When Style Becomes Shtick

[Brian Cronin]

At what point exactly does a writer transcend from writing in a distinct style to writing shtick in his/her books?

What writers can you think of that you believe have made the movement from simply having a distinct style to just doing shtick (which I will define as "an entertainment routine or gimmick")?

I think that, based on the fact that New Avengers is vastly different in scope than every other book he writes but reads exactly the same, it is fairly safe to say that Brian Michael Bendis has crossed over into doing shtick on his books - the "talky" shtick.

Who else?

Christopher Priest is perilously close, I believe, as Captain America and the Falcon read pretty damn similar to The Crew and Black Panther.

Mark Millar, I believe, is even slowly going past the realm of "style" and heading in the direction of "shtick." I do not believe that he is there yet, but when you can predict what will happen in his books not based on what is in the book itself, but rather, from what he has written on other books in the past, you are pretty close to having a routine.

What other writers can you think of that have gone over the edge into doing shtick?

Once you have thought of some writers that you feel have gone from having a style to having a shtick, the corollary question has to be asked...is shtick necessarily a bad thing?

Perhaps it may be cooler if a writer expanded his/her horizons...but if the product they are writing is still written well enough, is shtick really all that bad?

-Brian

[Bright-Raven]

It isn't always style that creates "shtick".

For example, take Chris Claremont. While he has certainly done his share of solo characters over the course of his career, he is predominantly known for superhero team books, most notably the X-titles. There comes a point when a writer delving into the same structures becomes old hat, too.

John Byrne's been guilty of it also, in that he tends to do "remakes" of previous stories and alternate history stories based off of favorites stories of his and the like (created by others and of course by himself as well).

What the issue becomes, is familiarity with a writer's work. Once the audience becomes familiar with the peculiar quirks of that writer on a series and doesn't get a sense of growth in the characters or in the writer as the story progresses, then they get bored with them.

For some writers, a simple change of venue is in order. But for others, they're just who they are, and for better or for worse, some audiences just get tired of seeing their work.

[Pól Rua]

Warren Cockbiting Ellis, fuckeyes!

*sigh*

Change the record, Wazza.
This one's getting tired.



...of and while we're at it, Garth 'feckin' Ennis.

[Sanagi]

Rumiko Takahashi is a great example of this, especially Ranma 1/2. At the beginning it seems like just about the weirdest, craziest, funniest thing ever, but it turns into its own cliche long before it's over. I think it takes a while for you to realize how much of it is just slight variations on a theme.

[atoningunifex]

Grant Morrison turned to shtick about halfway through the second issue of Seaguy.

[dancj]

I'm with Brightraven. Claremont and Byrne were the first two names to pop into my head.

Alan Grant, Chuck Dixon and Doug Moench were all there by the time they got kicked off the Batman books too

Dan

[Shellhead]

I agree regarding Claremont and Byrne. And I would also say David Mack. He has a singular, searing artistic vision, but after a couple of years worth of Kabuki, I got tired of his difficult collages. The meandering word salad and the challenging artwork slowed down my reading rate to a crawl. That tended to drain my enthusiasm for all of his later works. However, if the David Mack who did the Circle of Blood ever came back, I would definitely be interested.

[founder81]

Peter Milligan comes to mind. He's always doing that "exploring inner self dialogue". My view could be wrong, I 've only read Vertigo titles by him, not any of his Batman or X-men work.

[Harvey Jerkwater]

Frank Miller: King of Schtick.

In its purest form, Sin City and its half-dozen completely identical follow-up minis. In a bastardized form, you get "What are you, retarded? I'm the goddamn Batman!"

Miller-schtick is a fusion of Mickey Spillane, Elmore Leonard, bad television, and skin magazines. The worst is when he tries to be "fun," like in ASSBAR and DK2. Ye gods.

The pity is that when he breaks schtick, like in 300, he's great.

[Bright-Raven]

Guys (and Gals),

There is no point in naming specific creators. The truth is, you can legitimately rip just about any comics writer currently working today for something, be it their writing style, the way they present themselves online or in person at conventions, what have you. We could list examples for just about everyone.

It's a matter of what it is about a given writer or their work and whether that something irks you enough not to want to read their work anymore.

And that rule applies to artists and even to characters as well. I don't care how cool the X-MEN were / are, the point where they past saturation levels and have just too many characters running around in too many books came and went over a decade and a half ago.

[dancj]

Peter Milligan comes to mind. He's always doing that "exploring inner self dialogue". My view could be wrong, I 've only read Vertigo titles by him, not any of his Batman or X-men work.

He tends to explore the themes of idenity, but he finds lots of different ways to do it. I'd say he's far from 'shtick'

Frank Miller: King of Schtick.

I'm not going to try to make anyone like Miller's work if they don't like it (well not today), but one thing he doesn't do is settle into a shtick.

He had a set of rules he worked to within Sin City, but there's a fair amound of variation within the stories. Outside of Sin City he preactically reinvents himself for every project - he is the classic example of a creator who hasn't settled into a shtick (which I think is a big part of why some people don't like his more recent work).

[Harvey Jerkwater]

He had a set of rules he worked to within Sin City, but there's a fair amound of variation within the stories.

I gotta disagree with you there. The Hard Goodbye: A violent man barely holding his urges in check obsesses over a whore-goddess and goes on a killing rampage. The story, told in first-person narration, uses clipped language and repetition to suggest violence and obsession. A Dame to Kill For: A violent man barely holding his urges in check obsesses over a whore-goddess and goes on a killing rampage. The story, told in first-person narration, uses clipped language and repetition to suggest violence and obsession. That Yellow Bastard: A violent man barely holding his urges in check obsesses over a whore-goddess and goes on a killing rampage. The story, told in first-person narration, uses clipped language and repetition to suggest violence and obsession.

There were minor variations between them, yes, but I felt them so similar to one another that they reached the level of schtick.

That being said, I know this is just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. The line between "individual style" and "schtick" is one that each person draws for himself. In a lot of Miller's work, I feel he passed that line, particularly in his recent Batman work and in Sin City. That's all.

There is no point in naming specific creators. The truth is, you can legitimately rip just about any comics writer currently working today for something, be it their writing style, the way they present themselves online or in person at conventions, what have you. We could list examples for just about everyone.

Sure, but that's not the issue here. We're discussing a particular type of artistic development, or rather, the end thereof. It's a noticable phenomenon, not a case of "I don't like Writer X, and so I'm going to accuse him of relying on schtick."

I enjoy sixties Marvel, and those comics are loaded with schtick. They were producing so many books so quickly, and the idea of long-term readership was so far from their minds, that it was a perfectly fine way to proceed. When you get down to it, pre-direct market era comics were supposed to be schtick.

Descent into schtick in the direct market era means that the writer has run out of fresh directions, or simply chooses not to use them, and is instead hewing to his or her well-worn ruts.

Another way of phrasing the forum topic is "Which writers repeat themselves a lot, using the same situations, characters, techniques, and gimmicks, to the point that you're annoyed by it?" That's not the same question as "which writers do you like to bust on?"

Cronin asked the question:
the corollary question has to be asked...is shtick necessarily a bad thing?

It's a little hard to answer that. The word "schtick" itself has negative connotations, at least to me. In my head, schtick is when repetition and consistency go overboard and become bothersome to readers. Using that definition, then yes, schtick is always bad. Not necessarily enough to kill the story, but bad.

[algertman]

...of and while we're at it, Garth 'feckin' Ennis.

he never met a comic he couldn't stick an irish guy in

[algertman]

Grant Morrison turned to shtick about halfway through the second issue of Seaguy.

Grant Morrison isn't really schtick. It's more like "I do enough drugs to kill 5,000 elephants and I can prove it"

[bat2supe]

Ed Brubaker ?!!

He started his Captain America, Daredevil & X-Men runs by killing a support character (ouch Nomad, sorry Foggy, that certainly hurts Banshee)
& messed with back stories ( Bucky , Krakoa & the Shi'ar/Summers history).

Jeph Loeb since he has been used of making a lot of guest star appearences by other characters in his last series. Meaning that no issue runs without having a guest list.

The Marvel & DC comics since the tendancy is to have huge crosssovers, 6 issues (boring) stories, the use of the 3rd person narration by the hero himself (boring & ineffective sometimes)....

-Bat2supe.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Ed Brubaker ?!!

He started his Captain America, Daredevil & X-Men runs by killing a support character (ouch Nomad, sorry Foggy, that certainly hurts Banshee)
& messed with back stories ( Bucky , Krakoa & the Shi'ar/Summers history).


Does it count if he only schticks on other peoples characters?

His own original works are all quite different and varied... so is it as big a sin to schtick if you only do it on the works you are presumably doing only for the money?

[Bright-Raven]

Harvey Jerkwater writes:

We're discussing a particular type of artistic development, or rather, the end thereof. It's a noticable phenomenon, not a case of "I don't like Writer X, and so I'm going to accuse him of relying on schtick."

Every writer relies on "shtick", Harvey. "Shtick" is just a coined word for "playing to their strengths". Show me a comics writer who doesn't play up to their strengths. Show me a comics writer who consistently and ALWAYS dares to go to the next level. You're not going to find one.

The question isn't whether or not they rely on it. It's whether or not you, as a reader, are tired of it and want something different from that author, or a different author entirely.

[Harvey Jerkwater]

Every writer relies on "shtick", Harvey. "Shtick" is just a coined word for "playing to their strengths". Show me a comics writer who doesn't play up to their strengths. Show me a comics writer who consistently and ALWAYS dares to go to the next level. You're not going to find one.

The question isn't whether or not they rely on it. It's whether or not you, as a reader, are tired of it and want something different from that author, or a different author entirely.
I disagree with the first part of your statement. Schtick is style that's calcified, that's lost the capacity to surprise or vary. One can play to one's strengths and still maintain a decent level of variation. Most writers do.

The second part of your statement, that the border between style and schtick is a personal judgment call, I've already said was my opinion too.

Take Alan Moore. He has a theme that he's used at least three times in major stories, probably more: popular culture of the past as vehicles to explore the limitless power of the imagination. That encapsulates Promethea, Tom Strong, and Youngblood: Judgment Day. Yet the three stories don't feel like retreads of one another, because they varied. They were recurring themes, part of his style. They weren't repetitions of one another. He played to his strengths (knowledge of olde tymey popular culture, mystical ideas) but did not descend into schtick.

...hm...maybe a new definition is in order. How about "Schtick: the repetition of discrete story elements." It's not recurring themes, characters, or ideas, but the literal repetition of dialogue, imagery, and events? For example, "being depressing" is not a schtick, but "the protagonist in every story discovers his wife is cheating on him by reading the cellphone bill" is schtick. "Ending every story with a big fight" is not schtick, since there are many ways to do that, but "ending every story with a fight on the moon where the hero nearly loses, but then gathers up his waning strength for a last-ditch blow" is schtick.

A definition in progress. Howzat?

[Nate C.]

I gotta disagree with Harvey on Miller.

You can't compare all of Sin City works with, well, more Sin City works. They are as much a self contained universe as any ever created.

And by definition of genre, (crime noir with HUGE influences from Lone Wolf and Cub- trust me on this one) they HAVE to be alike. They are the modern equivalant of a 1950's men's pulp series.

Miller is not schtik. He's a new man, every time (except on Batman and Robin-I'm as flabbergasted as everybody else on that one. Maybe none of us are seeing what's right in front of our eyes, or maybe it really is just garbage).

But,

the guy who wrote

Big Guy and Rusty the Robot (children's books)
Hardboiled (Heavy Metalesque mature readers)
Give Me Liberty (political satire/sci-fi)
Sin City (volume I) (crime noir)
300 (historical)
Daredevil 158-168 (superhero with a twist. Strong design elements, strong Japanese influence)
Ronin (Daredevil + free reign + science fiction + political satire)

and I know I'm missing stuff, (notably DKR) but that's all pretty diverse stuff.

[Harvey Jerkwater]

I believe the Sin City books are so close to interchangable as to merit the charge of schtick, and that ASSBAR and big chunks of DK2 are more of the same. His earlier work certainly isn't like that, and even now, when he stretches himself, like in 300 or Give Me Liberty, he's a different cat.

Maybe it's that when he's on his game, he's so good, that when he's so clearly repeating himself to a huge degree, it sticks in my brain. A hack doing so wouldn't necessarily register.

Perhaps I'm alone in this opinion. Oh, well.

[Brian Cronin]

I like your new definition of shtick, Harvey.

-Brian

[Bright-Raven]

Schtick is style that's calcified, that's lost the capacity to surprise or vary.

I'll go along with that.

One can play to one's strengths and still maintain a decent level of variation. Most writers do.

Actually, most writers today don't. And therein lies the problem.

Take Alan Moore...

*snickers* Okay...

He has a theme that he's used at least three times in major stories, probably more: popular culture of the past as vehicles to explore the limitless power of the imagination.

Yeah, that is a recurring theme, and he uses it excessively, not just in the examples you cited. It can be found in MIRACLEMAN and SWAMP THING and other works. It's a staple of his, but it's long past used up. It's dead, buried, decomposed and reborn twice over with him.

So there's one example of his using shtick. If you need to keep using the same themes, Harvey, it doesn't matter how many different ways you express it, it's still old hat once the audience recognizes it for what it is.

That encapsulates Promethea, Tom Strong, and Youngblood: Judgment Day. Yet the three stories don't feel like retreads of one another, because they varied. They were recurring themes, part of his style. They weren't repetitions of one another. He played to his strengths (knowledge of olde tymey popular culture, mystical ideas) but did not descend into schtick.

You are correct in that these works are not repetitive to one another.

However, Alan's YOUNGBLOOD is very much repetitive to the DC superhero work he wrote in the early 80s, as all he did there was try to make Rob's characters legitimately the Silver Age DCU versions that Rob had ripped off to begin with, and attempt to move forward from there.

TOM STRONG (and LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, to be inclusive), I can do without because I already have Burroughs, Dent, Verne, Wells, Doyle, and the other authors who Moore is riffing off of in my library. If that's the kind of fiction I want, I already have it. I don't need Alan's mediocre retoolings of such. I need Alan (and / or any other writer) to give me something I can't get ANYWHERE ELSE.

That pretty much kills his entire ABC lineup. PROMETHEA may be the exception, but I haven't read it, so I can't comment there.

What else has he got? FROM HELL. Okay, it was a different direction for him. It didn't mean anything to me personally because I had no real interest in reading a fictional interpretation of the events of the Jack The Ripper murders. But I'm willing to give him credit where it's due.

So, since WATCHMEN (published over twenty years ago *sic*), we're looking at what - two series that *might* be on par with the works he is most well known for (that being SWAMP THING, V FOR VENDETTA, and WATCHMEN)? That's not a very good track record, Harvey.

[JLarson]

Promethea is better than Watchmen, and nothing like it.

[Bright-Raven]

JLarson:

Promethea is better than Watchmen

Funny. I don't see PROMETHEA winning a Hugo Award. If in five years PROMETHEA reaches the same level of critical acknowledgement OUTSIDE of comics that SWAMP THING, V, and WATCHMAN have, then we can discuss whether it's as good or better. Until then, the jury is out.

Irregardless of that possibility, JLarson, you're still only talking a maximum of TWO concepts (PROMETHEA and FROM HELL) produced over a twenty year period at the same level or better quality than what Moore is most widely acknowledged and appreciated for.

For all the reputation and hype, the work doesn't measure up.

[JLarson]

Well, consider also that about 1000x more people have read Watchmen. Also, Promethea won an Eisner every year it was published, I believe.

I'm not a HUGE Alan Moore fan, but I do love Promethea and just want to try and stand up for what I view as a seriously underappreciated work.

[Bright-Raven]

Just to make something clear here --

I said earlier that I would dissect any comics writer. Alan Moore just happened to be the first name provided. Does this mean Alan Moore is a "bad" writer? No.

What it means is that I've grown past what Alan's producing and he's not meeting the standards I expect of him as a reader. Now, if Alan stops being dependent on riffing the pulp writers of yesteryear and delves into territory I've never seen from him before, and he maintains the level of writing craft I know he's capable of, maybe he'll get my dollars again. I'm sure he is capable of it. I just have no reason to believe he's going to make such an effort.

[Bright-Raven]

JLarson:

That's why I said to give PROMETHEA the time. VENDETTA and WATCHMEN were not the iconic masterpieces overnight, either. They were underappreciated in their time, too, and their legend grew over time.

[Dan Apodaca]

Funny. I don't see PROMETHEA winning a Hugo Award. If in five years PROMETHEA reaches the same level of critical acknowledgement OUTSIDE of comics that SWAMP THING, V, and WATCHMAN have, then we can discuss whether it's as good or better. Until then, the jury is out.

Let's not forget that winners of the Hugo award also include Terminator 2 and The Truman Show.

[dancj]

That Yellow Bastard: A violent man barely holding his urges in check obsesses over a whore-goddess and goes on a killing rampage.

Sin City and A Dame to Kill for I give you, but that's not That Yellow Bastard in the slightest

[Evan Waters]

Funny. I don't see PROMETHEA winning a Hugo Award. If in five years PROMETHEA reaches the same level of critical acknowledgement OUTSIDE of comics that SWAMP THING, V, and WATCHMAN have, then we can discuss whether it's as good or better.

I don't see how that would be relevant. Just because something has a lot of acclaim doesn't mean that its quality cannot be challenged by any individual critic.

[Brian Cronin]

I don't see how that would be relevant. Just because something has a lot of acclaim doesn't mean that its quality cannot be challenged by any individual critic.

What's too bad is that is exactly how comics are treated in the world of collegiate studies.

A friend of mine had a joke about this, "We can never study comics. We only study Award-winning graphic literature." :)

-Brian

[Evan Waters]

What's too bad is that is exactly how comics are treated in the world of collegiate studies.

A friend of mine had a joke about this, "We can never study comics. We only study Award-winning graphic literature." :)

-Brian

My English couse got hung up on "canon" quite a bit too- not so much in terms of awards, but overall consensus.

I think there's some objective component to art- otherwise we couldn't talk about it, because there'd be no work beyond our perceptions, no common ground- but I draw the line by saying that there has to be room for the quality of anything to be argued regardless of consensus. This lets me continue to claim that THE AVENGERS is a good movie, so you can see why I stick to it.

[Bright-Raven]

Evan:

Just because something has a lot of acclaim doesn't mean that its quality cannot be challenged by any individual critic.

True enough. However, the more acclaim something has - however justified it may or may not be - the more difficult task will be put forth to the individual critic to validate their views to others.

Not that it's remotely right.

[BizarroBeachHead]

I'm going to go ahead and accuse Mark Millar for his obscene overuse of full page panels in order to end an issue. What's worse, the issues with a close up of a single character almost always spurt out some sort of (what I feel to be)corny line. And when he doesn't use a full page, he often opts for two panels, one small panel , and one fairly large panel that dominates most of the page. I've got a stack of Mark Millar comics next to me, and I'm going to go through each one and pick out the full page panel endings. I'm also going to pick out the two panel endings, just to show how close he gets to a full panel

Keep in mind, I do not take issue with using full page panel endings. I understand their significance of increasing the suspense and suprise for an issue ending with a cliffhanger, especially an issue mid story arc. The reason I think it's Millars shtick, is because of his increasingly common usage of said endings, especially in the Ultimate titles.

Authority 13-22, 27-29
#13
#15
#17-two panels
#19
#22
#27
#28

Ultimates 1-13
#2
#3
#4
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12

Ultimates 2, 1-11
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#8
#9
#10
#11

Ultimate War 1-4
#1-two panels
#2
#3

Ulitmate Fantastic Four 21-30
#21-two panels
#22
#23
#24
#25
#27
#28
#30-two panels

Civil War 1-2
#1-two panels
#2

Admittedly, this isn't comprehensive, I don't even have my copies of Ultimates 2 #1, and Ultimate War #4 with me for some reason, and I was working with the Authority trades not issues, but out of the 50 Millar comics I just went through, 34 of the issues, thats well over half, end with a full page panel. Oh, and the issues that are bolded in the Ultimate books, those end with a close up of Captain America...10 out of 21 Ultimate close ups are of Captain America. In other words, when you pick up any random issue of the Ultimates, you have a 35% chance of flipping to the back of the page and seeing a full page Captain America. I know that sounds small, but can you say that about any other writer whose written the Avengers? I call shtick.

I will be very suprised if any future issues of Civil War end with more than 2 panels, with the possible exception of the last issue(end of the story).

I like Millar and think he's an entertaining writer to a degree, but this is just one of the reasons I think he's devolving into a hack writer.

[Shellhead]

It could become a funny, recurring gag-type schtick, especially if Millar had each artist use the same poses for that final panel. That's probably not the effect that he's hoping for, though.

[stealthwise]

Let's not forget that winners of the Hugo award also include Terminator 2 and The Truman Show.

I liked both of those. :)

[Dan Apodaca]

I liked both of those. :)

Good for you.

[Mark Wallace]

At what point exactly does a writer transcend from writing in a distinct style to writing shtick in his/her books?
I strongly dispute your use of the word "transcend", but, ignoring that, I'd say that it's when he starts paying more attention to the fans than he does the muses.






... Or when he moves to Hollywoood. Same thing.

[Marionette]

Jeph Loeb.

He's so much schtick that if you took it away there would be nothing left.

Someone once wrote a Jeph Loeb by numbers. Let me see if I can find it.

Here we go.

Len Null's "LOEB'S ELEMENTS OF STYLE," or, how fanboys stopped worrying and learned to love the Loeb

1) Pair up with a strong artist, one with a very distinctive style...jam a lot of guest stars in, and people will be so distracted/impressed with said artist's take on the cavalcade of guests that they won't question the shakier aspects of the plot...aka the 'stuff 'em with candy-coated crap' maneuver

2) Go back, young man; if you're vague on when the story happened, or, if you're lucky, able to write a 'Year Zero' story, you don't have to worry about pesky lil nuisances like continuity...as far as you're concerned, the 10 years of story lines that have been published before your opus have their roots in the book you're writing right now, since chronologically, your story is the first one in the continuity. Don't underestimate the power of counterfeit history. Ever. If that doesn't work, see element #1.

3) Write big or go home. As long as you're not a moron, you should be able to write the iconic characters with a minimum of effort... characterization is helped immensely by the fact that the readers know these characters in and out, so they write themselves to an extent. Throw 'em a bone once in a while, though( ie: tried and true 'money shots') and keep in mind element #2 is your best friend when it comes to handling characters poorly...reader's complaints can be dismissed with 'oh, well, this was when the charcter was still developing into the hero we know today' Try it, it's fun AND easy!

4) Last but not least, along with the pretty picture bait & switch(1), the obscuring mists of the retcon machine(2), and the power of a super-cypher(3), the most important element in the hack's toolbox is this:
CHANGE NOTHING. Elements # 2 & #3 make this oh so easy, and #1, as always, misdirects the reader from realizing it. The status quo is more than your friend, it is your bread and butter, your overriding theme, your muse.

And if they catch on to you, don't worry: You can always go back to LA, where they expect you to write crap.

-----

I'd just like to add to that the telling point that in all his work Loeb has created nothing original. The closest he ever came was the ultracliched Hush, who I gather has since been rewritten to death by other writers trying to turn the character into something useable.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'd just like to add to that the telling point that in all his work Loeb has created nothing original. The closest he ever came was the ultracliched Hush, who I gather has since been rewritten to death by other writers trying to turn the character into something useable.

I don't know if you just mean in Marvel or DC books - and then really, who has in the past decade or two - but he did actually create books when he was at Liefields 'Awesome! Studios' - the quality may be arguable, but he did create some stuff.

[Sir Tim Drake]

What's too bad is that is exactly how comics are treated in the world of collegiate studies.

A friend of mine had a joke about this, "We can never study comics. We only study Award-winning graphic literature." :)

-Brian

What do you mean by this-- are you saying that only award-winning comics get any attention from the academy, or what? That doesn't entirely agree with my experience as a comics-scholar-in-training.

[Marionette]

I don't know if you just mean in Marvel or DC books - and then really, who has in the past decade or two - but he did actually create books when he was at Liefields 'Awesome! Studios' - the quality may be arguable, but he did create some stuff.

What are these books? Who are the characters he created?

Where are they now?

[Mark Wallace]

What are these books? Who are the characters he created?

Where are they now?
Hey, get with the program!

In the comics biz, you don't need talent or creative bones! You just need to be hyper-actively enthusiastic, and have lots of stupid ideas for crossovers, and how to make this super-duper mix it up that super-duper (preferably on no logical grounds, and with no consideration for characterisation or continuity)!

If you're a genuinely creative person -- an Alan Moore, for example -- you end up telling the brainless-fanboy-run comic companies to go F%$# 'emselves.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

What are these books? Who are the characters he created?

Google or wikipedia them yourself.

As if I read them!


Where are they now?

Irrelevant to the point you were making.

[Marionette]

Google or wikipedia them yourself.

As if I read them!

Just Wikied Loeb and you know what? It doesn't list any comics prior to his work at DC. But it turns out he wrote a film I like.


Irrelevant to the point you were making.

Okay, I'll amend my point slightly to be absolutely clear. He has created nothing original that lasted. He may have created some original characters before he worked at DC but they don't seem to be around now. And considering how popular he is, his name could probably sell a franchise comic even if he wasn't actually writing it. Something like "JEPH LOEB'S Monologue Man by someone else entirely".

Pick any notable creator in the history of comics. What are they best remembered for, doing a dozen or two dozen comics featuring established characters, or creating something original?

Loeb is all schtick and no substance and when he goes out of fashion he will be forgotten so fast you'll think you have amnesia.

[stealthwise]

Good for you.

HUZZAH! Do I get a gold star? Do I? DO I!?

[Shellhead]

John Byrne's been guilty of it also, in that he tends to do "remakes" of previous stories and alternate history stories based off of favorites stories of his and the like (created by others and of course by himself as well).


I was reminded of this thread recently, while reading a Wikipedia entry on Acts of Vengeance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Vengeance#Magneto_Controversy

"One of the more controversial aspects of the storyline was the schizophrenic behavior of Magneto; this was the result of internal strife between John Byrne and the rest of the writers at Marvel. Byrne was dead-set on using the "Acts of Vengence" to revert Magneto back to his one-dimensional villain roots, complete with him exploiting his daughter, the Scarlet Witch's, emotional trauma from having her husband vivisected and mind erased, to revert her to the side of evil. Several other writers opposed this, most notably Mark Gruenwald; Gruenwald responded to Byrne's demands by using his tie-in issues to defiantly contradict Byrne's work by doing a storyline where Magneto reveals to Red Skull that he only joined up with Loki in order to be able to get close enough to the Red Skull so he could take revenge against Skull for his involvement in the Holocaust, which included burying Skull alive.

"Chris Claremont, who also championed the notion of Magneto as being a multi-dimensional figure who was capable of good as well as evil, further defied Byrne by having Magneto, right before the storyline by having Magneto inform Banshee that he was going to pretend to resume his villainous behavior to try and distract negative media attention away from mutant groups like the X-Men and X-Factor."

It seems like this is just one instance of many, where Byrne tries to reduce a character to the beginning. The most extreme case was the recent Doom Patrol series, where Byrne retconned every previous Doom Patrol appearance completely out of continuity. He even sort of did this with Dr. Doom, by giving us the Kristoff-Doom who remembered nothing since the events of Fantastic Four #4. While I'm sure there have been times when Byrne did something new and creative, it seems like he is more often trying to turn back the clock all the way. It's as though the first time he sees a new character, he wants to stop time and leave that character trapped in amber like a prehistoric insect.

[Mississippienne]

I'm starting to think the talky Bendis dialogue must surely be an in-joke of his, because that's the only reasonable explanation. It's certainly become his schtick.

Write your own Bendis dialogue!

CHAR 1: No way! Not Spider-Man!
CHAR 2: Yes.
CHAR 1: You're not serious.
CHAR 2: Serious. I swear.
CHAR 1: Wow. Spider-Man.
CHAR 2: Yeah.
CHAR 1: Wow!

[dancj]

The most extreme case was the recent Doom Patrol series, where Byrne retconned every previous Doom Patrol appearance completely out of continuity.

To be dair, that decision was made by DC's editors. Byrne was just the guy they hired to do the job

[TheTen-EyedMan]

I was reminded of this thread recently, while reading a Wikipedia entry on Acts of Vengeance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Vengeance#Magneto_Controversy

"One of the more controversial aspects of the storyline was the schizophrenic behavior of Magneto; this was the result of internal strife between John Byrne and the rest of the writers at Marvel. Byrne was dead-set on using the "Acts of Vengence" to revert Magneto back to his one-dimensional villain roots, complete with him exploiting his daughter, the Scarlet Witch's, emotional trauma from having her husband vivisected and mind erased, to revert her to the side of evil. Several other writers opposed this, most notably Mark Gruenwald; Gruenwald responded to Byrne's demands by using his tie-in issues to defiantly contradict Byrne's work by doing a storyline where Magneto reveals to Red Skull that he only joined up with Loki in order to be able to get close enough to the Red Skull so he could take revenge against Skull for his involvement in the Holocaust, which included burying Skull alive.



For that fact alone, I forgive Mark Gruenwald for the editorial mistakes he made regarding Roger Stern and Steve Englehart on the Avengers books.

I think that was the best non-continued plot/characterisation in Marvel history.

[stealthwise]

I'm starting to think the talky Bendis dialogue must surely be an in-joke of his, because that's the only reasonable explanation. It's certainly become his schtick.

Write your own Bendis dialogue!

CHAR 1: No way! Not Spider-Man!
CHAR 2: Yes.
CHAR 1: You're not serious.
CHAR 2: Serious. I swear.
CHAR 1: Wow. Spider-Man.
CHAR 2: Yeah.
CHAR 1: Wow!

Spread that dialogue a bit further among five characters and you've got part 1 of 6 of most of his arcs.

[brundlefly]

I'm starting to think the talky Bendis dialogue must surely be an in-joke of his, because that's the only reasonable explanation. It's certainly become his schtick.

Write your own Bendis dialogue!

CHAR 1: No way! Not Spider-Man!
CHAR 2: Yes.
CHAR 1: You're not serious.
CHAR 2: Serious. I swear.
CHAR 1: Wow. Spider-Man.
CHAR 2: Yeah.
CHAR 1: Wow!

His was the name I immediately thought of when I read the title of this thread. Easily gets my vote for style-over-substance/style-becomes-shtick, moreso than anyone else mentioned so far. He takes three issues to say what others can in one and in the end it's usually not worth the effort anyway.
Of course, it might be because I just find his shtick irritating instead of endearing. Fans of a particular writer are more apt to define it as a distinctive style, while non-fans will more likely deride it as shtick.


I was reminded of this thread recently, while reading a Wikipedia entry on Acts of Vengeance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of...to_Controversy

"One of the more controversial aspects of the storyline was the schizophrenic behavior of Magneto; this was the result of internal strife between John Byrne and the rest of the writers at Marvel. Byrne was dead-set on using the "Acts of Vengence" to revert Magneto back to his one-dimensional villain roots, complete with him exploiting his daughter, the Scarlet Witch's, emotional trauma from having her husband vivisected and mind erased, to revert her to the side of evil. Several other writers opposed this, most notably Mark Gruenwald; Gruenwald responded to Byrne's demands by using his tie-in issues to defiantly contradict Byrne's work by doing a storyline where Magneto reveals to Red Skull that he only joined up with Loki in order to be able to get close enough to the Red Skull so he could take revenge against Skull for his involvement in the Holocaust, which included burying Skull alive.

Did Byrne and Morrison collaborate on PLANET X? :D

[Alan2099]

His was the name I immediately thought of when I read the title of this thread. Easily gets my vote for style-over-substance/style-becomes-shtick, moreso than anyone else mentioned so far. He takes three issues to say what others can in one and in the end it's usually not worth the effort anyway.
It didn't help that during the Wolverine and Spider-man crossover, he actually appeared at the start of the issue and said that even he couldn't stretch it past two issues.

[brundlefly]

It didn't help that during the Wolverine and Spider-man crossover, he actually appeared at the start of the issue and said that even he couldn't stretch it past two issues.

He actually wrote himself into the beginning of a story to comment on how weak the story he had written was going to be?

Well, at least he warned the reader ahead of time.

[Alan2099]

If I remember right, he wrote himself in in part 2 and blames the idea on somebody else.

[Hombre]

His was the name I immediately thought of when I read the title of this thread. Easily gets my vote for style-over-substance/style-becomes-shtick, moreso than anyone else mentioned so far. He takes three issues to say what others can in one and in the end it's usually not worth the effort anyway.


I would agree entirely. In keeping with your apt description, I think the big B. is also no stranger to utter pretentiousness, as can be seen in such story arcs as Wake Up, at the start of his Daredevil run.

[Gilda Dent]

Is there a difference between formula and shtick?

Gardner Fox wrote his JSA and JLA stories according to a very predictable formula:

1a and 1b are interchangable.

1a. The team has a meeting at headquarters.
1b. A big bad appears that must be stopped.
2. The team splits up into teams and fights the big bad or little bad versions of the big bad, and fails to completely stop it.
3. The team reassembles and ultimately defeats the big bad.

There were a small number of slight variations on this, with certain plot elements used repeatedly, such as switched costumes, everyone being captured and then saved ABC style (A isn't really incapacitated, and he frees B, who frees C, etc.), one character seemingly dying/disappearing and reappearing at the end to save everyone.

They were frequently entertaining in the details, but sometimes it seems as if Gardner were throwing a set of dice with plot elements on them and writing in the specifics to match.

Gilda

[suedenim]

Lately, I've been reading a bunch of unrelated comics from the '70s, and man, did the writers have some weird stylistic tics that really have not aged well.

One in particular seems to have infected pretty much the entire crew of "fans-turned-pros" that started making it big in the early '70s - Roy Thomas, Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, etc. - the extremely verbose and chatty narrative caption. And the writers on the All-Star stories reprinted in the new "Justice Society" TPB (irritatingly and inexplicably uncredited for individual stories, but Paul Levitz and I forget the other.)

Of course, narrative captions were used a lot more in the Silver Age than today. Broadly speaking, I think:
1. DC tended toward the "superfluous" narrative caption. To accompany a picture of Batman being grabbed by an octopus, the caption might be "Suddenly, twin tentacles ensnare the Gotham Guardian!" That sort of thing, where the captions don't impart any additional information whatsoever.
2. Marvel did a lot of the "chatty caption" stuff, but Stan was pretty restrained with it altogether, and not all that wordy.

And today, the pendulum has shifted to the point that captions are looked down on for some reason. But in between, those Bronze Age guys just went absolutely nuts with them! And even the best comics of the era are loaded with these purple-prose-packed captions - like Marv Wolfman giving you a full biography of some character whose first and last appearance is on a single page where she's killed by Dracula.

[Gilda Dent]

1. DC tended toward the "superfluous" narrative caption. To accompany a picture of Batman being grabbed by an octopus, the caption might be "Suddenly, twin tentacles ensnare the Gotham Guardian!" That sort of thing, where the captions don't impart any additional information whatsoever.

It sounds like radio drama syndrome. In the early days of tv, most of the writers came from radio. In radio dramas or comedies, there was a tendancy for characters to describe in dialog what they were about to do, were doing, or just did, or do the same for others. The writers kept writing in the same style, which resulted in a lot of dialog describing the on scene action.

A good place to see this is in the first couple of seasons of The Adventues of Superman, where the writers came directly from the Superman radio drama or based plots and style in part on the radio drama.

I don't know if there's any connection to the comics version.

2. Marvel did a lot of the "chatty caption" stuff, but Stan was pretty restrained with it altogether, and not all that wordy.

Not in the caption boxes, but he was fond of putting a character's history into dialog or thought bubbles:

Spider-Man: It's Doctor Octopus, a scientist who uses mechanical arms that he can control with just a thought. In our last encounter I managed to disable two of his arms and knock him out with a right hook. I wonder what he's up to now?

There was a time not to long ago when thought bubbles were all but gone, but the've been replaced recently with colored caption boxes. It's a change I kinda like because the text boxes can be scattered about the edge and not obscure the art as they used to do.

Gilda

[howyadoin]

DC tended toward the "superfluous" narrative caption. To accompany a picture of Batman being grabbed by an octopus, the caption might be "Suddenly, twin tentacles ensnare the Gotham Guardian!" That sort of thing, where the captions don't impart any additional information whatsoever.I liked Scott McCloud's term for that - duospecific.

Years ago, a friend and I were collaborating on some comic stuff - he gave me a page that he'd pencilled and lettered, and I was to ink it. One page in particular was full of crap like that, so I "accidentally" peeled off some of his glued-on captions. He didn't even notice.

[Black Atom]

Lately, I've been reading a bunch of unrelated comics from the '70s, and man, did the writers have some weird stylistic tics that really have not aged well.

One in particular seems to have infected pretty much the entire crew of "fans-turned-pros" that started making it big in the early '70s - Roy Thomas, Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, etc. - the extremely verbose and chatty narrative caption. And the writers on the All-Star stories reprinted in the new "Justice Society" TPB (irritatingly and inexplicably uncredited for individual stories, but Paul Levitz and I forget the other.)

Of course, narrative captions were used a lot more in the Silver Age than today. Broadly speaking, I think:
1. DC tended toward the "superfluous" narrative caption. To accompany a picture of Batman being grabbed by an octopus, the caption might be "Suddenly, twin tentacles ensnare the Gotham Guardian!" That sort of thing, where the captions don't impart any additional information whatsoever.
2. Marvel did a lot of the "chatty caption" stuff, but Stan was pretty restrained with it altogether, and not all that wordy.

And today, the pendulum has shifted to the point that captions are looked down on for some reason. But in between, those Bronze Age guys just went absolutely nuts with them! And even the best comics of the era are loaded with these purple-prose-packed captions - like Marv Wolfman giving you a full biography of some character whose first and last appearance is on a single page where she's killed by Dracula.

It takes about 40 minutes to read an issue of something Wolfman wrote back then.

I think the pretentious 1st person narrative caption has replaced captions of old. It's more or less the same vehicle as thought-balooons, only now I have to read them throughout an entire issue. Loeb abused them so thoroughly, that I'd literally just skip over them at certain point.

[Mark Wallace]

His [Bendis'] was the name I immediately thought of when I read the title of this thread. Easily gets my vote for style-over-substance/style-becomes-shtick, moreso than anyone else mentioned so far. He takes three issues to say what others can in one and in the end it's usually not worth the effort anyway.
Read any Ultimate X-Men, lately?
Not only does nothing happen, but it doesn't happen with style. A total yawn-fest that puts Bendis at his worst to shame.

Of course, it might be because I just find his shtick irritating instead of endearing. Fans of a particular writer are more apt to define it as a distinctive style, while non-fans will more likely deride it as shtick.
I like seeing characters interact and talk to each other like people do, rather than like cardboard-cut-out characters who say what is convenient to the writer, and Bendis goes for that. When was the last time you saw one of his characters give an unnecessary reprise of what happened in the previous issue?
It's when he goes minimalist that it gets dull.

[brundlefly]

Read any Ultimate X-Men, lately?
Not only does nothing happen, but it doesn't happen with style. A total yawn-fest that puts Bendis at his worst to shame.


I avoid the Ultimate titles except for the current run of the ULTIMATES, but I'll take your word on that. :D I was never impressed with any of UXM. Who's writing that "yawn-fest" now? I thought Brian K Vaughn was on it at one point, which I thought was kind of a waste of his ability.


I like seeing characters interact and talk to each other like people do, rather than like cardboard-cut-out characters who say what is convenient to the writer, and Bendis goes for that. When was the last time you saw one of his characters give an unnecessary reprise of what happened in the previous issue?
It's when he goes minimalist that it gets dull.

Eh, like I said, some people find his style endearing. Nothing wrong with that. His style of writing just doesn't appeal to me, hence I label his writing patterns and tics as 'shtick.'

[founder81]

All the talk about the Ultimate titles got me thinking. Couldn't the whole ultimates line be considered 'shtick' at this point?

They started out to be fresh rethinkings of classic characters set in more modern times. A continuity free place to tell the stories. But now they have their own continuity and aren't 'fresh' anymore.

[howyadoin]

All the talk about the Ultimate titles got me thinking. Couldn't the whole ultimates line be considered 'shtick' at this point?

They started out to be fresh rethinkings of classic characters set in more modern times. A continuity free place to tell the stories. But now they have their own continuity and aren't 'fresh' anymore.To some extent that's true, but the Ultimate Universe continuity isn't nearly as convoluted. It wouldn't take several days to explain the Ultimate X-Men's history, for example.

(Although there have been a couple of retcons already.)

[NickThompson]

It didn't help that during the Wolverine and Spider-man crossover, he actually appeared at the start of the issue and said that even he couldn't stretch it past two issues.
It was a two parter with a lot of comedy, and he poked some fun at himself.

[Mark Wallace]

I avoid the Ultimate titles except for the current run of the ULTIMATES, but I'll take your word on that. :D I was never impressed with any of UXM. Who's writing that "yawn-fest" now? I thought Brian K Vaughn was on it at one point, which I thought was kind of a waste of his ability.
I think it's being written by an old 386 computer, that's been programmed to be as cliched and dull as possible.

The whole ultimate line (except the Ultimates itself) has just about worn through any trace of originality it had. It's near impossible to tell most ultimate stories from "standard" Marvel comic stories; and the constant "How can we change <insert character name> in this universe, so that fanboys will be excited/shocked by it?" is exactly the kind of shtick this thread's on about.

[brundlefly]

I think it's being written by an old 386 computer, that's been programmed to be as cliched and dull as possible.

HA! Nice. I can see I'm not missing anything there, then.


The whole ultimate line (except the Ultimates itself) has just about worn through any trace of originality it had. It's near impossible to tell most ultimate stories from "standard" Marvel comic stories; and the constant "How can we change <insert character name> in this universe, so that fanboys will be excited/shocked by it?" is exactly the kind of shtick this thread's on about.

That's my take on the Ultimate Marvel line, too. Just reheating old Marvel stories in the microwave with a few random changes to make them slightly different like "Ultimate Wolverine has a soul patch! Ultimate Jean has short hair!" :rolleyes: I thought Millar's Ultimates was the only one that really tried to do something different while still using the preexisting characters and ideas as its foundation. Ultimate Spidey, X-Men, etc. are just rehashing 616 stories with a few twists or "updates", which doesn't take a lot of skill or originality.