How to contact Doug Moench?

[dan bailey]

LOL - it's early in the morning and my eyes are still blurry. I thought you said "ruin"

Close enough, probably, considering my absolute abomination of anything remotely related to communication except by landline phone, desktop or laptop computer or hard-copy publication. And I guess actual face-to-face conversation.

But hey, they pay me to (among other things) put things on Twitter (I will not use the detestable verb "tweet" except to put in quotes & express my loathing for it), so I put things on Twitter. I'm not the one who decided to have a public affairs department in which the youngest guy on staff clocks in at 52 (as was also the case before the 4th employee retired a year ago, never to be replaced ... except that I was 51 back then, of course).

[tolworthy]

I'm[/B] not the one who decided to have a public affairs department in which the youngest guy on staff clocks in at 52

The New 52! Or maybe that should be The Heroic Age

[dan bailey]

The New 52! Or maybe that should be The Heroic Age

Judging by the color of my beard & a decent portion of my hair, Silver Age would be more appropriate, though in a pinch Not-So-New 52 might suffice.

[jdviant]

Have you read 'Comic Creators on Fantastic Four'? Interviews tons of people who've worked on the books, Moench included.

[CromagnonMan]

ive heard that if you have an enlarged forehead, and if you touch both your thumb and forefinger of your hands to either temple, that its possible to get in touch with him via "enhanced brainwave" communication. its true!

[tolworthy]

Have you read 'Comic Creators on Fantastic Four'? Interviews tons of people who've worked on the books, Moench included.

Thanks! I just ordered it. I didn't know it existed. I look forward to seeing Moench's words - one review said he was disappointed in his own run. I wonder if that is because the audience came to expect Byrne's style? Or because some of the stories seemed rushed?

Normally I don't pay much attention to what the creator intended, as the best stories take on a life of their own, but I am currently working on a thesis that FF1-321 forms a single story, The Great American Novel, and it's such a provocative claim that I really need to be up to date on alternate views.

Sad to see that Len Wein and Marv Wolfman are missing, as I loved their runs, but I found a copy for dirt cheap on Amazon so can't complain.

[dan bailey]

I found a copy for dirt cheap on Amazon so can't complain.

Please, sir. That's no way to think.

One can always complain!

[Cei-U!]

Thanks! I just ordered it. I didn't know it existed. I look forward to seeing Moench's words - one review said he was disappointed in his own run. I wonder if that is because the audience came to expect Byrne's style? Or because some of the stories seemed rushed?

Or because they stunk?

Cei-U!
I summon the alternate theory!

[tolworthy]

Or because they stunk?

Most people thought so. This is not the first time that most people have been wrong. :)

[Cei-U!]

Most people thought so. This is not the first time that most people have been wrong. :)

I actually don't think they're that bad (certainly no worse, writing-wise, than Wolfman's) but I don't think either Moench or Sinkiewicz was a comfortable fit for the FF. Some creators just work better on certain characters than others.

Cei-U!
I summon the missed mark!

[tolworthy]

I actually don't think they're that bad (certainly no worse, writing-wise, than Wolfman's)

Faint praise :) I was just reading the interview where Wolfman said he was not happy with his FF work

but I don't think either Moench or Sinkiewicz was a comfortable fit for the FF. Some creators just work better on certain characters than others.

I agree that he was a change from what came before, and a huge contrast with Byrne. But if we treat the FF as a continuous, evolving story then I think Moench and Sienkiewicz were a perfect fit. Possibly THE defining run, in the sense that it ties all that went before and all that came after together. I realize I am probably the only person who thinks so, but I'm working on a web site that will present the case.

[tolworthy]

Have you read 'Comic Creators on Fantastic Four'? Interviews tons of people who've worked on the books, Moench included.

Just got my copy. Thanks again - fascinating stuff! Regarding Moench, he felt Sienkiewicz was completely wrong for the book (while being completely right for Moon Knight). He was also prevented by editorial from using the big name enemies, and felt he did not get to say what he wanted. But I think that was simply because of the time when he came: this was the lowest point in the in-character history of the FF, and in my opinion Moench did a superb job. The more I look at his work the more it rises in my estimation.

And I have to disagree about Sienkiewicz. I loved it. Its only crime was being jarringly different. Moench was concerned that his work was not Kirby-like. I would argue that it was the ONLY Kirby-like art since Kirby. Why? Because Kirby's genius was always to try something new, to always push the boundaries. Had Kirby stayed on the FF and not been treated like a hack, his work would have continued to evolve. Not like Sienkiewicz, but to something equally different. We forget how Kirby's earliest FF work was jarring compared to the clean polish of DC at the time.

But as it was, Kirby's was so badly treated that he told Roy Thomas that he would only come back to the FF if Roy provided a panel by panel description of exactly what he wanted: he'd had enough of his ideas sucked out and not paid for that he would not risk giving more. That was another gem from the book. It was great seeing Thomas's side of the story - Thomas did not dare say anything against The King, but it was clear that Kirby hated him: when Thomas wrote himself as the Torch for that What If issue where the bullpen becomes the FF, Kirby replaced him with Sol Brodsky, and as Thomas noted, Kirby already used Roy in a comic - as "House Roy" to Stan's "Funky Flashman."

Does anyone know the reason for Kirby's dislike of Roy Thomas, or am I reading too much into this? Thomas admits that he did not bring any new ideas to the FF, and he became Stan's second in command - a yes-man kid taking the place that Kirby should have had. But is it more than that?

I'm still reading the book. Well worth 1.99 plus postage. Other highlights so far:

Despite DeFalco avoiding criticism (he did not bother to license any old Kirby interview, and Englehart is notably absent), Simonson manages to sneak in some condemnation of the editorial chaos post-Shooter, that made both he and Englehart leave Marvel.

I was thrilled to see that Stan Lee shares my view on the nature of the FF. Is is NOT about a family, and NOT about the cosmic. Those are side effects, not the core. Over the last thirty years we have endlessly been told that the FF is all about family, and that the FF has to be cosmic. "Family of imaginauts" has been trumpeted as some kind of wonderful discovery, the defining concept. Nothing could be more wrong. These have led to bland, directionless (and sometimes impossible to follow) stories. Sure, family and cosmic are ELEMENTS but they are not the core. The core is (1) realism plus (2) interesting stuff.

According to Stan, the FF were different because they were real, and the powers and science fiction were just an excuse to let the FF do really interesting stuff. Being a family was merely a result: relationships are interesting, and realism means relationships often lead to marriage and children. Being cosmic adventurers was merely a result: if the team can do anything interesting, then sure they will spend some time in space. But Stan's favorite stories were where the FF became bankrupt due to poor investments, and the classic "This man this Monster." Family and cosmic are merely side effects of "interesting plus realism." SUper powers were merely a mcGuffin. Stan really got it (what a surprise).

Later writers never got it. All they tried to do was copy Stan and Jack, or write stories about space and families. No! no! no! no! no! no! no! no!!!!! The way to do the FF is for each issue try to come up with the most interesting thing you can imagine, and make them as realistic as possible,. The powers and relationships and spaceships are just a tool to allow all possible stories, nothing more.

I was also chuffed to see Stan identifying issue 5 (Dr Doom) as when the book hit it stride. I am working on a thesis that the FF (issues 1-321) is The Great American Novel, and it seems obvious to me that it follows the classic five act structure (danger, rising action, the ball, crisis, triumph). But I was concerned that, whereas later acts took years to publish, act 1 only covered 5 issues. But here Stan seems to confirm my conclusion that 1-5 is the introduction sequence. And really it is obvious when we look at internal dating. Due to Marvel Time, issues took less and less time. Act 1 took around a year, and act 4 took around two, which seems about the right ratio.

Still reading :)