Modern vs. older writing styles

[JaredMilne]

Well, it's not really a shame. The truth is that Amazing Spider-Girl was a terrible book. He writes as if he's still in 1994, and while some people may like that, I'll enjoy my more modern writing styles, thanks.

I posted this elsewhere but it applies here.

I think Tom Defalco has similar problems to Chris Claremont, in that their style is off-putting for many readers, and therefore limits the amount of work they can do. No one's going to put either of them on a title with wide appeal (IE- Amazing Spider-Man, Astonishing X-Men) because putting them on a title instantly limits the potential customer base.

This isn't to suggest that other writers (especially Bendis, Millar, Slott, Ellis and Loeb) instantly appeal to 100% of the market, but at the very least, their work often sells pretty well, and seems to appeal to current readers more than that of most "old-school" writers (Peter David is perhaps the only one of the writers from the mid 80s to be able to sell well today at Marvel.)

To further complicate matters for the "old-school" writers, Marvel is loathe to pair them with popular artists, as their work usually won't sell as well as it would with the likes of Bendis and Loeb. This puts writers like Defalco, Claremont and Englehart in a shit situation, as they won't be placed on any books that have a significant likelihood of being successful, nor paired with popular or potential break-out artists. Marvel can put them on self-contained titles with respectable but not "name" artists, usually to appeal to a currently existing fan base, but this is usually a risky proposition that has very limited opportunity for massive unambiguous successes (IE- JMS on Thor, Peter David on the Dark Tower, Loeb on Hulk.)

This is something I'm confused about regarding older creators vs. the current crop of writers (Bendis, Loeb, Millar, etc.)

What exactly is it about the work of older writers that most current readers find off-putting? When I asked this question in another thread, one respondent said that most readers don't like the exposition-style thoughts and dialogue, something I can certainly understand and even agree with.

But what are the differences between older and newer writing styles that most current fans seem to prefer about the current set of creators?

I don't mean to criticize or compain, I'm just curious.

[Hulk_Is]

I think many readers like modern writers and their writing style because they are readers from the modern era. Say, they may be of late 90's up 'til now readers, or even newer, bred on writing of largely post silver age material.

I grew up on "the older stuff" and have a better grasp on the old school ways of writing and cultures of the day. That being said, I find modern writing more enjoyable than the older style of writng overall. It seems more concise to what the material is, as opposed the old school way of feeling anything can happen at any time. Today especially, books are written to hold thier own, as they are written to go into trade format. Back in the day, it wasn't thought of in that way.

I like that the old school stuff was random, if you will. You didn't always know exactly what was coming at you in the form of content. And I really love the less is more approach to the art! I also really liked that super heroes were 'about thier powers and abilites', rather than those things just being in existence. When it came to rumbles, it set a precedent - usually depicted in both fight and in dialouge (the latter is what fans of current superhero comics dislike in part, of old school comics writing.)

I like that modern comics tell a more consistent story as opposed to those really weak old school stories. It seems that most modern stories I've read have always had more pluasible content.

[2-4-5_Trioxin]

I tend to like the old writers myself. They used more dialouge, they had the characters talking more and flushed out the story more. And instead of at the end of every issue for like 25 in a row saying to be continued, they kept their stories more streamlined and self containined instead of every issue just being a continious lead in to the next (bendis really loved doing this with new avengers.) The characters would also talk more about the story going on at that point, like say a story is 4 issues long, in each issue you would see someone reminding the readers whats going on with a recap in the dialouge.

Comics these days on the whole tend to use little dialouge as possible and its very common to have 2 page spreads of a picture and maybe like 3 words on it or a entire page of panels of no words at all and just like a frame by frame of someone driving up to a house or something. They seem to have more of a over arching idea and not have alot of filler, stories like house of M could have had 2 issues cut out entirely and it would have been the same exact story and nothing would be lost.

Not to say I dont like new writers vs old writers and what not because I enjoy old and new stuff, I just liked the writing styles of older writers.

[Brannon]

I think modern writers are generally more accomplished with dialogue and realistic speech, but this has as much to do with growing up reading Alan Moore and Frank Miller as is does the older fan-base.

The problem is that realistic dialogue alone does not a good superhero comic make. Who cares about witty dialogue when nothing happens and the pace is tediously slow? Who cares about witty dialogue when the plot is cliche or yet another spin on old Claremont X-Men plots? (Oh, the irony...)

Take someone like John Byrne. He writes very generic dialogue that will never win him any awards. He writes dialogue that he feels that kids and everyone else can understand. His plots and storytelling, however, are often light-years ahead of many modern writers and artists. It's all about what you value more. I'm willing to sacrifice character interaction and witty dialogue for creative interpretations of powers, original concepts and innovation.

[Spiffy]

Modern writers often eschew dialogue in favor of the visual. DeFalco's generation, the guys writing primarily in the 70s and 80s I'd peg them as, didn't do that. They were less influenced by "wide screen cinema", a comparison I hear frequently with writers like Bendis, and more by books.

This is as compared to the generation even before that, the contemporaries of Stan Lee. Who I think were more influenced by newspaper comic strips and even earlier comic books from the 30s and 40s.

So those 70s and 80s guys probably DID use the most words on the page, among the three groups. Of course its purely subjective if that's bad or good.

[Frodo-X]

I prefer the modern. A perfect example; I was just re-reading the first Gambit miniseries the other day, and while I was reading it I found myself ignoring a lot of the text boxes. Usually all they had was either background on the character, which myself and most readers already know, or descriptions of what's happening, which is exactly what the art depicts. While sometimes I don't like how quickly new books read, when they're low on dialogue, but the old way just becomes almost a chore to get through.

[MTL76]

I think modern writers are generally more accomplished with dialogue and realistic speech, but this has as much to do with growing up reading Alan Moore and Frank Miller as is does the older fan-base.

The problem is that realistic dialogue alone does not a good superhero comic make. Who cares about witty dialogue when nothing happens and the pace is tediously slow? Who cares about witty dialogue when the plot is cliche or yet another spin on old Claremont X-Men plots? (Oh, the irony...)

Take someone like John Byrne. He writes very generic dialogue that will never win him any awards. He writes dialogue that he feels that kids and everyone else can understand. His plots and storytelling, however, are often light-years ahead of many modern writers and artists. It's all about what you value more. I'm willing to sacrifice character interaction and witty dialogue for creative interpretations of powers, original concepts and innovation.

I've got to agree with this assessment. "Old-school" writers like Byrne may lack the snappy patter of more modern writers, but I think the relationships between their characters were more interesting and complex.

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Old school writing ya got decidely more story per issue than modern. Modern is all about the visuals. The writers script the scenes and let the art do all the talking. Old school is more character-driven, you get into their heads more.

Personally, I prefer the old-school style. I love how they can tell a standalone story, and have a subplot that goes on for issues behind the scenes. Look at old issues of Spidey; you had the main Spidey story, a Peter Parker story, and one or two supporting cast stories in every issue. Occasionally they'd have to focus on one over the others, but most of the time not.

Basically, modern audiences don't have the attention span for the old style. They like the quick 5 minute reads and move on to the next thing. Me, if I'm shelling out $3 for a book I want my money's worth. If I wanted pretty pictures I'd go to a museum. That's not to say I don't enjoy some modern books, but given the choice between styles old school wins every time.

[Wild Card13]

Old school writing ya got decidely more story per issue than modern. Modern is all about the visuals. The writers script the scenes and let the art do all the talking. Old school is more character-driven, you get into their heads more.

I don't know. I'd argue comics are about pictures first, words second. In a well-made comic, I should be able to remove all the dialogue and captions and still have a clear idea of what's going on.

Personally, I prefer the old-school style. I love how they can tell a standalone story, and have a subplot that goes on for issues behind the scenes. Look at old issues of Spidey; you had the main Spidey story, a Peter Parker story, and one or two supporting cast stories in every issue. Occasionally they'd have to focus on one over the others, but most of the time not.

As someone who waits for trades, I have to disagree. I like decompression more. I don't mind a writer taking some time to tell their story. Why throw more ingredients in the pot than you need?

Basically, modern audiences don't have the attention span for the old style.

Speak for yourself. I've got the attention span; it just doesn't appeal to me.

They like the quick 5 minute reads and move on to the next thing. Me, if I'm shelling out $3 for a book I want my money's worth. If I wanted pretty pictures I'd go to a museum. That's not to say I don't enjoy some modern books, but given the choice between styles old school wins every time.

I don't know. I read stuff from as recently as fifteen years ago, and it doesn't hold up very well. To me it comes across as overwritten, and to a certain extent goofy.

...So, yeah. Yay new style.

[Omega Alpha]

Well, it's notorious that writers used to be much more wordy, and became less with time, as they realize you don't have to explain everything piece by piece to readers. Claremont seems to suffer the most to adapt to it; he was already considered overexpository in his dialogue in the 80's, but now it just seems ridiculous.

Also, specially in the Golden and Silver Ages, readers were more willing to accept anything that was told them, and you would have the most weird stuff, like Xavier being able to "transfer" telepathy to Jean Grey or that Green Lanterns would be vulnerable to the yellow color just because. And character seemed to gain new powers out of nowhere sometimes. Today, you can't pull stuff like that off: even with comic book weird pseudo-science, things have to make some logical sense, and you can't have characters showing new abilities all the sudden to solve the story.

I am not saying that the stories are necessarily better now, of course. Even the best stories of these days much more often than not are as good as a The Coming of Galactus or DPS.

[Dusty.]

I prefer both. I wouldn't have wanted the first 25 issues of Captain America written in old school form anymore than I would want Simonson's Thor written in modern form. I'd give the 80's type writing an edge over today's, as Brubaker's Cap seems to be a rare exception where writers and artists stay around long enough AND built something worth remembering. Bendis sticks around, too, but if we honestly look at it, shock value, stunts, and change for the sake of change seems to be what his writing is about. How fondly is that stuff ever remembered, using history as a reference?

The only place where there is a major difference in the quality of modern and classic comics is the coloring, with all due respect to Dr. Martin's water colored dyes and the men and women who used them.

[Alan2099]

Despite the reliance on shaking up the status qou and ample use of shock tactics, I just don't feel as much is actualy happening in most modern issues and story arcs.

I really feel that in monthies, decompression is ruining storytelling. Nobody wants to get to the point with anything. Everything has to be stretched out as characters exchange "realistic" banter that lacks any real sense of the characters voice or urgency.

[Grapeweasel]

Old School: Good guys fight the bad guys.

New School: Good guys fight the good guys while the bad guys fill the inevitable power vacuum.

Old School is Black and White. New School is Grey.

I miss the Old School.

[CaptainCanada]

Old-style writing is very in-the-lines; very little divergence from the standard formula, they rarely do anything with characters or storytelling that is new or challenging (it may have been at the time, but we've moved past that). And, yeah, dialogue. Comics improved so, so much when they realized you didn't need to have characters exposit every action, even the ones that you could clearly tell from the art.

Modern comics' use of narration by the characters themselves is far more dramatically compelling and revealing about the characters than third-person narrative captions or worthless thought balloons.

[Alex Dragon]

I much prefer the mordern writing to the old stuff. Almost everything before the early 90s tends to bore me or seem like a chore to get through.

I disagree with those who feel you got more story back in those days. Maybe you got more action and maybe more stuff was happening but you really didn't get more story per se (of course there are plenty of exceptions). What the writers back then seem to be doing is giving you a lot more dialogue filled with exposition because the story was racing along at such a unneccessarily fast pace things had to constantly be explain in order for it to make any sense. Plus it seems that Marvel made it mandatory to plug as many books as possible during a story. That lead to awkward thought ballons like "This reminds me of my own problems I have to deal with..." then there's the astrik and footnote to tell readers pick up a book to see what the character is talking about.

With all the exposition, thought ballons, captions, big sound effects, footnotes, and such yeah, it took you longer to read but I don't think you actually got more of the real story. It was paced faster and there might've been more action (fights) but you didn't really get more story per se.

I think the modern writing has much more characterizations and clearer motives and much more thoughtout plots. When many people complain that today we have issues where "nothing" happens what many of them seem to be saying is there wasn't a fight or action scenes. In my opinion a 5 page fight doesn't always add more to a story. Having a bunch of small panels when half could've accomplished the same thing isn't always better storytelling.

I know some fans feel they're getting "less" because there are less words to read and fewer panels to look at but when it comes to telling a story having more words and more panels isn't automatically the better way to tell a story.

[Parch]

Comics have evolved to include a wider audience. Modern comics appeal to a wider age group than the older style that targeted mainly kids. That is clearly reflected in the writing style.

Somebody called it "goofy", but the older style of writing is just more "simplistic" to appeal to the targeted age group at the time. A change in the demographic results in a change to the writing style.

[Alex Dragon]

I don't know. I'd argue comics are about pictures first, words second. In a well-made comic, I should be able to remove all the dialogue and captions and still have a clear idea of what's going on.

I agree with you that the visuals are the most important aspect of comics. In the old(er) days there often wasn't enough room given to panels to let the visuals do their share of the story as they do today. With so many panels on the page and so many thought ballons, captions, dialogue and such it was harder for an artist to have the room to create mood or sense of space and because of old(er) style page layouts a talking head shot was often just as big as the action or more important shot (panel) on the page.


As someone who waits for trades, I have to disagree. I like decompression more. I don't mind a writer taking some time to tell their story. Why throw more ingredients in the pot than you need?

I feel many stories of the past weren't as good as they could've been because the story had to be done in one or two issues. You had less characterization, things just seemed to happen out of nowhere just to move the story along, characters shouting out totally awkward dialogue explaining things we didn't get to see (because there wasn't room or time) and everything seemed to be rushed to tie everything up in a standard ending.

Speak for yourself. I've got the attention span; it just doesn't appeal to me.

Many readers have the attention span. The arguement could just as easily go that some of today's readers don't have the patience and attention span to enjoy a story that takes time to tell. It's just like the old (and weak) debate that Stan Lee told Spidey's origin in about half an issue and Bendis took multiple issues. I think Stan did okay with the space he had but it wasn't a superior story because he did it (because he had to btw) in a few pages. I was much more entertained with a longer version of Spidey's origin that was given room to breathe.



I don't know. I read stuff from as recently as fifteen years ago, and it doesn't hold up very well. To me it comes across as overwritten, and to a certain extent goofy.

...So, yeah. Yay new style.

I totally agree. Having heroes give long winded speeches in the middle of a fight, having thought ballons filled with thoughts of them telling us what they're doing when it's obvious what they're doing, having a villian give a long winded rant of his plans, and having heroes give melodramatic speeches to othe characters does come off as incredibly silly at times.

[Alex Dragon]

Comics have evolved to include a wider audience. Modern comics appeal to a wider age group than the older style that targeted mainly kids. That is clearly reflected in the writing style.

Somebody called it "goofy", but the older style of writing is just more "simplistic" to appeal to the targeted age group at the time. A change in the demographic results in a change to the writing style.

That's debatable. Yes, comics back then were aimed to include a younger audience but today's comics aimed at a younger audience doesn't have many of the "goffy" trappings of the old stuff and reades just fine. It's mostly the style of the era. Most of the cartoons of that era were written with many of the same awkward stylings. Does a typical kid of the same age today find it easier to follow THE SUPERFRIENDS than today's JUSTICE LEAGUE cartoon?

[Alan2099]

Comics have evolved to include a wider audience. Modern comics appeal to a wider age group than the older style that targeted mainly kids. That is clearly reflected in the writing style.
Yet kids hardly read the books anymore and the wider audience seems to be dwindling a bit more every year.

[TROUBLEZ]

I prefer the old school writers style, but necessarily their stories always.

But the current trend of wide screen panels and sparse but "witty" dialogue is really boring to me. I understand it's not realistic to have lots of dialogue during a fight, but comic characters themselves are not realistic. Also, it's not like the characters are frozen in that one pose while they deliver a paragraph of speech. One panel might represent more time depending on the writer's intent.

I think that today's modern writers are more influenced by films than by literature. That's mostly why I don't like comics right now. It takes less than 5 minutes to read them.
I think in terms of the medium, writers and artists (from the big two atleast) were doing more back then, then they are today.

[TROUBLEZ]

Comics have evolved to include a wider audience. Modern comics appeal to a wider age group than the older style that targeted mainly kids. That is clearly reflected in the writing style.

Somebody called it "goofy", but the older style of writing is just more "simplistic" to appeal to the targeted age group at the time. A change in the demographic results in a change to the writing style.

I'm sorry but I think it's safe to say that comics have not evolved into a wider audience. A DC title, sells on average, about 35,000. That's less read than small town papers, and comics are available nationally.

Modern comics also seem to be written to an aging fanboy audience who already has intimate knowledge of continuity for the last 50 years. That's a marginalized audience.