New Mark Waid interview

[JulianPerez]

I didn't mean to suggest that things immediately went into the crapper once this crowd showed up, but I do think that what we saw over time was a shift from stories crafted in the traditional mold to ones that are more self-referential, more derivative and less accessible.

This is true, incidentally, of movies and TV as well.  When these media started out, creators came from all walks of life with all sorts of interesting personal histories; they had been through Depressions, wars, etc.  Most of them dreamed of being the next Ernest Hemingway or Norman Rockwell.  They invented comics; the pacing, the layouts, the story structures, but beyond that they also brought their life experiences and knowledge of things outside the world of comics.  They had one foot in the real world and given half a chance, they'd have bolted from comics to find their fortunes in that real world.

Anyway, I guess my point is that while there are certainly a lot of talented fans turned pros out there, the net result over the decades has been to create a medium that is self-absorbed and unwelcoming to new readers.  The first generation of fan-creators got to do things with the icons that had never been done.  By now they are expected to do whatever new crazy thing the shifting winds says is "kewl."  Today's fan is tomorrow's writer or artist, so the publishers pretty much let fan opinion, or their perception of fan tastes, take precedence over things like fidelity to a character's core values or any sense of continuity of theme.  (Is Batman a hero or a nutjob?  Well, what do the Wizard polls say we should have him be this month?)

While I agree with the basic point, that comics stories should not be inaccessible, my problem with what it is you’re saying is that it denies the value of lesser known but interesting comics elements. It views research into the topic as a weakness, because it brings up things that are not the most visible, famous elements of a comic book, and denies that there is future story possibility in overlooked stories, characters and elements because if you whip out a wonderful but underused character like Son of Satan or N’Kantu the Living Mummy, the response is not  “hey, how cool, they’re using Son of Satan,” it is “Man, how lame is it that they’re using an obscure guy like Son of Satan?” If Superman fought ONLY Luthor and Brainiac and all his famous enemies, it denies there is story possibility in the Galactic Golem and the Flame Dragon “just because” they appeared only in a few stories decades ago. This perspective makes a virtue out of familiarity and a vice out of research.

Comics tapping into their dense lore isn’t a new phenomenon. Comics fans whining about it IS new, however; nothing tires me out faster than some fan moaning about how they’re bringing back Kandor. Can you imagine what comics would have been like if this mentality was in play in the 1970s? Steve Englehart would have been CRUCIFIED for his wonderful use in SUPER-VILLAIN TEAM UP of the Doomsman character that Roy Thomas created in the Dr. Doom story in MARVEL SUPER-HEROES. “He’s such an obscure character,” they would say. “It’s so self-referential that they’d tredge him out again. Everything that’s wrong with modern comics these days.” Or when Englehart brought out and made wonderful use of Quasimodo, the Living Computer in AVENGERS or the Valkyrie (who previously was a minor, one shot personaliy) in his DEFENDERS run. Or when Englehart brought out the Deadshot in his BATMAN run (“WHO the HELL?” I can hear them say), or when Busiek made use of Moses Magnum and the Construct, or yes, even when my boyfriend Paul Levitz returned the minor character of Cosmic Boy’s brother and made him a full-fledged Legionnaire.

[Gary]

The funny thing is modern comics are passed off as "more realistic."  On the assumption, naturally, that horrific violence, cruelty and despair constitute "reality."  Sorry, no matter how many friends and family Bruce Wayne sees die, he's still a guy who dresses like a bat, so reality is out.  Too many comics are written by guys who wouldn't know reality if it bit them and artists who couldn't draw it if asked.

To be fair, I don't think the issue is reality per se, but having events follow realistically and believably from the initial premise, even if that premise is totally unrealistic. For example, compare Alan Moore's Marvelman (aka Miracleman) with the stuff that inspired it. Both of them feature body-switching flying super-strong heroes, but I think we'd all agree Moore's take scores much higher in the "realism" department because his characters react more realistically to the premise.

[Captain Kal]

I think Nightwing addressed this in another post on another thread.

The issue is accessibility.

Sure, we can have obscure characters and concepts creep up in a story, no problem.  But knowing those obscure trivia bits shouldn't be mandatory towards enjoying the book right in your hands.  If one already knew those bits, great, then you get more out of the story.  Or maybe you'd be intrigued enough by those ideas to dig into the past to find out the backstory on those bits.  Again, knowing those past bits must not be a prerequisite to enjoying the story you're reading right at that moment.

[nightwing]

I certainly have no problem with bringing in an obscure character in the course of a good story.  Take the example I pointed to, the 1954 Batman story.  If for some reason Robin was sidelined and Batman had to team with Rex Raymond or King Faraday, it still would have worked.  Because the focus of the story would have been the same: solve the freaking mystery. In 1954 we would not have gotten 20 pages of Batman and Rex arguing over whose methods are best, or making oblique references like, "Don't touch that! Remember what happened to Angel O'Day..." "Hrmm...yes, I see your point."

It just seems to me too many titles today are about heroes hanging out with other heroes and whining, arguing or pining about one stupid thing or another that (a) doesn't matter to anyone but them and (b) you have to have been around for awhile to even understand.  If a character from 20 years ago suddenly popped up in a Batman story today and the dialog was something like, "Haven't seen you since the case of the Mongoose Tail!  You're looking good.  Now, let's get to business..."  then I would be okay.  This is how I first met the JSA, after all...a big bunch of characters I'd never seen before their visits with the JLA.  It didn't matter whether I knew their origins, or even their real identities.  It certainly didn't matter whether I knew what case they were working on in March 1943. The point was they showed up to help and they stuck to business.  That meant I could read the story and be satisfied with it on it's own merits.  And I might add that in the end, it made me want to go back and find out more about them anyway.  So it was the best of both worlds.

I say again -- and sorry to keep picking on Batman, but -- if you look at the Bat-books now, they are primarily about Bruce's fractious relationships with Tim, Barbara, Helena, Leslie, Cassie, Jim Gordon, Sasha, etc.  Maybe I'm way out of the loop but I'm not at all interested in Bruce Wayne's social inadequacies or emotional disconnects, I care not a whit for his opinions on other superheroes.  I would like to see him solve a crime now and then, but I suppose there are only so many hours in the day.  

In my opinion -- and that's all it is -- it took more talent for the old guys to come up, month after month, with an ingenious mystery or a novel sci-fi concept than it does for today's "superstars" to pen months-long sagas of soap-opera arguments, "crushing personal losses," betrayals, and etc.  The latter tales, in my opinion, pretty much write themselves.  The former takes inventiveness and, importantly, an understanding of how the real world works.  I honestly believe I could hammer out for you right now a story where Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson come to blows over some stupid misunderstanding or other, but for the life of me I couldn't write a story about how printing presses work in a newspaper office, how to escape an elevator shaft with a car coming down at me, what bird makes a sound like a rattlesnake, etc.  I love that old stuff and I miss it.

[JulianPerez]

I think Nightwing addressed this in another post on another thread.

The issue is accessibility.

Sure, we can have obscure characters and concepts creep up in a story, no problem.  But knowing those obscure trivia bits shouldn't be mandatory towards enjoying the book right in your hands.  If one already knew those bits, great, then you get more out of the story.  Or maybe you'd be intrigued enough by those ideas to dig into the past to find out the backstory on those bits.  Again, knowing those past bits must not be a prerequisite to enjoying the story you're reading right at that moment.

No argument here.

However, there is a mentality amongst a portion of comics fans (not held by YOU, of course, but by others) that seek to reassure their insecurities about being teens and adults that read children's superhero comics by excoriating fascination with minutiae, by condemning anything that has not known or familiar to the general public at large. Just like homophobes are likely to be latent homosexuals, comics fans enmeshed in love of comics lore are likely to be the most strident enemies of use of comics history. For instance, those that attack AVENGERS FOREVER not because of its great worth as a wonderful well-written work, but because...uh...Busiek talks alot about all these things that happened before 1990.

This usually manifests as bludgeoning and attacking anything that shows anything more than a shallow familiarity with the characters and concepts. Kurt Busiek was flayed alive by many fanboys for not using the big Avengers villains right off the bat and instead giving use to cool and interesting foes like Moses Magnum, Kulan Gath and for the Love of Pete, the Corruptor!

Why is this obvious attempt to soothe fanboy insecurity given ANY credence at all by anyone? Firstly because it gives an excuse to lazy creators to not do their homework; of COURSE they can't be bothered to make characters behave consistently with how they have been shown previously, because "history doesn't matter." It's the excuse used by lazy students with a "D" on their history tests: "Aw, who CARES about Robert E. Lee?"

Secondly, because it fits the agenda and priorities of businesspeople who view comics not as an end in and of themselves, but as a means to keep the copyright going on bankable characters. If fanboys believe anyone in the Justice League who isn't an action figure a thousand times over is a worthless dead weight character that adds nothing, who are the businessmen to really disagree, right?

[nightwing]

I don't know, I think younger fans are just like young people in general; they tend not to care about anything that happened before they were born.  If they don't like Moses Magnum, for example, it'd be because he's from the 70s, when comics had a different sensibility.  To them, letting Moses into a modern Avengers comic would be like wearing platform shoes and a perm to an Eminem concert.

Basically I think any character who stays in constant print is going to get a free pass; he can change with the breeze.  But a character who gets sidelined for 10 years or more will have to spend the first half of his "comeback" story assuring us that he is, indeed, in tune with the times and not tied to an earlier age.  In the case of some character who were obviously created to capatilize on some brief fad way back when, that's fair.  In a lot of other cases, it isn't.

[JulianPerez]

I don't know, I think younger fans are just like young people in general; they tend not to care about anything that happened before they were born.  If they don't like Moses Magnum, for example, it'd be because he's from the 70s, when comics had a different sensibility.  To them, letting Moses into a modern Avengers comic would be like wearing platform shoes and a perm to an Eminem concert.

Basically I think any character who stays in constant print is going to get a free pass; he can change with the breeze.  But a character who gets sidelined for 10 years or more will have to spend the first half of his "comeback" story assuring us that he is, indeed, in tune with the times and not tied to an earlier age.  In the case of some character who were obviously created to capatilize on some brief fad way back when, that's fair.  In a lot of other cases, it isn't.

I'd say you're right, if it was JUST younger comics fans saying this. They DO, though, and probably for the reasons you describe, so at least I "get" where they're coming from even if I don't share their view.

My point though, is that just as racism is an expression of economic anxieties, anti-history and anti-continuity whiners very often tend to be the people most enmeshed in comics past. It's a mentality I do not understand, so I wouldn't hazard a guess as to how it works.

[JulianPerez]

I just had an epiphany when driving back home from work:

Anti-continuity is at its heart, nerd self-hatred.

Allow me to illustrate this phenomenon.

Telle, I apologize for this in advance, but I'm using your statements to prove a point. No offense meant, okay?

A while back, the topic of discussion turned to AVENGERS FOREVER. You had this to say:

A fun comic for long-term teen and adult fans (I read some issues I bought at a garage sale), but basically points to what is wrong with the last 30-odd years of superhero/adventure comics writing: insularity, continuity obsessions, nerdish nostalgia. Could someone who had never read Avengers appreciate it at all?

I don't know you personally, Telle. But on one occasion, you said one of your favorite superhero movies is - of all the things in the world - ULTRAMAN. What's a guy who loves 60s Japanese rubber guy shows DOING restraining their enthusiasm and saying something doesn't work because it's geeky? It boggles the mind.

Later on in that post, you had this to say:

 Not to get overly nerdish myself,

Oh, perish forbid.

Most days I thank RAO that, for all but the tiny ghetto of North American superhero comics and their current fans, comics have today escaped the descending spiral of these so-called Ages and the death-grip of the Direct Market/comic book shop and entered a new Golden Age of adult graphic novels, manga, translated Euro-comics, classic reprints and new inventive kids' comics, all to be found at your local book store.

I'd say something about the cataclysmic irony of - IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH - you thank a fictional supercomic deity known only to %.5 of the population, and then talk about how we've been saved from "the death grip of the direct market" to go into "a golden age of adult graphic novels."

On the other end of the spectrum from forum regular Telle, we have Darren A. Madigan, fanfic writer supreme, continuity's greatest defender, who David Fiore once called "the fanboy's fanboy." He has many, MANY flaws as a human being (pettiness, hysterical paranoia and casual cruelty number among them) but self-delusion is not one of them. He KNOWS what he is. He revels in his nerdom and is proud (at least to the extent one can be proud of having memorized BUCKAROO BANZAI) and apart from the occasional mope about how he can't get laid*, he regrets nothing.

Every embarassing trend embraced by comics in the past three decades have been a transparent manifestation of nerd self-hatred, able to play on the anxieties of adults and especially teenagers, who are much more insecure and less certain of their identity. From "relevance" in the 70s, to the "grim and gritty' (TM) trend of the eighties, the desire has been for comics to be taken seriously by others with all the insistence and maturity of a child having a temper tantrum jumping up and down. To get more "new readers," to have comics "taken seriously," to have comic book readers finally get to sit at the Cool Kids' Table in the cafeteria. Comics readers feel they have to prove something, to our mothers and fathers and that blonde in Geometry class that turned us down for a soda and movie. SEE? Comics CAN be relevant or for adults! Anti-continuity sentiment is nothing more than the most recent and most nonsensical manifestation of this.

Another very recent manifestation of this phenomenon, one that I suspect will become the klarion call for everybody with neuroses that need coddling who are insecure and need to prove themselves, is the desire for "other genres to be represented in the comics industry." This is a position that is very hard to argue with; I for one, miss HOUSE OF MYSTERY and SCALPHUNTER very, very much. But it isn't that the position is right or wrong, it's the REASON it is becoming such a talking point. Do you really think the teenage boys in Reeboks and Metallica shirts on Warren Ellis's forums that demand Westerns are so vocal about it because they really, really want to read a cowboy comic? I doubt it. When they say "they want other genres represented," they mean "other genres" for OTHERS to buy - just like how, in the words of the Onion, "Americans favor public transportation for others." They want to point to a Romance comic on a comic book store shelf and say, "See, Susie Q, you DIDN'T make a mistake dating me instead of the Prom King. Look! There's a comic JUST FOR YOU!"

"But Julian," I hear you say. "I'm a successful professional GQ model who enjoys having champagne with supermodels on my private yacht when I'm not going to parties hosted by P. Diddy on South Beach. I'm no geek. What are you implying here, sah?" The problem isn't geekiness (on the contrary, geekiness is GOOD), the problem is insecurity and neurosis - and that can happen to anybody, no matter how many beautiful women you've slept with and how many Ferraris you drive. Look at all the unhappy movie stars and millionaires that commit suicide.

The moment I realized that anti-continuity detraction and whining was irrational in nature was when I realized that their objections were not concrete. They were not specific but spoke in vague, nebulous generalities, never mentioning a specific story that didn't work or specific instances. No one single enemy of continuity, not Warren Ellis, not Grant Morrison, not anybody, has ever been able to point out what would be the most damning proof of continuity's evil: namely, a terrible story that if it was done without the "restrictions" of continuity (REAL continuity), would have been great or even good. I can't think of a single one, and I challenge anyone to find it.



* For the life of me I can't imagine why. There's no greater aphrodisiac than a fifteen minute harangue about the writing on THE WEST WING.