Hickman's Avengers...am I missing something?

[havok1977]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not see what the big deal is about New Avengers. I don't find the characters interesting or likeable, it's predictable in some ways, the dialogue is boring and tedious, the artwork is dull, its unrewarding reading it every month (or week), and it's rather forgettable. I read it and then later, I find it difficult to remember what really happened. I can get why people like it, but man, it's probably one of the weakest Marvel Now titles I've read, right after Young Avengers and Avengers Arena.

But I continue to read it out of the weak hope that it may get better. Hey, it isn't costing me anything by reading a friend's copy.

Im speechless, I couldn't see things more differently - to each their own indeed.

[Rheged]

Well, I'm loving New Avengers so far. The first issue was kind of boring to me, because there was way too much Black Panther. But the two that followed were simply amazing and lived up to the hype, I can't wait for the 4th issue.

As for the Avengers, I haven't read it so I can't say anything about it. I am actually skeptical about even buying it at all, but I just might have to, since it ties into the New Avengers...I don't know lol. By reading these comments, half love it and the other half says its OK, in other words mediocre compared to New Avengers. So I'm undecided when it comes to that book.

For the most part, you don't have to buy Avengers to read New Avengers. There are connections, but my understanding is they are coming from two different directions and dealing with different parts of a central story neither can see really see right now. Right now, if you read both, you get neat little Easter eggs, like Hyperion's origin story and the next to last panel of NA 3 being Cap's nightmare flash in Avengers 1.

Hickman has said Avengers is optimistic and hopeful and takes a more idealistic approach. New Avengers is not. Avengers = Star Trek. New Avengers = Alien / Blade Runner

I think what I'm stuck on is the general dislike for Narration.

Which is not just a Hickman thing. Many all-time greats employed a lot of narration, both in the modern era and before.

Claremont (obviously).

Simonson.

Lee and Kirby.

Moore.

Gaiman.

Miller.

Let's not forget Bendis, especially on Daredevil. Well, frankly everyone who has ever written Daredevil or the Punisher.

Is this something to do with character-fandom making people wish every piece of text was dialog, or do we just not like writers to write words?

I think it's either a generational thing, or a type of reader thing. Comic book readers aren't necessarily novel readers. And folks that grew up with or like older comics, accept / enjoy narration. When folks started thinking of / creating comics as movies or TV, narration disappeared and became less acceptable. Which is really kind of weird, because writers became more "important," even though art was carrying an even bigger load of communicating the story.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not see what the big deal is about New Avengers. I don't find the characters interesting or likeable, it's predictable in some ways, the dialogue is boring and tedious, the artwork is dull, its unrewarding reading it every month (or week), and it's rather forgettable. I read it and then later, I find it difficult to remember what really happened. I can get why people like it, but man, it's probably one of the weakest Marvel Now titles I've read, right after Young Avengers and Avengers Arena.

But I continue to read it out of the weak hope that it may get better. Hey, it isn't costing me anything by reading a friend's copy.

Yes, it's you. You should just give up on it now. I disagree with the entirety of your post. I get that you and others don't like it, but that's simply a matter of differing tastes. Folks like me that love the book, find the dialog awesome, the artwork appropriate to the scenes, with some great settings and expressive faces. It's amazing and extremely rewarding to read about these characters dealing with such a horrible, yet epic situation and wrestling with the moral implications, instead of just hitting things and making jokes. And not every character has to be likeable. You've got most of the books in the MU full of characters striving to be likeable. Go read one of those books, if that's a requirement for you.

[Talisman]

I find it funny how people are screaming for style over substance, yet substance was hardly present during Bendis' run.

[XPac]

I find it funny how people are screaming for style over substance, yet substance was hardly present during Bendis' run.

Whether or not it had substance is sort of subjective though, don't ya think?

[Talisman]

Whether or not it had substance is sort of subjective though, don't ya think?

I don't think dictating whether something is substantial and has substance is the same thing as ones tastes on whether something is good or not.

[hawkeyefan]

I think it's either a generational thing, or a type of reader thing. Comic book readers aren't necessarily novel readers. And folks that grew up with or like older comics, accept / enjoy narration. When folks started thinking of / creating comics as movies or TV, narration disappeared and became less acceptable. Which is really kind of weird, because writers became more "important," even though art was carrying an even bigger load of communicating the story.

It may be generational to some extent, but if so, I'm an exception. I read plenty of novels and ither books, so narration isn't an issue for me in and of itself. It's a question of how it's used. While a certain level of exposition is unavoidable, too much can be clunky or overwrought. Show don't tell is always a good guide, although nowhere near absolute.

One of Strunk & White's biggest suggestions is to omit unnecessary words, and that's a huge rule to stick to, in my opinion. Heavy narration often crosses into unnecessary.

And there is also the question of what you want the protagonists to know, what you want the readers to know, and the balance between the two. A lot of writers like the narration to be limited to what the characters would know. So if Captain America doesn't know what thi big Yellow alien guy is capable of, then the narration reflects that and neither do the readers. This helps put the readers in Cap's shoes. They'll feel a level of uncertainty about it, which is what Cap would feel.

Then there is a less limited approach to narration. This approach is more omniscient, not limited in any way. This method allows the writer more freedom to just give info to the reader at any time and in any manner.

Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, but with comics being a visual medium, I think the limited approach is better. If the art is capable of conveying the idea to the reader, then there is no need for narration. If more info than the art is needed, then some narration is fine.

I look at Hickman's level of narration in Avengers as being pretty spot on. He's also given the narrator a voice of sorts...kind of placing the reader on the team, to an extent. I compare this with Remender's work on Uncanny, which is more heavily narrated, and I think I prefer Hickman's approach. In UA, without narration, we would know next to nothing about the Red Skull's henchmen. I think showing more about them through flashbacks or revealing it through dialogue would be better than simply stating it in a narration box.

Again, narration can be fine, and it can be a great tool fir the writer. But it can also be a crutch used to compensate for weaknesses in other areas.

[Rheged]

Whether or not it had substance is sort of subjective though, don't ya think?

Not really.

[Joe Acro]

I find it funny how people are screaming for style over substance, yet substance was hardly present during Bendis' run.

It is a bit interesting.

To me, Hickman's New Avengers has to the same pace as, say, Bendis's final New Avengers arc. It might feel a little slower since there aren't physical battles so far. Regardless, I definitely get the thought "this could've been told in fewer issues and been just as effective."

[hawkeyefan]

Whether or not it had substance is sort of subjective though, don't ya think?

Yes, it's subjective.

[Spin84]

If you can't appreciate what is being constructed here, I think you're just in the wrong department.

This. Hickman has me on board for the long haul. I know he's building the foundation for something that's going to be epic. I love that he doesn't have story arcs that conclude after just a few issues.

I've only been reading Avengers, but maybe I should start reading New Avengers to get the whole story?

[hawkeyefan]

I've only been reading Avengers, but maybe I should start reading New Avengers to get the whole story?

Yes, definitely. Not even just for the whole story but because it's a great book.

[The Black Guardian]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not see what the big deal is about New Avengers. I don't find the characters interesting or likeable, it's predictable in some ways, the dialogue is boring and tedious, the artwork is dull, its unrewarding reading it every month (or week), and it's rather forgettable. I read it and then later, I find it difficult to remember what really happened. I can get why people like it, but man, it's probably one of the weakest Marvel Now titles I've read, right after Young Avengers and Avengers Arena.

But I continue to read it out of the weak hope that it may get better. Hey, it isn't costing me anything by reading a friend's copy.

For the most part, I agree with you, but not totally.

[celticguy]

I'm sorry to press you but if none of those things are substantial then what the hell is? I'd have understood if you said, none of those things interested you, or you didn't like how Hickman has presented those concepts. But flat out saying that nothing substantial has happened seems a bit dishonest.

Well the worlds that have been destroyed are just that worlds. I have no connection to them they are nameless faceless things that no longer exist. To stretch a metaphor they are worlds in red uniforms. Now could hickman give them substance down the road as the story unfolds sure. He probably will butto me so far it has been mostly set up and set up is not substance it is just set up. That is not a negative thing just how I see it.

The only real substancial thing for me that has occured is the mind wipe of Cap. You know that will payoff odwn the orad and you know at least some of the impact it will have. The rest has a long way to go before it takes shape in any subtancial way.

As for introducing new characters being something of substance who can say. Smasher could become a huge break out star of she could become Stingray. I don't think there is enough there at this point to judge any of the new characters. I like the a majority of the line up (nobody is going to please everyone) but and still on the fence as to how interesting a huge team can be.

[celticguy]

Yes, it's subjective.

I agree which is why I have been making sure to use wordking like the way I read it or to me etc.

[celticguy]

I find it funny how people are screaming for style over substance, yet substance was hardly present during Bendis' run.

Substance does not equal good nor does having it mean a story is good.