CBR: When Words Collide - Oct 24, 2011

[CBR News]

Tim returns to take a belated look at the New York Comic Con, placing into context what it feels like to be a comic book reader these days, when everything new is old again.


Full article here.

[Jono11]

Callahan is right on point, as per usual. As long as the fanbase keeps rewarding the Bendises (and Claremonts) of the world and punishing serious, artistic creators for trying to innovate, we'll be stuck with a stagnating form.

[DarkBeast]

Great column, Tim.

Darius gets right to the essence of his thesis when he says, "Instead of realizing that comics were sophisticated entertainment for mature adults, the culture has simply made arrested development cool."

Alan Moore made the same exact point two years ago when he said something like "Comics haven't grown up. The rest of the culture has simply grown down."

It was the same interview in which he said something about everything Johns has done on Green Lantern being a totally uncreative rip-off of what he did in that one 8-page Green Lantern vignette. Which of course was an unfair, semi-delusional exaggeration on Moore's part. But that's the comment that got all the attention, not the comment about how the rest of the entertainment-for-perpetual-teenagers industry links up seamlessly to our tiny industry of funnybooks featuring men in tights.

I think Moore--and Darius--are totally right about this. Before I say anything else, I have to make it clear that I'm not putting myself up on some pedestal--I'm not perfect by any means and I'm guilty of not being able to resist buying a lot of comics I think are kinda bad. But, damn, our industry is filled with a bunch of perpetual teenagers of the worst sort: the sort who think that they're grown-ups. They think Bendis's dialogue is really "smart" ("witty banter" is an oxymoron, folks). They think it's a positive evolution of the art-form for issue after issue to read like the "confessional" scenes of reality tv shows. Many of them also think "Family Guy" is smart. They watch many sitcoms and consider them "smart" as well. By the way, they retain almost none of the narrative information that their eyes glaze over. They couldn't tell you much about what happened in the comics they read last week or the tv show they watched last week. Bendis-type writing goes well with short attention spans. These sorts of people double-thinked themselves into saying that they liked the Green Lantern movie--because it felt so good to be part of a group-think love-in with their fellow "friends" on Twitter. They'll put up with pretty much anything and force themselves to like it. Whatever the entertainment industry feeds them with, they'll eat it and, for the most part, say they liked it.

The latest wave of "elite" writing talent (Hickman, Bendis, Fraction, Aaron) have proven themselves perfectly content with writing a LOT of "company" books that really don't go anywhere innovative or exciting. Compare that to what Alan Moore did--he did VERY LITTLE hack-work in his career. He worked for Image for a while and did some things for McFarlane and Lee (some of which is considered good). He did some work for Liefeld's Supreme that was better than any Superman run of the '90s. But the latest A-list writers? 90% of what they're doing would be considered "hack-work" by Moore's standards--but these new guys don't even consider it hack-work! They seem to honestly believe that they're doing what they want to do in life. I guess their aspirations and/or originality just isn't that high. Grant Morrison and Frank Miller could never force themselves to work so seamlessly within a hive-mind writing collective of "company men", but that's what these new guys do. And it's not like I hate their work. I like much of it. But Hickman's FF hardly compares to Byrne's in terms of innovation and consistent awesomeness. And Scott Snyder's Swamp Thing is a pale imitation of what Moore did. People who think otherwise are just delusional. They believe the hype because it feels good to do so, and because they don't have many actual memories of older, better comics by which to judge the new stuff.

They don't have actual memory; they have nostalgia. They can't remember details or think critically, in depth. They think in generalized emotion-linked images, which must be tied to media-given trademarked properties. They see an old Thundercats logo, and it's like a "trigger" that releases all kinds of vague joys in them. But they have trouble remembering specifics. They're content to just be entertained in very general ways, forever. When Matt Fraction started, I thought he had more individuality and substance in him. It turned out he's content to write things like Iron Man, Thor and X-Men, in large part because he remembers liking those characters (someone else's characters) when he was a child. He's "living out his childhood dream". Alan Moore never did that. Alan Moore lived out the life of a grown man, not the dream of a child.

If the spirit of Alan Moore was reincarnated in a younger writer's body, that writer wouldn't deign to keep reworking these same silly properties over and over again--certainly not AFTER Moore, Miller and Morrison ALREADY showed the "mature" apotheosis of all of this stuff.

Sure, I read superhero comics still. But I don't think of them as awesome, high art. Not these comics. They don't deserve it. They're filler, mass pulp entertainment. That's all they are. It's the pomp and circumstance of it all--saying that Bendis's latest dialogue is "smart" or that Jason Aaron's Wolverine is quasi-profound--that's the problem. These writers aren't worthy to be taken so seriously. Comics aren't worth that anymore. Aside from Morrison's Batman, I don't know of any superhero comic of the last 15 years that did anything worth calling "meaningful" or taking very seriously, for serious thoughtful study. (What Ellis did 10 years ago was interesting, but in retrospect it looks like the labor pains of adult babies going back into their mother's wombs. Ellis is a good writer, but he paved the way for the pseudo-intellectual brats of today, who think their work is better and more innovative than it actually is. What Ellis did was actually interesting because, at its core, it was anti-intellectual.) Nothing else holds up. Could you imagine a study on the gender politics of Bendis's New Avengers? Who could keep a straight face, pretending that his female characters actually have substance and are anything more than a collection of quips and stock attitudes derived from caricatures seen on television shows. How about the mythological significance of Matt Fraction's Thor? Does he do anything with myth that is worth remarking on? No. Compare it to Neil Gaiman's Sandman. There are people out there to behave and speak as if Matt Fraction is on a comparable level to where Neil Gaiman was 15 years ago. But compare what Gaiman did in the '90s to what Matt Fraction is choosing to waste his time doing. Silly little children's books that pretend to be grown-up, doing nothing innovative but pretending to be the best their art-form has ever been.

Anyway. I got way off topic, probably. Yeah, Moore did and said more new things in Miracleman #1 than these other guys will say in their whole careers.

Callahan is right on point, as per usual. As long as the fanbase keeps rewarding the Bendises (and Claremonts) of the world and punishing serious, artistic creators for trying to innovate, we'll be stuck with a stagnating form.

While I think Claremont post 1991 is awful, awful, awful, I think he did a pretty good job juggling the sort of cast he had in Uncanny X-Men all through the '80s. I see the comparison between Bendis and Claremont, but Claremont was never a hack writing five books a month. He did three, tops--often only two or one. Bendis has tried to be experimental with the nature of what a team book can be and who can be on it and still be considered part of "the" "team". Claremont did all that stuff and more in 1/10 the number of issues. Are the Uncanny issues from 1988 as good as the ones from 1984? No, but I think they're still way above average. I think what Claremont did in the late '80s on Uncanny was flawed--mainly because of editorial directives--but if you go back and look at what he did, there are a lot of small, unique successes to be found circa Uncanny 240-277.

[ian33407]

@Dark Beast : I CAN'T believe that some people are leveling Matt Fraction to Neil Gaiman, except you know, staff members..

Thanks for your post, my poor English doesn't allow me to do so (otherwise I'd be doing it all the time), again..

[GettintheLedout]

I don't know if I agree with this article.

For me, NYCC was dominated by two things - picking up comics that looked interesting from the presses, and picking up comics that looked interesting from the Artists Alley.
In the end, I bought:
Queen and Country
The Sixth Gun
Elephantmen
Stumptown
Sweets
and Page by Paige

As far as I know, these are all relatively recent. (Q&C is 2001.)

And I think this represents my approach to comics in general: forget when they were published, just read the good stuff. Sure the days of Gaiman, Moore, Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale team ups, etc. are behind us. But look what's new:
Locke and Key
The Cape
Green River Killer
American Vampire
hell, Scott Snyder's run on Batman
27
IDW's Parker adaptations
Marvel's Stephen King adaptations
Casanova
the above mentioned comics I got at NYCC
and thats all from just looking around my room.

There are plenty of comics out there pushing the bar. Its not that newer comics aren't taking chances or interesting, its that most of the superhero stuff hasn't taken a risk since 1983. And the problem with comics today is that while the creativity is focused on the indie publications, the press is concerned with the majors. So those who don't head to the shop every week have no idea that interesting stuff is actually happening.

EDIT: I'm not saying Fraction is equivalent to Gaiman. (posted without reading.) What I am saying is that CASANOVA (Gula, anyway, I havent gotten to 1 or 3) is interesting, new, and smart. Genius? No. Risky? Yes.

[Jono11]

Many of them also think "Family Guy" is smart.

I, for one, will go to the wall to defend Family Guy as one of the smartest comedies in the history of American television. It brutally savages its core audience on a weekly basis, flagrantly ignores what its rabid fanbase wants it to do, experiments with its narrative structure far more often than its given credit for, examines and grows its characterizations more organically than most "realistic" shows do, and does all of this while playing in a surreal, absurdist milieu that gleefully eschews fanboy/compulsive notions about continuity. When Louis CK does those things on FX, he is rightfully applauded for it by the critical establishment and most comedy intellectuals. When Seth MacFarlane does these things, they are always ignored because...why, he has too many poop jokes?

The latest wave of "elite" writing talent (Hickman, Bendis, Fraction, Aaron) have proven themselves perfectly content with writing a LOT of "company" books that really don't go anywhere innovative or exciting.

I notice you leave out Lemire and Snyder, who I think do much more interesting work. Are you defining elite, in this instance, more by how they're perceived than by how well they write? If it's the former, then I see why they would be left off the list, but otherwise, they kind of ARE the list of new elite talent.

And Scott Snyder's Swamp Thing is a pale imitation of what Moore did. People who think otherwise are just delusional.

Oh, there it is. Dude, it's two issues in. Sure, it's not Moore's run yet, but Moore is a giant of the form. If Snyder can equal, say, Veitch's run, in quality, then I call that a towering success, and I think that's very possible. Remember that Snyder has been given a specific job to do with Swamp Thing, so there are things he has to get out of the way before he can get into the meat of the story he wants to tell. These were things Moore and Morrison didn't have to deal with, as I believe both were able to request that such preliminary details actually be dealt with beforehand when they came on board books like Swamp Thing, Doom Patrol, and Batman.

If the spirit of Alan Moore was reincarnated in a younger writer's body, that writer wouldn't deign to keep reworking these same silly properties over and over again--certainly not AFTER Moore, Miller and Morrison ALREADY showed the "mature" apotheosis of all of this stuff.

So you're now arguing that company-owned superheroes have no life left in them as artworks? That seems silly. Anything you can do with a new superhero property, you can do with an old one--but there are a few things you can do with an old one that you can't do with a new one.

Other than that, I agree with you in general about the state of the readership and the current body of creators.

While I think Claremont post 1991 is awful, awful, awful, I think he did a pretty good job juggling the sort of cast he had in Uncanny X-Men all through the '80s. I see the comparison between Bendis and Claremont, but Claremont was never a hack writing five books a month. He did three, tops--often only two or one. Bendis has tried to be experimental with the nature of what a team book can be and who can be on it and still be considered part of "the" "team". Claremont did all that stuff and more in 1/10 the number of issues. Are the Uncanny issues from 1988 as good as the ones from 1984? No, but I think they're still way above average. I think what Claremont did in the late '80s on Uncanny was flawed--mainly because of editorial directives--but if you go back and look at what he did, there are a lot of small, unique successes to be found circa Uncanny 240-277.

All of that is fine, but balanced against what else was being done in the 1980s? It's hackneyed and boring. It presents nothing interesting. It just plods along, giving the reader his next journalistic update on the news from the Marvel Universe.

Its not that newer comics aren't taking chances or interesting, its that most of the superhero stuff hasn't taken a risk since 1983.

Well that's all Callahan and Darius are saying, though.

[GettintheLedout]

Well that's all Callahan and Darius are saying, though.

Not really. Callahan is saying that because comics aren't as interesting, he's heading to the back issues. I'm saying have fun, but there is a shit ton of fun to be had in the new stuff - just look past Marvel and DC.

[B. Kuwanger]

"Yeah, you know, I realized I was way better off with a bunch of old comics you probably haven't heard of."

[jcuddy]

@DarkBeast, epic post. Dead-on.

[peterhohman42]

I think that the main reason that older comics are generally better is because the characters back then were not so profitable that they couldn't grow and change. Any "change" in established characters now is superficial and will probably be undone in time for the next movie. Which is absurd. I don't think that characters have to be the same as they are in a movie for mythical new readers to get it. After all, it's not like J.K. Rowling had to write a new Harry Potter novel before the film adaptations to undo the changes of the first few books. (Of course, I think your average comic is still of better literary merit than Harry Potter, but oh well.)

The only "big two" titles that are really pushing the medium are the ones that feature characters that didn't exist/weren't marketable ten years ago. Batwoman is a stunning book, and I would even suggest that I, Vampire, Swamp Thing, or JL Dark could develop into something special. I think that FF had that chance, but Hickman is flirting with blowing it completely.

[Johnny Triangles]

Sure the days of Gaiman, Moore, Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale team ups, etc. are behind us.

I can't believe you lumped the Loeb and Sale books in with Gaiman and Moore. No, the days of the Loeb and Sale type books are still among us because those books are as crappy as Loeb's current books, and Loeb is still going strong. The era of the Loeb and Sale book is being kept alive with his Red Hulk books, his Ultimatum and his upcoming Cable miniseries. I for one don't buy into the myth of a once-great Loeb who later became crappy. I believe in an always crappy Loeb who eventually got exposed as crappy the more he wrote.

[NinjaZilla]

Is this the Grumpy Old Fan column?

[grphxkindaguy]

Is this the Grumpy Old Fan column?

Pretty much.

And thank you DarkBeast, for letting us all know what is crap and what is good out there to read. We are LOST w/o your opinions. What an insulting, condescending jerk...

[djm72]

It's funny the best new comic I've read in a long time is New Teen Titans: Games, which is written and drawn in Bronze Age style. I just enjoyed the heck out of it more so than any new comic I've read recently.
I then went back and started reading through my New Teen Titans collection, starting with issue 1. Those comics not only hold up, but they are superior to what is on the market right. So I started digging out a few others. Can I bet I can pull out a lot of titles from that era that are better. For one thing, you get a lot more story. There is as much packed into a single issue of New Teen Titans as you get in three issues of a comic today.

Comics in the Bronze age have two very distinct advantages in my opinion. They packed more story into each issue. This allowed you to get more story over the course of a year or two years. That meant more character development and more time to deal with the character's personal life and relationships. Stories that took place in two issues in 1985 take place over six issues now. That means a writer could do more with his characters in the 80s over 24 issues than a writer today can. That made for better stories.

The other issue is writers were not afraid to take risks. You can say 52 is a risk, but it all feels very much like trying to write stories about the characters they grew up with. Look at Peter David's run on Incredible Hulk. One of the great runs in comic history. That would never happen today. Not just the amount of time he spent on the character, but how indepth it was and how he really defined the character. Just doesn't happen these days.