I'm actually a fan of some vintage Marvel stuff. For instance, I think Lee and Kirby's run on the FF from about issue 50 to issue 80 rank as some of the best comics ever done by anyone for any company. And I absolutely adore Ditko-era Dr. Strange: possibly the only time the "flawed hero" concept worked 100 percent for me, because it's about a man who, from the ruins of his previously self-centered life, finds meaning and purpose in working for the good of others (as opposed to all the Marvel characters who seem bummed out that they're stuck with the hero gig).
My big problem with Marvel is that it ushered in the era of soap-opera subplots and the beginnings of "relevance" and "reality" in comics. When Stan did it, it was fresh and -- this is important -- funny. Spider-Man was a gag strip, you know. The idea of a hero who had to do homework, sew his own costume, run a prescription home to his aunt on the way back from fighting villains...that was funny stuff and it was played for laughs. But all the lieutenant Stans who followed took it deadly serious and sucked the fun right out of the book, and by extension a lot of others as well. And once the whole thing had been run into the ground and done to death, DC -- as ever three steps behind -- jumped on the bandwagon and started doing it, too.
That said, some of my favorite runs ever are from Marvel books. Besides the above, there's Miller's Daredevil, Simonson's Thor, Claremont and Byrne's X-Men and...so sue me...Bill Mantlo and Mike Golden's Micronauts.
Veering closer to "back on topic," favorite fights include Dr Strange vs Dormammu (Ditko days), the Hulk vs the FF and Avengers (FF #25-26), the FF versus a Silver Surfer-powered Dr Doom(FF #60), Captain America versus Baron Blood (Cap #254) and various episodes in the Kree-Skrull War.
Nightwing, I understand why you call
Amazing a gag strip (somewhat facetiously I think), but it sounds dismissive of a lot of what made the first 30-odd issues great. The situations in Parker's life you describe were not played only for laughs. I really take issue with that. Lee and Ditko struck a balance, and a very good one, between the absurdly funny and the distinctly
unfunny. Like so many of the best dramas, "Spider-Man" had us chuckling one minute and almost crying the next. There is a lot of well-played angst and tragedy in the comics, some of it genuinely poignant. This is a comic book, sure, but it's also good writing -- or, put a better way, good storytelling. I don't know about you, but I don't feel for a character in a "gag strip", whereas in
Amazing Spider-Man I care about what is happening to him. (I have to add, it's not just the Lee-Ditko issues that have this quality, but something about the Lee-Ditko collaboration produced the blackest clouds over Parker's head; often he is truly in despair and we all know the pain of being young and never having things turn out right, particularly in relationships.) In a gag strip (yes, I know it was a throwaway term of yours, but I am going to punish you mercilessly for it) it is the gag that's the thing, whereas in "Spider-Man" it was Peter Parker who was the focus. Or, put slightly differently, often the absurd situations appeared to arise because of Parker's character, and not because they were imposed by the writer, if that makes sense. That makes for good drama. I agree with you as you go on to say later writers didn't get it and sucked the life right out of it. Maybe what they lost was the
absurdity of Parker and his ridiculous life. You are right: played straight and serious, it doesn't work. That doesn't mean, however, that "Spider-Man" didn't have its effective "serious" moments...
As you talk about "reality", I can tell you of something about "reality" that bothers me. I don't buy all this garbage about "reality" in comics, with classic DC being seen as fantasy or kiddie stuff, and Marvel being seen as "realistic". (I love a lot of old Marvel as you know.) It bothers me because a dysfunctional, neurotic man is seen as "real" whereas a clean-cut strong man of solid morals (eg. Hal Jordan*) is seen as pure fantasy and "unrealistic". I think you will see where I'm going with this. I'm not saying someone I admired and loved from the comics of my childhood like Hal Jordan didn't have doubts or personal struggles -- but the point is he wasn't neurotic and didn't have to wear his heart on his sleeve, telling his sob-stories to every passerby. What happened to the great American tradition of a strong individual, setting his jaw at times of adversity, and getting on with what needs to be done? Because Hal Jordan didn't deliver a depressing soliloquy every time he hit a personal setback, does that make him "unrealistic"? Since when did "realistic" mean a man has to whinge and moan about his problems? I'm not saying this sort of man isn't "realistic" -- but it doesn't mean every other type of man is "unrealistic". You know some people like to make a case that traditionally DC characters are goody-two-shoes and far-fetched whereas Marvel characters are grounded in reality and could be living in your street! But let's face it, if there are differences, real or imagined, it's nothing to do with their long-underwear careers. A guy sticking to a wall like a spider is hardly more realistic than a guy dressing as a bat to scare gangsters. The "realistic" angle comes in (so they tell me) when Parker moans and cries, or when Ben and Johnny try to kill each other in anger... Supposedly the "unrealistic" angle arrives when we see a clean-cut and physically-fit test pilot who grits his teeth and happily (yes, happily)
accepts the responsibilty that has been thrust upon him. It was no accident -- like with Spidey and the FF, my friends -- that Hal Jordan became Green Lantern. Hal Jordan was
chosen from out of us all because he was the best man for the job, the cream of the crop.
It is not unrealistic to suppose that some men are "the cream of the crop".
(*I'm talking here about the real Hal Jordan: the honest, two-fisted tough-guy as he was originally conceived.)
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM