CBR: When Words Collide - Feb 1, 2010

[CBR News]

This week Tim begins a three-part look at Brian Michael Bendis' greatest comic book work to date in his run on "Daredevil" while providing a bit of backstory on his personal interest in the superstar writer's rise to prominence.


Full article here (http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=24661).

[NickFury90]

Thats how I've always read Ultimate Spider-man. Bendis is like opposite of Morrison in that his books are SUPER decompressed, to the point that I really need to read the story arc in one sitting to really appreciate it.

Look forward to your analysis!

[rev sully]

I for one always loved it the few times the panels in DAREDEVIL and ALIAS would crossover. ALIAS for me was this novel-like SLAM! of a good story. Like a James Ellroy book but with Capes & Masks.

"L'chaim, fatass...", best line ever.

[Jim Gourley]

Tim,

Interesting viewpoint of the Bendis "Daredevil" run. I never really thought about it like that before. I focussed mainly on the Kingpin's return and how Bendis maneuvered the revelation of Murdock's identity. In both cases I thought he did very well at breaking with tired conventions and giving us classic hero scenarios with a refreshing look. I believe you're saying it's hard to miss how pretty the fireflies are when you're watching the crescendo of a fireworks display, and I agree. Your model for Bendis' narrative brings an interesting point up, though. Should more comics be written as pieces of novels?

I think we've discussed this in part before. The character is going to be around for a long, long time. Do they really have to engage in some "epic event" every month, or can't they get involved in some kind of mystery or sub-plot that takes a year or more to figure out? I'd say Bendis applied the same tactic to those 133 issues of USM. There were certainly seeds that he planted in the first forty issues that didn't bear fruit until the last forty issues. Bendis demonstrates infinite patience when toying with our emotions. Eddie Brock is still presumably in Latveria. When is that shoe going to drop?

We also don't have much of a problem taking an entire season to see how Kiefer Sutherland's day is going to turn out. In fact, that seems to be what draws us to the show. So can we do it with a comic book?

One of my favorite series of all time is Lone Wolf and Cub. Over 8,000 pages, we watched a man on a mission and a boy grow up. We didn't get the final fight until the series finale. I wonder if it's not a perfect example of the old axiom "never give the audience what they ask for, because it's never what they want."

You talked about how the Image crew dragged everyone down with their simplistic stories, but I think that's simplifying the problem too much while also underestimating the achievement of the Bendis run on Daredevil. Let's face it, things were horrible story-wise for years before the exodus. The only reason those guys were able to put the dot on the "I" was because Marvel and DC weren't crossing their "T"s. Michelinie was inviting one guest after another to keep Amazing Spider-Man going, and when he couldn't get Nova he'd fall back on Venom. The Avengers were deplorable, and the X-Titles were in an identity crisis. And, like you said, DC wasn't really on the map. Image might not have put out extremely well-written comics, but they were on par with the "industry standard". Against that kind of story-telling, all they needed was the art.

That's why Bendis was so revolutionary. Not only did he bring back the art of writing comics, but he did so in a way that showed everyone writers could do bold things as well. You didn't have to be able to draw like Todd McFarlane to do something creative or get your way. I think he opened a lot of doors and minds with those early books.

So I wonder, is Bendis's comics writing really revolutionary, or is he simply revolutionary for his recognition of how comics should be written? These things go hundreds and hundreds of issues without stopping. Why shouldn't it be okay to take things in a more piecemeal fashion? Should the fans stop clamoring for "the next big thing" and instead allow writers to really develop something that can explode? Would the last three years of Avengers stories been less provocative if they hadn't borne the titles "Disassembled", "Civil War", "Dark Reign", and "Siege"? Did we really need those labels on them? I propose that things might have been more exciting, because there wouldn't have been the prior knowledge of when the story would end. I think that's what made the anticipation for issues of USM so high.

Looking forward to your follow-ups.

Jim Gourley

http://swordandscript.com

[Liam K]

I call Bendis and Maleev's Daredevil run 'Superhero Noir'. I thought Bendis' writing with its realistic 'street' dialogue worked perfectly with Maleev's moody art style.

More importantly, it got me interested in crime comics. This resulted in me seeking out Sin City, The Losers, 100 Bullets and European comics like Torpedo 1936. It made me realize there was a lot more to comic books than capes & tights.

[Gorillamydreamz]

"I was wrong to dismiss Bendis and Maleev's "Daredevil." I was wrong to consider it an interesting failure, or a series that never lived up to its potential. Because reading it on a monthly basis, serialized amidst dozens of other releases, that wasn't really reading "Daredevil." That was experiencing it in tiny doses. That was catching it out of the corner of my eye as the crushing oppressive force of more traditional superhero comics began taking more and more of my attention."

Despite how much better Bendis' run may read as a collected work, the fact that it can only be appreciated this way means it's a failure as a serialized release, the way it was originally intended to be read.

if I'm buying a monthly comic that can only be enjoyed once it's collected then it should have been released as a graphic novel because I'm being ripped off.

[B. Kuwanger]

Well, released monthly you have the option to read it however you want. Who says it can only be enjoyed when collected?

As someone who had actually gotten into comics through the Bendis DD run (I walked into a comic shop for the first time maybe half a year after it ended, and I was soon collecting six back issues a week), I'm definitely looking forward to reading what you have to write, Mr. Callahan.

[Darediva]

I got back into seriously collecting comics during the Bendis era on DD. I read things piecemeal, and life had gotten in the way of buying comics on a regular basis. Bendis lured me back into the habit, and I haven't looked back.

Patience can be a virtue, even in comics, and I've sat through enough of really bad stories over the long run of DD that I figure I can wait out almost anything. I enjoyed reading the Bendis run a month at a time, but I will admit that I really enjoy them a lot more in the trades. I think a lot of this has to do with how much the ads in monthlies break up the rhythm of a story for me. I don't want to look at zit cream or anti-smoking ads; I'm hardly their target audience. Give me story!

I'll be watching for your series on what you think about the Bendis run in omnibus form. I believe it gives a different take on the way a person views the medium of comics.

[DevynRodriguez]

Why can't Marvel reprint this series and keep their collections in print? I'm a huge Daredevil/Bendis fan that either can't afford the Omnibus collections or can't find the trades.

[Jim Gourley]

And Gorilla brings us to the crux of the point I discussed earlier. If you're the type of person who'll go to a brick-and-mortar comics shop each month to get what's in your reserve box, or if you go every Wednesday to look for "the good stuff", you're probably dedicated enough to follow a creative team all the way through a run, right?

I started collecting Spider-Man right before the first Carnage storyline. I quit reading the day Ben Reilly kicked off the groan-saga. I came back to it when JMS started writing it. I quit again when Norman Osborne started having sex with teenagers. But all throughout, I kept tabs on the series because I was still coming into shops on odd Wednesdays to pick up the new books I'd caught interest in. I found it easy to jump on without back issues, because there was always a point at which you could jump on provided in the wake of a major story event.

My point is that my departure from or return to a series was always marked by a writer's brilliant (or not so brilliant) idea. I suppose that's the inherent risk of pursuing a long-term, incremental story-arc the way Bendis did. If you don't like the current direction, you've got a long time before any course corrections can occur. But, for those that do like it, you've got an audience that will stick around for the long haul and become loyal to you. Not sure how the formula worked for DD sales or Marvel's image, but it paid huge dividends for Bendis.

I've compared storytelling models to soap operas and telenovelas before. I think it's a good comparison here, and Bendis probably fits on the soap side with regard to DD. He used that model to great effect, though. I wonder if the "corporate" view on whether to tell stories this way is more like cell phone companies, though. AT&T doesn't care if you hate your service with them, because they know Verizon is just as bad. For every guy that leaves a service plan, there's a new guy jumping on. It's always in flux, but the margins never get smaller. So, should DC care if I hate having five different "pretenders" in Metropolis, or if Superman turns into a giant smurf for eight issues? They probably never notice any dip in sales figures because, like cell phone plans, just as many people are interested in blue Supes as there are people turned off by it. Either way, it's only eight months of story. In the context of an 80-year narrative, that's nothing. Losses are even further cut by multiple titles per hero. Don't like what the Man of Steel is doing? Go read last son of Krypton. It's not as much a range of titles to them as it is a diversified portfolio.

That's probably one of the biggest reasons the "American Shonen Format" that Erik Larsen discussed last week will never come to pass, because putting all the Batman-related material into one magazine would necessitate the publisher to bat over .500 on story content. It puts all the eggs in one basket.

Still, if you have a compelling story (which I believe Bendis did and does tell), what's the risk and are the benefits greater?

[Gorillamydreamz]

My point is that my departure from or return to a series was always marked by a writer's brilliant (or not so brilliant) idea. I suppose that's the inherent risk of pursuing a long-term, incremental story-arc the way Bendis did. If you don't like the current direction, you've got a long time before any course corrections can occur. But, for those that do like it, you've got an audience that will stick around for the long haul and become loyal to you. Not sure how the formula worked for DD sales or Marvel's image, but it paid huge dividends for Bendis.

So true. I have no stake in Bendis' Daredevil run, since I haven't read it. And therefore, I don't mean to imply any judgements on its quality here.

I just found the idea that a monthly can be a "failure" yet work as a collected story brings up the simple question of craft... If you're not making the story work for the initial user, then to me, you're not doing it right.

Just something for artists to keep in mind when they approach a book.

[Jim Gourley]

This is a really fine line that grows sharper every day. The lag time between the conclusion of a thing like "Infinite Crisis" in the monthlies and their release in trade is getting down to zero. The companies also got wise to the consumer philosophy of "why should I buy it twice" and started putting all the extras (original artwork, scripts, additional pages) into the trades. It's the same marketing strategy used to get you to buy the DVD after you've seen the movie. The problem with comics is that "the monthly experience" isn't exactly that much more special than the collected edition. Lots of people love going to the movies because they want to see films on the big screen. They buy the DVDs of films they really like. With comics, it's almost backwards. The "specialness" happens in the trades (at least in the cases with the bonus materials). At this point, if you're buying the monthlies it's out of a combination of sentimental experience and impatience, or because the title isn't popular enough to put out trades yet. But if you're a Bendis fan...

Chris Schweizer's back on the radar with Crogan's March, a straight-to-(gorgeously done) trade, a growing phenomenon in the medium. Some people just aren't wasting their time with the monthlies. But read through Crogan's Vengeance and just try to break it up into 22-page segments. It can't be done. So once again we're seeing a new approach to storytelling.

Whether Bendis sprinkles raindrops along the storyline each issues that forbode of a storm brewing six months from now, or Schweizer gives you 200 pages all at once, the story form is the same. The questions abound. What would you like more? What would keep the companies in the black? What gives the storytellers the best chance to wow us?

I think that last question is the most important. Let's face it, guys like Bendis, Kirkman, Gaiman, and Millar write their own tickets in the industry these days. They're the "new" T-Mac, Larsen, and Liefield (despite the last two having been around a while). Companies know this, and will give them fairly loose reins because they've proven themselves. If Bendis thought the straight-to-trade format was best, Marvel would probably let him try it with a lesser character (like Spider-Woman in motion comic form). But, seeing as how he's doing things the "traditional" way, that must mean he sees the value in it. After all, it was good enough to inspire Tim to do two whole blogs on it.

[Steven Withrow]

Thanks, Tim, for your ongoing (re)appraisal of Bendis and Maleev on DD. I had a similar experience while (re)reading the trades last year.

I enjoyed the series in single issues the first time around, but approaching the series as a complete story, knowing its overall shape including its ending, I found myself paying more attention to the particulars of each scene, and the correspondences between the parts, than I did to the plot and surface style. The second read was a deeper, richer experience. And not all comics, I’ve learned, reward multiple readings.

However, I'm not sure if the collected format made the crucial difference, to be honest. I likely would have felt similarly if I'd returned to the single issues. But the compressed time frame of my second read certainly mattered to me.

Reading in monthly installments gives me a pure injection of new story on a regular basis, which I love and will probably always love. But my mind often falters when trying to connect the individual pieces between issues, so even with a favorite series, the experience is sort of self-contained to one issue’s content at a time.

Reading or rereading a collection in a short span of time allows me to turn back, to peek ahead, and to make the connections that are so essential to constructing and keeping the entire story as a unit of thought. Reading a story as a unit, I'm able to catch the underlying rhythm of the full narrative and feel how each part affects the stress-and-release pattern.

I won’t give up my monthly books, but I’m grateful to have the option of reading collected editions.

P.S. Having the collections in plain sight on my shelves rather than hidden away in boxes has prompted me to reread certain series more times than I would have done otherwise. So increased visibility, portability, and durability are strong arguments for collections and standalone graphic novels.

[Joslyn]

First post at this forum, long-time reader at CBR.

Very interesting backstory on Bendis' run on Daredevil. I didn't read the single issues, I bought the trades way after the were released. Now I'm a big Bendis Marvel fan reading all Avengers trades and waiting for the Spider-Woman trade.

Funny thing is that Tim wasn't into comics when Image started out. This was the time I started really collecting comics being a big Spawn fan and follower. But it was Sam and Twitch what got me very excited about what kind of exciting stories comics could tell. Than Powers came along which, next to Spawn, is the only montly comic I still collect.
After reading all the Bendis Image trades I didn't bother with his Marvel stories. It was Alias which brought me back to Marvel and I think that is the defenitive step Bendis has made to become the Marvel-architect he is today. What he did in Alias with Gaydos is similar to what he has done with Maleev on Daredevil. Only Alias was considered more underground but Bendis did the same thing with a mainstream character; Daredevil.

The Bendis/Maleev run on Daredevil is certainly one of the best stories I ever read in comics, next to Alias. And although I really like his Avengers stories I can't wait for the Spider-woma trade with Maleev to read him back to the grittier stories of Marvel.

[ChrisMRich]

I also think Gorilla nailed it, and this is the biggest reason I find myself less than satisfied by nearly all of Bendis's work for Marvel.

I'm not trying to be a 'hater' or to say Bendis's stuff isn't good. His storytelling (especially if one throws out 'event writing' and focuses on the stories) vision is deep and rich. His stories are always good.

The problem is that his writing style is shallow and miserly.

Decompressed writing may give me more time to enjoy the artist's work but, as a (bad) writer myself, I'm reading fiction for the writing. I don't enjoy reading something best appreciated as a whole in serial. That's why I stopped buying Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' books and it's why my copy of 'Lord of the Rings' is a single volume edition. There is a structure and pacing formula that good serial fiction has to adhere to in order to hold the interest of the casual reader. Each segment must have a clear beginning, a clear end, and a 'cliff-hanger' that makes you want to see the next... much like the acts of a play or teleplay. Bendis's disregard for the structure of serial fiction makes his work suffer in comparison to writers better grounded in the 'rules' of the form, in my opinion. Bendis's books nearly always make me feel like I've paid full price for half a comic book.

His 'Daredevil' is where I feel his shortcomings the strongest.

If I can be forgiven a cynical observation, I think it is the very stylistic paucity of which I complain that has led to Bendis becoming the 'architect of the Marvel Universe' today. His long arcs and thin singles perfectly align with Joe Quesada's openly avowed mission statement of selling as little story as possible for $3.99 a month, every month. The fact that his stories are so good if one sticks it out keeps readers from feeling completely ripped off.

[Captain Castle]

Yay! You finally came to your senses!

Glad you woke up and smelled the awesome!

Maybe someday you'll realize how great Ennis is, or at least write a few columns on Preacher.

[ChrisMRich]

This is a really fine line that grows sharper every day. The lag time between the conclusion of a thing like "Infinite Crisis" in the monthlies and their release in trade is getting down to zero. The companies also got wise to the consumer philosophy of "why should I buy it twice" and started putting all the extras (original artwork, scripts, additional pages) into the trades. It's the same marketing strategy used to get you to buy the DVD after you've seen the movie. The problem with comics is that "the monthly experience" isn't exactly that much more special than the collected edition. Lots of people love going to the movies because they want to see films on the big screen. They buy the DVDs of films they really like. With comics, it's almost backwards. The "specialness" happens in the trades (at least in the cases with the bonus materials). At this point, if you're buying the monthlies it's out of a combination of sentimental experience and impatience, or because the title isn't popular enough to put out trades yet. But if you're a Bendis fan...

Chris Schweizer's back on the radar with Crogan's March, a straight-to-(gorgeously done) trade, a growing phenomenon in the medium. Some people just aren't wasting their time with the monthlies. But read through Crogan's Vengeance and just try to break it up into 22-page segments. It can't be done. So once again we're seeing a new approach to storytelling.

Whether Bendis sprinkles raindrops along the storyline each issues that forbode of a storm brewing six months from now, or Schweizer gives you 200 pages all at once, the story form is the same. The questions abound. What would you like more? What would keep the companies in the black? What gives the storytellers the best chance to wow us?

I think that last question is the most important. Let's face it, guys like Bendis, Kirkman, Gaiman, and Millar write their own tickets in the industry these days. They're the "new" T-Mac, Larsen, and Liefield (despite the last two having been around a while). Companies know this, and will give them fairly loose reins because they've proven themselves. If Bendis thought the straight-to-trade format was best, Marvel would probably let him try it with a lesser character (like Spider-Woman in motion comic form). But, seeing as how he's doing things the "traditional" way, that must mean he sees the value in it. After all, it was good enough to inspire Tim to do two whole blogs on it.

I do have to disagree about Bendis being able to write his own ticket in the monthly vs trade issue.

First, Marvel (as I observed more cynically in my previous comment) is committed to the monthly series format. Period. Joe Quesada has dismissed straight-to-trade publication for major titles emphatically, on the basis of per unit price point. He says it is better to sell 50,000 copies of multiple single monthlies every month than to sell a million copies of a trade in one printing. As far as the immediate bottom line, he is write in terms of pure mathematics.

So if Bendis (or anyone else) said 'I want to do the Hulk, but I want to do four full length graphic novels this year instead of four arcs in twelve monthly issues', Marvel would say 'Sorry, we've got Ed Brubaker (or anyone else) doing the Hulk this year.'

Superstar writers and artists may be able to write their own ticket when it comes to creative control (or not, look at JMS doing it Joe Q's way in the Spider-Man book) but Marvel Comics is a corporate concern. Publishing and marketing questions will be decided by the corporate guys, not work-for-hire writers. One may be able to write what one wants, how one wants, within certain limits... but Marvel will decide how it is packaged and sold. Period.

[Jim Gourley]

I think Chris's conclusions are a bit misguided.

- I don't think Joe Q has been the best thing for my Marvel universe, but other people love him. Still, I couldn't find any article or interview where he explicitly stated what Chris says he did. If it's out there, I'd love to see it.

- When it comes to Marvel or DC denying OGN releases of major titles and the bottom dollar, Chris reinforces my assertion. Remember, I said everything was based on the condition that the company would deem it profitable. Joe Q is right, it wouldn't be profitable to quit the monthly line for something like Spider-Man. There's intangible value to staying in the public eye every month. There's a 4th movie in the (dysfunctional) works and you've got to maintain the character's cultural presence.

- If you're reading fiction as a writer, then you're a critic and not the audience. I don't know if that's what you meant to say, but if it is keep in mind that the two are different.

- Chris does make a justifiable complaint about the way story arcs are presented these days. A creative team's run on a book really is a closed-loop. I don't think there's such a thing as a writer taking on Batman, having him fight crime in Gotham, and then handing him off to the next writer to do the same. Everyone wants to have their "take" on the character, to add something new, and to engage in their own narrative. That's good and bad. You can get a writer who's narrative and agenda are totally counter to what you want to read, or you can get one you fall in love with. But, at the end of the day, good is accomplished because things change within the character. If things aren't changing, then they're stagnant, and no one's going to read it in the first place.

- Ultimately, companies have embraced the arc because very few writers continue the quality over long runs the way Bendis has on USM. So, you've got to wrap up a major arc so the next writer can do things according to his style without the encumbrances of the last guy's baggage. There's always some baggage, but you can't leave someone with major plot threads. However, the injection of commercialism into this principle with the "major event" storylines has been overplayed. Even Marvel is admitting they've got to back off of it. DC hasn't totally worn it out in their house, so they can do a few more.

- I still maintain that the Bendis approach to writing is richer. I certainly enjoy his Spider-Man more than any others I've read. Up to issue 133, I really felt that I was engaged in a series that was equal parts superhero book, mystery adventure, and character drama. It was great story-telling on an issue-by-issue basis, and if the trades had more "bonus material", I might buy them.

[TimothyCallahan]

Chris is right. Joe did say those things, I think in a Cup O' Joe column here at CBR.

And Quesada is right about how it wouldn't make sense to go the OGN route right now. There haven't been any massively successful OGNs from Marvel or DC, and if they can make a bit of money on the monthly installments, get publicity and raise awareness through their release, and then still sell as many collected editions (or more) than any OGN sells, then why would they change their model? There's no incentive for them to try.

Readers certainly don't seems to discriminate between what's good and what's not, all too often, so it's not even a matter of getting good people on good projects. Marvel could probably make nearly the same kind of profit with less talented writers and artists. It's a testament to Quesada and man-of-great-taste Axel Alonso (and Steve Wacker, too) that we even have the kind of top-notch writers and artists Marvel has right now.

Battle for the Cowl sold over 100,000 copies of each issue in the Direct Market. DC could have hired some LiveJournal amateur to draw the thing and paid him $1 a page and it still would have sold the same number of copies. So why would Marvel or DC ever say, "hey, let's cut back on the monthlies and devote our attention to once-a-year OGNs that might sell 10,000 copies, maybe"?

[Captain Castle]

Yeah, it's sad but true. Business first and quality second.

[DevynRodriguez]

Yeah, it's sad but true. Business first and quality second.

If you want quality first and business second, there are tons of indy books that you can buy.

This is the tradeoff to reading comics with your favorite superheroes in them.

And I believe I know why writers write for the trade. That will be the ultimate presentation of the work for years to come.