on November 21, 2005, 10:39:57 AM
No, the protagonist does not have to be likeable.

And likeability is a very subjective thing.  While you and I might detest the personality of Lobo, others might find him compelling and very resonant with their own outlooks.  Surely there's a reason the WWF has fans.

Just because a character isn't what you'd like doesn't mean other fans see and feel things the same way you do.

I object to those kinds of characters on moral and ethical grounds since comics are supposed to be a medium for molding kids' values, or at least they used to be historically.

But I have no problems with the actual characterizations as that's purely subjective.  I don't like their personalities either but I don't consider that an objective standard to bash anyone else over.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 21, 2005, 01:05:27 PM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
A character can behave badly and still be accepted as a protagonist as long as they're likeable.


I'd amend that from "likable" to "interesting."  There are many characters I enjoy reading about, but wouldn't find likable if I met them.

Quote
And nobody (except the Japanese) has done a rapist hero.


The hugely-popular Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, from the novels by Stephen R. Donaldson -- who once had a letter published in AVENGERS that Hawkeye was his favorite because he was such a never-say-die-get-the-job-done hero -- was a leper, a rapist and a colossal whiner.

I can't say I like him much, but those books sold really well, so a large audience clearly liked reading about him.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Super Monkey on November 21, 2005, 01:15:43 PM
Some of the most charismatic and interesting people are horrible people who you would never want to meet much less hang out with.

Why else would people be so fascinated with the Nazis? It's not because they like them!


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: JulianPerez on November 21, 2005, 01:43:09 PM
Quote from: "Permanus"
Achilles is a hero, for instance, but he behaves like a bloodthirsty maniac, and is not portrayed as a particularly nice chap at all.


At least by my reading, I think Achilles was an individualist who refused to allow himself to be dominated by others. There is something heroic about that.

Your general point is right, however: heroism that isn’t cookie-cutter can work very well.

Quote from: "Captain Kal"
No, the protagonist does not have to be likeable.

And likeability is a very subjective thing. While you and I might detest the personality of Lobo, others might find him compelling and very resonant with their own outlooks. Surely there's a reason the WWF has fans.  


I think a protagonist must be interesting or likeable so that you care about what happens to them. How many times have you seen horror movies where the teenage heroes are so utterly unpleasant that you really wish the monster WOULD just go ahead and suck their blood?

What I *really* find funny is how tons of angsty teenagers take GWAR  seriously despite the fact that Gwar is a joke band whose comedy comes from the fact they just go insanely over the top; the heavy metal equivalent of the Batman TV show.

Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
The hugely-popular Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, from the novels by Stephen R. Donaldson -- who once had a letter published in AVENGERS that Hawkeye was his favorite because he was such a never-say-die-get-the-job-done hero -- was a leper, a rapist and a colossal whiner.

I can't say I like him much, but those books sold really well, so a large audience clearly liked reading about him.


I can't say I'm surprised. The listing of “traits a character can't have or else the audience won't care about him” is getting smaller all the time. Bret Easton Ellis proved that snotty rich kids and serial killers are actually pretty cool, whereas Alan Moore proved that devil worship is a comedy goldmine.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Captain Kal on November 21, 2005, 04:51:00 PM
Agreed with Julian and Kurt that the characters must be interesting and possibly likeable so the reader cares what happens to them.

OTOH, those are still subjective characteristics.  I know one poster on the Official DC Superman board who thinks Byrned Clark is interesting and likeable since he's a football jock and that poster was a football jock himself in his day.  Go figure.  Each guy relates on their own terms based on their own nature and experience.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 21, 2005, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: "Captain Kal"
OTOH, those are still subjective characteristics.


They always will be.  As Donald Trump has been known to say, that's why they have menus in restaurants...

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Permanus on November 21, 2005, 05:27:51 PM
Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
As Donald Trump has been known to say, that's why they have menus in restaurants...

So THAT's how you become a multimillionaire! And you just told everybody!


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: JulianPerez on November 22, 2005, 06:28:20 AM
I think the definition of a superhero can be broader than just a bullet point checklist of characteristics like secret identity, kid sidekick, wonder dog helper, headquarters in the Amazon Rain Forest, evil scientist archnemesis, and so on.

Warren Ellis gave a very thoughtless sentiment in one of his articles: "having comics be all about superheroes is like going into a bookstore and finding all the books are about nurses." While it is true that it would be great to see a broader diversity of comics on the stands (Rick Veitch's GREYSHIRT: INDIGO SUNSET miniseries reminded me how much I'd love to read a decent crime comic), however, Mr. Ellis's comparison is specious and inapplicable. Superheroes are NOTHING like an ultra-specialized subset of the romance novel genre; there is so much diversity in the kinds of stories that a superhero story can take, that if the stands were filled with nothing but superheroes it would feel just as diverse as if it had varied books. Superheroes are WONDERFUL, and It would be interesting to see such potential explored.

(As an aside, I always found it interesting that whenever certain writers like Ellis or Scott McCloud who write a great deal about the superhero genre's hold on comics, when listing other kinds of comics they'd rather see, they always mention the repeated litany of "science fiction, romance, westerns..." Like clockwork, they always bring up Westerns. I always found this hilarious, because it shows how embarassingly out of touch this perspective is with not just the reality of the comics industry, but from the reality of pop culture as well: name me one Western flick in the past TEN YEARS that's made anything resembling money, Kevin Costner vanity pieces aside. It's a once-universal genre cast into irrelevancy by the hold of disaster films and science fiction on big-budget movies, and by the hold of crime, tech and spy thrillers on the publishing world.)

Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
And sure, there are exceptions to all the above superhero tropes -- characters who are considered superheroes who don't have that aspect (Batman has no powers, Doc Savage has no codename, the Hulk has no idealistic mission and on and on), but very few who don't have any of them.


It is true that some characteristics define superheroes, just like some plot elements define science fiction: space travel, alien life, invaders from Mars, and so forth. However, if a story does not feature invaders from Mars or aliens, but only space travel, that does not make it any less within the confines of science fiction.

The characteristics of a superhero listed are defined by the context of how the DC and Marvel universes work. These are not immutable characteristics of the story type, but parameters that can be changed. And ARE changed in many wonderful innovative stories.

The more time goes by, the more I appreciate what an ambitious experiment the Shooter New Universe was. Ditto for Alan Moore's MIRACLEMAN, which looked at superheroes from a variant perspective based on science fiction.

There was a social scientist whose name escapes me at the moment that defined creativity scientifically. Basically, every situation has a bunch of dials on it. Reverse one dial, and you're being creative. The more dials you turn, the more creative you're being. It is possible to write what is essentially a superhero story that has so many dials turned that it achieves "escape velocity" and is no longer considered a superhero story. The best example of this may be Kirby's post-Lee works.

Kirby himself did a lot of wonderful work with superheroes that do not fill out their superhero characteristic checklists. One wonderful concept that Kirby had was the idea that superheroes might be routinized and incorporated into the worldbuilding (as was the original OMAC), or used as an aspect of worldbuilding (such as with his "god" comics).

For this reason, it is unfortunate but unsurprising that Kirby's work has the hardest time being incorporated into the DC and Marvel universes; the worst example may be the mistreatment of his OMAC and KAMANDI at DC, and the sloppy insertion of the ETERNALS into the Marvel Universe. Roy Thomas's work with the Eternals was good and well intentioned, but was the writing equivalent of getting a hammer to force a square peg into a round hole.

Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
The people he works with and fights are not unusual -- they're a normal part of his world, one that's been around over a millennium.


The presumption that opponents for superheroes have to be in some way atypical comes from the fact that as the Marvel and DC universes are supposed to be exactly like ours except with fantasy elements, the appearance of said fantasy elements makes these characters unusual in our otherwise "real" world. Just because that's how things work in the Marvel and DC Universe, however, does not mean that this is the sole way that superheroes can work.

Sentinel robots are exotic to we readers, but they're part of the day to day reality for mutants in the Marvel Universe.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 22, 2005, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
I think the definition of a superhero can be broader than just a bullet point checklist of characteristics like secret identity, kid sidekick, wonder dog helper, headquarters in the Amazon Rain Forest, evil scientist archnemesis, and so on.


I would certainly hope it would be broader than that list, yes, but then, I haven't seen anyone suggest such a thing.

Quote
As an aside, I always found it interesting that whenever certain writers like Ellis or Scott McCloud who write a great deal about the superhero genre's hold on comics, when listing other kinds of comics they'd rather see, they always mention the repeated litany of "science fiction, romance, westerns..." Like clockwork, they always bring up Westerns. I always found this hilarious, because it shows how embarassingly out of touch this perspective is with not just the reality of the comics industry, but from the reality of pop culture as well: name me one Western flick in the past TEN YEARS that's made anything resembling money, Kevin Costner vanity pieces aside. It's a once-universal genre cast into irrelevancy by the hold of disaster films and science fiction on big-budget movies, and by the hold of crime, tech and spy thrillers on the publishing world.)


They're simply listing variety, not intending to make claims that all the genres they mention are the most popular, or even that comics should only aspire to genres that make money as movies.  I know Scott would like to see plenty of stuff in comics that wouldn't make money in Hollywood.  So it seems odd to laugh that they'd mention a genre that hasn't been topping the charts in Hollywood (and Costner's last Western was over ten years ago, as it happens) when they weren't making any claim as to popularity, just to variety.

That said, westerns are still a profitable prose genre, though they sell far better outside urban areas than in them.  There aren't really any "star" Western writers any more, beyond McMurtry, but the genre mill keeps rolling.  And the genre's not fully gone from movies, either.

Quote
It is true that some characteristics define superheroes, just like some plot elements define science fiction: space travel, alien life, invaders from Mars, and so forth. However, if a story does not feature invaders from Mars or aliens, but only space travel, that does not make it any less within the confines of science fiction.


You seem to be arguing against something nobody's said.  I've repeatedly said that not all the hallmarks of the superhero need to be present, merely that enough of them do -- though "enough" is a subjective point.

But LORD OF THE RINGS, for instance, has secret identities, super powers, an idealistic mission of good against evil and more, and yet would not be considered a superhero story by any useful definition.

Quote
The presumption that opponents for superheroes have to be in some way atypical comes from the fact that as the Marvel and DC universes are supposed to be exactly like ours except with fantasy elements, the appearance of said fantasy elements makes these characters unusual in our otherwise "real" world.


The presumption is your own, not mine.  Bank robbers and muggers are not atypical, but are fair opponents for superheroes.

Quote
Sentinel robots are exotic to we readers, but they're part of the day to day reality for mutants in the Marvel Universe.


Not really, no.  They're unusual events that date back ten years or less and have appeared only intermittently in that time; hardly a parallel to the magical elements of Arrowsmith's world.

But I'm not sure how far it's worth taking this -- you keep pointing out that there are exceptions to any rule, which is something I pointed out up front, so it's not as if we're disagreeing on that score.  But I'd also argue that just because any individual superhero trope is not required, that doesn't mean that the absence of those tropes is irrelevant, merely not all-important.

And I'd continue to argue that ARROWSMITH isn't a superhero story, because virtually all of its tropes come from fantasy.  And while fantasy tropes can easily be present in a superhero story, it still needs to have something that marks it out as a superhero story.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: JulianPerez on November 22, 2005, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
They're simply listing variety, not intending to make claims that all the genres they mention are the most popular, or even that comics should only aspire to genres that make money as movies.  I know Scott would like to see plenty of stuff in comics that wouldn't make money in Hollywood.  So it seems odd to laugh that they'd mention a genre that hasn't been topping the charts in Hollywood (and Costner's last Western was over ten years ago, as it happens) when they weren't making any claim as to popularity, just to variety.


Actually, Kevin Coster's last western was OPEN RANGE, released in 2003, two years ago, where he played a younger ranch hand to a wise Robert Duvall.

I'm all in favor of comics' diversifying their product: I've still got my dogeared issues of SCALPHUNTER and HOUSE OF SECRETS. Some recent, non-superhero work has been absolutely extraordinary: Rick Veitch's GREYSHIRT miniseries was mentioned earlier as being excellent, as was Morrison's VIMANARAMA (which was colorful, charming science fiction that really, really was designed for the visual medium), and your ARROWSMITH series was very enjoyable and fantastic - and pretty too, thanks to Carlos Pacheco.

With writers like Ellis and McCloud, while they are absolutely, inarguably correct that comics should diversify their product, however, it is unfortunate that it manifests in the case of some creators and fans as a passive-aggressive sentiment toward superhero comics. If superheroes are successful, it isn't their fault and it cannot be held against them or the comics buying public. Comic book readers have no obligation but to buy the comics that they want to read. Further, the creativity of the superhero story vein is far from tapped out just because these kinds of comics are everywhere: it's very likely that the greatest superhero stories of all have yet to be told. There was a NINTH ART article a while ago entitled "Destroy All Superheroes" which argued that superheroes have nothing new to say. This is an unfortunate but common sentiment.

Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
That said, westerns are still a profitable prose genre, though they sell far better outside urban areas than in them.  There aren't really any "star" Western writers any more, beyond McMurtry, but the genre mill keeps rolling.  And the genre's not fully gone from movies, either.


Interesting. I was always struck by disbelief when I heard how well Lite FM records sell, considering I don't know anybody that owns one.

Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"
You seem to be arguing against something nobody's said.  I've repeatedly said that not all the hallmarks of the superhero need to be present, merely that enough of them do -- though "enough" is a subjective point.


My point is this: with the business model in place for comics now, where there are thriving independent publishers that can make whatever the creator wants them to, it would be wonderful to see more innovative kinds of superhero stories. I adore the adventure spirit of Heroic Publishing's FLARE, and they have done many stories that are worthy of commendation, however, the "second generation" hero connected to World War II is one that has been done before.

Rereading SUPREME, it occurs to me that there's an unspoken rule of the entertainment industry that conceptual similarities between two ideas are acceptable as long as the derivative product is really, really, really awesome. If the LION KING hadn't been such an amazing animated movie, the film's similarities to Kimba the White Lion would be more well known and pronounced. Great work get a "free pass" when it comes to similarities to previous work.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 22, 2005, 04:30:04 PM
Quote from: "JulianPerez"
Actually, Kevin Coster's last western was OPEN RANGE, released in 2003, two years ago, where he played a younger ranch hand to a wise Robert Duvall.


darn, and I checked imdb and everything -- I just missed it.

Quote
With writers like Ellis and McCloud, while they are absolutely, inarguably correct that comics should diversify their product, however, it is unfortunate that it manifests in the case of some creators and fans as a passive-aggressive sentiment toward superhero comics.


I don't think that has anything to do with whether it's silly for them to mention Westerns on the grounds that Westerns aren't big box-office these days.

Quote
I was always struck by disbelief when I heard how well Lite FM records sell, considering I don't know anybody that owns one.


Ah, if we went by what people we know consume, the world would be a strange place indeed.

Quote
My point is this: with the business model in place for comics now, where there are thriving independent publishers that can make whatever the creator wants them to, it would be wonderful to see more innovative kinds of superhero stories.


I'd like to see lots of innovation in multiple genres.  I think you've gotten tangled up in stereotype, though, where you're imagining a call for a narrow interpretation or rigid definition in the argument that ARROWSMITH is a fantasy book, honest.

That said, I don't know how many independent publishers can really be said to be thriving.  

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Uncle Mxy on November 26, 2005, 04:11:15 PM
Quote from: "Permanus"
I suppose another reason why the superhero genre in particular is so tied to WW2 is that the war changed the world in a way few conflicts have, at least in modern times, and gave the world the dubious gift of the atomic weapon. In a way, the superhero is a sort of metaphor for the atom bomb: a very powerful thing that can change the world.

For an aborted Champions campaign well over a decade ago, I had the following vague "world history" laid out, which was inspired by the very metaphor you describe.

A _few_ super heroes and villains had always existed, that most of the popular mythology and religion was due to the supers.  

Some undreamt of person / Illuminati / something I hadn't come up with yet (that players would eventually encounter) was suppressing most of the supers, which explains why most of them tended to not have long super heroic or villainous careers.  

Improvements in communications led to the inability to suppress the birth of supers, and the discovery of supers was how WWII was resolved.  Hiroshima was done by a super-team led by a Superman sort, not a nuke.   Heroes end the war, not the bomb.  

The Pleasantville authoritarian-ness of the 50s was super-imposed.  The vague idea was that the supers had to do something to get people away from thinking too hard about religion, mythology, and legend really being super-derived.  Positive proof that the non-existence of whatever form of god(s) they thought they worshipped was deemed a bad thing.  

The atomic bomb came afterwards, in the 60s, as a reaction to the supers  to equalize things, and was used in Viet Nam, where a lot of old supers on either side were beating themselves into a pulp.  

But the atomic experiments led to lots of mutants.  By creating the bomb, humans made more of what they were revolting against, though they were less powerful on average than the supers of old.  (There was a vague notion of a "super source" that most of the supers' powers emerged from, so newer supers tended to not be as powerful as the older ones because there were more and the source was vaguely finite.  It also explained how the power-impacting powers worked, which was the real impetus.)  

The 70s were about "When The Earth Stood Still" moments, normalizing alien relations, who were attracted by the nuclear activity of the 60s.  Aliens were responsible for disco.  :)

Heh...  writing out all this almost makes me want to start doing serious gaming again, but then I realize I have no time.  :)


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: ShinDangaioh on November 26, 2005, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"

I'd like to see lots of innovation in multiple genres.  I think you've gotten tangled up in stereotype, though, where you're imagining a call for a narrow interpretation or rigid definition in the argument that ARROWSMITH is a fantasy book, honest.

That said, I don't know how many independent publishers can really be said to be thriving.  

kdb


Studio Foglio.

Girl Genius, What's New?, &  Buck Godot: Zap Gun for Hire

That's Phil Foglio and his wife.

Girl Genius is steampunk
What's New? is a humorous look at role-playing games and CCG's
Buck Godot: Zap Gun for Hire is a comedy space opera.


Phil Foglio has got to be one of the most widly seen artists in this day.  Thank you oh so much Magic: The Gathering and the covers of the various Myth books by Robert Asprin

Kenzer is another indy publisher that is thriving.
Their big comic?  Knights of the Dinner Table.
Kenzer also has serious fantasy comics based on Dungeons and Dragons out.
Since they have that Hackmaster RPG out and the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting  tying in with Dungeons and Dragons, they are doing quite well.
KoDT has to be really irritating for a lot of artisits.  They repeat the same badly drawn panels throughout the entire run of strips(just use some whiteout to obscure the words), and yet it does so well


Those are the only two publishers that come to mind right now.

Well there is one other person:

Pete Abrams  http://www.sluggy.com/
 
I have no idea what Kurt would think of Bun-bun or Torg(Espeically the entire 'That Which Redeems' storyarc)

As to Pete, Sluggy Freelance is how he makes his money and a living.

I have seen more innovative ideas in the web comics than in most paper comics.

For instance, a Miracle of Science
http://www.project-apollo.net/mos/

Of course there's Sluggy Freelance.  Just don't say Shupid around Zoé ;)


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 26, 2005, 09:37:46 PM
Quote from: "ShinDangaioh"
Quote from: "Kurt Busiek"

That said, I don't know how many independent publishers can really be said to be thriving.


Studio Foglio.

Girl Genius, What's New?, &  Buck Godot: Zap Gun for Hire

That's Phil Foglio and his wife.

Girl Genius is steampunk
What's New? is a humorous look at role-playing games and CCG's
Buck Godot: Zap Gun for Hire is a comedy space opera.


Phil Foglio has got to be one of the most widly seen artists in this day.  Thank you oh so much Magic: The Gathering and the covers of the various Myth books by Robert Asprin

Kenzer is another indy publisher that is thriving.
Their big comic?  Knights of the Dinner Table.
Kenzer also has serious fantasy comics based on Dungeons and Dragons out.
Since they have that Hackmaster RPG out and the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting  tying in with Dungeons and Dragons, they are doing quite well.
KoDT has to be really irritating for a lot of artisits.  They repeat the same badly drawn panels throughout the entire run of strips(just use some whiteout to obscure the words), and yet it does so well


Those are the only two publishers that come to mind right now.

Well there is one other person:

Pete Abrams  http://www.sluggy.com/
 
I have no idea what Kurt would think of Bun-bun or Torg(Espeically the entire 'That Which Redeems' storyarc)

As to Pete, Sluggy Freelance is how he makes his money and a living.

I have seen more innovative ideas in the web comics than in most paper comics.

For instance, a Miracle of Science
http://www.project-apollo.net/mos/

Of course there's Sluggy Freelance.  Just don't say Shupid around Zoé ;)


I think you and I have different definitions of "thriving."  Which is not to say I don't like most of the stuff you mention, just that there's a difference between "making a living at it" and "thriving."

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on November 26, 2005, 09:48:56 PM
I think "thriving" would be how Superman comics sold in the 60s - in the millions per issue.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 26, 2005, 10:05:34 PM
Quote from: "Klar Ken T5477"
I think "thriving" would be how Superman comics sold in the 60s - in the millions per issue.


I wouldn't think so, for a few reasons.

First, the Superman books weren't selling in the millions per issue in the Sixties -- SUPERMAN's 1960 circ report was 810,000.  Nice numbers, but the 1970 1969 circ report was 511,984.  ACTION was at 458,000 in 1960 and 377,535 by '69.

But it's possible to thrive without selling millions of units -- however, "thriving" implies flourishing, booming ... which doesn't imply a downward slope.

The Super-books in the Sixties were performing well by industry standards, but declining.  If they were climbing -- not necessarily dramatically, just doing better as time went on -- that would be thriving.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on November 26, 2005, 10:11:37 PM
Kurt, still numbers notwithstanding, those numbersare much better than today. But numbers were never a benchmark for creativity.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 26, 2005, 10:41:16 PM
Quote from: "Klar Ken T5477"
Kurt, still numbers notwithstanding, those numbersare much better than today.


Sure.  But "thriving" doesn't simply mean "much better than today."

Quote
But numbers were never a benchmark for creativity.


True there, too.  But we weren't talking about creativity either.

To pick a different example -- the TPB market is thriving at the moment, though it's doing way smaller numbers than Superman comics in 1962.  But it's growing, improving, flourishing, while Superman circa 1962 was in decline.  In decline from impressive heights, yes, but decline nonetheless.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Super Monkey on November 26, 2005, 10:49:09 PM
Captain Marvel's comics would have served as a better example.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: TELLE on November 26, 2005, 11:00:05 PM
I find many of the questions in this thread fascinating.  Julian's initial question about the centrality of WWII to many superhero universes seemed easily explainable, given that the "Golden Age" was such a source of superheroes and that most writers and artists working in the genre since haven't exactly been pioneers.  For the last few decades most of the creative people in superhero comics grew up as hard-core fans and suffer from something akin to historical/cultural myopia on the subject.

It seems right now that there is a greater variety of superhero and related comics being done than ever before and I would be willing to bet that very few of them are hung up on WWII as a starting point.  Of course, I buy hardly any of them, so I could be wrong.  

Broader questions about what constitutes a superhero are always interesting to me.  On the subject of fantasy heroes (and now that I know Pacheco --pretty is right!-- was involved in Arrowsmith, I might actually check it out) I also think that sometimes, unfortunately, the medium is the message.  When Thomas, Buscema, Windsor-Smith, et al brought Conan to Marvel, they seem in retrospect to have turned Conan into a superhero of sorts (I mean, if the Hulk and Submariner are superheroes...).  That is, as a Marvel comic, Conan had to be a superhero.  Ditto Sgt Fury.  Ditto Luke Cage.  Ditto Chang-Chi.  Ditto attempts to do Doc Savage, the Shadow, etc.

Another aspect of most superhero comics that taints all efforts is the persistence of the corporate serial model of production.  Characters are envisioned as infinitely renewable properties whose adventures are published or released on a regular basis.  Art teams, writers and even publishers can be changed without any major damage done to the property.  I know this isn't the case with many creator-owned projects and mini-series/graphic novels, but there is enough of it still around to have an effect.  So even the most arcane Vertigo or independant series seem like superhero epics to me sometimes.  Ditto many popular manga and manwha.

I'm on the record on another thread (http://superman.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1783&start=0) about "different" superhero comics I still enjoy as an adult (outside of things like Silver Age Superman and the comics I grew up with in the 70s), but I think that claims for superhero comics as a universally enjoyable genre with infinite possibilities are over-stated.  While not exactly in the Destroy All Superheroes camp, I would say that there is only so much I can empathize with a character if he (to paraphrase Howard Chaykin and others) is wearing his underwear outside of his pants and can make icecream.

And as for thriving (meaning to grow), there are definitely non-DC and Marvel companies that fit that category.  Most of them publish Manga.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on November 27, 2005, 12:44:11 AM
orDanClowesand PeterBagge.

Whats with this Johnny Ryan  guy? Funny stuff.
http://www.johnnyr.com/comix/SYBW2005-11-14.html


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: TELLE on November 27, 2005, 07:34:18 AM
Ironically, Fantagraphics is probably thriving right now because they are publishing Peanuts which, while it has more than its share of angst, is about as popular and mainstream as comics get.  

(On topic: Peanuts has its genesis in WWII, in a way.)

Other lit/art comics imprints not owned by major publishers, like Drawn and Quarterly, are more break-even type of operations and not particularly thriving.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 27, 2005, 12:37:49 PM
Quote from: "TELLE"
Ironically, Fantagraphics is probably thriving right now because they are publishing Peanuts which, while it has more than its share of angst, is about as popular and mainstream as comics get.


PEANUTS saved Fantagraphics, yeah.  Given that they were on the verge of bankruptcy before it, due to distributor defaults, the question of whether it puts them into "thriving" territory is an open one.

Certainly, nobody there is getting rich.

kdb


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: TELLE on November 27, 2005, 11:03:39 PM
They have this habit of pouring any profits back into marginal art comics with controversial subject matter. :D

Kurt, do you ever hang out with your "neighbours" at Fantagraphics?  There seems to be a lot of comics talent around Seattle.


Title: Re: What's so friggin' GREAT about World War II, anyway?
Post by: Kurt Busiek on November 28, 2005, 12:18:42 AM
Quote from: "TELLE"
Kurt, do you ever hang out with your "neighbours" at Fantagraphics?  There seems to be a lot of comics talent around Seattle.


I'm a lot closer to Portland than Seattle, so I only see the Fanta-guys at cons.

kdb