When Words Collide - Sep 24, 2012

[megavikingman]

I, for one, find myself agreeing with the basics of this column, but I would rate Batwoman #0 a category or two higher. As someone who hasn't read Elegy yet, but has been following her from the beginning of the New 52, I found the #0 issue gave me what had been missing from her book all along: a personal look beneath the facade of "tough woman who takes no crap and shows no heart to anyone" (except the girlfriend she has no trouble lying to about who she is). I finally got a real look under the cape and cowl, and it actually drew a tear from my eye at one point. So, if the #0's are meant to give new readers (such as myself) an idea of who a character is and why we should care about them, that book did an outstanding job.

[CalvinWalvin]

Petty, bitter, and dismissive. It's too laughable to be taken seriously. Marvel is no better. This is how the big 2 comics are. How do you not know this? Some readers have gotten too old-minded they forgot the irreverence in having fun.

His farce of being "fair" is as funny as FOX news. DC sent me comics, so I'll read them to be fair. lol

There's not a lot of fun in these comics. A lot of the new 52 is addressing a non existing continuity instead of just telling new interesting stories. Action comics, Wonder Woman, and Animal Man get praised because they're not trying to convince you they existed before flashpoint.

Let's be honest. A lot of us are gluttons for punishment. We have an attachment to these characters because we grew up with them so we care to see how they carry on, on a month to month basis. They're like sports teams and as much as some of us hate our favorite sports teams when they stink we still watch them every week because it's what we do. But let's call a spade a spade, a lot of these comics are awful.

[Schnitzy Pretzelpants]

I would argue with this columnist that these #0 issues are not fun. In most cases they are boring.

Amen. Couldn't agree more. That's the New 52's biggest crime - it was a bold move that has taken them towards utter blandness, and frankly a kind of sameness to their entire line, that kind of - for me at least - taints even the better written titles.

[stk]

Using words like grotesque to describe Rags' art throws the entire article into question. If he really thinks that, how seriously can I take any of his opinions?

[DarkBeast]

What a weird column.

I agree with most of Tim's criticisms, positive and negative, as usual . . . or in many cases EXPECT that I would have the same (negative) views of comics he read that I didn't . . . but I just don't see the need or the point of doing articles like this.

I think articles like this say far more about the reviewer than they do about the actual comics. And I think what they say about the reviewer is far from flattering.

You're a smart guy, Tim, no doubt . . . so why even read all of these comics in the first place? You basically just read 40-ish comics that you hated. I don't know if I've read 40 comics that I hated over the past 3 or 4 years, combined. Because I know enough to stay away from certain things. I remember listening to you on a podcast on a few years ago, and you were saying that you were going to buy EVERY Flashpoint comic and tie-in, even though you were sure almost all of them were going to be horrible -- I just don't understand that mentality. And I don't get it when other podcasters insist on reading every issue of Fear Itself, for example, even though they hate every one.

To make it clear: I'm not saying something so Pollyannic (is that a word? it should be) as "Don't be negative!": because I think negative criticism can be great; it can help us understand what is wrong and point toward how to make better comics. Nor am I taking issue with your critical judgments: because my tastes are very similar to yours, and I think I'd dislike many of those comics as well.

I just take issue with the whole masochistic-cum-pretentious approach.

We know the industry is bad. We know most comics are bad. We know that it is baffling how so many of these books can even have the relatively small audience they have. We know.

But how could it be otherwise, at this point? You're, what, nearly 50 years old? You've read HOW many superhero comics at this point? How could you possibly expect to be impressed by many of them? And how could most of the rest of us, who are your age or a decade-and-a-half younger, expect to be impressed by all that much either? We can't expect it. Most of us don't expect it. Most of us may not be as smart as you (though I certainly am!), but we at least know enough not to waste so much time reading comics that are predictably bad. True, we don't have free complimentary copies that we can shove in everyone's face and use to trumpet our own critic-hood. But we're smart enough not to waste so much time, that's for sure.

Your taking the time to publicly and categorically (not quite "loudly and uninterestingly") dislike so many comics that you read says more about the listlessness of (y)our own generation and specific type of middle-aged American male than it says about the actual comics themselves.

Your Twitter bio still says first and foremost that you "write comics". But you really don't. So maybe you should try to write better comics instead of spending so much time criticizing those who do? I mean that seriously, not in a snarky way. Because it actually seems as though you probably could write better comics than most other people in the industry. And yet you'd rather spend so many hours reading bad New 52 zero issues. Weird. Sad. Masochistic. Pretentious.

"Talon" may not be the most original idea ever -- it's a former hitman on the run, trying to make amends -- but it's still a new character, and a different kind of character type than we've seen in from DC recently.

Well, that depends on your idea of "recently". In 2009 we saw this same set-up with Michael "The Third Man" Lane getting a hero-turn "Azrael" series right after "R.I.P.". Lane was the "only assassin who escaped the Black Glove", and this Talon is "the only assassin who escaped the Court of Owls". All through Snyder's first year on "Batman" that first Talon character was very, very similar in look and plot-function to The Third Man, so there's nothing really "new" or surprising here. Again, however, like you, I think Snyder's stuff is at least decently good overall.

[CalvinWalvin]

This article and articles like it need to be written to present the other side. We get bombarded with solicits and interviews from the creators and press releases from the big two that have their spin all over it. All we ever hear about is how great the new 52 is and well it's doing in sales from dc.

But there are people out there who see it for what it truly is. A poorly put together cash grab. Their highest priority isn't even quality. It's that the book comes out. Idk about you but I HATE fill in artists. They're usually terrible. The art looks rushed and bad art hurts a good story.

[ticklefist]

Nevermind.

[hosstbl]

Wow. You'd think that DC had killed his parents from this article.

[TimothyCallahan]

Awesome! Thanks for the people who are actual providing comments and not just saying nonsensical things. I always appreciate thoughtful discussion, whether I agree with you or not. The people who waste time posting meaningless one-liners can just stay lonely. That's cool.

So...to respond to people who actually tried to say something with substance, in chronological order...

Judge-Dredd: What do you actually like about the 12 or so DC comics you continue to buy? I'd like to hear what's keeping you interested in why those 12 comics are better, in your opinion, from other versions of those characters from previous eras. Just trying to get a sense of where you're coming from on that.

Mambazo, oh Mambazo! I'm not sure how I callously mocked you other than quoting your first sentence verbatim and then following it up by mentioning that it was an illogical statement and that you were sincere. I laughed out loud when I read your first sentence, because it is a COMPLETELY absurd thing to say, but it's a position so many people take when giving a pass to poor-to-mediocre comics. Consider it amusement and not mockery. I know where you're coming from, and I totally respect your opinion in that there might be some good to come out of the New 52 amidst all the badness and I genuinely appreciate your support, but, seriously, you think that's it's "unfair" to call a project a failure when the majority of it fails? That's how failure is defined. In school, how do you get an F? Probably by failing the majority of components of a course, right? That's how failure works. Sure, there might be a couple of good comics in the New 52, but you'd have to work a lot harder to convince me that there's more quality from DC now than there was two or three years ago. It's, at best, back to the same overall quality. At worst, it's a bit of quality with the ENTIRE brand compromised by the reboot and editorial meddling. But, if you want to convince me otherwise, please go ahead. Debate the points, not hurt feelings.

Recently Returned: Cool to hear from a different perspective. Though I don't see how Grant Morrison could be considered a hack by any standard of what that word means. He might not be to your liking, but he genuinely pours himself into his work and clearly believes in it (maybe even too much). But how can you say something like Aquaman or Detective Comics is in any way better than Batman Inc? By what measure? Explain.

BlazeKnight729: Yeah, it turns out that the one Zero issue DC didn't send out for review was Resurrection Man. Wonder why? Also, I didn't say Amethyst was "aimed at creeps" just because of the rapeyness, but because it takes a story about a princess transported from Earth to a world of great danger and magic and makes it pseudo-goth and uninteresting and without any of the delight and verve of the initial series. So...for creeps.

Tekamthi: Dismissive, maybe. Cynical? No way. I'm an optimist, but most of these comics are just terrible. I don't want them to be terrible. But they are anyway. I don't know how my exploration of Morrison's early years has anything to do with whether or not the comics from DC in 2012 are crappy. That's a weird juxtaposition. Like saying, "you wrote about Scorsese in 2002 so clearly you can't have an opinion about summer movies in 2012." I don't get your point, but you do seem wrong in many, many ways.

Fanboiii is clearly an idiot. Thanks for showing up and proving it to us.

Megavikingman: Cool on Batwoman. Didn't you find the lettering placement weirdly jarring, though? Maybe it's just me. (I'm SURE it's probably just me, actually, but I am with me every single day.)

stk! A Rags Morales fan? Don't find his work grotesque? That's totally fine, except the rest of us still have to live in a world where Action Comics has pages that look like http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011...990cb8-s51.jpg and also http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5...zyxso1_500.jpg

If that's your thing, that's great. But it is still grotesque.

DarkBeast: Why read the comics? Because I was curious to see if they were good. I said so in the column. I have no ulterior motive. I was pretty clear about what I did and why and totally honest about my reactions. (I'm not even close to 50, by the way, but thanks for being so insulting toward my "generation" or whatever. That shows a weird bias on YOUR part.) Also: I've said this before and I will say it again -- I get paid to write about my reactions to comics. That's the gig. It's in my best interest to have positive things to say. No one wins when I am critical of DC, except...If I'm being honest about what I read then I can't ignore how terrible so many comics are. Trust me. It would be better in the long run if all I wrote were positive things but that wouldn't be the truth, and I've always been true and honest with everyone in every column I've ever written. The minute I stop being honest is the minute my column becomes completely meaningless. It becomes more PR spin and I don't have any interest in that.

Also -- my Twitter bio is a multiple choice question. Not a statement. Plus, how do you know I don't write comics? Do you live in my house and read my private diaries which may or may not contain epic scripts yet to be published. Strong presumption on your part, in reaction to a column where I write about comics that I didn't enjoy. Seems kind of irrelevant, unless you think there's some connection with the skill of writing comics and the skill of writing about comics, when there is no correlation at all. It's like saying, "how can you call yourself a painter when you write editorials about politics in the local paper!?!?" Why can't someone do both? Or neither? I have lost the thread of this conversation, clearly.

Oh, but that point about Azrael is spot-on. I didn't even make the connection there. Talon is a different spin on it, but you're right to note the similarities.

Thanks gang! Keep reading, and debating the points. But let's try to, I don't know, talk about comics instead of your pet theories about my personal life or secret intentions.

[Trey]

I agree with Callahan's assertion that these are terrible comics, 90% of em anyway.

I'm down to Batwoman, Inc., Batman, The Flash and Action Comics

The thing is, they read even worse as a single issue experience.

[tylenoljones]

Wow. You'd think that DC had killed his parents from this article.

How so? If someone stabbed my parents to death I wouldn't spend time complementing the hilt of the blade.

He liked 9 of the books, right? That's more than I can say. I'm finding it funny that there's so many people being dismissive of the article while simultaneously accusing the article of being dismissive.

This "why read it if you hate it" mentality applies to the column as much as it does the comics. If you hate opinions that much, go read your zero issues again and leave the rest of us to the discussion.

[stk]

stk! A Rags Morales fan? Don't find his work grotesque? That's totally fine, except the rest of us still have to live in a world where Action Comics has pages that look like

"The rest of us"? Will you listen to yourself?

[RecentlyReturned]

Aquaman and Detective versus Batman Inc.? No contest.

Aquaman - G Johns has taken, and I doubt anyone will argue with this, a character who was filler at best and given him some depth and life. Aquaman has had many aspect; exile, renegade, monarch, husband/father, tragic hero etc. but all of them with the depth of the local kiddie pool. If there was ever a character destined to be lost to the briny deep it was this one. Johns is in my opinion breathing complexity into the character, creating more of a background story without going 'over the top' and adding more dimension to the world of his Atlantean past (the Deep and the First King storylines).

Detective Comics looks to keep in line with the seedy underbelly and more criminal elements of Gotham. I see where the writers are going to focus on the 'detective' aspects and hopefully less of the 'super' villian/hero side. Not as much depth as I would like but I hold out hope that the writers lean more along the line of Loeb's The Long Halloween style of genre for this title.

Batman Inc. is like turning your favorite restaurant into a KFC franchise that has 6 month old oil in their fryers (hopefully that isnt your favorite type of restaurant). Batman is not a team player. I don't care who uses The Justice League, The Outsiders or any other group as an argument. Batman has that dark duality which is wrapped in a world of paranoia. Batman does not play well with others. It is his way or the highway. He is uncompromising and despite his alter ego a recluse. Untrusting and cold, the likelihood of Batman trusting anyone to 'handle' things when he can just as easily rely on technology and manipulation is completely out of character. Insofar as being a hack well to see characters like Man of Bats, El Guacho and the like only diminsh the meaning behind the mask. Even though we see the mass marketing machine churn out Batman paraphenalia in real life let's not belittle the genre by incorporating that same mentality into the story itself. A sad testimate.

[serpico71]

If you have only read three titles since last October you are HARDLY QUALIFIED to write about the 52. It's ok, if you feel it's not your loss that you don't care about Aquaman, Animal Man, or I, Vampire, but you really can't, as a professional reviewer tell anyone else that, can you?