Tweet
>namely anyone writing
....wait.... someone WRITES a superhero comic? I thought it was just art.
>don't have any real-life experience to draw on *and* they're trying to be "artistic" and "realistic" in their writing.
"I did my thesis paper on life experience!" You're definitely right on this one; but I think there's a bit more:
>The new guys are fans,
It's been like that for a while; and it's a big part of the intellectual inbreeding. LIke you said, a lot of newer writers have little real world experience.... except as comic fans. So you get the same old ideas, but distillee down a bit more: like how in the 80's everyone thought Wolverine was awesome, so when those folks became the creators of the 90's every team was basically nothing but Wolverine with the one serious Cyclops ripoff guy. Why? 'Cos these were folks who had litle idea of WHY Wolverine was awesome because they'd never given much thought into the theory of a comic. One of the opther agitating variables is that there are schools you can go to, and courses you can take that'll teach you the "right" way to do a comic.... which means a further distillation of a rapidly diminishing pool of source material.
YEARS ago a friend of mine wanted to write adventure novels, so I told him to stop reading adventure novels and spend the next few months watching daytime soap operas. As many as he could, for as long as he could. Get in to them, dissect them, find out why other people love 'em so much.... 'cos that way you ADD another template to your repitoire of writing. If you want to write something, you're probably a fan and have a head full of it ALREADY so go find something new to add. The superhero guys haven't done that since.... oh, the 70's; so everything that comes out starts looking like something you've already seen but without the novelty of the first time you saw it, or the detail, since it's essentially a photocopy.
>in trying to "shade" the personalities of their characters, they start adding negative attributes
Well.... the "GGRRR!!!!! I'm ANGRY!!!!" style of writing has been a HUGE plague on EVERY form of entertainment since the 80's. I think 'cos it's easy, and reminds everybody of all them 80's cop movies they loved as teenagers.
>And don't get me going on the whole idea (thanks, Fank Miller) of Batman as complete psycho acting out his emotional issues on the world in a mask and cape.
That was actually an interesting idea.... although as a non superhero fan at the time my reaction was "yeah? It took you THIS LONG to notice?" (I grew up on underground and violent European comics.) But the real problem came later as everyone else tried following suit, but didn't really understand why it worked the first time. Hell; MILLER didn't: I remember reading a long, rambling interview with him just after where he's going on about society and perception and.... well.... sometimes I think it's better to be lucky than good.
>I think its absence in favor of thin, pop-psych characterization and stunt shock-tragedy/(Identity Crisis) is what's really been killing the comics industry for years.
Hmmmm.... Identity Crisis epitomises for me what's wrong with superhero books trying to handle "grownup" issues. They can't. Ever. Big reason is 'cos you can't have genuine consequence in a perpetual book. BIGGER reason is 'cos Marvel and DC like to handle the "big issues" with a sense of plausible deniability that keeps them firmly in the realm of the 14 year old. That way they can say stuff like "see; it was tasteful, we didn't show anything" and "we included it 'cos it was NECCESSARY for the plot" and both those notions tend to crowd out any real impact. I really had to work to figure out what happened to Sue in Identity Crisis. I thought Light just smacked her around 'cos nowhere in the book is the word "rape" ever used, and apparently bad guys have the power to pull their pants back up, even when captured mid-act by superheroes who're restraining your arms. And then, considering all the horrible things Light's done or attempted to do over the years THAT'S what pushes them over the edge and makes the heroes do something they feel is wrong? All them other guys blowing up cities and torturing people and kidnapping.... that's okay; but you touch one of OUR OWN?!?!?! If you're a preteen reading it, it'd all be heavy stuff. Maybe. But as a grownup it doesn't ring true.... too many loose ends, too many consequences we don't see, too many other things to deal with.... and it ends up feeling like a crappy "movie of the week." Even much lauded stuff like "The Dark Knight Returns" or "Watchmen" suffers from the same shallowness and self-consciousness; trying to be "grownup" but never quite coming to terms with the ramifications.
....'course, reading stuff like Crumb, Cruise, Worley, Nagai, and Corben during your formative years sets the bar a little askance....
>instead of a step in the right direction, so far it sounds like more of what I think is currently wrong with comics
Well.... I think it's really more of the same. With added Batman. Some of it'll be good, some bad, most blah.
Don C.
....wait.... someone WRITES a superhero comic? I thought it was just art.
>don't have any real-life experience to draw on *and* they're trying to be "artistic" and "realistic" in their writing.
"I did my thesis paper on life experience!" You're definitely right on this one; but I think there's a bit more:
>The new guys are fans,
It's been like that for a while; and it's a big part of the intellectual inbreeding. LIke you said, a lot of newer writers have little real world experience.... except as comic fans. So you get the same old ideas, but distillee down a bit more: like how in the 80's everyone thought Wolverine was awesome, so when those folks became the creators of the 90's every team was basically nothing but Wolverine with the one serious Cyclops ripoff guy. Why? 'Cos these were folks who had litle idea of WHY Wolverine was awesome because they'd never given much thought into the theory of a comic. One of the opther agitating variables is that there are schools you can go to, and courses you can take that'll teach you the "right" way to do a comic.... which means a further distillation of a rapidly diminishing pool of source material.
YEARS ago a friend of mine wanted to write adventure novels, so I told him to stop reading adventure novels and spend the next few months watching daytime soap operas. As many as he could, for as long as he could. Get in to them, dissect them, find out why other people love 'em so much.... 'cos that way you ADD another template to your repitoire of writing. If you want to write something, you're probably a fan and have a head full of it ALREADY so go find something new to add. The superhero guys haven't done that since.... oh, the 70's; so everything that comes out starts looking like something you've already seen but without the novelty of the first time you saw it, or the detail, since it's essentially a photocopy.
>in trying to "shade" the personalities of their characters, they start adding negative attributes
Well.... the "GGRRR!!!!! I'm ANGRY!!!!" style of writing has been a HUGE plague on EVERY form of entertainment since the 80's. I think 'cos it's easy, and reminds everybody of all them 80's cop movies they loved as teenagers.
>And don't get me going on the whole idea (thanks, Fank Miller) of Batman as complete psycho acting out his emotional issues on the world in a mask and cape.
That was actually an interesting idea.... although as a non superhero fan at the time my reaction was "yeah? It took you THIS LONG to notice?" (I grew up on underground and violent European comics.) But the real problem came later as everyone else tried following suit, but didn't really understand why it worked the first time. Hell; MILLER didn't: I remember reading a long, rambling interview with him just after where he's going on about society and perception and.... well.... sometimes I think it's better to be lucky than good.
>I think its absence in favor of thin, pop-psych characterization and stunt shock-tragedy/(Identity Crisis) is what's really been killing the comics industry for years.
Hmmmm.... Identity Crisis epitomises for me what's wrong with superhero books trying to handle "grownup" issues. They can't. Ever. Big reason is 'cos you can't have genuine consequence in a perpetual book. BIGGER reason is 'cos Marvel and DC like to handle the "big issues" with a sense of plausible deniability that keeps them firmly in the realm of the 14 year old. That way they can say stuff like "see; it was tasteful, we didn't show anything" and "we included it 'cos it was NECCESSARY for the plot" and both those notions tend to crowd out any real impact. I really had to work to figure out what happened to Sue in Identity Crisis. I thought Light just smacked her around 'cos nowhere in the book is the word "rape" ever used, and apparently bad guys have the power to pull their pants back up, even when captured mid-act by superheroes who're restraining your arms. And then, considering all the horrible things Light's done or attempted to do over the years THAT'S what pushes them over the edge and makes the heroes do something they feel is wrong? All them other guys blowing up cities and torturing people and kidnapping.... that's okay; but you touch one of OUR OWN?!?!?! If you're a preteen reading it, it'd all be heavy stuff. Maybe. But as a grownup it doesn't ring true.... too many loose ends, too many consequences we don't see, too many other things to deal with.... and it ends up feeling like a crappy "movie of the week." Even much lauded stuff like "The Dark Knight Returns" or "Watchmen" suffers from the same shallowness and self-consciousness; trying to be "grownup" but never quite coming to terms with the ramifications.
....'course, reading stuff like Crumb, Cruise, Worley, Nagai, and Corben during your formative years sets the bar a little askance....
>instead of a step in the right direction, so far it sounds like more of what I think is currently wrong with comics
Well.... I think it's really more of the same. With added Batman. Some of it'll be good, some bad, most blah.
Don C.
Comment