Part of What's Wrong with Superhero Comics Today

[meethraa]

Previous comics, sure. I guess where Meethra and I agree on this issue (hey, who thought I'd type that)
Geez, I don't find it that unbelievable... :P

[Kid Omega]

That's just it thought. You can't say that "by any standards" that song is not good because that's simply not true. You're basically pitting subjective criteria against more subjective criteria.

No he's not...

There are over a thousand years of musical theory, criticism, evolution, and scholarship detailing OBJECTIVE standards that tell us why Mozart is more accomplished than Vanilla Ice (to use an old example).

Just because you don't see/understand/believe them doesn't mean they don't exist.

So he can say "by any standards" because there are standards that exist. You just refuse to accept them.

(Tangentially, I think "Do you think I'm sexy" is a bad example, because there are some pop standards going for it, and remnants of Rod Stewart's gift for catchy composition, but whatever...)

[Kid Omega]

Either way I don't see anything necessarily elitist about liking something, but then again, as I've said before, I don't play the whole "indie/superhero" dichotomy you're hinting at here, since I don't see or even accept that divide.

He was not even remotely hinting at that.

And you totally missed his point.

[meethraa]

Being able to have some critical reasoning about a work alien from your own feelings about it has nothing to do with being self-loathing.
If it's YOUR critical reasoning then it's not alien from your feelings. Unless you're just agreeing with someone else's critical views, in which case I wouldn't call it self-loathing (admittedly too strong an expression) but it's definitely lazy.
You're seeing this whole concept as "meethra's opinion versus the world", which it is not.
No, I'm not actually.
If I read a shitty pulp novel, and enjoy it, and admit it was poorly executed but still enjoyable to me, in some way, I am not "submitting" to anything.

I am using critical faculties that seperate me from "fuck-good food-good" impulses of other primates.
No, it would be more "fuck-good-but-alpha-male-won't-let" impulses of other primates.
But then, that would be a ridiculous analogy so I won't make it.
Shiny, sparkly things may entertain lots of animals, but that does not mean that shiny, sparkly things are as good as CITIZEN KANE.
I don't think you can find me a better example from that era of shiny, sparkly than CITIZEN KANE. If that make all of us Orson Welles fans mere "animals", so be it.
I'm breaking this down in as simple a terms as I can, because I think you're being willfully obtuse at this point. It wouldn't be the first time.
And this would be the signature paragraph from your post.

Believe it or not no one here has all the answers, and talking about things doesn't have to be a competition to see who's wrong and who's right. What you call "obtuse" I call enjoying a debate, which I was, but sadly will have to abandon for now to get some much-deserved sleep.

[Kid Omega]

Believe it or not no one here has all the answers, and talking about things doesn't have to be a competition to see who's wrong and who's right. What you call "obtuse" I call enjoying a debate, which I was, but sadly will have to abandon for now to get some much-deserved sleep.

It's not a competition, but you're incorrect on the second part: everyone else is right, and you're wrong. And you are ignoring everyone's points to continuously keep saying "my opinion! my opinion!"

You are debating the idea of critical reasoning that has informed and molded art since the fucking Greeks. All because you like to argue.

What I call "obtuse" you call "enjoying a debate" which I then call "you not bothering to see any opposing points".

Which goes back to "obtuse".

[Kid Omega]

I don't think you can find me a better example from that era of shiny, sparkly than CITIZEN KANE. If that make all of us Orson Welles fans mere "animals", so be it.



I quote this to point out an example of willfully misinterpreting things... if anyone else here can divine from my comment the accusation that Welle's fans are "animals", I will gladly concede.

But I was making entirely the opposite point. If you hadn't been in such a rush to your usual contrarian position, you might have seen that.

[Tom]

I have to agree with Alex, meethraa. There's a "debate" only if you pretend that there haven't been objective, agreed-upon criteria for critiquing art and that these criteria have been existent for millenia across many cultures.

[Smarty Jones]

"These strike me as perfect examples of highly subjective criteria."

There is nothing subjective about previous characterizations and historical basis of comic stories. Batman being a driven, often-times moody person is a constant in the depiction of his character. Having Batman suddenly show up at a JLA meeting with two six-packs in his hand and ogling at Wonder Woman's behind would be an inconsistent characterization.

In this case, the quality of the work depends on the consistency of portraying Batman. If a creator noticeably has an inaccurate depiction of Batman, then (s)he does not meet the standard established as part of Batman's standard makeup.

It's no different than if a writer makes the mistake of saying Luke Cage was a founding member of The Fantastic Four or that Superman would stand by and permit his teammates commit clandestine attacks on people. The inconsistency of these depictions -- or in the case of Cage, an outright error -- means the quality is not up to standard.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, Moore and Gaiman are special cases, don't you think? That's a high bar to set.

I remember reading From Hell and thinking that Moore was one of the most intellectually versatile and well-read authors, not comic book mind you, but authors, I've ever seen.

I'm knee-deep in reading Gaiman's novel "American Gods" right now, and his story-telling skills are just extraordinary.

I'd consider those two, and there are a few others I'd put in that category, that just are so versatile, BECAUSE they are so well-read, but I consider making yourself well-read and versatile a geek hobby in itself.

They're not a fair bar to compare the majority of comic book writers to. It's sort of like comparing all baseball players to DiMaggio or Ted Williams.
I used them because they are current writers who are actually well-read, but yeah, I suppose they are a pretty high bar.

You could instead use Warren Ellis - who actually knows about things like science and politics and history - or you can use classic comics writers like Gardner Fox and John Broome, who were also very science-educated - and the point remains the same. Good writers can draw on sources more diverse than old JLA issues and STAR WARS.

[Slam_Bradley]

I have to agree with Alex, meethraa. There's a "debate" only if you pretend that there haven't been objective, agreed-upon criteria for critiquing art and that these criteria have been existent for millenia across many cultures.


This is the crux of the problem. There are a lot of people who simply refuse to recognize that there are objective standards for art. Meethraa appears to be one of them.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Previous comics, sure. I guess where Meethra and I agree on this issue (hey, who thought I'd type that) is a bit of auteur theory--the body of work as done by one individual or set of individuals, rather than trying to attempt to reconcile 20, 30, 40 or 50 years of continuity, which in the cases of the little, triffling things tends to be the province of those suffering from severe fan-entitlement. It's one of the difficult balances of serial fiction, and it's one of the things that has Marvel and DC seemingly rebooting every so often--is the primary focus on legacy, pleasing the diehard fans, or is the primary focus on this, the story that's being told with it's beginning, middle and end?

(A somewhat related side-note comes from when die-hard enthusiasts of a book, comic book or television show gets adapted into a movie--"It's not the same! It's not the exact same!" Of course it isn't--it isn't being done specifically for you, and to respect your personal love of the source material)


Well, it *can* be tough to balance continuity details and the demands of creativity. That being said, it certainly behooves the writer of an established character to know that character - established personality traits, broad details of history, etc. If you want to write Tarzan, write Tarzan, and have him win through smarts, or sheer strength and skill, or by having some of his animal friends show up to give him a hand. Don't have him get out of a bad situation by using his bionic arms and laser vision. If a writer doesn't want the constraints of remembering, for example, that Peter Parker's Uncle Ben is dead and that Peter is concerned about power and responsibility, that writer should make up his own characters, rather than writing Spider-Man.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Nostalgia goes a long way.

But nostalgic feelings for something have nothing to do with the actual quality of that something. Indeed, we often tend to have nostalgic feelings about things that are actually not very good.

Nostalgia itself isn't bad, but we're often nostalgic about bad things.

[Smarty Jones]

"But nostalgic feelings for something have nothing to do with the actual quality of that something. Indeed, we often tend to have nostalgic feelings about things that are actually not very good."

Exactly. Personal taste is based on an emotional response that has nothing to do with the standard pattern of structure associated with the genre, and being consistent with said structure.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I would like you to tell me why that is so clear.

I'd think it's self-evident. Musicianship. Originality. Depth. Richness of sound and theme. Understanding of the way sound can evoke emotional reactions.

C'mon. Are you seriously trying to argue that "Don Giovanni" isn't clearly better than "Ice Ice Baby" ?

But then it's a completely different discussion, one for which my point would obviously not stand as some things are clearly easily measurable...

...like golf, for example. Tiger Woods is the world greatest golf for as long as he ranks higher than anyone else. It's a matter of numbers.

Numbers don't tell the whole story. If they did, nobody would still argue whether Unitas or Montana was the better quarterback.

But hey, if you don't like my example, try Shell's Doritos example on for size. Same point, really.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But that has no bearing on whether or not Jeff likes watching him play golf. He is objectively good, but Jeff still doesn't enjoy him.

Bingo
(tencharrulegrrr)

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's just it thought. You can't say that "by any standards" that song is not good because that's simply not true. You're basically pitting subjective criteria against more subjective criteria.

Nonsense. I defy you to find any musician or music critic who considers that a good song. Rod Stewart himself doesn't even consider it a good song. It's repetitive, the lyrics are insipid, the musicianship is uninspired.

Would you argue that the crayon doodles of some random six-year-old belong in the Louvre just as much as does the Mona Lisa?

[Smarty Jones]

Or simply use "Identity Crisis" as a difference between quality and personal taste.

People's personal tastes on the story varied, based on their responses to the miniseries. In this case, the responses were all over the place. Some people loved it, some hated it. Their responses were based on how they reacted to the series.

The quality of the story became an issue because story elements contradicted what we've seen for years. Regardless of whether you liked the series, it's irrefutable that Dr. Light was never depicted as a sadistic rapist before the second issue. Or that The Atom, Black Canary, Barry Allen, Green Arrow, Hal Jordan, Hawkman and Zatanna never had been depicted as having a clandestine sub-group within The JLA that operated on people's memories. Or that Jean Loring had never met Robin, much less knew his true identity -- which makes it inconceivable how and why she would send a hitman to take out his father.

Because there was nothing in past stories or previous characterizations of such characters, it now becomes an issue of quality -- the story doesn't meet the typical consistency of said characters. Your reaction to such changes is one of personal taste, but the fact it's different from what we've seen mostly of these characters for the past 40 years shows that its quality doesn't match up.

[Gilda Dent]

I think I straddle the fence between the two sides here, but perhaps that's because I think there's a clear distinction between craft and art. There are certainly well established objective standards for the craft involved in writing, making movies, comics, music, or any other mature art form, and I would argue that it's very difficult to damn near impossible for a work of art to have a great deal of artistic merit if it fails on the level of craft, while at the same time it's possible for someone to be highly competent, or even very skilled at the craft involved in the art without it being good or even great art.

That extra level, however, is more difficult to measure objectively than it is at the level of the craft.

To illustrate the difference, I'll use playing classical compositions on the piano. Emily, like most young Asian girls in the US, got piano lessons as a girl, studied hard, and became a highly skilled at the craft of playing classical compositions. When I listen to her play, I don't hear a difference between what she plays and the two or three concerts we've been to, mostly because I don't have the knowledge or background in the study of that kind of music and how it's made to be able to hear it.

She would be the first to admit, however, that she's not a great piano player. Yes, she can play the notes in the right order at the right tempo and get through even some fairly complex compositions without missing notes, and this does indicate a high level of learned skill. Her playing though, as she's explained it, is 'sterile'; it's missing the emotion, the passion, the art that was built into the writing and is the performers job to find and bring out. She's missing that spark of creativity that great pianists have that sets them apart from highly skilled technicians. She's mastered the craft, but lacks something essential to being an artist.

And that's fine, as it doesn't keep her from entertaining me or herself or guests at her parent's parties. We can enjoy it at that level without thinking that it is great art.

To use a comics criterion, let's take Captain America #1, the Heroes Reborn version. Easy target, I know, but that's why it illustrates the point best. By objective standards, it's poorly drawn. Human proportions are off, physical positions and layouts are difficult to impossible, the size of Cap's shield relative to Cap changes sometimes from panel to panel. These are all objectively observable and describably artistic errors that show the poor skill of the artist involved. It fails at meeting the minimum requirements for the craft of comic art.

So, while I think there's no doubt that it's possible to judge the craft involved in a work of art objectively, I'm a bit iffy on the art part of it being entirely objective. I am, however, ready to admit that that is possibly due to my not having the degree of knowledge to apply these objective criteria to artforms I haven't studied closely, as in my example with Emily's piano playing.

In relation to Identity Crisis, I'd say that because of inconsistent characterization and a logically flawed mystery, it objectively fails to be a well-crafted story.

Gilda

[Ed Cunard]

Because there was nothing in past stories or previous characterizations of such characters, it now becomes an issue of quality -- the story doesn't meet the typical consistency of said characters. Your reaction to such changes is one of personal taste, but the fact it's different from what we've seen mostly of these characters for the past 40 years shows that its quality doesn't match up.

Most viewers of The Usual Suspects, though, didn't figure out that Keiser Soze and Verbal Kent were one and the same (myself included) until the end of the story--honestly, on that regard, I can see Identity Crisis being OK--it depends how much one trusts the narrator (as it were) of 40 years or whatever of DC Comics. You only know what you're shown--it is possible that things happened that weren't focused on, touched on, what-have-you.

The bare-bones of Identity Crisis might have made a very good story had it been done differently and by a different writer.

On this, though, I'll allow for subjectivity in interpretation--I mean, this is an analysis that hinges on what we actually consider the work to be. If we're just talking about Identity Crisis as This One Story, I still say that, objectively, it doesn't hold up as good quality work. However, if one views mainstream superhero comics as unending narrative where everything should totally cohere to everything else, then this could be seen as the rotten part of an otherwise nice apple.

[Brian Cronin]

Yeah, retcons that contradict past stories aren't inherently bad quality.

I mean, heck, anyone have a problem with "The Anatomy Lesson"? ANYone?

-Brian

[Smarty Jones]

"Yeah, retcons that contradict past stories aren't inherently bad quality."

Retcons in and of themselves aren't necessarily bad, but retcons that contradict historical and continual characterization and say said behavior is a default characterization is a quality issue.

Doctor Light's characterization had never been one of a sadistic rapist, in any part of his career prior to "Identity Crisis 2." What makes it a quality issue is that there is nothing in source material to suggest that aspect ever had been part of his characterization in his creation, but the reader is expected to think that's always been his default personality.

The same with Superman and his alleged "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- there has never been a story from which to draw such allegation. Superman has never displayed such a trait in any books.

[Kid Omega]

Yeah, retcons that contradict past stories aren't inherently bad quality.



I think the difference is that "The Anatomy Lesson built on/changed what was established in such an astounding and lovely and logical way, that readers were willing to roll with it. It was setting up a new paradigm, and new standards for the Swamp Thing stories.

In ID CRISIS, the contradictions were presented as "this doesn't make sense but yes it does don't think about it". Characterizations were changed arbitrarily in the service of a poorly executed mystery play, and readers were just supposed to accept it.

My biggest problem with ID CRISIS wasn't the poor characterizations and the nonsense retcons... it was the blatant emotional manipulation. Using a brutal rape of a known character as a red herring is not only bad taste, but really sleazy storytelling.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yeah, retcons that contradict past stories aren't inherently bad quality.

I mean, heck, anyone have a problem with "The Anatomy Lesson"? ANYone?



The problem here is that this particular retcon - involving, as it does, basic personalities of the characters - contradicts virtually all past stories. Ollie Queen going along with what was done with Light? Superman choosing to ignore misdeeds of the League?

Worse, it rather contradicts other stories going on at the same time. Like I pointed out to Gail at the time, her having Black Canary chew out Batman for being a dick (in BoP), at about the same time we learned BC and the others had screwed with Batman's mind (in IC), cast an unintentional - and rather unpleasant - bit of hypocricy on that scene.

[JeffreyWKramer]

My biggest problem with ID CRISIS wasn't the poor characterizations and the nonsense retcons... it was the blatant emotional manipulation. Using a brutal rape of a known character as a red herring is not only bad taste, but really sleazy storytelling.

I hate all of the above more or less equally, for different reasons. But, however one rates them, are valid reasons for concluding that IC is stinky poo.

[berk]

Yeah, retcons that contradict past stories aren't inherently bad quality.

I mean, heck, anyone have a problem with "The Anatomy Lesson"? ANYone?

-BrianYeah. What always galls me is when fans say, "Oh you can't change that, that'd be a retcon," when the thing you're trying to change was itself a retcon. "Two Wrongs doesn't make a right" doesn't apply in this case.

[JeffreyWKramer]

However, if one views mainstream superhero comics as unending narrative where everything should totally cohere to everything else, then this could be seen as the rotten part of an otherwise nice apple.

This is a bit of a strawman argument, Ed.

There is a difference between anal attention to continuity minutae - "But wait a minute, in Detective 413, Batman's mini-laser is in the third pocket to the right of the belt buckle... how can it now be over on the left side??!!" - and expecting core personality traits to be relatively consistent from story to story. Really, the degree of departure in IC is of the "everything you thought was a lie" level.

To buy IC, you have to buy that not only were we wrong about what Dr. Light was like, but also that we were wrong about what the Justice League members were like, both in how they would react to something like Dr. Light's action, but also as to how they would treat their teammates. Plus we're asked to rethink Superman's actual degree of adherence to the ideals of truth and justice. That's a lot to swallow for one stupid, illogical, pessimistic turd of a story.

[Brian Cronin]

I think the difference is that "The Anatomy Lesson built on/changed what was established in such an astounding and lovely and logical way, that readers were willing to roll with it. It was setting up a new paradigm, and new standards for the Swamp Thing stories.

In ID CRISIS, the contradictions were presented as "this doesn't make sense but yes it does don't think about it". Characterizations were changed arbitrarily in the service of a poorly executed mystery play, and readers were just supposed to accept it.

My biggest problem with ID CRISIS wasn't the poor characterizations and the nonsense retcons... it was the blatant emotional manipulation. Using a brutal rape of a known character as a red herring is not only bad taste, but really sleazy storytelling.

Oh yeah, Identity Crisis was lame.

Just saying that retcons that change characterizations aren't inherently bad - they are generally as good as the writers writing them.

I mean, the fact that Matt Murdock had this huge love of his life that he NEVER mentioned? Makes no sense. But Elektra was cool, so people don't ever complain about it (okay, I know one guy who complains about it).

Magneto as a victim of the Nazis?

Made absolutely ZERO sense with Magneto's past characterizations, yet it doesn't get knocked. Heck, didn't someone in this thread link to some site that was mocking Byrne for wanting to go back to Magneto's past characterization?

So yeah, Identity Crisis was lame. Just that that particular writing trick doesn't HAVE to be bad.

-Brian

[Ed Cunard]

There is a difference between anal attention to continuity minutae - "But wait a minute, in Detective 413, Batman's mini-laser is in the third pocket to the right of the belt buckle... how can it now be over on the left side??!!" - and expecting core personality traits to be relatively consistent from story to story. Really, the degree of departure in IC is of the "everything you thought was a lie" level.

Core personality traits, but a lot of that could be how they're portrayed. I mean, I tend to be a lot more civil on-line than I am in person--you're only seeing the one side of me. This is the only side of me you see. That's what I'm getting at with portrayed characterization--reconcilling Superman in the '60s and Superman today, or something.

To buy IC, you have to buy that not only were we wrong about what Dr. Light was like, but also that we were wrong about what the Justice League members were like, both in how they would react to something like Dr. Light's action, but also as to how they would treat their teammates. Plus we're asked to rethink Superman's actual degree of adherence to the ideals of truth and justice.

Well, superheroes used to kill. And Superman deceives people all the time--particularly as Clark Kent, journalist. I mean, I agree with you to some extent--on this one note, I'm more of a devil's advocate than anything else because we haven't seen this particular concept done well, but I'm not willing to write out the possibility that it could be.

That's a lot to swallow for one stupid, illogical, pessimistic turd of a story.

See, exactly--but had the book turned out really well, we might not be having this conversation. I know that's useless conjecture, but I think it's worth noting.

[Smarty Jones]

"Oh yeah, Identity Crisis was lame.

Just saying that retcons that change characterizations aren't inherently bad - they are generally as good as the writers writing them.

I mean, the fact that Matt Murdock had this huge love of his life that he NEVER mentioned? Makes no sense. But Elektra was cool, so people don't ever complain about it (okay, I know one guy who complains about it).

Magneto as a victim of the Nazis?

Made absolutely ZERO sense with Magneto's past characterizations, yet it doesn't get knocked. Heck, didn't someone in this thread link to some site that was mocking Byrne for wanting to go back to Magneto's past characterization?"

It's apples and oranges, Cronin.

The Daredevil and Magneto examples did not change their characterizations; those are basic plot devices.

Saying Dr. Light always had sadistic rapist tendencies -- in Silver Age stories that we believe came before the "Identity Crisis 2" and stories that came afterward -- was never some personality trait he exhibited. It's a fundamental change in character, one that expects the reader to believe HE'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.

Saying that Hawkman, Green Arrow, Zatanna, The Atom, Barry Allen, Hal Jordan and Black Canary were secretly doctoring villains' minds is more than a retcon -- it's an inconsistency in their basic characterizations of clean-cut, straightforward superheroes. The characterization is to the level is hard to believe, because they have never exhibited such behavior in such a insidious manner in previous books or current ones.

[Kid Omega]

So yeah, Identity Crisis was lame. Just that that particular writing trick doesn't HAVE to be bad.

-Brian

Gotcha. Agreed.

But it CAN be a crime.

Example A: John Garrner's GRENDEL, re-writes the Anglo-Saxon monster as a sympathetic momma's boy. Well done.

Example B: Geoff John's Hal Jordan, rewritten as an alpha male military macho fratboy stereotype, with no motivation and paper thin personality.. Craptastic.

There are several things that can go either way, when critiquing...

Sometimes using archetypes/stereotypes is amazing, sometimes it's lazy characterization.

Meandering plots are sometimes a joy to watch unfold, other times they can be tedious and infuriating.

As you said, it's all in the execution...

-a

[Brian Cronin]

It's apples and oranges, Cronin.

The Daredevil and Magneto examples did not change their characterizations; those are basic plot devices.

Saying Dr. Light always had sadistic rapist tendencies -- in Silver Age stories that we believe came before the "Identity Crisis 2" and stories that came afterward -- was never some personality trait he exhibited. It's a fundamental change in character, one that expects the reader to believe HE'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.

Saying that Hawkman, Green Arrow, Zatanna, The Atom, Barry Allen, Hal Jordan and Black Canary were secretly doctoring villains' minds is more than a retcon -- it's an inconsistency in their basic characterizations of clean-cut, straightforward superheroes. The characterization is to the level is hard to believe, because they have never exhibited such behavior in such a insidious manner in previous books or current ones.

Magneto's personality was TOTALLY changed.

He went from being a one-note villain to being almost an "anti-hero."

-Brian

[Michael P]

Magneto's personality was TOTALLY changed.

He went from being a one-note villain to being almost an "anti-hero."

-Brian
Yeah. Can anyone really imagine Claremont's Magneto calling himself an "evil mutant?"

[Smarty Jones]

"Core personality traits, but a lot of that could be how they're portrayed. I mean, I tend to be a lot more civil on-line than I am in person--you're only seeing the one side of me. This is the only side of me you see. That's what I'm getting at with portrayed characterization--reconcilling Superman in the '60s and Superman today, or something."

It's an apples-and-oranges argument, IMO. When it comes to literature and other forms of entertainment, we take the presentations of the characters in front of us as face value because as a disembodied, disconnected group we are able to peer into all aspects of a character.

We have no reason to believe that when Superman is off-panel that he's frying babies with his X-ray vision. Because when Superman is on panel, every aspect of him -- including his behavior -- is considered transparent. so the characterization we have seen of Superman all our lives is the true face of the character. If Superman was frying babies off panel, that side would be shown to us, the omnipresent audience.

"Well, superheroes used to kill. And Superman deceives people all the time--particularly as Clark Kent, journalist. I mean, I agree with you to some extent--on this one note, I'm more of a devil's advocate than anything else because we haven't seen this particular concept done well, but I'm not willing to write out the possibility that it could be."

So in what instances before or after "Identity Crisis" have we seen characterizations of Superman displaying such behavior, on a consistent enough basis to determine that's a default character trait? You're not, which makes it a quality issue.

"See, exactly--but had the book turned out really well, we might not be having this conversation. I know that's useless conjecture, but I think it's worth noting."

One of the reasons "Identity Crisis" did not turn out well is because of poor characterizations of people like Superman, Green Arrow, Batman, et al.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Magneto's personality was TOTALLY changed.

He went from being a one-note villain to being almost an "anti-hero."

Under Claremont, over the course of years, Magneto did change. It happened so long ago that we've come to accept that change as almost always having been there, but you're correct. Thing is, though, this was a change that made for a better character. It's hard to argue against changes for the better.

Daredevil... well the Elektra story didn't itself change DD's personality, but DD really did change as a character quite dramatically over the course of Miller's run. Gone-for-good was the quipping blind swashbuckler. One can argue whether this change was a good thing - and Kurt (Cei-U) will certainly argue the negative on that point - but the change made sense within the context of the stories. Never before had so many things hit at DD on such a deep, personal level.

Now, I suppose Dan Didio would argue that IC is sort of a combo of these two things. The heroes are acting more "real", which is better, and they changed as the result of what was shown in IC. The problem there is a) why were none of these changes - which supposedly resulted from events occurring years before IC was published - ever visible before, and b) the question (not really a question for me, but some may still ask it) whether these changes in personality are really more "real", and whether they are at all good.

[berk]

Yeah. Can anyone really imagine Claremont's Magneto calling himself an "evil mutant?"Or, for that matter, any group of "villains" actually calling themselves villains, let alone "The Brotherhood," or "Masters" or whatever of "EVIL"?

[Brian Cronin]

Gotcha. Agreed.

But it CAN be a crime.

Example A: John Garrner's GRENDEL, re-writes the Anglo-Saxon monster as a sympathetic momma's boy. Well done.

Example B: Geoff John's Hal Jordan, rewritten as an alpha male military macho fratboy stereotype, with no motivation and paper thin personality.. Craptastic.

There are several things that can go either way, when critiquing...

Sometimes using archetypes/stereotypes is amazing, sometimes it's lazy characterization.

Meandering plots are sometimes a joy to watch unfold, other times they can be tedious and infuriating.

As you said, it's all in the execution...

-a

Oh, totally.

As bad as one writer might be at using a writing trick, it doesn't make the trick bad in and of itself.

By the by, it's a crime against humanity that Gardner died before even hitting fifty.

-Brian

[Smarty Jones]

"Magneto's personality was TOTALLY changed.

He went from being a one-note villain to being almost an 'anti-hero.'"

That's funny, Magneto always has been the same I've been reading for the past 30 years. His core motivation has never changed, and neither has his personality. The only thing that changed was how Chris Claremont developed his back history, making him a somewhat more sympathetic character to the audience -- but he's the same character who has tried to take over the world and has never shied from using strong (and occasionally lethal) force to reach those goals.

That's different from an isolated minseries that slapped a characterization on people that has no precedent in the past (during the era of said event, or periods before the issue) or no application in subsequent stories.

[Brian Cronin]

Under Claremont, over the course of years, Magneto did change. It happened so long ago that we've come to accept that change as almost always having been there, but you're correct. Thing is, though, this was a change that made for a better character. It's hard to argue against changes for the better.

Daredevil... well the Elektra story didn't itself change DD's personality, but DD really did change as a character quite dramatically over the course of Miller's run. Gone-for-good was the quipping blind swashbuckler. One can argue whether this change was a good thing - and Kurt (Cei-U) will certainly argue the negative on that point - but the change made sense within the context of the stories. Never before had so many things hit at DD on such a deep, personal level.

Now, I suppose Dan Didio would argue that IC is sort of a combo of these two things. The heroes are acting more "real", which is better, and they changed as the result of what was shown in IC. The problem there is a) why were none of these changes - which supposedly resulted from events occurring years before IC was published - ever visible before, and b) the question (not really a question for me, but some may still ask it) whether these changes in personality are really more "real", and whether they are at all good.

Yeah, like I said, I'm cool with knocking Identity Crisis. I thought it was a poorly done comic book.

I have less problem with the retcon of the JLA mindwiping villains than I do with the other stuff in the series (although, I guess that matter of relativism is similar to the idea of how Identity Crisis is better than Zero Hour...hehe), but I can certainly see why one would not take issue with what happened with Daredevil and Magneto and take issue with what happened with Green Arrow, Dr. Light, Hawkman, Zatanna, Black Canary, Hal Jordan and Atom.

All I'm saying is that it's the same writing trick, and the writing trick in and of itself is not bad. It's just how it is used.

I don't think a retcon that changes characterizations of characters is inherently "bad quality," while the writing in Identity Crisis might very well be categorized as such.

-Brian

[Brian Cronin]

That's funny, Magneto always has been the same I've been reading for the past 30 years. His core motivation has never changed, and neither has his personality. The only thing that changed was how Chris Claremont developed his back history, making him a somewhat more sympathetic character to the audience -- but he's the same character who has tried to take over the world and has never shied from using strong (and occasionally lethal) force to reach those goals.

Then re-read Magneto stories from before Claremont wrote the book (ESPECIALLY non-X-Men titles).

You'll be startled at the difference.

-Brian

[Tom]

I might as well put all my cards on the table: I don't believe art is a democracy. I believe it's incumbent upon an audience to surrender a degree of power over what they will receive. Accept the author's proposition or reject it, they still have to receive it. Ed would not agree with me, but I believe that lack of willingness to be a recipient in this manner is just as pernicious and undesirable a form of reader entitlement as expecting superhero comics to be cynical and violent.
Actually, I was wrong earlier. This is most definitely the crux of our disagreement. I skipped right over this earlier in the conversation, but this really gets to the heart of it for me because it directly addresses something I'm passionate about.

No offense to you, Michael, because I completely recognize this as a valid point of view, but I CAN'T STAND when people have a passive response to art. That's not art; that's a lecture. I learned critical thinking in film school and according to my advisor, I had a real knack for it. It has always been a huge part of the way I approach art - especially art in which I am knowledgeable, such as film and to a lesser extent, literature and fine art.

I don't know that I need to rehash the points, but I discovered this upon rereading the thread and that's it right there. Everything we've been debating in one paragraph.

[Ed Cunard]

It's an apples-and-oranges argument, IMO. When it comes to literature and other forms of entertainment, we take the presentations of the characters in front of us as face value because as a disembodied, disconnected group we are able to peer into all aspects of a character.

We most certainly do not. Going back to the non-comics book most often referenced in this thread, THE GREAT GATSBY, there's a lot of scholarship that focuses on how trustworthy Nick Carraway is as a narrator.

I mean, in narrative fiction, there are many points of view that authors use to convey the story: there's first person narration, second person narration, and multiple types of third person narration: limited, omniscient and objective. Now, with comics, we are accustomed to trust what we're seeing, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. We are not seeing anything other than what we are being shown.

We have no reason to believe that when Superman is off-panel that he's frying babies with his X-ray vision. Because when Superman is on panel, every aspect of him -- including his behavior -- is considered transparent. so the characterization we have seen of Superman all our lives is the true face of the character. If Superman was frying babies off panel, that side would be shown to us, the omnipresent audience.

Going back to something I learned from an essay by Metzler (and, holy crap, if there's any suggestion to be made that his views on women are way off-kilter, his essay in Give My Regards to the Atomsmashers! is the crowning point of evidence), when the character of Terra was introduced in New Teen Titans back in the day, the audience was lead for about a whole year to think that she was on the side of the angels, which is what made it shocking when it turned out she was in bed (perhaps literally) with Deathstroke, working against the team.

So in what instances before or after "Identity Crisis" have we seen characterizations of Superman displaying such behavior, on a consistent enough basis to determine that's a default character trait? You're not, which makes it a quality issue.

I have no idea on the latter. In the past year, I've followed four superhero comics, so I'm not the best person to judge on that criteria--remember, as someone not terribly invested in superhero comics with intense likes or dislikes regarding these characters, I still found Identity Crisis to be very poorly executed. Previously, though? Like I said--Superman lies whenever he, as Clark Kent, reports on something Superman did.

One of the reasons "Identity Crisis" did not turn out well is because of poor characterizations of people like Superman, Green Arrow, Batman, et al.

I'm sticking to my guns that the failing remains with the execution, and that in some cases, people's responses have been predicated on the dislike of the portrayal rather than the quality--again, I'm speaking of anyone who wrote about their childhood being "raped" by the miniseries, and meant it seriously.

[Smarty Jones]

"Then re-read Magneto stories from before Claremont wrote the book (ESPECIALLY non-X-Men titles).

You'll be startled at the difference."

I have read and in some cases own the X-Men books before Chris Claremont, and other appearances of Magneto in other books in the 1960s and 1970s.

It's the same basic character and same behavior -- a man who wants to rule the planet, and will use force to acheive that goal.

OK, let's play devil's advocate. Claremont wrote in Magneto's background that he was a captive of the Nazi concentration camps. That's a background element. How does that contradict his behavior upon his first appearance in "Uncanny X-Men 1?" (I guess it's hard, since "UXM 1" chronologically came AFTER the concentration camp issue)

In fact, how much has his basic characterization changed over the years? When he was headmaster of Xavier Mansion after Charles Xavier begged him, it was the same personality and characterization that was fighting the transition and eventually won. When he was the head of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants in the 1960s, he was the same character. In the 1970s and 1990s, he was the same character.

And we're talking about one-shot, out-of-characterization moments of The JLA in "Identity Crisis," moments that have not shown up in any part of these characters' past or their subsequent stories since. If you can find previous stories suggesting Superman has a "don't ask, don't tell" indifference with people doing the wrong thing, I'll agree with you.

[Ed Cunard]

I don't know that I need to rehash the points, but I discovered this upon rereading the thread and that's it right there. Everything we've been debating in one paragraph.

I think that may have been edited in, or otherwise I'm a really uncareful reader and must have somehow missed it, so I'll talk about it now.

I might as well put all my cards on the table: I don't believe art is a democracy. I believe it's incumbent upon an audience to surrender a degree of power over what they will receive. Accept the author's proposition or reject it, they still have to receive it. Ed would not agree with me, but I believe that lack of willingness to be a recipient in this manner is just as pernicious and undesirable a form of reader entitlement as expecting superhero comics to be cynical and violent.

Mike, you used to call yourself "WriterBoy" here. That's your primary function in self-identification from an artistic standpoint, so that's where you'll place emphasis--on the writer's rights, as it were. A obsessive fan will place the emphasis on his rights, on receiving something he wants in the way that he wants it. A critic will place the emphasis on the work itself, and damn anyone's feelings or disagreements. The average audience--reader, viewer, what-have-you--just wants to go along for the ride.

I'm not sure what you mean by "receive"--can you elaborate a little further when you get a chance? I'd say the act of engaging the work is receiving it--if you get to the end of something, you haven't summarily rejected it and, if you choose to actively engage it, you're not ignoring it in any way. If I say something--not as a writer of fiction, because I, too, tend to self-identify as a writer and a poet rather than a critic, but in terms of conveying a point here at CBR--and it's misconstrued in a way that isn't blatant spin or logically fallacious, it's because I failed to convey my point well to the "audience" (and I've done so quite a few times in this very thread). The method through which the writer conveys his meaning is through his words--if they're interpreted in a way he hadn't intended, it's fine--they've brought something new to the table in response to what's put forth, not inspite of it.

[Smarty Jones]

"Going back to something I learned from an essay by Metzler (and, holy crap, if there's any suggestion to be made that his views on women are way off-kilter, his essay in Give My Regards to the Atomsmashers! is the crowning point of evidence), when the character of Terra was introduced in New Teen Titans back in the day, the audience was lead for about a whole year to think that she was on the side of the angels, which is what made it shocking when it turned out she was in bed (perhaps literally) with Deathstroke, working against the team."

And of course, Terra's story in "The Judas Contract" was a progressive, developing story. That's different from a story that says "30 years ago, The JLA was altering people's minds ... so the Silver Age Superman, Green Lantern, The Atom, et al you all thought was goody-goody were a lie." And then you look at material from that time period and before it and you have no display of such characterization -- which makes it disengenious.

Again, the case of years of consistent characterization works against the logic in "Identity Crisis." In fact, the years after said period in "Identity Crisis" works against the believability of the premise. You have a retconned event that is isolated and contradictory in the 10-plus years of stories before the Dr. Light incident and 30 years after the retconned event took place.

With the Terra situation, you have roughly a year's worth of stories with the twist a progressive part of continuity -- not a case of someone sticking in a characterization that doesn't exist in any other inference. And unlike The JLA's mind-tampering, Terra's story WASN'T a retcon.

[Ed Cunard]

And we're talking about one-shot, out-of-characterization moments of The JLA in "Identity Crisis," moments that have not shown up in any part of these characters' past or their subsequent stories since. If you can find previous stories suggesting Superman has a "don't ask, don't tell" indifference with people doing the wrong thing, I'll agree with you.

If you'll give me a day, I'll show you the precedent for the JLA to erase the memories of people--I remember someone pointing that out to me once, so I'll have to ask around.

[Michael P]

No offense to you, Michael, because I completely recognize this as a valid point of view, but I CAN'T STAND when people have a passive response to art. That's not art; that's a lecture. I learned critical thinking in film school and according to my advisor, I had a real knack for it. It has always been a huge part of the way I approach art - especially art in which I am knowledgeable, such as film and to a lesser extent, literature and fine art.

Well, I should clarify that I don't think of it in binary terms, critical or passive. You'll notice I said "a degree of power," not all. I certainly don't turn off my critical faculties when I read, or listen to music, or what have you. But I do share the power over how the work will affect me with the work itself. I find that to be a much more fulfilling experience than automatically challenging it.

The best way to describe it would be being open to captivation. I enjoy experiencing art just as much as I enjoy thinking about it; indeed, I think that submitting to it, even for just a moment, informs and enhances how I think about it in ways that using the rational mind can't. It's a more holistic experience for me. And I think that if more people were open to art in that way, they'd both enjoy it and understand it, and each other, more than they do.

Again, perhaps I'm being naive. But it's a naivete that suits me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If you'll give me a day, I'll show you the precedent for the JLA to erase the memories of people--I remember someone pointing that out to me once, so I'll have to ask around.


Wiping memories of villains was nothing new. Altering their personalities, much different thing. And definitely out of character for some of these heroes, especially Green Arrow. Wiping the mind of one of their fellow heroes, to hide their own misdeeds - also something new, and not at all in keeping with the established personality of any of those characters.

[Smarty Jones]

"If you'll give me a day, I'll show you the precedent for the JLA to erase the memories of people--I remember someone pointing that out to me once, so I'll have to ask around."

You don't have to show me anything -- I know The JLA had stories where they used some gizmo or plot device to help erase their identities from people's minds. I was buying them when they came out and still own some of those 1970s books.

The issue is "Identity Crisis" depicted it as far more malevolent and insidious than how it was portrayed and intended in the 1970s -- which is the heart of this thread. In typical Silver Age fashion, it was an innocent, goofy and otherwise take-it-with-a-grain-of-salt plot device to wrap up the story. Since you're in the world of the fantastic, it was easy to explain.

But in order for a new, jaded group of creators -- who have overanalyzed the the inherent, naive nature of accepting a world with superheroes -- to reconcile it, "Identity Crisis" remade it into something far more sinister in an effort to make it "realistic." And of course, this cynical perspective usually requires something that is overwhelmingly negative and at times distasteful.

[Michael P]

I think that may have been edited in, or otherwise I'm a really uncareful reader and must have somehow missed it, so I'll talk about it now.

I think I edited it in right after I posted. I did that a lot in this thread.

Mike, you used to call yourself "WriterBoy" here. That's your primary function in self-identification from an artistic standpoint, so that's where you'll place emphasis--on the writer's rights, as it were.

I'm glad you brought that up; I wanted to do it to inform where my perspective is coming from, but was afraid it might sound pretentious.

I'm not sure what you mean by "receive"--can you elaborate a little further when you get a chance? I'd say the act of engaging the work is receiving it--if you get to the end of something, you haven't summarily rejected it and, if you choose to actively engage it, you're not ignoring it in any way.
I think I just did, in my last post to Tom. I'll leapfrog off of what you said by saying that I think it's just as important to let the work engage you.

[Ed Cunard]

You don't have to show me anything -- I know The JLA had stories where they used some gizmo or method to help erase their identies. I owned some of those 1970s books.

You're old.

(Kidding, Smarty.)

The issue is the depiction of "Identity Crisis" was nowhere near as malevolent and insidious as portrayed -- which is what the heart of this thread. In typical 1970s Silver Age fashion, it was an innocent, goofy and otherwise take-it-with-a-grain-of-salt plot device to wrap up the story.

Different kind of story-telling, different era--different views. In the '60s, Reed Richards used to tell his girlfriend/wife that she should stop pestering him to do more "feminine" things, or whatever--if done today, that wouldn't fly. The thing, though, is I think any general tone can fly, if done right--and Identity Crisis didn't do it right.

But in order for a new, jaded group of creators -- who have overanalyzed the the inherent naive nature of accepting a world with superheroes -- to reconcile it, "Identity Crisis" remade into something far more sinister in an effort to make it "realistic." And of course, this cynical perspective usually requires something that is overwhelming negative and at times distasteful.

The specific words you're using here are things I totally agree with--I don't find things that are sinister or cynical to be any more realistic than things that aren't. You're saying the perspective requires something "overwhelmingly negative and at times distasteful," but if the story requires it, then... is it that out of place? We're talking Identity Crisis as it's own story, for the most part, not as a representative part of 70 years of superhero comics.

Imagine coming into Identity Crisis with a critical mind, but no real expectations regarding superheroic continuity aside from the general cultural knowledge of what these characters are--many of them (Zatanna, Black Canary, Green Arrow, Atom) aren't household names the way Superman and Batman are. I'd still put money down that someone judging the book as it's own single, self-contained story would find the story's execution--the nuts and bolts, the logical inconsistencies, the manipulativeness--to be off-putting and poorly done. You don't need to have an emotional investment in the characters to recognize that the quality isn't there in Identity Crisis.

[Smarty Jones]

"Different kind of story-telling, different era--different views. In the '60s, Reed Richards used to tell his girlfriend/wife that she should stop pestering him to do more 'feminine' things, or whatever--if done today, that wouldn't fly. The thing, though, is I think any general tone can fly, if done right--and Identity Crisis didn't do it right."

But there is a difference between sayings or opinions that are dated and fundamentally changing the meaning of something from one era to another. In your example, Reed Richard's intent wasn't to be sexist, nor has he shown a characterization in the past or present that suggest he is a sexist. But a cynical, "realistic" creator -- in an attempt to overanalyze the comment -- may revise that period to change Richard's behavior to make it mirror that statement.

A perfect example would be with Hank Pym. In one issue of Avengers, he slapped his wife in a fit of rage. However, in "The Ultimates," it was reinvented into a Pym who nearly kills The Wasp. Even in the mainstream Avengers under Chuck Austen, readers were given the impression that Pym was starring in the re-enactment of Ike Turner.

"You're saying the perspective requires something 'overwhelmingly negative and at times distasteful,' but if the story requires it, then... is it that out of place? We're talking Identity Crisis as it's own story, for the most part, not as a representative part of 70 years of superhero comics."

But the events -- the mindwipes, the rape of Sue Dibny, The JLA's attack on Batman -- are taking root in that period in the 1970s, and telling the readers "Forget that, THIS is what really happened."

And if you're looking at "Identity Crisis" as its own story, then it stopped being a stand-alone story when it started involving canon from the satellite-era JLA. And finally, the mindwipes, the rape -- NONE of that had anything to do with who was Dibny's killer.

"Imagine coming into Identity Crisis with a critical mind, but no real expectations regarding superheroic continuity aside from the general cultural knowledge of what these characters are--many of them (Zatanna, Black Canary, Green Arrow, Atom) aren't household names the way Superman and Batman are. I'd still put money down that someone judging the book as it's own single, self-contained story would find the story's execution--the nuts and bolts, the logical inconsistencies, the manipulativeness--to be off-putting and poorly done. You don't need to have an emotional investment in the characters to recognize that the quality isn't there in Identity Crisis."

I agree -- the book had other issues that affected its quality. But one of the biggest problems was the depiction of the satellite-era JLA, which was a quality issue that was offsetting to those who have at least a cursory knowledge of the Silver Age team. Even without it, anyone with a working knowledge of the characters would likely think it was extremely out of character.

[Brian Cronin]

I have read and in some cases own the X-Men books before Chris Claremont, and other appearances of Magneto in other books in the 1960s and 1970s.

It's the same basic character and same behavior -- a man who wants to rule the planet, and will use force to acheive that goal.

OK, let's play devil's advocate. Claremont wrote in Magneto's background that he was a captive of the Nazi concentration camps. That's a background element. How does that contradict his behavior upon his first appearance in "Uncanny X-Men 1?" (I guess it's hard, since "UXM 1" chronologically came AFTER the concentration camp issue)

In fact, how much has his basic characterization changed over the years? When he was headmaster of Xavier Mansion after Charles Xavier begged him, it was the same personality and characterization that was fighting the transition and eventually won. When he was the head of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants in the 1960s, he was the same character. In the 1970s and 1990s, he was the same character.

And we're talking about one-shot, out-of-characterization moments of The JLA in "Identity Crisis," moments that have not shown up in any part of these characters' past or their subsequent stories since. If you can find previous stories suggesting Superman has a "don't ask, don't tell" indifference with people doing the wrong thing, I'll agree with you.

See what you forced me to do??!?!

You actually made me go out and flip through my comic books! :D

Anyhow, the Claremont Magneto would categorically not...

A. Hear about Xavier's death and remark only about how he was pissed off that he wasn't the one who killed him (as Magneto did in X-Men #43).

B. Try to explode a nuclear device on Earth so that 92% of all the people on Earth would be killed, but the remaining 8% would "become mutants" (as Magneto did in Avengers #111)

C. Force Wanda to dance for his amusement (Avengers #111)

D. Say ""I, gentlemen, was born to rule--to make others grovel at my feet" (good ol' Avengers #111)

E. Pretend to ask for a country for mutants, to fool Wanda and Pietro into thinking he was going straight, but then uses his powers to make a guard shoot Wanda, so he would have a pretext to attack (and hopefully cause Wanda and Pietro to stay with him) (Avengers #49)

F. Teaming up with Namor, in his stark raving madness (people in the storyline note how he is consumed with madness) to declare war on humanity (leading even Namor to think he's nuts, and work to stop him) (Fantastic Four #101-104)

G. When Magneto was using Mutant Alpha to attack the United Nations (where Alpha eventually turned on Magneto because Alpha refused to kill for Magneto), Xavier is able to find him because Magneto's mind is "so evil that it stands out among other people."

Then, suddenly, when he fights the X-Men in #111-113, he is now talking about how "noble" the X-Men are as foes.

When we NEXT see Magneto in #150, though, he has basically done a complete 180, and talks about Auschwitz and how sad he was to hear Jean Grey died, etc.

The NEXT time, in #161, is when we learn all about Magneto and Xavier's past history.

Retcon that changes a character's established characterization.

Was it an example of bad quality?

-Brian

[Michael P]

See what you forced me to do??!?!

You actually made me go out and flip through my comic books! :D
The horror. The horror.

[Corrina]

With the Terra situation, you have roughly a year's worth of stories with the twist a progressive part of continuity -- not a case of someone sticking in a characterization that doesn't exist in any other inference. And unlike The JLA's mind-tampering, Terra's story WASN'T a retcon.[/color][/font]

And speaking of someone who read those issues in sequential order as they were being released.....I was *always* suspicious of Terra--I'm fairly sure Wolfman and Perez wanted me to be. Unlike Identity Crisis, there were clues placed in the story and asides from other characters that made one question whether Terra could be taken at face value.

That's part of what made the story so well done, because the twist was not "Damn, they fooled me, I did not see that coming!"

Instead it was "Damn! I did not see that coming and, yet, I should have seen that coming!"

Which to me, is always what the reveal of a great mystery should be about. Identity Crisis was "Um...huh? phone records? Jean's motivation is she's crazy...um....what was the point of setting up Jack Drake....??"

[Smarty Jones]

"See what you forced me to do??!?!

You actually made me go out and flip through my comic books! :D"

C'mon, Cronin. Do you think making Magneto a Nazi concentration camp survivor went against type? That he was this warm and fuzzy superhero back in the day, when he wasn't fighting The X-Men? That in retconned stories we'll see Magneto hanging out with Ben Grimm, Wolverine or Thor in a bar?

THAT would be a retroactively poor characterization of Magneto.

"Anyhow, the Claremont Magneto would categorically not...

A. Hear about Xavier's death and remark only about how he was pissed off that he wasn't the one who killed him (as Magneto did in X-Men #43)."

C'mon, how many times have we seen Magneto and Charles Xavier get into it into the 1990s? Does "Eve of Destruction" ring a bell, when Magneto prepared to make Xavier a martyr by just pulling out of the mansion and holding him in front of the Genoshans?

"B. Try to explode a nuclear device on Earth so that 92% of all the people on Earth would be killed, but the remaining 8% would "become mutants" (as Magneto did in Avengers #111)"

The same Magneto who tried to control the Earth's magnetic poles if the planet did not listen to him during the Alan Davis days, that led to the United Nations giving him Genosha? What about "Uncanny X-Men 150," where he threatened the Earth to make it his ruler (a CLAREMONT story, no less).

"C. Force Wanda to dance for his amusement (Avengers #111)"

The same Magneto who used his powers to lift Fabian Cortez from his prison cell some 20 miles away and slammed him into the Earth, killing him? The same Magneto who made Senyaka a twisted pretzel as an example? The same Magneto who has tried to kill Quicksilver in battle?

"D. Say "I, gentlemen, was born to rule--to make others grovel at my feet" (good ol' Avengers #111)"

Yep, we've seen ol' Mags do that in "Uncanny X-Men 150," "Fatal Attractions," the first story arc of "X-Men," when he was the ruler of Genosha, etc. Magneto's idea always has been being a mutant allowed him inherent privileges -- one that thinks mutants should rule the world, with him at the throne.

"E. Pretend to ask for a country for mutants, to fool Wanda and Pietro into thinking he was going straight, but then uses his powers to make a guard shoot Wanda, so he would have a pretext to attack (and hopefully cause Wanda and Pietro to stay with him) (Avengers #49)"

I take it you mean using duplicity as a reason to go upside someone's head -- usually the planet at large? Wasn't that in "Fatal Attractions?" which featured ol' Maggie coming to Illyana's funeral as some de-facto rally call to cause the planet's electromagnetic field to go haywire?

"F. Teaming up with Namor, in his stark raving madness (people in the storyline note how he is consumed with madness) to declare war on humanity (leading even Namor to think he's nuts, and work to stop him) (Fantastic Four #101-104)"

In "Fatal Attractions," Colossus -- a new Acolyte -- allows The X-Men to sneak on board the satellite in an effort to stop Magneto's threat.

"G. When Magneto was using Mutant Alpha to attack the United Nations (where Alpha eventually turned on Magneto because Alpha refused to kill for Magneto), Xavier is able to find him because Magneto's mind is 'so evil that it stands out among other people.'"

In "The Magneto War," you have a Magneto who also was so consumed with rage, playing an observer and interrogator of a human to see if the human race was salvageable. Magneto manipulated his questions to where he received a self-serving answer as rationalization to play "I declare war!" on the planet, and sending a robot to the U.N. before using his powers on the magnetic poles.

"Then, suddenly, when he fights the X-Men in #111-113, he is now talking about how "noble" the X-Men are as foes."

Magneto captured them at a circus in Texas and carried them thousands of miles away, put them in a dark room chained to a table and used his technology to immobilize them to where they couldn't move! He sent a nanny in to feed them!

"When we NEXT see Magneto in #150, though, he has basically done a complete 180, and talks about Auschwitz and how sad he was to hear Jean Grey died, etc."

While he was ready to destroy the entire world if it didn't make him the ruler!

"The NEXT time, in #161, is when we learn all about Magneto and Xavier's past history."

A story that included Magneto leaving Baron Strucker for dead and taking all his gold, spouting off about the emergence of homo superior!

"Retcon that changes a character's established characterization."

The only story you named was an insertion retcon was the last one. Everything else happened in the then-present day!

And a change in characterization would have been if Magneto saved The X-Men from Mesmero, giving them a flight home to the mansion and flying off with a smile -- not finding them to take the second-generation team to a grudge match across the world and beating the snot out of them! "Uncanny X-Men 150" had Magneto sinking a Russian submarine and killing everyone on board! "Fatal Attractions" and "The Magneto War" had him performing wide-scale destruction on the planet's electromagnetic fields!

In other words, he's the same character he's always been. Claremont added some progressive depth to the character, but it did not fundamentally change him, much less to the point where he was unrecognizable -- which was the case with The JLA in "Identity Crisis." And with "Identity Crisis," we're talking about a retconned story that has no consistent characterization with The JLA in that period, in prior periods and in subsequent books.

Your comparison would only make sense if there was some retconned book that came out that showed in the 1970s and 1980s Magneto teamed up continuously with Captain America to fight The Red Skull, and that Cap was so impressed with Mags' humility and teamwork that he offered him a spot in The Avengers. THAT'S out of character -- and a choice in lessened quality, because now you're talking about compromised characterizations.

[Brian Cronin]

What writers did AFTER Claremont does not affect the change Claremont made, no different than if some future writer retcons the changes Meltzer made in Identity Crisis.

Claremont retroactively changed Magneto's character just as much as Meltzer changed any character in Identity Crisis.

People LIKED the changes Claremont made, because they made Magneto a more interesting character.

People mostly DIDN'T like the changed Meltzer made.

It does not change the fact that both writers retroactively changed character's established characterizations.

Retroactively changing character's established characterizations is not inherently bad.

-Brian

[Michael P]

Smarty, characterization is not actions. If it were, every star of Death of a Salesman would play Willy Loman the same way; he'd have to, because his actions never change from performance to performance.

Characterization is motivation. It's why a character does what he does. Pre-Claremont, Magneto tried to conquer the world because he was a vain, smug, cruel, bigoted bastard who wallowed in his own crapulence and had no qualms about abusing, maiming, or killing anyone in his way.

Post-Claremont, Magneto tried to conquer the world because he was a bitter, cynical victim of abuse turned into an abuser, a conflicted revolutionary who knew he was damning his own soul, but believed the better world he would bring about was worth the cost.

It's ridiculous to compare the two personalities and say that they're the same person.

[Tom]

Well, I should clarify that I don't think of it in binary terms, critical or passive. You'll notice I said "a degree of power," not all. I certainly don't turn off my critical faculties when I read, or listen to music, or what have you. But I do share the power over how the work will affect me with the work itself. I find that to be a much more fulfilling experience than automatically challenging it.

The best way to describe it would be being open to captivation. I enjoy experiencing art just as much as I enjoy thinking about it; indeed, I think that submitting to it, even for just a moment, informs and enhances how I think about it in ways that using the rational mind can't. It's a more holistic experience for me. And I think that if more people were open to art in that way, they'd both enjoy it and understand it, and each other, more than they do.

Again, perhaps I'm being naive. But it's a naivete that suits me.
Certainly I can see the argument that says that the artist is in a superior position, if for no other reason than because he or she is the initiator of the exchange. But your view tends toward a one-sidedness of the situation that I just can't get behind.

I think it's just as important to let the work engage you.I totally agree but I think (well, I know) you and I define "engage" quite differently.

[Tom]

I hate when people change avatars in the middle of a conversation.

[Gilda Dent]

Smarty, characterization is not actions. If it were, every star of Death of a Salesman would play Willy Loman the same way; he'd have to, because his actions never change from performance to performance.

Characterization is motivation. It's why a character does what he does. Pre-Claremont, Magneto tried to conquer the world because he was a vain, smug, cruel, bigoted bastard who wallowed in his own crapulence and had no qualms about abusing, maiming, or killing anyone in his way.

Post-Claremont, Magneto tried to conquer the world because he was a bitter, cynical victim of abuse turned into an abuser, a conflicted revolutionary who knew he was damning his own soul, but believed the better world he would bring about was worth the cost.

It's ridiculous to compare the two personalities and say that they're the same person.

Claremont did basically the same thing with Doom in his run on Fantastic Four. In the Lee/Kirby version, Doom was just an egotist who hated Reed for being smarter than he was and for his role in the scarring of Doom's face and was trying to take over the world out of a thirst for more power.

Byrne added in the benevelont dictator bit, where he was basically pretty good to his own people, but hated Reed and the FF and wanted to take over the world because he was evil.

In Claremont's version, he was a benevolent dictator corrupted by the evil magic of his armor who wanted to conquer the world out of a misplaced sense of entitlement and belief that he would be doing the world a favor, and hated Reed and the FF for getting in his way.

The Byrne benevolent dictator bit worked and people liked it, so it stuck, but the bit about Doom being a decent guy who was misguided, the idea that Reed and Doom were basically the same but took slightly divergent paths (the same premise Claremont used for X-Men with Mageneto) didn't, so it was discarded later on in Waid's version, which kept parts of the benevolent dictator stuff, adding a sinister wrinkle to that part of it, and discarded the misguided, but well-intentioned part because it just didn't work.

All of them changes to the character, some accepted because they worked, and some that didn't because they just don't work as well in the long run.

Gilda

[Smarty Jones]

There is a difference between progressive depth in a character and isolated, retconned material that contradicts long-standing characterization.

Magneto and Doctor Doom still employ the same methods and ideologies in their approaches. They were (and still are) villains -- the creators may have modified their mission statements not to make them dated, but they still have the same goals. They perform the same deeds and go about their same rationalizations in performing those deeds.

Tell me how that is the same with the characters in "Identity Crisis," where Superman, Green Arrow, Hal Jordan et al are showing behaviors inconsistent with anything they displayed in that Silver Age period, in books prior to the satellite era and in subsequent books. Keep in mind, the only characterization we have of The JLA performing insidious mindwipes while members casting blind eyes is in that series -- not in the 40-plus years of appearances before, during and after that period.

[Brian Cronin]

There is a difference between progressive depth in a character and retconned material that contradicts long-standing characterization.

Retcon of established characterization you LIKE = progressed depth.

Retcon of established characterization you DON't like = retconned material that contradicts long-standing characterization.

So, basically, no, I do not believe there is a difference.

-Brian

[Smarty Jones]

"Retcon of established characterization you LIKE = progressed depth.

Retcon of established characterization you DON't like = retconned material that contradicts long-standing characterization.

So, basically, no, I do not believe there is a difference."

Quite frankly, Cronin, you haven't shown a story retcon of anything concerning Magento, save for "Uncanny X-Men 161." So how is something a "retcon" when it occurs in then-current time?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a retcon a RETROACTIVE change in established CONTINUITY, by inserting new material into past events? Like "Identity Crisis," where the 1970s JLA was retconned into performing insidious acts of mindwiping -- something that CONTRADICTS characterization of the first 10-plus years of the JLA members and the subsequent 30-plus years of these characters? An otherwise anomaly in what we think of these characters?

I've been reading books of Magneto for more than 30 years, and IMO he's the same character with the same motivations and intentions -- so to say that I have selective rationalization is judgmental (and inaccurate). That's like saying Captain America has been "retconned" because he's not saying "Japs" in today's comics.

So I'm glad you see a change in Magneto -- because I don't.

[Alan2099]

Retcon of established characterization you LIKE = progressed depth.

Retcon of established characterization you DON't like = retconned material that contradicts long-standing characterization.

So, basically, no, I do not believe there is a difference.

-Brian
Such is the nature of the beast. If people like a change, it sticks. If they don't it goes away.

Simple as that.

Daredevil has ninja training stuck.
Punisher having a supernatural origin didn't.

[Brian Cronin]

Quite frankly, Cronin, you haven't shown a story retcon of anything concerning Magento, save for "Uncanny X-Men 161." So how is something a "retcon" when it occurs in then-current time?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a retcon a RETROACTIVE change in established CONTINUITY, by inserting new material into past events? Like "Identity Crisis," where the 1970s JLA was retconned into performing insidious acts of mindwiping -- something that CONTRADICTS characterization of the first 10-plus years of the JLA members and the subsequent 30-plus years of these characters? An otherwise anomaly in what we think of these characters?

I've been reading books of Magneto for more than 30 years, and IMO he's the same character with the same motivations and intentions -- so to say that I have selective rationalization is judgmental (and inaccurate). That's like saying Captain America has been "retconned" because he's not saying "Japs" in today's comics.

So I'm glad you see a change in Magneto -- because I don't.

Well, I'm afraid that's an agree to disagree moment if I ever saw one, as we're just on completely opposite sides of the "Magneto" bit as well as "retroactively changing established characterizations is not inherently bad," so we might as well leave it at that.

-Brian

[SUPERECWFAN1]

People LIKED the changes Claremont made, because they made Magneto a more interesting character.

Well when CC 1st had Magneto and the X-Men during the 80's ...yes that is correct. He wrote a Magneto fans knew. But after 10 years away he came back and re-wrote Magneto following Morrison's story-arc and people honest to god...debate whethor that was a good change.

There was a lot of " What the hell is this ? " . Some weren't happy .

People mostly DIDN'T like the changed Meltzer made.

Yep...and some did like it. There was a ton of reprints ect ect. The mainstream press took to it and Meltzer must be damn popular since he's gonna relaunch Justice League of America. :)

-Brian

[Smarty Jones]

Well, I'm afraid that's an agree to disagree moment if I ever saw one, as we're just on completely opposite sides of the 'Magneto' bit as well as 'retroactively changing established characterizations is not inherently bad,' so we might as well leave it at that."

You said it better than me, because it comes off that you're saying ANY modification or clarification of a character's mission statement and/or development going forward is a "retcon."

[Joe Rice]

What the fuck does retcon stuff have to do with this topic? I dunno, I'm a stupid piece of shit, I probably just don't get it. I hate me.

[LtMarvel]

Not that it has relevance to me, but any person with a working knowledge of characters like Superman knows he would not act in such a manner as depicted in "Identity Crisis." Also, the logic of the mystery itself is not consistent with any characterization or past history of the DC Universe -- so said logic in said plot devices falls apart.You've brought this up a dozen times and I don't know what you are talking about...

Superman turned a deaf ear/Superman tries not to easedrop on his teammates..is that what you are talking about?

You also remind me of Data pretending to be Holmes on Star Trek. They start a simulation of a mystery, and Data solves it in two seconds because he has read the book and knew whodunit. "Should have checked the phone records..." is so much like Data's solution he gave to Geordi, who standing flabbergasted as he heard Data rattle off the clues that have yet to be revealed.

Identity Crisis was, to borrow from another great mystery fiction (based on reality), a "Red Ball." They dropped everything and were assigned to do a portion of the investigation. Because there were so few clues, the "action heroes" head off to investigate fire-based villians. Others head off to investigate villians who have struck the victim before. It is not bad plotting that some investigations turn up empty.

Others work on the autopsy and the forensic evidence (and yes, it takes even superheroes some time before the test results come in to be analyzed...is that really so difficult to believe?).



And there were lots of tests to take, lots of investigation. Yeah, I know...it's impossible for Batman to view a phone call from the Atom's house to Mr. and Mrs. Ralph as anything but highly suspicous and should be the first thing investigated..:rolleyes: Or that it took anything more than 3 panels to find teeny tiny footprints in the brain (waiting for someone to complain that the autopsy didn't start with a detailed CAT scan)

And I really can't buy the "out of character from those DC Archives stories." That doesn't work for me because I also liked Waid's JLA: Year One. Waid's Aquaman is not the Aquaman who was in the first battle with Starro. Do all early Lois Lane tales have to have her trying to prove that Clark Kent is Superman? Do all early Superman stories have to show him roughing up wife-beaters?

[Brian Cronin]

What the fuck does retcon stuff have to do with this topic? I dunno, I'm a stupid piece of shit, I probably just don't get it. I hate me.

Smarty mentioned it during the "quality" vs. "personal taste" discussion as an example of quality vs. personal taste, in that Identity Crisis retroactively changing established characterizations is a matter of quality, not personal taste, in that if one were to retroactively change established characterizations, then it would be inherently bad and not a matter of personal taste.

I disagreed.

-Brian

[Smarty Jones]

"What the fuck does retcon stuff have to do with this topic? I dunno, I'm a stupid piece of shit, I probably just don't get it. I hate me."

We got off-topic a bit. We were talking about how the mean-spirited and rather cynical nature of injecting "realism" into the comic book industry has led to Silver Age events being revised into more sinister and insidious misinterpretations, such as the JLA mindwipes in "Identity Crisis."

[Joe Rice]

Sorry, guess it was on topic. I don't know what the shit I'm talking about, don't worry.

[Jeff Brady]

I don't know what the shit I'm talking about, don't worry.

And you've only been married for a couple of weeks!

[Smarty Jones]

"You've brought this up a dozen times and I don't know what you are talking about...

Superman turned a deaf ear/Superman tries not to easedrop on his teammates..is that what you are talking about?"

There was a passage in "Identity Crisis 3" where Green Arrow said to The Flash that people like Superman knew but refused to acknowledge and say anything to the JLA members mindwiping villains because they benefited from their actions.

"Identity Crisis was, to borrow from another great mystery fiction (based on reality), a "Red Ball." They dropped everything and were assigned to do a portion of the investigation. Because there were so few clues, the "action heroes" head off to investigate fire-based villians. Others head off to investigate villians who have struck the victim before. It is not bad plotting that some investigations turn up empty."

No, it's a flawed story where you have Mr. Miracle, The Atom, one of the Metal Men, The Ray and Animal Man (and then later Batman) search a murder scene and could not find a clue ... and then in the final issue, find out that the crime was committed in such a ridiculously clumsy fashion that it's a little hard to stomach they couldn't find anything. I would like to know your definition of a "great mystery fiction," because mystery stories typically have clues related to the actual case -- unlike "Identity Crisis."

"And there were lots of tests to take, lots of investigation. Yeah, I know...it's impossible for Batman to view a phone call from the Atom's house to Mr. and Mrs. Ralph as anything but highly suspicous and should be the first thing investigated..:rolleyes: Or that it took anything more than 3 panels to find teeny tiny footprints in the brain (waiting for someone to complain that the autopsy didn't start with a detailed CAT scan)."

No, there are plenty of other idiocies in the series, such as Jean Loring somehow knowing Tim Drake was Robin despite never meeting him. Or Jean bringing a flamethrower to a friend's house "just in case." Or Jean coming up with this ridiculously sloppy plot that had the entire superhero community dumbfounded until she inexplicably confesses while in bed with The Atom. And it would have been nice if the mindwipes and the rape actually had something to do with the story, instead of extraneous stuff to smear the heroes and Sue Dibny, respectively.

[Joe Rice]

And you've only been married for a couple of weeks!

I cannot wait for the exciting and wonderful rest of my life.

[Pól Rua]

Anything else is just poop-flinging.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Pól Rua]

Here's my main beef with IC, which really, in all this extremely enjoyable conversation, we haven't really touched on.
I started reading comics at a very young age. I was born in 1971, and so, my earliest influences were stuff like Thunderbirds, Speed Racer, Adam West as Batman, George Reeves as Superman, Space Ghost, and the Superfriends.
Knowing these characters and ones like them from TV, I was driven to seek them out in other formats (no VCRs in those days, so once the show was over or, Gods help you, you missed it, that was it. It was gone.) and so I started getting comics even before I could read.

Now if, at age 4 or 5 or 6, I had found a comic where that baddie was doing in the Superfriends' headquarters fucking the weird stretchy man's wife in the ass, I would have been messed up for life.
Man, back then, I got a little queasy in the tummy reading 'imaginary stories' where Superman died.
Now, we all seem to be aware that kids aren't reading comics anymore and whenever we say, well, what the hell? we get the same responses. The internet, TV, DVDs, X-Boxes... and these tend to end with us throwing our hands in the air and saying, "Gee. Nothing we can do."

Well, how about NOT HAVING THAT BADDIE FUCK STRETCHY-MAN'S WIFE IN THE ASS!? Think that might help, huh?

There's a thought.

[Alan2099]

Besides being cynical, a lot of comics these days are just boring.

What would your reaction have been if your first Spider-man comic featured Spider-man sitting around talking for 90% of the issue and then he MAYBE does a page or two of web swining and then goes and stops a mugger.

How about a comic showing all of the X-men, and Spider-man, and Captain America, Ironman, and a few others that the kid doesn't recognize and when they pick it up, they get a large group of heroes just arguing with each other and a near complete lack of action.

I don't know about the rest of you, but as I kid, I'd think that was boring and I would stick around to see the rest of the story.

There's only so many issues of a comic that can come out a year. Trying to make a storyline last for six months chases away the new readers more than it attracts them.

[Ray R.]

Wiping memories of villains was nothing new. Altering their personalities, much different thing. And definitely out of character for some of these heroes, especially Green Arrow. Wiping the mind of one of their fellow heroes, to hide their own misdeeds - also something new, and not at all in keeping with the established personality of any of those characters.

Good point on Green Arrow, I remember thinking as I read IC that the Green Arrow I thought I knew would have quit the JLA on the spot......

[Dreadstar]

Good point on Green Arrow, I remember thinking as I read IC that the Green Arrow I thought I knew would have quit the JLA on the spot......


Sooooo many alternatives occurred to me, given each and every one of the "heroes" involved. Just as a one-off, Hal would probably have removed him from Earth completely. He's a galactic policeman, after all. Carter might have said more or less the same thing (I'll take him to my home planet) and just killed him along the way. I love that about Carfter, BTW.

And you know what? I don't find it too awfully out-of-character that Supes let 'em mindwipe Dr. Light.

But to think that he'd let 'em mindwipe Bruce is simply appalling.



...oh, god, we're back on the IC thread trainwreck again, aren't we?

[Shellhead]

Maybe the Claremont Magneto isn't a retcon... there was one other major change affecting Magneto just before Claremont started writing him. In Defenders #16, Magneto was reduced to being an infant again. In X-Men #104, Eric the Red restores him to adulthood, at the peak of his powers, which had previously been fading.

What if Magneto's sanity was restored by his return to infancy, or even his later return to adulthood? His powers were certainly restored. Maybe Eric the Red even used that fancy Shi'ar tech to restore his sanity, too. So, everything leading up to the conclusion of Defenders #16 represents the actions of Magneto the megalomaniac. Everything from X-Men #104 onward represents the actions of Magneto as the sane and passionate advocate for mutants who happens to be extremely ruthless. The Morrison Magneto could have just been Magneto having a breakdown after some pretty extreme events in recent years.

[Dreadstar]

...The Morrison Magneto could have just been Magneto having a breakdown after some pretty extreme events in recent years.

I didn't read ANY of the post Morrison Mags, and just recently read The House of M. At the ending of that one, it seemed to me that it was patently possible that Magneto was nothing more than a Wanda construct, from about the Morrison/Xorn on.

I kinda feel that if they didn't off him with that excuse readily available, they really missed a golden opportunity.

[Typo Lad]

Xorn just showed up in New Avengers. Eh.

[Dreadstar]

Xorn just showed up in New Avengers. Eh.

But... but...


...I give up.

[founder81]

With the whole Magnet vs IC retcon thing, I was racking my brain to think of another episaode that years later retconned on panel actions.

Only thing I could come up with is: Gambit showing the Maruauders the way into the Alley to kill all the Morlocks.

But thinking of this got one thought in my brain. Could one of the problems with super-hero comics today be the tendacy to change things that happened in the past to fit the story's of today over just trying to tell the best story you can today?

Does the past really have to be retconned to be able to tell the stories the creators want to tell today?

[Ryan Day]

Does the past really have to be retconned to be able to tell the stories the creators want to tell today?

It seems like many creators today want to tell stories about yesterday. Deadly Genesis retconned Giant-Size X-Men; Sins Past changed Gwen Stacy's history; Infinite Crisis seemed to be about explaining the past two decades of DC comics.

But of course, the stories of yesterday tend to be happier and lighter, so it seems like everyone ends up with a dark, dark, secret. Which is kind of lame after it's been done the fiftieth time.

It's all kind of inbred and depressing.

[Dreadstar]

Sins Past changed Gwen Stacy's history.

Believe it or not, I tend to think of this one in even more virulent terms than even IDC...

Who wrote that, btw?

[Typo Lad]

JMS, of Babylon 5 fame.

Frankly, I just ignore it. No-one's mentioned it since.

I heard a rumor that it was supposed to be that Peter and Gwen had li'l bastards. Now that I'd buy. Not that Peter new about them, but that Gwen might have found out she was knocked up and freaked and hid them, and then years later they figure out who their dad is and try to kill him as Peter Parker.

[Forefinger]

What the fuck does retcon stuff have to do with this topic? I dunno, I'm a stupid piece of shit, I probably just don't get it. I hate me.
I'd say that constant retcons and revamps are part of what's wrong with superhero comics.

[meethraa]

I have to agree with Alex, meethraa. There's a "debate" only if you pretend that there haven't been objective, agreed-upon criteria for critiquing art and that these criteria have been existent for millenia across many cultures.
I don't have to pretend because that's a fact. Those criteria certainly exist but have been far from agreed-upon, and quite volatile throughout times. As for being objective, just think of all the critics who disagree when writing about the same piece of work.
Frankly Tom, I don't see what's so amazingly undebatable about what I'm saying. Before last night I would think that the subjectivity of art criticism was very much a given for most people, especially anyone who's suffered the study of aesthetics.
Maybe there's just some miscomunication here.

In this case, the quality of the work depends on the consistency of portraying Batman. If a creator noticeably has an inaccurate depiction of Batman, then (s)he does not meet the standard established as part of Batman's standard makeup.

It's no different than if a writer makes the mistake of saying Luke Cage was a founding member of The Fantastic Four or that Superman would stand by and permit his teammates commit clandestine attacks on people. The inconsistency of these depictions -- or in the case of Cage, an outright error -- means the quality is not up to standard.
That's where we disagree. I believe you can write an amazing FF story with Luke Cage as a member, without any explanation.
As for Batman, we just have to consider the radical changes the character has been through since it was created, and how many high quality stories have come out that completely ignore Batman's original characterization.
I'd think it's self-evident. Musicianship. Originality. Depth. Richness of sound and theme. Understanding of the way sound can evoke emotional reactions.
All those are subjective. It might sound like an easy cop-out but if you'll think about it, it's true. Furthermore:
C'mon. Are you seriously trying to argue that "Don Giovanni" isn't clearly better than "Ice Ice Baby" ?
No, but I wouldn't argue that Don Giovanni is better than chocolate fudge ice cream, or Mulholland Dr either. Ice Ice Baby is not an opera, so the (subjective) criteria I would use to appreciate it would be completely different than with Don Giovanni.
Numbers don't tell the whole story. If they did, nobody would still argue whether Unitas or Montana was the better quarterback.
I don't know what being a good quarterback means, but I would assume it has something to do with achieving measurable feats, like leading your team to a better score than the other team, or preventing the opponent from scoring. Nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
But hey, if you don't like my example, try Shell's Doritos example on for size. Same point, really.
Shell's example implies that there's a universal standard for taste. There isn't.

To clarify, I was talking about subjectivity in measuring the quality of a work of art.
Nonsense. I defy you to find any musician or music critic who considers that a good song.
In its simplest terms, Blondes Have More Fun is Rod Stewart's disco album, filled with pulsating rhythms and slick, synthesized textures. It's also his trashiest, most disposable album, filled with cheap come-ons and bad double entendres. Of course, that makes Blondes Have More Fun one of his most enjoyable records, even if all the pleasures are guilty. With its swirling strings and nagging chorus, "Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?" was the reason the record hit number one, and decades later, the song stands as one of the best rock-disco fusions. The rest of the record isn't as engaging, but he throws out a handful of winning tracks in the same mold, including "Ain't Love a Bitch," "Attractive Female Wanted," and the title track.
Would you argue that the crayon doodles of some random six-year-old belong in the Louvre just as much as does the Mona Lisa?
Some would consider this no better than a 6 year-old doodle.

http://www.ifir.edu.ar/~planetario/Miro-Lune Verte.jpg

But you seem to be confusing subjective with completely arbitrary.

But I beginning to wonder if this is more a problem with the messenger than the message, since the message in this case doesn't sound so outlandish to me, so I'll bow out of the thread.

[Dreadstar]

JMS, of Babylon 5 fame.

Frankly, I just ignore it. No-one's mentioned it since.

I heard a rumor that it was supposed to be that Peter and Gwen had li'l bastards. Now that I'd buy. Not that Peter new about them, but that Gwen might have found out she was knocked up and freaked and hid them, and then years later they figure out who their dad is and try to kill him as Peter Parker.
I'm QUITE certain I replied to this already, I have NO IDEA where the post went, none. I'll reply again.

JMS is one of those truly inconsistant writers. I've read some good stuff by him and this is essentially crap.

If put into British Open Golf examples, this would be the equivalent of Jan Van de Velde's collapse at Carnoustie in 1999. A pure and total "What the fuck was he thinking?" disaster.

There, now someone quote it so it doesn't disappear.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Believe it or not, I tend to think of this one in even more virulent terms than even IDC...

Who wrote that, btw?

As an individual story, it's even worse.

Happily, nobody decided to use it to set the tone for the entire Marvel Universe.

[Ed Cunard]

I'm QUITE certain I replied to this already, I have NO IDEA where the post went, none. I'll reply again.

Weird things have been happening. Yesterday, I saw that Ray posted something, but there was no post from Ray when I clicked, but I could access it through his profile. It only showed up later when someone else posted in the thread again.

[Kid Omega]

I don't have to pretend because that's a fact. Those criteria certainly exist but have been far from agreed-upon, and quite volatile throughout times. As for being objective, just think of all the critics who disagree when writing about the same piece of work.
Frankly Tom, I don't see what's so amazingly undebatable about what I'm saying. Before last night I would think that the subjectivity of art criticism was very much a given for most people, especially anyone who's suffered the study of aesthetics.
Maybe there's just some miscomunication here.

That's where we disagree. I believe you can write an amazing FF story with Luke Cage as a member, without any explanation.
As for Batman, we just have to consider the radical changes the character has been through since it was created, and how many high quality stories have come out that completely ignore Batman's original characterization.

All those are subjective. It might sound like an easy cop-out but if you'll think about it, it's true. Furthermore:

No, but I wouldn't argue that Don Giovanni is better than chocolate fudge ice cream, or Mulholland Dr either. Ice Ice Baby is not an opera, so the (subjective) criteria I would use to appreciate it would be completely different than with Don Giovanni.

I don't know what being a good quarterback means, but I would assume it has something to do with achieving measurable feats, like leading your team to a better score than the other team, or preventing the opponent from scoring. Nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Shell's example implies that there's a universal standard for taste. There isn't.

To clarify, I was talking about subjectivity in measuring the quality of a work of art.



Some would consider this no better than a 6 year-old doodle.

http://www.ifir.edu.ar/~planetario/Miro-Lune Verte.jpg

But you seem to be confusing subjective with completely arbitrary.

But I beginning to wonder if this is more a problem with the messenger than the message, since the message in this case doesn't sound so outlandish to me, so I'll bow out of the thread.

Wow- this is a nice moved-goalpost.

Several in fact.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Wow- this is a nice moved-goalpost.

Several in fact.


Yeah, pretty much to another field entirely. Which is why I didn't bother responding. I don't think meethra are at on the same wavelength nearly enough to meaningfully communicate about this topic. We might as well be transmitting in different languages, encrypted, into other dimensions.

[bfrank]

COIE makes Ident Cris, a new story...not a retcon....

Much like the changes in the "new" earth after IC....

[howyadoin]

This has really turned into an interesting discussion. Unfortunately, Tom and a couple others keep saying the things I would've said, so at this point I've nothing to add.

But please, do continue.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The Oliver Queen I read in Identity Crisis was in fact the best Oliver Queen I've got to read in years. His solo book blows monkey balls. When all you do is the ; Oliver ends up doin the deed with a babe , feels guilty for issues , battles demons , looks like an idiot ....REPEAT. Then do those steps for stories on end...sorry.

IC showed a League that wasn't perfect. They weren't immortal gods. They fucked up as human beings ( super human beings ) do at times. But in IC , Oliver showed a lot of passion. Wally was horrified that Barry and them would do this but I always loved Oliver's speech to him.

I can't wait to read Meltzer's JLA and Oliver Queen. Least he'll be written as a human being and not the flavor of Judd Winick's month.

[Jack Zodiac]

The Oliver Queen I read in Identity Crisis was in fact the best Oliver Queen I've got to read in years. His solo book blows monkey balls. When all you do is the ; Oliver ends up doin the deed with a babe , feels guilty for issues , battles demons , looks like an idiot ....REPEAT. Then do those steps for stories on end...sorry.

I liked Ollie in Identity Crisis, except for the fight with Deathstroke. Flash, Kyle, and Zatanna- all people who could crush him in seconds- fall like bowling pins, yet ninja Ollie somehow sneaks up on him and stabs him in the eye. Don't make no sense. Especially after he just barely beat up a wounded Nightwing a few months before. That was all Meltzer making Ollie a badass.

Which isn't all that bad. The best run on the Green Arrow book, since its relaunch, was Brad's "Archer's Quest" arc. Making Deathstroke more formidable than a team full of well-trained superheroes was pure fanwank, though. :rolleyes:

[JeffreyWKramer]

I can't wait to read Meltzer's JLA and Oliver Queen. Least he'll be written as a human being and not the flavor of Judd Winick's month.


The only choices aren't "Meltzer's moral hypocrite Ollie" or "Judd's crappy-written version". I'll stick with one resembling the one written by folk like Steve Engelhart, Denny O'Neil and Mike Grell, thanks.

[Cam63]

I remember when I liked Ollie.

Oh, well...

[JeffreyWKramer]

I remember when I liked Ollie.

Oh, well...

That's more and more how I've come to feel about the whole DCU.

[Cam63]

He's still basically a nice bloke.

[howyadoin]

That's more and more how I've come to feel about the whole DCU.I haven't bought a whole lotta mainstream DCU stuff lately. But I did like the newest Detective and Superman issues, though.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I haven't bought a whole lotta mainstream DCU stuff lately. But I did like the newest Detective and Superman issues, though.

DETECTIVE was good. Who's doing SUPERMAN? Is Pacheco the artist?

[howyadoin]

DETECTIVE was good. Who's doing SUPERMAN? Is Pacheco the artist?Yeah, it's Pacheco and Busiek. Very nice standalone issue with a nod to the first Superman movie.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yeah, it's Pacheco and Busiek. Very nice standalone issue with a nod to the first Superman movie.

I should probably pick that up.

[howyadoin]

I should probably pick that up.My only complaint about it is that Lois has ugly hair.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I liked Ollie in Identity Crisis, except for the fight with Deathstroke. Flash, Kyle, and Zatanna- all people who could crush him in seconds- fall like bowling pins, yet ninja Ollie somehow sneaks up on him and stabs him in the eye. Don't make no sense. Especially after he just barely beat up a wounded Nightwing a few months before. That was all Meltzer making Ollie a badass.

Which isn't all that bad. The best run on the Green Arrow book, since its relaunch, was Brad's "Archer's Quest" arc. Making Deathstroke more formidable than a team full of well-trained superheroes was pure fanwank, though. :rolleyes:


Meltzer made Deathstroke a fuckin bad mo-fo. He does use ( i believe from something I read) 80% of his brain to be moves ahead of everyone. So I could see him taking it to a few JLA members.

I loved that scene because they had all taken an ass kickin from Slade . So Ollie in a " do or die " move , stabs the Terminato