Spider-Men # 1, by Bendis, Pichelli, Ponsor
If there's a how-to-write textbook which insists that a story ought to be started as far before its inciting incident as possible, I've not yet come across it. Ever the wilful iconoclast, Brian Michael Bendis drags out the moment until the Spider-Man of the Marvel Universe is transported to the alt-Earth where Miles Morales lives for a mind-numbingly long and story-stymieing time. Indeed, it's not until the comic is two-thirds over that Peter Parker crosses to a New York with a Triskellion off its shore, and it then takes the rest of the book until the two Spider-Men make the briefest acquaintance of one another. The result is a comicbook which is insultingly torpid. Events which are not only entirely irrelevant to the tale, but actively antithetical to its sense, drag by while the reader waits for the story, rather than the plot, to kick in.
Perhaps Bendis intended all these extraneous scenes to serve as an introduction to Peter Parker for the reader who knows nothing about him. Yet why then emphasise Parker's membership of two esteemed super-teams at the same time as presenting a police-force who are made to appear particularly anxious to point guns at him? What could be more likely to confuse a neophyte than that? Is this Spider-Man a pillar of the super-establishment or a reprobate whose presence is likely to encourage the NYPD to aim their firearms in his direction? Is this showing us how unlucky Parker is, or how careless he can be not to have his Avengers and FF ID with him? (It's certainly not explaining how his Spider sense works, because that gives him not a hint of a warning of the gun that's soon to be be pointed at him.) Are we even being told that the NYPD has no protocols for dealing with potential member of the Avengers, an organisation which is, after all, based in their fair city and one of the formal cornerstones of the National Security State? ("T-take off the mask and get down on the ground" indeed. Try saying something similar to Iron Man or Red Hulk.) In a story of just 20 pages, is this moment worth our attention or is it just twiddling away the frames in an attempt to seem cool until something more exciting if not actually important happens? After all, the reader is entitled to presume that what's on the page actually counts for something. If Spider-Man's simply being challenged by the police because it's fun to show that and nothing much else, then what's the scene doing there?
 |
| Yes, that's an up-to-date quote of Word Up from 1986 there. Parker's a square, daddy-o, but that square? Perhaps he's quoting a sample of the track as used in one of today's trend-making platters. Daddy-O. |
But Bendis is up to his old tricks of producing a tale which appears to be structured according to a progression of plot-points, of wouldn't it be-awesome moments, which haven't yet been weighed according to necessity and worth. To Bendis, it seems, first thought really is best thought, which makes him something of the Beat poet of what can feel like the last years of the superhero book. Only a Kerouac-level faith in his own judgement would allow an entirely irrelevant three page opening sequence featuring street level gangsters to escape the self-editing process. But then, this is a writer so confident of his own abilities that he's able to use up four largely incidentless pages on Spider-Man's search through Mysterio's darkened hideout before introducing any significant jeopardy at all. Clearly, whatever the rules of storytelling are that Bendis adheres to, they're way beyond the understanding of ordinary mortals who might prefer that he just opt for the lesser ambitions of simply not being tedious and obtuse.
 |
| An entire page showing a superhero finding a light in a building. No, that's compelling storytelling. The artwork is beautifully done, and the fourth panel is actually funny, but the reader learns nothing at all from this sequence. Remove the first four panels and the tale's affected not one bit. |
With no effective scaffolding in place to turn his conceits into a compelling story, Spider-Men #1 wheezes and stumbles in the direction of a cliffhanger so obvious and thereby unenticing that it seems to be expressing disdain for the reader. It truly is as if Bendis had thought of what his readers would most want to see, and then set out to make sure that they got nothing but a teaser of it on the very last page of Spider-Men #1. An effective cliffhanger, you might imagine, but only if the journey towards it has seemed rewarding rather than exploitative. Instead of satisfaction, however, the reader finds themselves owning one fifth of a mini-series which will end up costing $19.96 in which the story has barely begun by page 20. All the beautifully clear and admirably energetic artwork by Pichelli, Ponsor and Petit can't hide the fact that their impressive achievements here are simply gilding a fundamentally complacent and contemptuous script.
Harsh, you say? You didn't read Spider-Men #1, did you, or at least, I'd guess, you didn't actually pay for it.
Reader's Roulette Rating: A beautifully gold-decorated nugget of piffle is still piffle.
.
I was going to suggest that it might read better as a trade, Colin, but thankfully I stopped myself from saying something so monumentally idiotic about a book that is designed to be an event monthly and has been hyped to buggery and back to comics readers that I would be - by implication - saying aren't the intended audience and are instead an afterthought or - ludicrous suggestion, I know - even an outright annoyance from whom the industry must be actively defended.
ReplyDelete/waits for the trade
Hello Mr Brigonos:- I know exactly what you mean about the thought of the trade, because it's always at the back of my mind. And I rejected the idea for exactly the reasons you did too.
DeleteOf course, a slack, irrelevant start will be slack and irrelevant in a trade too. Even if the story ends with Miles doing roughly the same things, it'll only lend the series a sense of spurious symmetry. The thing is, BMB claims a great love of film, and yet there are few films which might be considered classics which avoid structure as his work does. Or should I say, which ignores conventional structure. I know he has his own idea of what a story can be, and more power to him. But the person who decides that a sharp note is actually more beautiful than the traditional alternative is going to have to face the problems that such an aesthetic decision brings.
Mind you, when you consider how many books BMB appears to be writing at the moment, and then add in the TV stuff etc, then it's no wonder than some of it at least is a little .... rough round the edges. I've been trying to add up his projects and the mind does that boggling thing. Even given that he's always ahead of schedule, and that some projects have long been completed before beginning to see print, he's still writing a phenomenal amount of stuff. I wonder how his work would read if there was just a little bit less of it?
You know, first thought, first edit, and so on down the review process. Because I refuse to believe that this material is heavily, carefully edited. BMB's too smart a bloke and too able a writer for that to have happened.
These kind of things are always bad. It is a like a super-sized version of comics from when I was a kid with covers promising the battle to end all battles between the Avengers and Defenders, or whatever and then didn't deliver - these issues (nowadays mini-series) sell based on the the idea of the confrontation or team-up, based on the possibilities in the fanboy imagination, not based on any craft found in what is to be sold.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I think you are off-base with your Cameo "Word Up" reference. While the reference is certainly dated, the phrase is common call-out in a lot hip hop from its early days and can sometimes still be heard in more contemporary songs in homage.
Hello Osvaldo:-I'm not sure that these Event books always disappoint. The Avengers-Defenders war, as perhaps the first long-running crossover, was and is a real favourite of mine, although the last issue was unfortunately a touch underwhelming. Yet it was full of emotional moments and imaginatively done. I'd count it as a success :)
DeleteBut even if the Events were always poor, and it's been years since I've read a really good one, it'd still be worth considering the storytelling being used in them. But of course, I believe you'd agree with there. The choice of the late-arriving inciting incident, for example, is a fascinating one, and that's especially so given how little of substance preceeded it.
I take your point about the Word Up reference. But that's what I meant when I suggested that he was singing along to a sample of it. It still feels archaic, particularly given the Alvy Singer Manhattan-esque narration at the beginning. These aren't references that a mid-twenties guy should be spouting. It feels dated to me because I can get it! Peter Parker shouldn't be so uncool that a 50 year old can understand his pop culture markers. At least when Frank Miller had him singing songs in the late Seventies, they were on the pop side of the cutting edge. Elvis Costello's Accidents Will Happen was of course particularly appropriate to Peter's life.
Right. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't examine why particular examples of these "event" issues/series don't work or don't deliver (god forfend!) - but just expressing my lack of surprise.
DeleteOh, and I wasn't referring to the actual Avengers-Defenders War (which I have sadly never read), but some Annual I vaguely remember from when I was like 10 or 11 (so 1981 or 82).
As for the song, eh. . . I can imagine Parker/Spidey being way off in his references or enough of a mental sponge that they'd be from all over the place.
Hello Osvaldo:- Oh, you must read the first, Steve Engelhart-written Avengers/Defenders war. It needs remembering that it was the first comic of its kind, but it remains thoroughly good fun. It's unfortunate that the last issue arrived as, I'm told, Bob Brown became terribly ill, because his art, although unfashionable, was typically really clear and readable in The Avengers. But even now, I'd say that crossover was one of the best, and it's been fun just to remember it :)
DeleteI think I can recall an Avengers/Defenders annual from the period you mention. The mind suggests that Nebulon was the villain and Al Milgram the artists? Whatever, it tells a truth that I can remember every detail of all 8 issues of the original, including lead-in and epilogue, and little of the latter tale.
Which proves your point, I suspect :)
Hello Colin!
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"But Bendis is up to his old tricks of producing a tale which appears to be structured according to a progression of plot-points, of wouldn't it be-awesome moments, which haven't yet been weighed according to necessity and worth."
Isn't that pretty much how most comics seem to be done, now? Heck, even some television episodes and movies are done that way, it seems.
Whedon, not to detract from his success with the Avengers film, certainly was guilty of this in his Buffy and Angel days, wasting lots of valuable time and dialogue to set up a moment, even if it completely undermined a season's plots.
I keep coming back to craft, to the point I sound like a broken record, but I think there is one massive question not ever being answered with today's comics:
Why are you telling this story?
I guess in this case, it's from the plot-bunny of "What if 616 Peter Parker met the new Ultimate Spider-Man?" Okay, NOW what? And that seems to be the problem, as you state above.
Great, we've got some cute Bendis-moments, a gorgeous book of art, and ... what?
I realize most comics, if not all, can be "This Man ... This Monster," or even the (original) "Dark Phoenix Saga." I grew up with done-in-one stories that, in the end, were just a fun read that didn't bring anything to the table of the mythos of the book, and sometimes you could tell something was an inventory story, but this just seems ... different, somehow.
Maybe it's me, maybe I'm being unfair. The old Godzilla book, from Marvel, was pretty cool to me. It wasn't high literature, but I enjoyed it. What you've shown me of "Spider-Men #1" doesn't look very enjoyable.
Maybe, as you say, the simple fact is that there is no story, just a lot of strung-together THINGS. Or, as Homer Simpson would say, "it's just a bunch of stuff that happened."
I'm all over the place, I know :) But even when Claremont (to use an example I am most familiar with) used something like a softball game to start his story, it WORKED. It felt natural that these characters were doing this thing at this time. I wasn't left wondering why Claremont wrote this story, but I can't quite put my finger on why I can feel that way about, say, the X-Men meeting the Impossible Man, and not extend the same feelings towards "Spider-Men."
It's like there's some intangible thing missing. There's nothing to grab the reader, nothing really memorable. To use another example, a LOT of people hate Avengers #200 for what it did to Carol Danvers/Ms Marvel, but I can still remember that book.
For all it did wrong, for all the wrong-headedness, I still get that they were trying to tell a story there. It might have worked out very badly, spoken ill to an extent (albeit unconsciously, as I am certain none of them deliberately set out to imply rape) of the writers and editors, but there was something there. It built on what came before, it continued old plots and created new ones.
Aside from the hook of "Peter meets the new Ultimate Spidey," what does the book offer? It seems like the hook for the book was that, and no more effort was put into much of anything. Will it mean anything in six months? I tend to doubt it.
Another great column, I just wish I could nail down what it is that seems missing from this book. A soul? A reason for being?
Thanks again, take it and run.
Earl Allison
Hello Earl:- Thank you for the kind words for the post. Thinking about what you've said, I'd say that the problem with Spider-Men isn't a lack of heart. There's already some moving material on the page. Peter's shocked to find his dead self in the UU is so well respected, which brings an extra dimension to what's obviously a sobering situation for him anyway. And we already know that Miles hero-worships Peter, so what will it be like to meet an older Parker, who may not perhaps be the hero that his UU counter-part was? (It's tough to live up to the status of a martyr when you're alive and struggling to do the right thing. THE TORTURING SWINE!!!! a-hem.) So there's a great deal of promise on the table.
DeleteBut the problem is - for my part, speaking as a bloke who knows nothing at all - the storytelling. The obsession with the cool moments regardless of the sense of them, the lack of attention to structural necessities. If you mess with the placement of an inciting incident, you have to be INCREDIBLY determined to compensate for the problems which that creates. BMB didn't do that here. Which means that the slack storytelling was undercut by structural problems far more pressing than "does this make sense?". And even a writer as popular and successful as BMB can't simply ignore the fundamentals of storytelling. He's more than capable to pushing their boundaries, but nobody can ignore them when they're trying to produce compelling serial fiction. The problem is that the basics of this story were ignored. What was Spidey seeking in the first part of the story? He wasn't seeking anything until he saw the mysterious light, so all those opening pages were wasted. Even then, he was transported to an alt-Earth where there's nothing more pressing to challenge him than working out where he is. (And it's entirely unconvincing that he notes the Ultimate's base off-shore and doesn't immediately say "I'm on another Earth". Even at the end of the tale, he's still thinking "I'll go to my flat and work things out", and it's all poorly thought through.)
As such, the story is limp. It's like a car with an underpowered engine. There's nothing that any amount of wit, energy and golly-gee-wow moments can do.
The question is why this happens. BMB teaches writing, he knows the basic theory. Of course he does. We'd expect that his editors do too. And surely no-one can imagine that Spider-Men #1 was the best that BMB can produce. It's selling, but if that's the criteria for success, then we're in even more trouble than we thought. Because if selling to the same 100 000 people is the goal, then no-one ever need work too hard again at the Big Two. They can just use the same creators to tell the same tales over and over again. But if comics have a greater ambition …
But of course, what the heck do I know about? The above's my opinion, but it's just a heckle from the cheap seats :)
Hey Colin,
ReplyDeleteRather you than me on this. I've taken a pledge to not pay Bendis any money and I'm sticking to it although this looks like something that isn't even worth an 'alternative method'. It was the by the numbers death of Spider-Man arc. He gets shot in a different series and then gets punched by a dead character until he's dead and then the villain drops dead. The conclusion that you've come to - that he has too much work on is one I came to as well. These days his comics remind alot of the Star Wars prequel films - Lucas/Bendis hands in a first draft and because they're 'superstars' they just went with it.
I've also come to the conclusion that he has little more than amused contempt for comics readers feeding them the most basic nonsense that sounds 'cool', you previous posts about Ultimate Fury for example, a guy who started off dubious in a good way (as all spymasters should be) and then got ruined by successive writers (mainly Bendis). I do love your reviews of his work but I'd love to hear your thoughts on Ultimates 3 and Ultimatum or really any work Jeph Loeb has produced (in my opinion they're all painfully and laughably awful)
As an aside, have you seen the Avengers:Earths Mightiest Heroes cartoon series? It is well worth a watch, written by one of Marvels best writers Chris Yost with Abnet and Lanning dropping in. Grown up stories, continuity that makes sense and believable characterisation and motivations. It's the opposite of Bendis' work on Avengers. Sadly the aforementioned Loeb has had it cancelled for some dross he's cooking up. I imagine it'll be as good as shows like Heroes and Lost after he's had his way.
Hello Ejaz:- Ah, well, I'd taken a pledge not to review any more BMB books until one really caught my intention, but that fiendish Martin Grey used his well-earned Reader's Roulette vote to nominate a comic which - gasp - he was interested in an opinion on! And I'm glad he did. On a technical level, I found it really interesting how BMB chose to structure this opening chapter.
DeleteOf course, my opinion is put immediately into the most sharp of reliefs by the fact that Spider-Men sold gazillions of copies :)
I think BMB's work can show contempt for the reader, but I suspect that he himself is anything but contemptuous of his readers. I think he believes in his method, such as it is - the doing-whatever-I-want-method - and lots of folks do respond very well to it. And I can't see anyone in the system suggesting to him "Er, Brian, what about dumping that pointless lead-in and shifting the incident incident, making it more compelling and pulling forward the meeting between your two leads?" Whether that would be good advice or not is all opinion, and I'm speaking from the cheapest of the cheap seats. But I do doubt that anyone would dare to question BMB's work in any detail. You don't question the geese that does lay them golden eggs, do you.
Or perhaps Marvel's editorial office is alive with micro-advice to its scripters, an endless good-humoured and well informed debate about storytelling. I DON'T KNOW!!!
I just believe Spider-Men's structure is piffle.
If you have a look at the labels to the right - I know it's a long and out-of-sight list! - you'll find Mr Loeb's name and links thereby to reviews of X-Sanction and Ultimatum. And I did touch on it in March's Q Comics, I think. YOU ARE CLIPPING AND COLLECTING THOSE AREN'T YOU?????
I haven't seen Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, and I have been meaning too. Several fine folks have recommended, and now your nudge is added to the ranks of welcome nudges. I shall go see if I can watch an episode or two :)
Heh. I should probably have checked to the right before mentioning Loeb but the guy really gets my goat far more than people like Bendis. He churns out the most mindless, badly written pap and keeps on getting kicked upstairs. He kills any reason for people to care about the Ultimate Universe and gets kicked upstairs. Now he's killed off a great cartoon so that we can have childish version of the Avengers that's probably going to be awful. I just hope to god it's not written by him. There are few writers worse than him at the moment in my opinion.
DeleteRegarding Bendis and contempt for the reader, I agree with you that that is what his work conveys while I think that he does actually like the fans (I didn't express myself very well there). It's just sad that his work comes across like that. I don't know if you read it but I quite liked the Ultimate Doomsday series where Reed Richards flips out, even though it had some hiccups itself.
Regarding this comic, I really can't see the point in the first place. When the Spider-Men meet, what then. The beat up some criminals and Peter goes home. Beyond that I don't see what insight there can be. A great comic (by someone else of course)would have been Nick Fury crossing over and taking down his Ultimate counterpart for being an evil bastard. I would have read the hell out of that.
Hello Ejaz:- There's no need at all why you'd think to go to that list, Mr E. I wouldn't have. I'm chuffed that you asked the question. Similarly, I wasn't disagreeing with you about BMB's enthusiasm' it'd be daft too, since both of us are making assumptions! Merely expressing a different stance. (The difference between that and disagreeing. Er, the two approaches hadn't been pushed together into conflict.)
DeleteIt's worth saying that Mr Loeb is responsible for the script of one of my favourite comics ever, namely The Batman/Spirit crossover, upon which he collaborated with Darwyn Cooke. You now know what I think of the likes of X-Sanction. But let us not forget The Batman/Spirit, amongst some fine mini-series for DC in the 90s. I struggle - to say the least - with his later work. But he still gets to go to writer's heaven. I'll never write a comic as good at the Wayne/Colt crossover.
Or indeed, a comic outside of my desk-drawer.
I would read the Nick Fury takes out Nick Fury story too! Like a shot! Yet I think the fact that Miles Morales idolizes the Peter Parker who died on his Earth makes his meeting with the MU's Spider-Man a potentially moving one, just as Peter's arrival on a world in which he died is a promising scenario too. It could still be a great series, though the omens are, as I guess I may just have argued, not good at all.
Hi Colin,
DeleteI can't really comment on Loeb's Batman work as I haven't read it and probably won't (who knows though) because I don't like Batman as a character very much. I have heard very good things about it though. Some of Loeb's Marvel work such as Hulk Grey, Spider-Man Blue etc was also very good but he hasn't done a decent comic in my opinion for a long long time.
I did read your post on X-Sanction and you comment on something that troubles me about all his modern work - namely that the story beats are completely illogical and various moments don't fit together at all. Your post on Ultimatum also covered that aspect. I find that he's very good at presenting the iconic nature of characters but plots seem to be beyond him.
His run on Hulk is still one of my favourites for his embrace of sheer ridiculousness (ignoring the 'mystery' of who 'Rulk' is). The stories were full of insane moments and action that is very rarely seen in mainstream comics these days and in a sense felt quite joyous in it's stupidity which is generally what I would want in a Hulk comic. We'd had the serious psychological stories and his run was pure spectacle and embrace of the absurd. The stories still didn't hang together very well but you could forgive it as you watched Iron Man's completely gold helicarrier crash and a close up of his face as a whispers - 'Oh the humanity'. It reminded me of the articles you wrote about Stan Lee's insane plots and ridiculous drama from early Avengers and some FF. I'll never forget about the 'Tank sized Moon tractor' from Avengers #2. I'm still delighted by it now.
Hello Ejaz:- Oddly enough, I think the LOeb Batman would be a very accessible version of the character for those who aren't Bat-fans. As it were. And if you can forgive my tired mind for using such a term. I think it may be harder for some folks to warm to the Batman these days. For the last twenty years and so, he's often been such a cold and often damaged and reactionary figure. Those of us who grew up with the Batman of O'Neil, Englehart, Barr et al had a far warmer and more admirable character to develop an affection for.
DeleteThe arbitrary storybeats in JL's more recent work are indeed maddening. They appear rooted in a culture which says that the super-book is about nothing other than the water-cooler, rump-pleasing moment. That, if it's true, is a contemptuous business. Readers and sub-genre alike deserve better.
I have never read more than an issue or two of the Red Hulk tales. Of those, the only I warmed to were illustrated by Art Adams, who can be such a winning storyteller. If you say the tales are out-there and worth reading for that regardless of problems, then I'll keep my eyes open for them when I'm next on a library run :)
God help us, not another Spider-Man comic! Whats that, fifteen?
ReplyDeleteNothing else to say, really, Colin. Hope you dont mind.
Just...
...not another Spider-Man comic!
Hello Karl:- I know. And I'm also acutely conscious that this is the fourth less-than-positive review of a Spider-Man title on this blog in a month. That's chance rather than design. I really do have no beef against character or creators.
DeleteBut since Spider-Man is in so many books, and since those titles are line-leaders and headline makers, a certain degree of attention does get dragged its way. And with the movie coming too .... SPIDER-WAVE AHOY!!!!!!
Hi Colin (I've just noticed that you've dropped the honorifics - poor Mr Bendis!), great piece, thanks for doing it for me. I really was keen to know what you thought of this. Heck, if you'd liked it, I'd buy it. But obviously, there's not much to like beyond the art, unless the mere idea of this comic appeals.
ReplyDeleteI come back to this a lot, but I think it's true - Bendis is being let down by his editors; they may reckon they're doing him a favour by allowing him to hand in (apparent) first drafts, but they're not. The stories get shoddier, devaluing their brand, and Bendis'. At classic Marvel, there'd have been a couple of pages showing each hero going about their day and then there'd be a splash page meeting on p3. And the story would be up and running, and done in 24pp. In, out, lots of fun to be had.
Maybe us reviewing types should be naming the editors, regularly, as we do the visible creators - name and perhaps shame.
Bendis made much of how this would be a Peter Parker story that 'matters' (which is nice for regular writer Dan Slott), but if it continues as you've described, I can't see that being true. Anyway, you don't have to read beyond this one. Thanks again.
Hello Martin:- Thank you for nominating this book. As I know I've said, the structural issues in it were fascinating, if perplexing, and I doubt I've have picked the comic up without your nudge.
DeleteYou rightly raise a point which I wish we had more information about, namely, what does an editor of a modern-era super-book actually do? There's some evidence that editors are often really mostly line-managers with imput on the broadest of topics, but with little real say on the technical business of what good storytelling might be. Worse yet, I’ve read some things by editors who’ve recently left the Big Two for better gigs elsewhere which seem to indicate that they just don’t know the basics of storytelling 101 at all. They seem to be folks who earned an editor’s job through a variety of skills which sadly didn’t include a grasp of story structure and comics history.
I despair of an industry composed of comics nerds. But I also despair about an industry that doesn’t have an expert grasp of the technical business of story in a graphic form.
I wonder what a modern-era editor could say to a Bendis or Johns? Dear sir, you are just about the only thing which sells comics to the Rump, you’re massively powerful within this organisation, you’ve achievements in the broader entertainment world, AND I’D LIKE TO PULL THAT INCITING INCIDENT FORWARD AND ADD SOME SPECIFIC JEOPARDY TO THE SECOND ACT OF THIS STORY!!!! I suspect that that wouldn’t be something which anyone would be encouraged to think about.
But I don’t know. One way or another, and whether there’s discussion and direction re: storytelling or not, a great many of the Big Two’s books are technically incompetent. Thin, contradictory, sloopy, rambling, dull; I suspect that the culture in the industry actually thinks that what sells is excellent, meaning that any attempt to sell more beyond the Rump is doomed. (Are there exceptions to this? Of course, and I’m adding this qualification here so that no-one thinks I’m tarring everyone, editors and creators alike, with the same brush. But the technical problems are so common … It’s as if the world’s turned upside down.)
I know I’m an old academic/teacher. But I’d think that one of the first qualifications for being an editor would be, along with strong social skills, the capacity to explain what different styles of storytelling styles are and why they work. Can an editor explain what makes Eisner’s The Spirit tales so good? Or the detail of what made Lee/Ditko’s Spider-Man so exciting? Can they express why the Dini/Timms approach to dark horror in a comedic context in Mad Love might help a creator, or why The Goon always succeeds in summoning up such a disturbingly haunting atmosphere? Do they really know their shit? Editors should be like expert mechanics who can analyse and advise on how to fix a range of problems. Without such expert professionals, and it seems that there may be far too few of them, the industry collapses into What Name Writers Want To Do. And that’s as crap a prospect as the era of superstar artists was.
Hi Colin
ReplyDeleteI read the opening section of this issue in a freebie from the comic shop. It ended when he saw the light across town, so even less happened there.
Did you read the line: (from memory) "I can't even make a girl talk to me..."?
I was expecting him to add "not without some D-straps and a bottle of acid at any rate...."
It is indeed a puzzler that Spider-man should be hunted by the cops while being a member of the FF and also one of the great infallible Captain America's legally deputised paramilitary officers.
Hello Figserello:- I added that discussion of the police incident to try to show how even details of BMB's story wouldn't have survived a vigorous editing process. It's true that the cops would have demanded that a guy in a costume in a stolen car put his arms up. But there would have been procedures for the possibility that he was a genuine member of the National Security State, which means that BMB is once again ignoring making sense in the context of the very fictional universe that he's writing in. But far more importantly, that scene confuses without serving any broader purpose. If BMB wants to show that our Earth's Spider-Man is distrusted where the UU's Spidey eventually became loved, then he needs to do so in a transparent, informing fashion. EDITOR!!!!
DeleteThe Alvy Singer narration at the start of the comic is another thing that would've benefited from some red ink. (A movie from 1979, a single from 1986; cutting edge cultural references, ah? Again, an editor could say "Can we have something to speaks to mid-twenty-something, Mr Bendis" and the comic be strengthened by it.
Yet BMB is clearly a significant writer. Who could be producing work that wasn't such a thin return for a considerable investment of money.
Is the other Spider-Man actually in this comic? If Bendis was taking the time to compare and contrast the Spider-Men before they actually meet I could perhaps see the point... but nobody buying this comic needs to be introduced to Peter Parker.
ReplyDeleteAnd your comment about Peter being too young to reference 1986 made me realise that I'm probably now about the same age as him. I need to go for a bit of a lie down.
Hello Mark:- The "other" Spidey appears on the very last page in a splash page where he's shocked to see another Spidey in "his" Peter Parker's costume. That's it.
DeleteAnd yes, you're right, nobody needs introducing to Peter Parker at all. They certainly don't need introducing to him in a way that feels dull and unhelpful.
Hey, I'm only a year younger than the original Lee/Ditko Spider-Man. Don't talk to me about needing a lie-down. I need one realising that, but then I need one generally anyway. I'm almost the same age as the "real" Peter Parker, for gawds sake.
I read the issue. I didn't find it unenjoyable. I DID find it to be too much money for not enough story. If I'd paid one English pound for this, I'd feel reasonably happy with 20 pages that set the mood, introduce one of the main characters, introduce a plot point or two. I'm sure Marvel has new readers in mind and, while they might not need introducing to Peter Parker from scratch, they might need introducing to THIS Peter Parker (as opposed to either movie version, cartoon versions, etc etc etc).
ReplyDeleteI suspect there might be a problem with comics writers and editors not having to pay for comics, though. When I worked in a comic shop there was plenty of stuff I was prepared to read that I don't read now - because I didn't have to pay for all of it. It's not dissimilar from the difference between what you'll watch on the telly for free and what you'll pay a tenner to go to the cinema for.
Little character moments writers (and non-paying readers) might find delightful are not necessarily things that someone who paid three quid for 15 minutes of entertainment will feel happy with. This doesn't necessarily make a comic bad, full stop. It might make it bad in the context of offering value. Comics are competing, after all, with books that give you 10+ hours for £8, TV, Netflix and the entire free Internet.
Hello Mark:- I think there’s barely a word you say that I disagree with, though you do suggest that I ought to be disagreeing with myself on a point or two. I think you sum up the worth of Spider-Men #1 perfectly in the statement “I didn’t find it unenjoyable”. But that in itself, as you go on to argue, just isn’t enough in the current situation. I might not mind spending one shiny pound on Spider-Men #1, but I wouldn’t be excited about it. I wouldn’t be charged up by and shouting about it, and that has to be the ambition. You’re so right when you point out the competition which the superbook faces, both in terms of quality and cost. The Bi Two's comics, and especially these event books, should be fighting for their *!$% lives, and yet they’re cruising.
ReplyDeleteYou’re also quite right to say that I under-estimated the need to introduce Peter Parker to any new readers in the above reply. Considering that I was arguing about the need to introduce Parker more carefully in the piece, that was sloppy. The key, of course, is how well Parker is introduced, and how well that’s done.
I can recall moments in my life when comics were plentiful, or at least relatively so, and you’re right, it is easy to lose perspective in such a situation. I do get a number of review copies now, but I do feel that I’ve got to treat them as if I were going to write a major piece about each. It feels like theft otherwise! But if folks have passed the point that they even notice they’re getting things for free, then, yes, that could be a real problem.
It may also be a problem that the comics industry for those who’re apparently secure in it offers a great many positive reinforcements and very few negative ones which can't be oushed out of sight. The pay’s better than working in Tescos, the work can be fun, there’s always attention and the opportunity to be applauded, criticism is easy to shake off; that’s not to say that folks aren’t ambitious and motivated, but if you’re making a great deal of money off the olives growing on Olympus, you’re not going to worry too much about them pesky, far-off rumbles.
The comics industry has enough of a rump of an audience to keep it turning over, while all the entertainment tie-ins of course generate millions and millions for the corporate accountants to count. Where the incentive might come from for storytelling and the value for money which it can offer to move to centre-stage is tough to say. When mediocrity can be rewarded in a niche where competitive forces are neutralised in an immediate sense; it’s a recipe for a slow disaster.
Thank gawd for the creators who do pay attention to craft and value. If only there were enough to create a critical mass ...
I think your point about all the positive reinforcement is a very good one. The comics press can be a bit sycophantic at times - partly, I suspect, because no small number of comics journos see themselves as someday being creators. All too often what criticism IS directed at the work comes from a fan-ish place and is to the tune of 'this isn't MY Spider-Man, dammit!'
DeleteIt's to be expected, to a degree. No-one's in comics journalism/criticism for the money - you get into it out of love and that's likely to breed either positivity or the kind of embittered cynicism that's easy to bat away. It doesn't mean critical faculty's have to be turned off, though, and it doesn't make for a very good or useful critical environment.
In any case, it's great to read someone who has their critical gears going. Keep it up!
Hello Mark:- I suspect it's all very easy for me to stay independent of things. I'm not of an age when anyone would be open to my climbing the greasy pole, as it were, anyway. I share your concern - can I put that way?- at the entitlement bloggers. In many ways, I'm less disappointed at how little influence comics criticism in general can have and more amazed that the industry and the professionals within it pay attention at all. Reading Morrison talking about his experiences with "fans" in Supergods was, to say the least, instructive. I can't say I agree with his conclusions, but he doesn't seem to have the kind of experiences which would warm the heart to greater trust.
DeleteYou're very kind about those critical gears. It's been several years and I think I may just be learning where they can be found. Accessing them is another business. If I'd've known how long it would take to get the slightest idea of how to proceed, I'd have started earlier. About 30 years ago. Still, it gives me something to fill the mornings now.
I hope all is well. I've sent a DM on about the other matter we were discussing.
As much as I've torn into Bendis lately whenever he's brought up, it's because I really wish that he would find his spark again. As uninspiring as his work of late has been, it's hard to forget that there was a time when his work actually deserved the attention it got, at least for the effort of trying something different than everything else if not always for the execution.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read "Spider-Men," but the issue you mention of pushing back the inciting incident is something he does a lot. Most of his "Avengers" stories could be cut down by half their issue length and would be better for it. But in his older work, that dancing around the edges was often the most interesting part. No one could possibly describe "Alias" as being plot-heavy, but the plots were never the point, it was everything that happened around the basic concept that was the real draw of the book. "Daredevil" started out with a whole arc that didn't reveal it's actual purpose (the mafioso who reveals Murdock's identity to the FBI) until the very end, but unlike a lot of his drawn-out framing sequences of today that story was actually interesting beyond killing time until the real event happened. It feels like he's hit upon a formula, playing in the moments between the "real" events, but no longer actually works to justify those moments or make them interesting beyond their mere existence.
As for the "hands in the air" joke? I'm actually not bothered by it. Yes, it's a very dated reference, but I can still buy him saying it. But then again, I read your comment about how he used to quote Elvis Costello songs, and my immediate reaction was "MORE OF THAT PLEASE!" But then again I'm a twenty-something who still devours those old Elvis Costello albums, so I may not be the greatest arbiter of what's hip.
Hello Adam:- We're certainly of one mind where it comes to BMB's importance and potential. The medium and the sub-genre could really do with a BMB who really was committed to making his work compelling again.
DeleteI might go further than you about the degree to which his Avengers issues could have been cut. The tedium of it all was so often overwhelming, as was the lack of sense. But them that's something which I've mentioned here before. A little bit :)
When I look to the right, I can see my Alias and Daredevil collections. And if I have some problems with those runs, they're occasional problems and nothing more fundamental than that. Mind you, I recently re-read Alias and noted a huge difference between the early and later issues. To my mind, the earlier Bendis seemed a better writer. Yet I don't mean that as a general point. I've enjoyed Powers every bit as much in recent years as I did when it started.
I wouldn't say I was bothered by the Cameo reference. I'd just suggest it, and the Alvy Singer-isms, were lazy. This is BRIAN *$%!ing BENDIS. He's a terrific writer. He can pay more attention to the detail of his work.
Or maybe he did and he really does have Peter pegged as a guy whose cultural reference points are 1979-86. After all, you're but a whipper-snapper and you're a fan of El Co.
Now sit down, young lad, and I'll tell you a story of me and my mates searching out Stiff Records in 1976 and cadging Damned badges and seeing a very hungover Nick Lowe. And then I remember buying Red Shoes with the pigeon-toed picture sleeve and blah-blah-blah ...
"Hello Adam:- We're certainly of one mind where it comes to BMB's importance and potential. The medium and the sub-genre could really do with a BMB who really was committed to making his work compelling again."
DeleteAbsolutely. I wouldn't be so harsh in my appraisal of his work if I didn't know he had the skill to do more. If I thought his lackluster current work was the best he had in him, I couldn't be bothered to be bothered by how lackluster it's been.
"I might go further than you about the degree to which his Avengers issues could have been cut."
I was being generous :)
"you're but a whipper-snapper and you're a fan of El Co."
I choose to believe that that, and the fact that my Pandora station of choice is named "Nick Lowe Radio," makes he the hippest kid on the block :)
Hello Adam:- Never had of Pandora, and seeing that there was such a splendid thing as Nick Lowe Radio, I headed off to discover that such splendors are out of reach of we folks here in the UK. But one day I shall hear Basher's own, and then the world shall be a better place .... :)
DeleteHa! For once, I've found something I can disagree with! ;)
ReplyDeleteAvengers/Defenders War? A good event? Oh come on! It was horrible. I understand that it's a nostalgic thing for you, but to me, it has all the things I dislike in modern comics. An endless orgy in 'moments' which the plot tries desperately to make up excuses for. Hulk has to fight Thor. The brawl has to become a draw. Some threat that isn't all that clear to me, why it's a threat, apart from Gandalf saying that Sauron is evil. EEEVIL! And then, pow, slugfests galore, to give the fans a chance to settle, once for all, who is the strongest.
I thought it was pretty awful, actually. Boring, pointless and silly. Sure, it's more dramaturgically sound and grounded, than the Kree-Skrull War (and most modern comics), but there we go again, what is more important in art? Is it the plot or the story? The reasons or the emotions? I prefer the KSW, any day, even though it makes no sense whatsoever.
And no, I'm not really going to defend modern sloppy work, by pissing over a 40 year old event, but I think that ADW wasn't exactly a highlight of contemporary comics. If anything, it shows that events are very rarely any good. They are spectacle and nothing else. Which in the super-hero context, makes it doubly absurd, since the Marvel-way has always been about spectacle. What did set Marvel apart in quality, were the human perspective, the ability to capture the zeitgeist and, of course, the craftmanship involved. Originally, at least.
I still think they manage to stay relevant, however. For all their flaws, I think that Civil War, together with Secret Invasion, and then Dark Reign as its logical conclusion, are probably the most original and daring events that american comics has ever produced. Notice, before you start hurling rocks at me, that I'm saying events. Not comics.
In a post 9/11-landscape, when very few wanted to look at the patriot act for what it was, a gateway to dictatorship, Marvel captured the problem of an Orwellian state pretty well. "It IS reasonable to give the goverment this kind of power, to protect its citizens from crazy individuals. But be prepared for what the state will do to you, when it's no longer benevolent. When a man like Osborn is in charge." There we have what you are looking for. Story. Ethics. Something real to say. A comment on where the world is heading.
Was it flawed? Hell yes, the writing was all over the place and I can't say that it was a particularily good read. But when american culture in general became fanatically pro-torture, pro-collective, pro-war, there were few outlets for even the most timid opposing views.
Personally, my favourite event is Mutant Massacre or maybe Fall of the Mutants. I'm still convinced that Claremont wanted to let the X-Men die for real and let the New Mutants become the new team.
I also have a soft spot for Secret Wars - just because of the insanity of it. It's so unapolagetic and unashamed in its purpose to sell toys that it reads exactly as something I would have played out as a kid with my Marvel toys. If I could have afforded them.
Hi Colin, thanks for taking a look at this book. You've intrigued me enough with the possibilities involved regarding Peter Parker- established super hero yet still distrusted travelling to a world where he's a revered martyr (as opposed to any other kind of martyr..) that I may just pick up this series.
ReplyDeleteStarting with issue #2.
But this is coming from a Sliders fan, so I'd probably get a kick out of it regardless.
Hello ISAAC:- And bless you - once again - for noting that I wasn't in any way denying that this series has potential. I may have problems with the storytelling, but as I've said, I think there are seriously promising emotional issues which could be discussed in this series. I hope that such will happen. I'll be happy to come back and say that latter issues are worth the reading. Sadly, the first wasn't.
DeleteSliders? Gosh, that takes me back. I quite enjoyed the first series, if memory serves, though it was shown all over the schedule. But after that it seemed loose cast members as if the mob was burying them under bridges. It was hard to recognise that it was really the same series after a while.
Still, great concept!
Hello CJ:- (I hope it’s OK to call you that.) Thanks for disagreeing with me. It means anyone curious about the Avengers/Defenders War has two completely opposing POVs before they might get tempted to buy a reprint.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting how time/nostalgia and perspective provide such different views, isn’t it? I thought that the AD War was well-written, in the context of its time, and revolutionary in many ways. It was a summer popcorn event, and in many ways the first of its kind. But Englehart’s command of character was always very strong. The Cap/Namor punch-up, in which both men have such respect for each other that they see through the deception, was a splendid scene. (Would today’s Cap be allowed to surrender willingly in order to convince an enemy of his good-will?) Also, as far as I recall, the first scene in which Cap and Namor properly displayed how the War had created bonds between them. So, I’d say the character stuff, and in particular The Swordsman scenes, were fine.
But strangely enough, I never read the Hulk/Thor issue until 30 years later! And I will admit that I find it hard to be particularly fond of that one.
Was it pointless? It furthered the Swordsman/Mantis/Wanda/Vision soap. It provided us with a tragic Loki. It made the 10 year old me smile a lot?
A classic in the sense of the “canon”? A fine super-book which is of historical importance? I’ll stand by that!
I did love the KSW until the last issue. I’m not good with the God In The Machine. A 100 superheroes in Rick Jones’ head just seemed like a Roy Thomas indulgence too far. But if the last issue was a problem, the others were fantastic. No doubt. Again, not a classic beyond the sub-genre, but within it? Undoubtedly.
“What did set Marvel apart in quality, were the human perspective, the ability to capture the zeitgeist and, of course, the craftmanship involved. Originally, at least.”
For me, it was those human moments which made the ADW so enjoyable. Hawkeye sulking at his old colleagues, Iron Man’s mutton-headed certainty he’d beat him, and so on. The more I think about your comment, the more I’ll concede that the plot wasn’t, shall we say, entirely credible? But the character work? I enjoyed it.
Whereas by comparison, I struggled with CW, SI and DR. For me, character collapsed in those stories, as did plot. Obviously, not something which I’d hector you with here. But it think it gives any future sharing of ideas between us an interesting dynamic.
And I have no rocks to throw at thee! I appreciate disagreements when they’re good natured, I do. And perhaps I do need to take another look at Secret Invasion, for example.
On the question of challenging the post-9/11 “consensus” which you raise; I thought The Ultimates under Millar/Hitch did a good if not an excellent job there.
I was sadly just too old for the Secret Wars toys when they came out, and too stupid to realise that there’s nothing wrong with a toy or two on the shelf in the garage. I thought it was a fun series, although it’s the story in which the modern-era, everyone-follow-morally-virtuous-Cap-regardless began to take its modern form. Not a complete change, of course, but the tipping point/ Or so I’ve always thought.
Of course you may! :)
ReplyDeleteThe problem with arguing about this is, that I see all your points and I find them valid. The things you enjoyed about the ADW are the things I enjoyed as well. As you say, Captain America was a lot more human and likable in those days. The character work was good for its time, but not so good that I felt that it made up for the lack of orignality when it came to the story and plot. I'm trying to remember what was being done in FF or Legion of Super-Heroes at the same time. Two comics I enjoyed a lot more than Avengers. Maybe it's just that the characters in Avengers never really clicked for me. To me, Avengers was always a spectacle book and the character work was far below FF, which had no shortage of human drama. When the spectacle of Avengers failed, there was little there for me to get excited about.
Even though I found the ADW, which I in all honesty hadn't read until a year or so ago, rather dull and pandering, I agree that craftmanship involved is above and beyond the large events today.
For all its flaws, so is Secret Wars. Which is kind of scary, if you think about about how commercially driven it is.
Yes, I agree. CW, SI and DR are weird in its characterisation. I believe that story trumphs plot, but character portrayal, has to trumph everything. Speaking as a writer, I believe that I have the duty to be honest with how I portray the world and the people in it, in the way I see and interpret them. If I have to bend plot for that, I'm fine with it, but bending characters or story to fit into a plot? Never. That makes it false, in my eyes. Still, I think a lot of peole have overlooked the sheer ambition involved in CWSIDR. For once, we actually got an event that shook up the status quo, not just for a couple of months, but for years. Even though it wasn't handled very well, I think it was a ballsy move.
As you say, Ultimates is a rather telling view 9/11-america. Unfortunately, I found the characters, apart from Thor, Hulk, Jan and Hank, so damn reprehensible I just wanted them to die. Even though I admire Millar's craftmanship, it was a pain to read. A little like as if someone made a grim and gritty and pornographic version of Moomin, and declaring it so awesome that it's going to be the new style for Moomin, forever. So adults could FINALLY take it seriously!
Because, that's what an adult would enjoy. Seeing Moomin torture Sniff, while screaming that "Finland is for faggots!" A clear improvement on Tove Janson's work.
Like you noted in an earlier post on this blog, Millar has a tendency to stomp on the little guy and make fun of their vulnerabilty. That will always make me incredibly angry. Compare with Garth Ennis, who is also fiercly political, also has a lot over-the-top shock moments, but instead always kicks at the bullies. Ennis' moral compass is always aimed straight at humanistic values, which I admire him for.
What I found the most scary about The Ultimates, was that fan boys seemed not to shy away from the horrible acts and values carried out by Captain America and Iron Man, but embrace them. . Judging by the of reception Starship Troopers, a decidedly anti-fascist movie, got in the majority of the reviews, satire seems a hard sell for USA.
Hello CJ:- One of the things your words really emphasise to me is how different the experience of reading comics in a collected form differs from that of reading them as they're published. I can see how A/D/W was underwhelming in collected form. At the time, it was anything but that. The books you mentioned weren't in any way doing well at the time. The FF were undergoing a grim period under Conway and Buckler, and Dave Cockrum was only just helping bring the Legion back to life. There was nothing to match Engelhart's books for characterisation in the period, with the exception of Conway's Spider-Man. (Gerber's work was yet to really break through.) Nor had there ever been a long-running, month-to-month, back-and-forth crossover. So, that's how I remember it, in the context of the moment. But none of that will transmit now. So I couldn't argue with your opinion at all. But it does me realise how much of the history of the margins of pop culture looses as the generations who actually first experienced the product die off.
DeleteI so applaud your point about how character should never be bent and distorted in order to accomodate plot, and particularly plot as the Event book frames it. As such, I struggle to warm to just about all of the crossovers which have followed the vile Identity Crisis. I couldn't believe in that any more than I recognised the Cap of Secret Invasion. Because of that, the virtues of the series are hard for me to recognise. Perhaps with time, with some distance from this hype-sodden era, I'll be able to think in a clearer fashion :)
I see your point about the Ultimates often being quite reprehensible. You're the first person I've ever heard refer to Hank as a sympathetic character in Ultimates, but I can certainly understand how such a reading can be reached. If you read that America as the beast that Millar in part suggests, then Hank's behaviour in Book II can seem understandable. (Of course, Millar, wanting to have his cake as well as eating it, has the Ultimates be a celebration of America too, which leaves it transmitting entirely mixed messages.)
I too am against Moomin indulging in torture porn!
Yours is of course a very different culture to that which Britain and America - to a degree - share. Consequently, I'm not surprised that certain satirical aspects fly right over a great deal of "our" readers. Yet "America" is such a huge country with so many cultures within it. I've never come across an American who didn't recognise immediately the satire in ST, and American satire and irony these days is often far ahead of the same from Britain in quality and quantity. I tend to suspect that in nations where the education system as a whole fails to pass on a clear grasp of social science, such satire-shortfalls are inevitable.
Which of course doesn't make it any less regretable to note
An interesting read, thank you. Admittedly I have no interest at all in any Spider Man but this reminded me of discussions about the dreaded "decompression" in other titles. Maybe I will even speak in defense of this Bendis comic somewhat in sharing my thoughts. I've really just started reading monthly comics with the New 52 and now I have tried to catch up a little on earlier stuff –I got a copy of the "Batman: Strange Apparitions" TPB. Englehart, Rogers and Austin. I do enjoy it and I do think they are really charming stories, certainly well done (although I'm not sure if I get the concept of backgrounds in comics; these issues are a little older, granted, but surely Rob Liefeld would be made fun of today if he drew so many blank fields of red or green or yellow nothing?). But what they lack is any sense of impact, mostly emotional impact.
DeleteThere are several big revelations, there is somebody who knows Batman's identity, there is a mindwipe, there is stuff that should feel dangerous and threatening and have me on the edge of my seat. Except it doesn't. I mean, someone found out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. They did rush through that threat and give a conclusion in one single issue, with it maybe not even being the focal point? I understand the concept of "bang for your buck" and I know that you, Colin, are gonna say something along the lines of "See, Kid, that's how comics should be done". But...I'm not feeling it. I'd honestly rather read some comics every month that waste pages, by your definition of wasting page given above.
Take the sadly cancelled Resurrection Man, for example. Something like 4 issues have been spent with the main character having memory loss, not knowing anything about himself, being attacked by human bountyhunters and supernatural angel/demon things, with only a big flashback sequence in #5 finally filling us in about the life our hero has lead before we meet him waking up in #1. There are panels that show him unable to find sleep at the airport, panels that show him boarding a plane, panels that show him staring out of the window of said plane into the dark night, while inner monologue lets us know about his confusion, his fear, his desperation, with the moody art adding to the tone. Despite this being a slow-moving story that has been criticized as such, I am excited every month to get to the next chapter. And I actually read the comic pretty slowly just to soak in the clouds, the rain, the barren wasteland Mitch Shelley sees this one time before he resurrects...I get that by your standards, half of these panels are unnessecary, but I'd dare to say, without them the whole comic would fall.
[cont]
[cont]
DeleteSurely I would not come back to a comic if nothing at all happened within each particular episode (and this actually seems to be the case with the Spider Man comic you discuss above) but for all the complaints about storytelling and the cry for one-and-done issues in comics...I really only want those with certain plots and fittingly brief adventures. If you're gonna reveal (for example) a whole secret society that turns our main character's world upside down, like in the current Batman title, you better take 6 issues of your book to fully explore that.
And I do believe that may necessitate several panels, maybe even several pages within this big story that maybe just show the main character crying. Or laying on the floor, beaten and bloodied, while shadows crawl over him in a way that gives you goosebumps while looking at that picture. If you move to the next conflict two pages later, with no physical or emotional scares, sorry, I don’t believe the character, it probably won’t grip me, no goosebumps. And goosebumps are pretty much what I rate stories on (well, we could discuss high art and literature, philosophical content and different standards for those, but work with me here).
And now I feel dirty and want to apologize. And to point out, again, that my knowledge about comics is rather limited at this point. It's just that I really, really enjoy reading all this well thought out discussion online...and that it often differs so much with my reading experience. Which can trigger a rant like this one that propaply completely exposes my lack of understanding of even the basics of comics storytelling and doesn't even have to do with Spider Man, I'm afraid. Hopefully this didn't sound too ignorant or angry at all. Colin, please keep writing these tremendously informative and entertaining pieces.
Hello there;- Of course I’ve no problem at all with you expressing a contrary opinion to that expressed in the above. You’ve been perfectly civil, so how could I mind?
DeleteIt is difficult for us to do more than politely agree over certain points. When it comes down it, there’s no reason why the Englehart/Rogers/Austin comics show mean to you what they do to me. I would say, however, that I don’t regard that run as having been in any way perfect. In fact, it’s a perfect example of a creative team finding its feet and gradually beginning to push what the superbook was capable of. I wouldn’t suggest that the issues prior to last two-part Joker are uniformly excellent, and the Hugo Strange story you refer to is in no way perfect :) So I don’t think we’re as far away from each other’s POVs here as it might seem. I do think that the secret-identity story needed far more space to breath, but Englehart had a limited number of issues to play with before leaving the comics industry. He packed it with the Batman tales he wanted to tell. At the beginning of the run, there’s a sense of material being over-packed, even as there’s also some wonderful moments. But the material becomes better and better and, as I say, the Joker two-parter retains its power where I’m concerned. And that would be, for me, an example of a story which was indeed emotional :)
I can listen to your take on the Resurrection Man, since all I’ve read is the first issue. It wasn’t to my taste, but that’s by the by.
My argument isn’t, however, that I believe that stories should be done and dusted in 20 pages. I’ve no objections to story which take years to conclude. What I do look for is a story which works in the monthly as well as the collected form. I’m looking for goosebumps too! What I try to do in these posts is explain why I feel a comic is or isn’t worth the reader’s time. Of course, I do try not to seem to be suggesting that my opinion’s objective. Different comics work in different way for me, but what I know about comics storytelling can be written on the back of a postage stamp. I write what I do because I don’t understand the process, not because I do. I’m desperately trying to work out something of what I’m looking at, but that’s all it is :)
And so, should I come across Resurrection Man in a form I can afford, I’ll follow your recommendation and try to see why you so valued it.