Compromising quality for accesibility?

[daredevil1990]

One thing that Geoff Johns get praised on is his ability to write stories that, whilst thought of very highly by fans and critics, are highly accesible. Whether this accesibily is a by-product of his writing style, or something he consciously chooses to do, the stories don't seem to lose any impact to accomodate for newer readers. Geoff Johns was just someone I thought of because the word 'accesible' seems to have become a collocation of his name. But as for other writers, both modern and from other era's of DC, do you feel accesibility comes at the cost of quality?

I started reading DC almost 2 years ago and, I'll not be the first to say it, it's itimidating to new readers (we all said at some point, 'what the hell is a multiverse?', right?). A lot of people come to this forum asking, 'where do I start with DC?' or 'Where do I start with Batman/Superman/Flash/any DC superhero?. I don't wanna open up a debate of 'is Marvel easier to get into that DC?', somethign that might be unavoidable in the trhead all the same. But do you feel the stories that are considered good startign points lack the quality that other stories do? Or is it simply a case of the stories which require a knowledge of DC are all the more enjoyable because you know what you do about the DCU?

[jackdaw53]

Personally I think a lot of the better stories are the most accessible.

But... I'm really surprised that you quote Geoff Johns as one of the most accessible writers. I don't read his stuff very often but to me he's a solid writer but one who often uses a wide range of characters, doesn't explain who they are that well... and gets involved in small matters of detail from past comics.

Accessible? Compared to Grant Morrison no doubt... but then most writers jump that hurdle.

But... if you haven't done already... get hold of some of the things that Ed Brubaker has written. Now for me Ed B really does go out of his way to "ensure that everything you need to enjoy the comic is in the comic itself". I've read stuff of his where I knew naff all about the characters beforehand (e.g. Sleeper) and enjoyed them tremendously.

Anyway if you've not read already I'd strongly recommend Sleeper or the Ed Brubaker/ Greg Rucka run on Gotham City. Read them already? Then I'd be very interested how you rate their accessibility against Geoff J's stuff.

[Violently Apathetic]

I tend to agree with the above poster that the more accessible a story is, the less mired it is in continuity, the better it often is. Stand alone projects and one shots that don't suffer due to editorial interference are often stronger as a result. They often appeal to high concepts and ideas (What it means to be Superman, and so forth) rather than relying on the readers to recall Superman's fight with Toyman from thirty issues ago. More accessible stories create and build characters during the story, rather than assuming the readers already have a passing knowledge of the characters being used. That's arguably why something like the JLU comes across as more coherent and solid than the comic JLA. The same goes for stories that take place early in a superheroes career. Stories like JLA: Year One, Batman: Year One, or Green Lantern: Secret Origins are all fairly accessible and reasonably well written.

Geoff Johns, for the most part, isn't all the accessible as a reader. Though he makes a valiant effort to fill potential 'new-readers' in during Rebirth it is a little daunting at times if you are unfamiliar with the mythos. That goes for a lot of his writing.

[Mat001]

But as Johns pointed out, a lot of books have always had huge hurtles. Yet people dove in and read. If they let themselves be intimidated, then they've denied themselves the pleasure of all that came before and all that will come next. I jumped into the Superman books not knowing about "Man Of Steel" and Lex's faked death. Yet I kept at it because I wanted to know more. And as Johns compared, there are people who dive into films and television shows without watching the first ones.

Accessibility is good. Just don't cower in fear because you don't know what something is yet, when it is introduced.

[daredevil1990]

Personally I think a lot of the better stories are the most accessible.

But... I'm really surprised that you quote Geoff Johns as one of the most accessible writers. I don't read his stuff very often but to me he's a solid writer but one who often uses a wide range of characters, doesn't explain who they are that well... and gets involved in small matters of detail from past comics.

Accessible? Compared to Grant Morrison no doubt... but then most writers jump that hurdle.

But... if you haven't done already... get hold of some of the things that Ed Brubaker has written. Now for me Ed B really does go out of his way to "ensure that everything you need to enjoy the comic is in the comic itself". I've read stuff of his where I knew naff all about the characters beforehand (e.g. Sleeper) and enjoyed them tremendously.

Anyway if you've not read already I'd strongly recommend Sleeper or the Ed Brubaker/ Greg Rucka run on Gotham City. Read them already? Then I'd be very interested how you rate their accessibility against Geoff J's stuff.

I've read the first two trades of Gotham Central and I own the Point Blank mini, not read it yet, and mean to pick up Sleeper eventually. It's funny you mention Brubaker as accessible, he's the first writer I got into. I started with his Daredevil run and it does reference a lot of stuff from Bendis' run, and even material prior to that, it doesn't confuse or get bogged down with continuity. But as anotehr psoter mentioned, stand alone stories being stronger, Daredevil is IMO very myuch detatched from the larger MU. So far, his run ahs avodied events, and that's something I'm entirely thankful for - Daredevil being the only Marvel ongoing I pick-up.

Brubaker has been, and will remain, one of my favorutie writers, because of Criminal aswell. but that's neither here nor there, since that's entirely self contained too. Gotham Central though, being like a polcie procedural TV show, I didn't feel a need to learn all the character's names so much as I did their roles in the plot. Were many of those characters created i tnaht series? Or had they been floating around the Bat0books for some time before Gotham Central?

Johns, now I think about it, does reference a lot of older material but I think he does so knowing there's a strong chance a fair slice of readers aren't versed in older Superman stories. I mean, his run on Action Comics is a prime example; I'd never read anything with the LoSH in, anything with General Zod in (I picked up the Last Son annual before I'd read the previous issues in the story, I still udnerstood what was going on - reading the otehr issues didn't provide much more information I didn't pick up from the annual alone), I hadn't read anything with Braniac, anything with Toyman (that stand alone issue was fantastic) or anything revolved about Bizarro.

ntil I read Johns' Action run, I knew next to nothing about Superman, Johns' run gave me a lot of knowledge about the Superman mythos nad Kryptonian culture which I took on board easily enough. All the while, I had an absolute blast reading the stories. Now, take Brubaker's run on Daredevil or Captain America, there were some instances I had to fill in some minor blanks on my own, I hate reading stuff on Wiki, much prefer to read the actual story. Saying that, I'm a DC guy through and through, so not knowing much about Daredevil and, moreso, Cap is a given.

[jackdaw53]

daredevil,
My knowledge of anything in the Bat-verse any more recent than the Bob Haney Brave and Bold run is distinctly patchy. So take what I'm about to say about the Gotham Central characters with a pinch of salt. (And very happy for more knowledge-able guys to correct me.)

I reckon cast had largely appeared elsewhere before, but certainly some I can't remember seeing anywhere else. Characters that had appeared before include Renee Montoya, Michael Akins, Maggie Sawyer, James Gordon, the villains, Harvey Bullock.

Characters I can't recall seeing before... Marcus Driver, Romy Chandler, and Josephine Macdonald.

Without giving anything away... the portrayal of Renee M and Harvey B upset a fair number of regular "Bat readers". (Along the lines of "The Renee I know would never....". Personally the portrayal of either didn't worry me much... though I'd have liked to see Harvey treated more kindly.)

Anyway onto PointBlank and Criminal. Worth saving PointBlank till you've got the Sleeper trades (or back issues)... good lead in.

I really rate Criminal. If you like that sort of stuff probably worth looking at Greg Rucka's "Queen and Country". I think its the best thing of Greg's I've read. Indeed probably best series I've read for sometime. First trade in series is called "Operation Broken Ground". If you like that one you can buy rest of series with confidence... the quality never falters at any point of the series.
Jack

[NickFury90]

Brubaker's Captain America is what got me into comics. Up until issue #25, all you need to understand this book is read from #1 to #25. All the characters, events, etc are all summed up/reintroduced in this book, no Wikipedia quests needed.

[Free-Man]

I'm sorry, but Geoff Johns work is certainly not that accessible. Everything from Green Lantern Rebirth, to Teen Titans, to Infinite Crisis is mired in past events.

[Seven_Ride]

The OP is correct. And most comic fans are too mired in the many layers of continuity they know to really define what accessible is for non-comic fans.

Because referencing past events does not equal losing a new reader. Star Wars begins in media res, and I've never heard anyone complain that they were lost because they didn't know Darth Vader's past history with Obi-Won, or whatever.

Good writers can make allusions to past stories AND make the important points of history identifiable and interesting to new readers as they go. For that, guys like Johns and Brubakers really are masters at what they do, which is why so many non-lifetime geeks find their books accessible. From Captain America to Green Lantern Rebirth. Books like that are written with the uninitiated in mind, which is probably why they go over so well.

[Ilash]

I have to say that I, oddly enough, find accessibility overrated. Two of the first comics I ever bought were a reprint of Showcase #4 and a Mark Waid issue of the Flash. At first I was confused as to why there were these two different Flashes (and the editorial at the back of Showcase #4 pointed towards there being another!) but quickly I came to love discovering this complex, generational world of the Flash and the DCU in general. And this was before the Internet, let alone Google or Wikipedia.

Some of the best stories are standalone tales, totally free of continuity, this is true. And indeed, I think some comics can be too obsessed with past continuity, obsessively trying to make everything fit together (as much as I usually enjoy his work, Geoff Johns is guilty of this) but I don't think that superhero comics should turn their backs on one of the most fun aspects of being such a long running form of serialized storytelling.

[show name]

In the past I've read stuff that wasn't necessarily so accessible and probably my enjoyment of it was less than it would have been had I known more about the continuity it took place in, but at the same time I could recognize that the story was high quality. As a result I would get drawn into that world, wanting to learn more about it and the characters.

And I think there are occasions where one can enjoy the story even more when not weighed down with backstory and preconceptions, because the characters are more fresh, and what you don't know about them you fill in with your imagination.

[daredevil1990]

Thanks for all your responses so far, been really interesting reading what you guys have had to say. To jamesfreeman, I'm speaking entirely for myself here and not saying in the slightest that you're wrong, but I've gotta say, GL: Rebirth and Johns' Teen Titans both were very accessible for me. I mean, I totally get what you siad about being mired with past events, but I think Johns gave me, as someone new to both the Titans and GL, enough to go off. Maybe that's just retrospective though, I've got all of Johns' GL stuff and the majority of past events get their own recap at some point. So going back and reading Rebirth is somethign totally different to when I read it prior to reading all the stuff after. And as for Titans, I had no idea who Jericho was, but the first two trades (all I've read so far) didn't leave me completely lost.

I guess accessibility is something unique to everyone, depends how much or how little you're willing to go into a character or series with. Do you guys think that accessibility always comes at the cost of quality though? (probably something I should said outright in the OP, haha, but I've been interested in how hte thread was going, I didn't wanna derail it). Does accomodating for newer readers have a direct impact on the enjoyment of more versed readers? Have you ever felt ripped off, that DC has dumbed down a character to the point where it has become accessible but you stopped enjoying it?

[Calybos]

Accessibility is part of what makes a quality story, rather than detracts from it. It's a lot like usability in computer applications, or clarity in writing; simplicity is much harder than complexity, and very few people tend to be offended or turned off by stuff that's easy to pick up and work with.

The only folks who complain about "dumbing it down" are pretentious snots or those who genuinely feel the story lacked quality for reasons OTHER than its accessibility. Accessibility, by itself, is always a virtue and never a flaw.


.

[daredevil1990]

Accessibility is part of what makes a quality story, rather than detracts from it. It's a lot like usability in computer applications, or clarity in writing; simplicity is much harder than complexity, and very few people tend to be offended or turned off by stuff that's easy to pick up and work with.

The only folks who complain about "dumbing it down" are pretentious snots or those who genuinely feel the story lacked quality for reasons OTHER than its accessibility. Accessibility, by itself, is always a virtue and never a flaw.


.

'Dumbing down' was a bad way of phrasing it looking back over the post, I guess I sort of wanted a reponse from the connotations that phrase holds with some people but I definately don't wanna say that I believe comics are dumbed down at all. Better way of putting it, I watched an interview with Johns on Youtube at a convention, can't remember which, and he described his approach to characters came from distillign them down to their most basic and vital components. The example he used was Green Lantern, breaking it down as far as the literal meanign of his name. 'Lantern' was the word he focused on approached the character from that one word alone. I don't remember his exact way of putting it, but that was the basic outline.

That's kinda why I talked about him in the OP, as someone who started DC little under two years ago, Johns has been a lifesaver. The fact that his runs on series' I've picked up on started not so long ago the issues were easy to find is a bonus. His run on GL, whilst mentioning previous events, still worked to introduce new readers and maintained high praise from die-hard fans. Now I've read some older stuff, not too much to make this comment with total certainty though, his stories seem to work off very traditional and classic takes on the characters.

Personally, I don't think I've seen any compromising of quality that I can think of, which is why I wanted to start the thread to see how people felt on the matter. To see if it's something people felt existed on any level.