KC: Dissenting Opinion
ato...@delphi.com
I just finished reading Kingdom Come for the second time. I have confirmed
my opinion: II don't care much for most of it thus far.
Spoilers
^L
Let me start by talking about what I did like. I like Superman being
super. I like the treatment of Aquaman, which was very logical
considering the events of Kingdom Come.
I also appreciated the confrontation between Superman and Magog at the
end of issue two. For me, this summed up one of the themes of this
series. (As I read it, a hero must be noble and compassionate in all
circumstances.)
MAGOG: "Proud of being the man of tomorrow? Your fault...you bastard.
The world changed...but you wouldn't. So they chose me. They chose
the man who would kill over the man who wouldn't...and now they're
dead."
*This* is why heroes don't kill. *This* is why heroes take responsibility
for their actions. Fighting as Magog fought cost the world too much.
Well written!
However, my overall review of Kingdom Come so far is a "thumbs down."
We've gone to great lengths to establish a scene like the one referred
to above, only to have the new conflict arise between Bruce Wayne and
Superman. Bruce Wayne, now a bitter old man, throws in with Lex
Luthor in order to stop Superman from making the world a better place.
That alone condemns this comic in my eyes. The character of Bruce
Wayne I am familiar with would never side with a known murderer like
Luthor. Bruce's biggest motivation appears to be that he's upset that
Superman ever stopped fighting crime to begin with. Okay, okay, so
"Superman has no idea what he's really up against." Well, neither do
we. I can understand that Bruce would feel Superman is going too far
with his emerging global leader thing, but this feels like a bad
excuse to devolve into Batman versus Superman in a post-apocolyptic
future, which we have already seen too many times.
And if the fronts have to be metahumans versus unpowered humans,
how is it that Vandal Savage gets to hang out on the "nonmeta" side
of things? I confess I'm not very knowledgeable about Vandal
Savage, but the few appearances of him I have read seem to indicate
he has a great deal of power.
The pacing of the second issue was a vast improvement over the first,
but I still don't care for the Book of Revelations gimmick either.
I tire of people applauding a story because it uses Bible symbology
to execute its point. Having a
Christian subtext to our societal
consciousness seems to mean that whenever someone uses symbolism
from Bible stories, we are guaranteed to get excited about it.
Frankly, I'm bored.
As usual, I cannot get enough of Alex Ross' art. His painted pages
alone are worth the price of admission for any art enthusiast.
Mick
-----
Mickey McCarter (ato...@delphi.com) -
--"Law? Here's the only law: the law of averages." / |
--- Harvey Dent, Batman: TAS /____|_
***************"*************Hey, I'm back************************|******
Abhay Khosla
On Fri, 14 Jun 1996 ato...@delphi.com wrote:
> I just finished reading Kingdom Come for the second time. I have confirmed
> my opinion: II don't care much for most of it thus far.
Thats really cool...
> Spoilers
> ^L
> Let me start by talking about what I did like. I like Superman being
> super. I like the treatment of Aquaman, which was very logical
> considering the events of Kingdom Come.
Wasn't Aquaman well conceived? Very surprising. Characterization on
the whole has been sparse- Superman's been top notch, Bats has been
Bruce, I'm uncertain on Wonder Woman and thats it. The new heroes aren't
really a factor in the story. Mckay isn't really around. The Justice
League hasn't said a word. And the MLF isn't completely fleshed out
yet... I guess its just to focus on where the action is, on Supes and Bats...
> I also appreciated the confrontation between Superman and Magog at the
> end of issue two. For me, this summed up one of the themes of this
> series. (As I read it, a hero must be noble and compassionate in all
> circumstances.)
Eh. Very he on that scene. Why not have Somebody, Anybody say that
these new heroes aren't so bad, at least try to make that argument? I
thought Magog would be nice for that- instead he was just hammering in
the point for the millionth time...
> However, my overall review of Kingdom Come so far is a "thumbs down."
> We've gone to great lengths to establish a scene like the one referred
> to above, only to have the new conflict arise between Bruce Wayne and
> Superman. Bruce Wayne, now a bitter old man, throws in with Lex
> Luthor in order to stop Superman from making the world a better place.
> That alone condemns this comic in my eyes. The character of Bruce
> Wayne I am familiar with would never side with a known murderer like
> Luthor. Bruce's biggest motivation appears to be that he's upset that
> Superman ever stopped fighting crime to begin with. Okay, okay, so
Nah. Bruce is much more interesting than that- I like Bruce, I'm
rooting for him. Bruce's motivation is that he's been working to solve
the problems for years now, slowly, carefully- Batman style. And then
Superman's just blundering in and making things fworse- not putting
power into the human hands but more metahuman hands. Superman's whole
system depends on Superman being there to enforce it.
Bruce is siding with Luthor against the metahumans in general- yes, he
has his cadre of metahumans but he'd need that kind of force rto get the
job done. And the metahumans chosen aren't exactly Superman level
either- Dr. Fate's more a magician than metahuman, Wildcat... I don't
know...
And Bruce isn't dealing with Luthor with a open heart. He probably(he
better have a ) ulterior motive(I like someone else's theory that Ed
Nigma is Jonn J'onzz...). And Luthor's going to double-cross him.
Gotta love that Bruce...
> "Superman has no idea what he's really up against." Well, neither do
> we. I can understand that Bruce would feel Superman is going too far
> with his emerging global leader thing, but this feels like a bad
> excuse to devolve into Batman versus Superman in a post-apocolyptic
> future, which we have already seen too many times.
Agreed. Thank god for that third side in all the posters headed by
Captain Marvel(who'll need beau'coup characterizing to catch up and make
sense).
> The pacing of the second issue was a vast improvement over the first,
> but I still don't care for the Book of Revelations gimmick either.
Yeah but its just two or three wasted lines of dialogue. Who cares? Let
the Christians have their fun. Its not helping the story any, skip it
and read the parts that it does. I agree that its lame but its how
they're doing things. Quotes about Ragnarok would be a lot more
appropriate, but there aren't many of those left after the Christians
anyways...
> As usual, I cannot get enough of Alex Ross' art. His painted pages
> alone are worth the price of admission for any art enthusiast.
But it makes talking about the story harder...When the execution is THAT
good, how could you not like the story? Well, the story is good too.
But folks sure do love that Magog scene and I hated it so...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Christopher Shea
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.960614...@tron.rs.itd.umich.edu>, Abhay
Khosla <akh...@umich.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 1996 ato...@delphi.com wrote:
>
>> I just finished reading Kingdom Come for the second time. I have confirmed
>> my opinion: II don't care much for most of it thus far.
>
>Thats really cool...
>
>> Spoilers
>> ^L
>
>> Let me start by talking about what I did like. I like Superman being
>> super. I like the treatment of Aquaman, which was very logical
>> considering the events of Kingdom Come.
>
>Wasn't Aquaman well conceived? Very surprising. Characterization on
>the whole has been sparse- Superman's been top notch, Bats has been
>Bruce, I'm uncertain on Wonder Woman and thats it. The new heroes aren't
>really a factor in the story. Mckay isn't really around. The Justice
>League hasn't said a word. And the MLF isn't completely fleshed out
>yet... I guess its just to focus on where the action is, on Supes and Bats...
>
>> I also appreciated the confrontation between Superman and Magog at the
>> end of issue two. For me, this summed up one of the themes of this
>> series. (As I read it, a hero must be noble and compassionate in all
>> circumstances.)
>
>Eh. Very he on that scene. Why not have Somebody, Anybody say that
>these new heroes aren't so bad, at least try to make that argument? I
>thought Magog would be nice for that- instead he was just hammering in
>the point for the millionth time...
I thought that _was_ the point of the scene -- that Magog, even though he
was one of the New Breed, was still capable of feeling remorse for his
mistakes, that he wasn't unredeemable. If he'd said, "So we killed a
million people. Well, we got the Parasite anyway, and you have to expect
some collateral damage. Now buzz off, you bunch of dried-up senior
citizens" _that'd_ be heavy-handed.
--
Christopher Shea cs...@panix.com, 74007...@compuserve.com
That's Christopher, _not_ Chris. Thenk yew.
"The only sticky moment came when [Bob Dole] realized that the napkins were imprinted with the American flag. Clearly not wanting to be photographed wiping his mouth with the symbol of the nation, the senator carefully folded the napkin inside out before putting it to good use."
-- _New York Daily News_, May 28, 1996
Just Joe
I disagree with you a lot, here, Mick. Lets see if I can
explain my thoughts.
ato...@delphi.com wrote:
>
>I just finished reading Kingdom Come for the second time. I have confirmed
>my opinion: II don't care much for most of it thus far.
>
>Spoilers
>
>^L
<SNIP>
>However, my overall review of Kingdom Come so far is a "thumbs down."
>We've gone to great lengths to establish a scene like the one referred
>to above, only to have the new conflict arise between Bruce Wayne and
>Superman.
A conflict between the two is inevitable, I think. Just read
how The Spectre describes them immediately after he and McCay
leave Wayne Manor: "In their day, they were the truest
representatives of their kind . . . one, the zenith of human
fortitude and ambition . . . the other the pinnacle of other-
worldly power."
Batman is the Yin to Superman's Yang. Like opposite sides of
a coin, they have the same worth but different viewpoints.
And that's what part of this story is about.
>Bruce Wayne, now a bitter old man, throws in with Lex
>Luthor in order to stop Superman from making the world a better place.
>That alone condemns this comic in my eyes.
You don't think Batman is truely entering into a complete
partnership with Luthor, do you? Batman is keeping his friends
close and his enemies closer. Seriously, what better way is
there to keep an eye on what Luthor is up to?
And the same can be said for Luthor. He doesn't trust Batman
any further than Captain Marvel could throw him. :'D
>The character of Bruce
>Wayne I am familiar with would never side with a known murderer like
>Luthor. Bruce's biggest motivation appears to be that he's upset that
>Superman ever stopped fighting crime to begin with.
Why do you feel this is his "biggest motivation"? I thought
Batman was using Superman's departure from public to tease
him, to get under that invulnerable skin a bit.
For me, Batman's beef is with all metahumans, as revealed
during his talk with Superman: "Right now, the metahumans
have the keys to earth's kingdom. Wrestling control is a
delicate matter."
Since Superman left, the metas have taken over, with little
regard for human life. And that is what pisses Batman off.
>Okay, okay, so
>"Superman has no idea what he's really up against." Well, neither do
>we. I can understand that Bruce would feel Superman is going too far
>with his emerging global leader thing, but this feels like a bad
>excuse to devolve into Batman versus Superman in a post-apocolyptic
>future, which we have already seen too many times.
Agreed. I'm glad this won't end up like that. :'D This story
has more depth than TDKR, I think.
<SNIP>
>The pacing of the second issue was a vast improvement over the first,
>but I still don't care for the Book of Revelations gimmick either.
>I tire of people applauding a story because it uses Bible symbology
>to execute its point.
But I have yet to see a reviewer saying, "Cooool! More Bible
quotes which give the story merit!!!"
>Having a
> Christian subtext to our societal
>consciousness seems to mean that whenever someone uses symbolism
>from Bible stories, we are guaranteed to get excited about it.
>Frankly, I'm bored.
As for me, I think the Revelation quotes are a good framing
devise. McCay, like Wesley Dodds before him, are using something
they know (the Bible) to make sense of the visions they are having.
It's like this true story: a group of people at a soccer match
in South America saw strange lights in the air above the
stadium. Those of a religious bent swore they saw angels in
flowing robes bringing tidings of great joy. Some of the more
secular of the crowd saw flying saucers. Still others saw
strange lights and nothing more.
The point is, each person explained what they saw by putting
it into a context they were familiar with. Wesley and McCay
are Christians, and that's the spin they're putting on what
they see.
>As usual, I cannot get enough of Alex Ross' art. His painted pages
>alone are worth the price of admission for any art enthusiast.
>
>Mick
A loud agreement with you there, Mick. Expressive is the
word I'd use.
A (Mostly) Disagreeing Joe
Matt Linton
In article <cshea-14069...@cshea.dialup.access.net> cs...@panix.com (Christopher Shea) writes:
>>>Wasn't Aquaman well conceived? Very surprising. Characterization on
>>the whole has been sparse- Superman's been top notch, Bats has been
>>Bruce, I'm uncertain on Wonder Woman and thats it. The new heroes aren't
>>really a factor in the story. Mckay isn't really around. The Justice
>>League hasn't said a word. And the MLF isn't completely fleshed out
>>yet... I guess its just to focus on where the action is, on Supes and Bats...
>>
characters walking around, with no explanation of what happened to make them
the way they are. Why is Dick Grayson Robin again? What happened to Tim
Drake? Who are the Flash and Green Lantern? How in the hell can Robin fly
now?(pp9 and 11). Who is Dr. Mid-Nite? The list goes on. Now, I'm sure
you're supposed to fill in some of the blanks (Grayson becomes "Dark" Robin
due to the death? of Kory, who is nowhere to be seen), but it's all just
meaningless speculation. And I would just think, ok, it's only the second
issue, they'll get around to it, but there's only 2 more issues, at this point
the exposition is done. I really think they should have done this as, if
necessary, a bi-monthly 12 issue mini-series. Hell, even a Who's Who would be
nice, filling in the back story. This isn't just fanboy ranting, without the
backstory, we really can't know the character's motivation.
Matt, who thinks the only thing hurting Kingdom Come is the incessant need to
put "every character in the DC Universe in some kind of appearance, rather
than just telling a good story.
"I _wanted_ to be Speedy" --Wally West, reminiscing about his Kid Flash days
Peter Meilinger
ato...@delphi.com wrote:
:
: I just finished reading Kingdom Come for the second time. I have confirmed
: my opinion: II don't care much for most of it thus far.
:
: Spoilers
:
: ^L
: However, my overall review of Kingdom Come so far is a "thumbs down."
: We've gone to great lengths to establish a scene like the one referred
: to above, only to have the new conflict arise between Bruce Wayne and
: Superman. Bruce Wayne, now a bitter old man, throws in with Lex
: Luthor in order to stop Superman from making the world a better place.
Not the way I saw it. I saw Bruce Wayne, a driven old man, making use
of Lex Luthor to stop Superman from making the world a worse place.
And Supes' plans (well, Diana's really) WILL make the world worse.
He's going to imprison meta-villains, apparently without benefit
of a trial. Well, okay, but it's gonna end up that disagreeing with
the new League on what heroes should do is going to be grounds
for imprisonment. Bruce refers to the prison as a gulag. That's just
what it is.
Personally, I'm on Bruce's side in all this and I really hope he wins.
Pete
Marc Singer
In article <noir.142...@tir.com>, Matt Linton <no...@tir.com> wrote:
>This, to me, is why the series should have been longer. You see all of these
>characters walking around, with no explanation of what happened to make them
>the way they are. Why is Dick Grayson Robin again? What happened to Tim
>Drake? Who are the Flash and Green Lantern? How in the hell can Robin fly
>now?(pp9 and 11). Who is Dr. Mid-Nite? The list goes on. Now, I'm sure
>you're supposed to fill in some of the blanks (Grayson becomes "Dark" Robin
>due to the death? of Kory, who is nowhere to be seen), but it's all just
>meaningless speculation. And I would just think, ok, it's only the second
>issue, they'll get around to it, but there's only 2 more issues, at this point
>the exposition is done. I really think they should have done this as, if
>necessary, a bi-monthly 12 issue mini-series. Hell, even a Who's Who would be
>nice, filling in the back story. This isn't just fanboy ranting, without the
>backstory, we really can't know the character's motivation.
Absolutely. This is one of the biggest flaws of Kingdom Come so far --
it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out backstory
that made its predecessors like Dark Knight and Watchmen so successful.
Oh, the creators might *have* answers to all those questions, but they
don't seem to be divulging them, so what's the use?
And just to deflate the obvious counterargument, that "those details don't
matter to the story" -- they would if it were a good story. Every little
detail would. Every character and background would be as crisply delineated
and as well-characterized as the Superman/Magog scene. Instead, we just
have a bunch of costumed ciphers, and it's hard to care about them.
Marc
P.S. Robin isn't actually flying -- he's standing on a platform made by
Green Lantern. And I think Robin is the one who *most* needs some more
character development, or at least dialogue...
doug hugo
Re: Robin flying.
Look closely at the panels. You will find that Green Lantern has created a
platform for Robin to stand on in the air. Dick's still very human.
- Doug
Kevin&Peggy
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
>Absolutely. This is one of the biggest flaws of Kingdom Come so far --
>it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out backstory
>that made its predecessors like Dark Knight and Watchmen so successful.
>Oh, the creators might *have* answers to all those questions, but they
>don't seem to be divulging them, so what's the use?
>And just to deflate the obvious counterargument, that "those details don't
>matter to the story" -- they would if it were a good story. Every little
>detail would. Every character and background would be as crisply delineated
>and as well-characterized as the Superman/Magog scene. Instead, we just
>have a bunch of costumed ciphers, and it's hard to care about them.
I understand what you're saying, but it really doesn't "deflate" the
counterargument you note. The story so far is about Superman, WW, and
Batman - everyone else is delegated background. The characterization
of the big three has been fascinating, and I don't feel that limiting
the details and backstory to those three hurts the story.
You're wishing an apple was an orange, and there's nothing wrong with
that - if you don't like apples. I like this apple a lot!
(Sorry 'bout the metaphor!)
Kevin Lafferty
Johanna Draper
In article <ZtOPEUE...@delphi.com>, <ato...@delphi.com> wrote:
>I don't care much for most of it thus far.
Nice to see you back, Mickey, even if your opinion does disagree with
mine.
Spoilers:
>Bruce Wayne, now a bitter old man, throws in with Lex Luthor in order
>to stop Superman from making the world a better place. That alone
>condemns this comic in my eyes. The character of Bruce Wayne I am
>familiar with would never side with a known murderer like Luthor.
That's the point, isn't it? These aren't necessarily the characters we know,
because their lives have moved on from the artificial resting points
regular comic book publication forces upon them.
And Batman has before "sided with", or at least worked with, R'as Al Ghul,
just as much a villain.
>Frankly, I'm bored.
Yeah, but what does this have to do with the comics? :)
Johanna
Peter Li
Matt Linton wrote:
> This, to me, is why the series should have been longer. You see all of these
> characters walking around, with no explanation of what happened to make them
> the way they are. Why is Dick Grayson Robin again? What happened to Tim
> Drake? Who are the Flash and Green Lantern? How in the hell can Robin fly
> now?(pp9 and 11).
He can't. If you look closely, Green Lantern has a weird ray of his power that
holds on to Dick's legs and allows him to follow the others. Strange
explanation, isn't it?
> Who is Dr. Mid-Nite? The list goes on. Now, I'm sure
> you're supposed to fill in some of the blanks (Grayson becomes "Dark" Robin
> due to the death? of Kory, who is nowhere to be seen), but it's all just
> meaningless speculation. And I would just think, ok, it's only the second
> issue, they'll get around to it, but there's only 2 more issues, at this point
> the exposition is done. I really think they should have done this as, if
> necessary, a bi-monthly 12 issue mini-series. Hell, even a Who's Who would be
> nice, filling in the back story. This isn't just fanboy ranting, without the
> backstory, we really can't know the character's motivation.
I felt the same way. Unforunately, a 12 ish mini would mean $60 and $84
Canadian. With something like that, it's pretty hard for readers to make such a
commitment. To fill us in on who's who and what the hell happened to everybody,
the upcoming card series should answer many, many questions.
-Peter Li
Melody Womack
In <4pumlb$e...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer)
writes:
>>This, to me, is why the series should have been longer. You see all
of these
>>characters walking around, with no explanation of what happened to
make them
>>the way they are.
>Absolutely. This is one of the biggest flaws of Kingdom Come so far
--
>it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out
backstory
>that made its predecessors like Dark Knight and Watchmen so
successful.
I would love to see all the minor details too but using their absence
as the basis for a negative comparision of KC to DARK KNIGHT and
WATCHMEN isn't quite fair either. DK had a very small cast in a
tightly delineated area. And while I don't mean to denigrate Frank
Miller's skill, our previous knowledge of Bruce, Joker, Two Face, etc.
did a lot of his work for him. WATCHMEN had 12 whole issues to show us
bits like sugar cubes, falling perfume bottles, and ex-heroes who
could't do it unless they were in costume first.
Jay J
In article <noir.142...@tir.com> Matt Linton wrote:
>In article <cshea-14069...@cshea.dialup.access.net>
cs...@panix.com
> (Christopher Shea) writes:
>>>>Wasn't Aquaman well conceived? Very surprising. Characterization on
>>>the whole has been sparse- Superman's been top notch, Bats has been
>>>Bruce, I'm uncertain on Wonder Woman and thats it. The new heroes
aren't
>>>really a factor in the story. Mckay isn't really around. The Justice
>>>League hasn't said a word. And the MLF isn't completely fleshed out
>>>yet... I guess its just to focus on where the action is, on Supes and
> Bats...
>>>
>This, to me, is why the series should have been longer. You see all of
> these
>characters walking around, with no explanation of what happened to make
them
>the way they are. Why is Dick Grayson Robin again? What happened to Tim
>Drake? Who are the Flash and Green Lantern? How in the hell can Robin
fly
>now?(pp9 and 11). Who is Dr. Mid-Nite? The list goes on. Now, I'm sure
>you're supposed to fill in some of the blanks (Grayson becomes "Dark"
Robin
>due to the death? of Kory, who is nowhere to be seen), but it's all just
>meaningless speculation. And I would just think, ok, it's only the second
>issue, they'll get around to it, but there's only 2 more issues, at this
> point
>the exposition is done. I really think they should have done this as, if
>necessary, a bi-monthly 12 issue mini-series. Hell, even a Who's Who
would
> be
>nice, filling in the back story. This isn't just fanboy ranting, without
> the
>backstory, we really can't know the character's motivation.
Matt, are you one of those guys who want to know why the "red shirts"
(i.e. security) joined Starfleet ? They have no lines, they are just
sword carriers, a noble theatrical tradition. And in KC, they wear
costumes.....The story is about the characters with the dialog, and
the situation they are in. Its not "THE HISTORY OF THE KC UNIVERSE"
(a title I would buy, BTW).
Jay J
I don't need no steenkin' signature
Marc Singer
In article <4puv7n$4...@news.inforamp.net>,
Kevin&Peggy <pe...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
>
>>Absolutely. This is one of the biggest flaws of Kingdom Come so far --
>>it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out backstory
>>that made its predecessors like Dark Knight and Watchmen so successful.
>>don't seem to be divulging them, so what's the use?
>
>>And just to deflate the obvious counterargument, that "those details don't
>>matter to the story" -- they would if it were a good story. Every little
>>detail would. Every character and background would be as crisply delineated
>>and as well-characterized as the Superman/Magog scene. Instead, we just
>>have a bunch of costumed ciphers, and it's hard to care about them.
>
>I understand what you're saying, but it really doesn't "deflate" the
>counterargument you note. The story so far is about Superman, WW, and
>Batman - everyone else is delegated background. The characterization
>of the big three has been fascinating, and I don't feel that limiting
>the details and backstory to those three hurts the story.
I'm afraid it does, because it means that all the other wonderful details
thrown in by the art -- the plethora of costumed characters that get much
more panel time than Batman and Wonder Woman and possibly more than
Superman -- are superfluous. And if over half the story is just eye candy,
then that's a problem.
Besides, the lack of certain details does hurt the portrayal of the three
main characters. Robin has been mentioned prominently, but has gotten no
characterization or even dialogue -- a real shame, since a better-developed
Robin would help us understand Batman better, and would probably make for
some very juicy scenes between Batman and Robin and Batman and Nightstar --
even Robin-Nightstar scenes would reflect back on and add to Batman. But
Robin, Nightstar and (presumably) Ibn Al Xu'Ffasch are all ciphers so far,
who could be adding to the portrayal of one of the main characters but
aren't. The same could be said for Donna Troy and Wonder Woman, or XTC and
Power Girl and Superman. Yes, these minor characters don't matter to the
story we've been given, but if the story were more complex and multi-layered,
as all the truly great ones are, they *would* matter.
Ross has done a wonderful job of packing the art with meaning and nuance
and history. The writing should at least match it.
>You're wishing an apple was an orange, and there's nothing wrong with
>that - if you don't like apples. I like this apple a lot!
So do I. But I'd like a more filling apple.
Marc
Marc Singer
In article <4pv87c$7...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
Melody Womack <mwo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4pumlb$e...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer)
>writes:
>>
>--
>>it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out
>backstory
>>that made its predecessors like Dark Knight and Watchmen so
>successful.
>
>as the basis for a negative comparision of KC to DARK KNIGHT and
>WATCHMEN isn't quite fair either.
Well, people are already making plenty of positive (and, I think, completely
wrong) comparisons to those two works, so pointing out KC's inferiority is,
IMHO, simple honesty. Especially when the attention to detail and the
multilayered story, which were so essential to the success of Watchmen and
TDKR, are missing from KC. But basically, I just think the details we
aren't getting would make the already-excellent story vastly better.
DK had a very small cast in a
>tightly delineated area. And while I don't mean to denigrate Frank
>Miller's skill, our previous knowledge of Bruce, Joker, Two Face, etc.
>did a lot of his work for him.
But Waid gets exactly the same advantage, because we all have previous
knowledge of Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, etc. Furthermore, Waid has
one advantage Frank Miller didn't -- we all have previous knowledge of
"apocalyptic superhero sagas" like Dark Knight Returns. Freeing up Waid
to use certain shorthands like -- I hate to say it -- lifting his Bruce
Wayne and Oliver Queen almost directly from TDKR. Or setting up a Batman-
Superman moral conflict.
> WATCHMEN had 12 whole issues to show us
>bits like sugar cubes, falling perfume bottles, and ex-heroes who
>could't do it unless they were in costume first.
True, but:
1) Kingdom Come will be the equivalent of about 8 Watchmen issues, and
2) It's telling a *much* simpler story than Watchmen did. And it has all
that pre-knowledge of the characters and universe to build upon. So while
Watchmen and TDKR enjoyed certain advantages over KC, I don't think KC is
completely off the hook for presenting such a small, simple focus on its
legion of nameless costumed heroes.
Marc
Martin Wirjadi
>ato...@delphi.com wrote:
>:
>: I just finished reading Kingdom Come for the second time. I have confirmed
>: my opinion: II don't care much for most of it thus far.
>:
>: Spoilers
>:
>: ^L
>:
>: However, my overall review of Kingdom Come so far is a "thumbs down."
>: We've gone to great lengths to establish a scene like the one referred
>: to above, only to have the new conflict arise between Bruce Wayne and
>: Superman. Bruce Wayne, now a bitter old man, throws in with Lex
>: Luthor in order to stop Superman from making the world a better place.
>Not the way I saw it. I saw Bruce Wayne, a driven old man, making use
>of Lex Luthor to stop Superman from making the world a worse place.
>And Supes' plans (well, Diana's really) WILL make the world worse.
>He's going to imprison meta-villains, apparently without benefit
>of a trial. Well, okay, but it's gonna end up that disagreeing with
>the new League on what heroes should do is going to be grounds
>for imprisonment. Bruce refers to the prison as a gulag. That's just
>what it is.
Exactly. Bruce, I think, is saying that what Supes do was not quite
different from what Magog did. I mean, sure, Supes just imprison (not
kill) those who does not agree with him, but in doing that he is
saying,"No one can do the super-hero thing outside the Justice League's
way!" Well, well, well, we know Bruce has done it for ... quite a while,
huh?
>Personally, I'm on Bruce's side in all this and I really hope he wins.
Me, too, me, too. I love Batman, ok?
>Pete
--
"Some call it lie, I call it imagination"
Martin Wirjadi
CC'93
Jay J
In article <4q1l24$l...@rac4.wam.umd.edu> Marc Singer wrote:
>2) It's telling a *much* simpler story than Watchmen did. And it has all
>that pre-knowledge of the characters and universe to build upon. So while
>Watchmen and TDKR enjoyed certain advantages over KC, I don't think KC is
>completely off the hook for presenting such a small, simple focus on its
>legion of nameless costumed heroes.
Well, to each their own. But for me, KC feels like some sort of
Shakespearean (or Wagnerian) production: a few main characters, with
sweeping dialouge and thematic pronouncements, and a horde of celebrity
spear-carriers. Or in movie terms, a "Star Wars" larger-than-life feel.
Watchmen, on the other hand, had a much different feel. It would make
a great "Masterpiece Theater" series. The plot was just there to give the
characters something to react to. There wasn't much story -- a hell of a
lot of backstory, yes, but the Mission Impossible movie had the same basic
"betrayal of team" plot. Watchmen was about people, the characterization
bits were the primary focus. KC isn't. They really are apples and
oranges, and comparisons are not really fair to either.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Kevin&Peggy <pe...@inforamp.net> wrote:
: >
: >I understand what you're saying, but it really doesn't "deflate" the
: >counterargument you note. The story so far is about Superman, WW, and
: >Batman - everyone else is delegated background. The characterization
: >of the big three has been fascinating, and I don't feel that limiting
: >the details and backstory to those three hurts the story.
: I'm afraid it does, because it means that all the other wonderful details
: thrown in by the art -- the plethora of costumed characters that get much
: more panel time than Batman and Wonder Woman and possibly more than
: Superman -- are superfluous. And if over half the story is just eye candy,
: then that's a problem.
You consider the cameos "over half the story?" That's funny, I consider
the analyses many people have been doing re: the politics and ethics and
other Major Questions raised by the focus on certain characters to be
*well* over half the story, and the cameos an amusing bonus.
: Besides, the lack of certain details does hurt the portrayal of the three
: main characters. Robin has been mentioned prominently, but has gotten no
: characterization or even dialogue -- a real shame, since a better-developed
: Robin would help us understand Batman better...
Waid and Ross *can't* concentrate on EVERYone. We concentrated mostly on
McCay last issue, and on the Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman troika this
time. I dare say the "ciphers" will get more "screen time" as their
characterization warrants-- and I also maintain that dialogue isn't the
only way a character is advanced, especially with as talented an artist
as Ross.
: The same could be said for Donna Troy and Wonder Woman, or XTC and
: Power Girl and Superman.
I think Wonder Girl has received some interesting characterization
without her having to say a word, simply through some of her actions. I
agree re: XTC and Power Girl, who have mostly been seen in battle
stances, but I'm pleased with what I see so far of Aria and Nightfire,
and hope they get a little more time as well in #s 3 and 4.
: Yes, these minor characters don't matter to the
: story we've been given, but if the story were more complex and multi-layered,
: as all the truly great ones are, they *would* matter.
We don't know yet which "minor" characters will wind up mattering; there
are two more issues to go.
: Ross has done a wonderful job of packing the art with meaning and nuance
: and history. The writing should at least match it.
I think it does, easily.
- Elayne
--
E-Mail me, the "Firehead Head," for more info about the official ()~~
Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal, available via ##
snail mail or free online! "This replica... houses our guru, ##
Tiny Dr. Tim. Let's knock on the door and see if he's in..." _##_
Kevin&Peggy
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
>In article <4puv7n$4...@news.inforamp.net>,
>Kevin&Peggy <pe...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
>>
>>>Absolutely. This is one of the biggest flaws of Kingdom Come so far --
>>>it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out backstory
>>>that made its predecessors like Dark Knight and Watchmen so successful.
>>>Oh, the creators might *have* answers to all those questions, but they
>>>don't seem to be divulging them, so what's the use?
>>
>>>And just to deflate the obvious counterargument, that "those details don't
>>>matter to the story" -- they would if it were a good story. Every little
>>>detail would. Every character and background would be as crisply delineated
>>>and as well-characterized as the Superman/Magog scene. Instead, we just
>>>have a bunch of costumed ciphers, and it's hard to care about them.
>>
>>I understand what you're saying, but it really doesn't "deflate" the
>>counterargument you note. The story so far is about Superman, WW, and
>>Batman - everyone else is delegated background. The characterization
>>of the big three has been fascinating, and I don't feel that limiting
>>the details and backstory to those three hurts the story.
>I'm afraid it does, because it means that all the other wonderful details
>thrown in by the art -- the plethora of costumed characters that get much
>more panel time than Batman and Wonder Woman and possibly more than
>Superman -- are superfluous. And if over half the story is just eye candy,
>then that's a problem.
>Besides, the lack of certain details does hurt the portrayal of the three
>main characters. Robin has been mentioned prominently, but has gotten no
>characterization or even dialogue -- a real shame, since a better-developed
>Robin would help us understand Batman better, and would probably make for
>some very juicy scenes between Batman and Robin and Batman and Nightstar --
>even Robin-Nightstar scenes would reflect back on and add to Batman. But
>Robin, Nightstar and (presumably) Ibn Al Xu'Ffasch are all ciphers so far,
>who could be adding to the portrayal of one of the main characters but
>aren't. The same could be said for Donna Troy and Wonder Woman, or XTC and
>Power Girl and Superman. Yes, these minor characters don't matter to the
>story we've been given, but if the story were more complex and multi-layered,
>as all the truly great ones are, they *would* matter.
>Ross has done a wonderful job of packing the art with meaning and nuance
>and history. The writing should at least match it.
>>You're wishing an apple was an orange, and there's nothing wrong with
>>that - if you don't like apples. I like this apple a lot!
>So do I. But I'd like a more filling apple.
This really isn't much of an argument - because I understand your
point of view completely - but since I don't agree, I kinda feel like
responding again.
Having a more detailed Robin and showing his relationship with Batman
could easily give us some interesting Robin/Batman scenes. Who knows,
maybe such scenes will pop up in the next two issues. If they don't,
it's not because Waid's writing isn't up to Ross' artwork in detail
and meaning and nuance. It just means that this story isn't about
Batman's relationship with Robin. And I think it's pretty unfair to
say that the writing of KC isn't filled with nuances.
However, like I say, I see your point. Many's the time I've watched a
movie and felt like a supporting character should have been given more
screen time, because they intrigued me. In this case, though, I love
the comic as is, and don't feel the need to know any more about the
background characters than what's been provided so far.
Kevin Lafferty
(just another congenial Canadian)
Joe Gorde
Matt Linton (no...@tir.com) wrote:
: This, to me, is why the series should have been longer. You see all of these
: characters walking around, with no explanation of what happened to make them
: the way they are.
I agree with this criticism -- the division of supers into two distinct
armies feels way too pat, and part of the reason is that, other than
Supes, Bats, and WW, none of the supers have any apparant motivations or
personalities. Green Lantern, Flash, and Hawkman are just more guys in
costumes; they don't even get any dialogue.
--
joeg...@umich.edu * are we going somewhere? or are we already there?
Marc Singer
In article <4q2egh$8...@news-e2d.gnn.com>, Jay J <JayJ...@gnn.com> wrote:
>
>In article <4q1l24$l...@rac4.wam.umd.edu> Marc Singer wrote:
>
>>2) It's telling a *much* simpler story than Watchmen did. And it has all
>>that pre-knowledge of the characters and universe to build upon. So while
>>Watchmen and TDKR enjoyed certain advantages over KC, I don't think KC is
>>completely off the hook for presenting such a small, simple focus on its
>>legion of nameless costumed heroes.
>
>Well, to each their own. But for me, KC feels like some sort of
>Shakespearean (or Wagnerian) production: a few main characters, with
>sweeping dialouge and thematic pronouncements, and a horde of celebrity
>spear-carriers. Or in movie terms, a "Star Wars" larger-than-life feel.
Well, I personally don't care for Wagner, but the above description doesn't
actually describe Shakespeare at all. Okay, maybe "Titus Andronicus," but
not any good Shakespeare. It actually describes erroneous perceptions of
what "being Shakespearean" means -- Shakespeare filtered through sixties
Thor comics, where you just thrown in some highfalutin' dialogue and
scream loudly about how profound your theme is, instead of making a profound
theme and some rich characters. Kingdom Come may well *be* such an
empty, bombastic story -- but it shouldn't be. These apocalypses are
much more meaningful when we know all the characters involved (even
characters as minor as Byron Brassballs, Bernie the newsie, or Dick
Grayson), and as I said before, we would understand those few main characters
better if they weren't being characterized in a void.
>Watchmen, on the other hand, had a much different feel. It would make
>a great "Masterpiece Theater" series. The plot was just there to give the
>characters something to react to. There wasn't much story -- a hell of a
>lot of backstory, yes, but the Mission Impossible movie had the same basic
>"betrayal of team" plot.
You either read a really lame version of Watchmen, or saw a really great
version of Mission Impossible. I think Watchmen had a great deal of plot,
especially when you consider that the backstory *was* part of the main
story -- much of the series was concerned with finding out what caused the
crime that was already over before the first page of the first issue.
Watchmen was about people, the characterization
>bits were the primary focus. KC isn't. They really are apples and
>oranges, and comparisons are not really fair to either.
I completely disagree with this "apples and oranges" line; people are only
claiming it because Watchmen so completely blows KC (and most other comics)
in the dust that it seems like two different things. But Kingdom Come is
attempting many of the same things Watchmen and Dark Knight returns were --
building a new or mostly-new setting, exploring it through its characters
and its backstory, slowly unravelling it through the plot -- and if KC
doesn't measure up, perhaps it isn't due to a difference in genus.
All that is a little irrelevant, though, because even if they truly *are*
apples and oranges, KC still has sparse and insufficient characterization
and detail on its *own* merits. The series would really benefit from more
development of more characters, and unfortunately, it hasn't bothered to
try so far.
Marc
Christopher Shea
>In article <cshea-14069...@cshea.dialup.access.net>
cs...@panix.com (Christopher Shea) writes:
>>>>Wasn't Aquaman well conceived? Very surprising. Characterization on
>>>the whole has been sparse- Superman's been top notch, Bats has been
>>>Bruce, I'm uncertain on Wonder Woman and thats it. The new heroes aren't
>>>really a factor in the story. Mckay isn't really around. The Justice
>>>League hasn't said a word. And the MLF isn't completely fleshed out
>>>yet... I guess its just to focus on where the action is, on Supes and Bats...
>>>
<snip>
Um, Matt -- I didn't write that. Not that I don't agree with it, but I
just thought I'd point out the misattribution.
Andrew A. Apold
Andrew looked up from his commemorative LSH/LSV chess set when he heard someone using Abhay Khosla's account
say:
>
>Wasn't Aquaman well conceived? Very surprising. Characterization on
>the whole has been sparse- Superman's been top notch, Bats has been
>Bruce, I'm uncertain on Wonder Woman and thats it. The new heroes aren't
>really a factor in the story. Mckay isn't really around. The Justice
>League hasn't said a word.
They aren't supposed to. Apart from Kal and Diana, they are as the
Gods themselves, so detatched and distant and removed from normal
humanity that they hardly speak. Flash in particular can not even
stand still for a photo opportunity. They do what they do, it is
their nature.
Anyone want to try to make connections between Diana's expulsion
from Paradise Island and "Paradise Lost"?
>Nah. Bruce is much more interesting than that- I like Bruce, I'm
>rooting for him. Bruce's motivation is that he's been working to solve
>the problems for years now, slowly, carefully- Batman style. And then
>Superman's just blundering in and making things fworse- not putting
>power into the human hands but more metahuman hands. Superman's whole
>system depends on Superman being there to enforce it.
Bruce is clearly the protagonist here The Spectre & whasisname are
merely observers... though I feel they will have a key role to play.
I really liked how out of all the evil metahumans, all the callous
villains, etc., the only one that gets to the Spectre is Vandal
Savage. Heh. Savage and he go way back, no doubt. The two of
them and the Stranger were probably pen pals...
Ed Nigma was a wonderful Dr. Watson. I always hate it when people
in a book say or explain things that all present really no for no
reason except to inform the reader. Dr. Watson was always clueless
and forced Holmes to come out and explain things so he could understand
it, thereby informing the reader. If Nigma were not on that scene, we
might be totally lost....
BTW, raising the stakes by making things worst is classic terrorist
activities...
Andrew Apold (mor...@magg.net)
/**********************************************/
/ C/C++, Legion, Blue Oyster Cult, Pink Floyd /
/ Hawkwind, Amtgard, Vikings, and S.A. Spurs /
/**********************************************/
"I was corrupt BEFORE I had power!"
-Random
Andrew A. Apold
Andrew looked up from his commemorative LSH/LSV chess set when he heard someone using Marc Singer's account
say:
>
>Absolutely. This is one of the biggest flaws of Kingdom Come so far --
>it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out backstory
>that made its predecessors like Dark Knight and Watchmen so successful.
>Oh, the creators might *have* answers to all those questions, but they
>don't seem to be divulging them, so what's the use?
>
>And just to deflate the obvious counterargument, that "those details don't
>matter to the story" -- they would if it were a good story. Every little
>detail would. Every character and background would be as crisply delineated
>and as well-characterized as the Superman/Magog scene. Instead, we just
>have a bunch of costumed ciphers, and it's hard to care about them.
The whole point is that they are completely dehumanized, removed, and detatched.
You aren't supposed to care for them. Maybe Kal and Diana, that's it. And they
are taking on the aspects of the tragic hero pretty quick.
I would have loved to see the scenes where he gets GL, Flash, Hawkman, etc. to
return and join him, but at many times less is more.
--
Andrew A. Apold
Andrew looked up from his commemorative LSH/LSV chess set when he heard someone using Joe Gorde's account say:
>
>Matt Linton (no...@tir.com) wrote:
>
>I agree with this criticism -- the division of supers into two distinct
>armies feels way too pat, and part of the reason is that, other than
>Supes, Bats, and WW, none of the supers have any apparant motivations or
>personalities. Green Lantern, Flash, and Hawkman are just more guys in
>costumes; they don't even get any dialogue.
The fact that they don't speak at all says volumes.
I strongly suspect the flash is probably incapable of even talking to a
normal person now...
Matthew Daly
mor...@magg.net (Andrew A. Apold) writes:
>
>Ed Nigma was a wonderful Dr. Watson. I always hate it when people
>in a book say or explain things that all present really no for no
>reason except to inform the reader. Dr. Watson was always clueless
>and forced Holmes to come out and explain things so he could understand
>it, thereby informing the reader. If Nigma were not on that scene, we
>might be totally lost....
I don't think that explains it. There wasn't anyone in the Batcave
to say that the four people we were looking at were Batman, Blue
Beetle, Black Canary, and Green Arrow. And certainly no one in the
bar scenes saying "Hey Lobo! Hey Marvin! Hey Gay Ghost!" :-) In
short, this isn't a series for the uninitiated.
Personally, I think that the Riddler is going on like that because
he's really the Martian Manhunter, uncomfortable with the role.
Selina would be a part of Bruce's cadre, sent to further pad out
the MLF in case Ibn wasn't completely loyal.
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly I don't buy everything I read ... I haven't
da...@ppd.kodak.com even read everything I've bought.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
Andrew A. Apold
Andrew looked up from his commemorative LSH/LSV chess set when he heard someone using ato...@delphi.com's
account say:
>
>
>However, my overall review of Kingdom Come so far is a "thumbs down."
>We've gone to great lengths to establish a scene like the one referred
>to above, only to have the new conflict arise between Bruce Wayne and
>Superman. Bruce Wayne, now a bitter old man, throws in with Lex
>Luthor in order to stop Superman from making the world a better place.
>That alone condemns this comic in my eyes. The character of Bruce
>Wayne I am familiar with would never side with a known murderer like
>Luthor. Bruce's biggest motivation appears to be that he's upset that
>Superman ever stopped fighting crime to begin with. Okay, okay, so
This misses the whole point. The stakes are higher now, fighting crime
isn't going to save the world, it takes a grand scheme, in this it
is very much like the Watchmen, and the return of the Justice League
at this state in the plot risks upsetting everything Bruce has worked
for. Even here, it becomes clear that Superman isn't going to solve
the world's problems by force alone...
>And if the fronts have to be metahumans versus unpowered humans,
>how is it that Vandal Savage gets to hang out on the "nonmeta" side
>of things? I confess I'm not very knowledgeable about Vandal
>Savage, but the few appearances of him I have read seem to indicate
>he has a great deal of power.
He lives long, and thus has become skilled, but that's about it. He's on
this side because he too cares about the future. If anyone cares about
having a livable planet in the future, it is someone like him who will
live to see it.
Michael Straight
In article <4q1kck$k...@rac4.wam.umd.edu>,
Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>In article <4puv7n$4...@news.inforamp.net>,
>Kevin&Peggy <pe...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
>>
>>>it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out backstory
>>>that made its predecessors like Dark Knight and Watchmen so successful.
>>>Oh, the creators might *have* answers to all those questions, but they
>>>don't seem to be divulging them, so what's the use?
>>
>>>And just to deflate the obvious counterargument, that "those details don't
>>>matter to the story" -- they would if it were a good story. Every little
>>>detail would. Every character and background would be as crisply delineated
>>>and as well-characterized as the Superman/Magog scene. Instead, we just
>>>have a bunch of costumed ciphers, and it's hard to care about them.
>>
>>counterargument you note. The story so far is about Superman, WW, and
>>Batman - everyone else is delegated background. The characterization
>>of the big three has been fascinating, and I don't feel that limiting
>>the details and backstory to those three hurts the story.
>
>I'm afraid it does, because it means that all the other wonderful details
>thrown in by the art -- the plethora of costumed characters that get much
>more panel time than Batman and Wonder Woman and possibly more than
>Superman -- are superfluous. And if over half the story is just eye candy,
>then that's a problem.
So, given a four-issue series that focuses on Supes, WW, Batman, Luthor,
and probably Captain Marvel, you would prefer the usual blah backgrounds,
faceless crowd scenes, etc. that one finds in a normal comic book? Wade
couldn't delve into all the characters Ross is painting in a 12-issue
maxi series. Does that mean Ross shouldn't paint them? If Waid & Ross
had 12 issues to delve into Robin and some of the other characters you
want to see more of, then there would be 12 issues more of rich detailed
backgrounds with faces of people that you couldn't deal with in 12
issues, and you would be complaining because the story didn't give any
time to *those* people.
Whenever you have a rich, realistic painted background that includes all
the details that you find in real life (well, more details, in this
case), then you're going to see more than the story can possibly focus
on. I don't see that as a flaw.
Michael Straight thinks it just makes the story seem more real.
FLEOEVDETYHOEUPROEONREWMEILECSOFMOERSGTIRVAENRGEEARDSTVHIESBIITBTLHEEPSRIACYK
Ethical Mirth Gas/"I'm chaste alright."/Magic Hitler Hats/"Hath grace limits?"
"Tight Camel Hairs!"/Chili Hamster Tag/The Gilt Charisma/"I gather this calm."
David J Oakes
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: I'm afraid it does, because it means that all the other wonderful details
>: thrown in by the art -- the plethora of costumed characters that get much
>: more panel time than Batman and Wonder Woman and possibly more than
>: Superman -- are superfluous. And if over half the story is just eye candy,
>: then that's a problem.
>You consider the cameos "over half the story?" That's funny, I consider
>the analyses many people have been doing re: the politics and ethics and
>other Major Questions raised by the focus on certain characters to be
>*well* over half the story, and the cameos an amusing bonus.
have to disagree with you here elayne. politics and ethics may be over
half the story in KC #2, but #1 was little more than the eye candy marc
claims. and even #2 has its share of eye candy, as evidenced by the
numerous, nay, overwhelming "did you notice so and so doing such and such
in the bar?" posts, not just in the annotations. #2 has opened the doors
to a lot of specualtion on characterization rather than costume, and i
can only hope that #3 takes us through these doors. but meaningless
cameos (i want to sace "faceless", but that sounds odd) have been easily
two thirds, even three quarters, of the two books so far.
(admitedly, i feel a lot better about the promise of #3 than i did about
#2, but i still say it is art first, story second. and not just because
everything is second to ross art.)
dave "glad someone else is taking the heat for squadron supreme" oakes
Paul Schwartzkopf
On 15 Jun 1996, Peter Meilinger wrote:
> Personally, I'm on Bruce's side in all this and I really hope he wins.
>
> Pete
>
This got me thinking, Waid will of course have some clash between Bats
and Supes, most likely in book three. Now I am all for Batman, I think
he's just using the MLF for his own plan, but how does everone else think?
How about a little poll: Batman vs. Superman
Even if they do fight it won't matter who wins. The heros in this story
are up against an evil greater that the MLF (mutant liberation front?
uhhhh no) or anything on earth. These heros are up against themselves,
and more importantly what they stand for and why they are willing to die
for it.
Paul Schwartzkopf
psc...@siue.edu
Carter Lupton
Paul Schwartzkopf (pschwar@swiftty) wrote:
: How about a little poll: Batman vs. Superman
Although I'm enjoying the story, I think they've set up a straw man in
Supes. Sure, it's Elseworlds, but I don't think it's fair to have Batman
acting more or less in character with his "real" continuity persona, while
the KC Superman is very much at odds with his "real" persona. The Superman
I know would never have retired from the never-ending battle in the first
place. A "false" Superman has been created, which makes it easy for Batman
to criticize him. Bruce has continued the fight while Superman bowed out.
But I seem to recall a little story of a decade or so ago called The Dark
Knight Returns in which Batman decided to come out of retirement as
Superman does in KC.
If a situation involving ethics, morals, etc. is going to be followed out
in a storyline like KC, then start from the premise that the superheroes
have some integrity and will continue to act as we know they should. This
is what pisses me off about modern comics writers. They want to do
something "new" so badly that they'll pervert their characters to achieve
originality. We're tired of Hal Jordan as GL, we need a new face appealing
to a younger audience, and anyway the concept of inherent nobility is
false, so we'll make Hal a super-villain so readers will accept our newer,
younger, inexperienced, self-doubting, angst-ridden, haven't-got-a-clue-
about-life, let alone being a hero, Kyle Rayner.
Paul Moorehead
On 18 Jun 1996, Carter Lupton wrote:
> Paul Schwartzkopf (pschwar@swiftty) wrote:
>
>
> : How about a little poll: Batman vs. Superman
>
> Although I'm enjoying the story, I think they've set up a straw man in
> Supes. Sure, it's Elseworlds, but I don't think it's fair to have Batman
> acting more or less in character with his "real" continuity persona, while
> the KC Superman is very much at odds with his "real" persona. The Superman
> I know would never have retired from the never-ending battle in the first
> place. A "false" Superman has been created, which makes it easy for Batman
> to criticize him. Bruce has continued the fight while Superman bowed out.
> But I seem to recall a little story of a decade or so ago called The Dark
> Knight Returns in which Batman decided to come out of retirement as
> Superman does in KC.
I would disagree with the idea that Batman is "in character" in 'Kingdom
Come'. Nothing, I think, could be further from the truth. On a purely
cosmetic level, he's much too smug and flippant, but that's the way Mark
Waid writes almost all of his characters. (I can only imagine the effort
of will it's taking for Mark Waid not to write some quips into Superman's
dialogue :) ) More substantially: Running Gotham like some kind of
techno-dictatorship? Siding with Luthor? Bats is a loner. He has, in
the past, struggled in groups and teams. But now he's running some
world-wide resistance network. I don't know who this character is, but
he's not the Batman I know.
Supes hasn't gotten any better a treatment. I guess it's fair to say that
Lois's death would have affected him. But, while I wasn't really bothered
by the fact that Superman is supposed to have gone into reclusion for a
while, he's bullying and railroading people, and letting Wonder Woman do
the same to him. Doesn't sound like the Man of Steel.
Somehow, even if it is an Elseworlds, Mark Waid has gotten permission to
write a story in which DC's two top dogs turn their back on what they used
to stand for.
Of course, the character who's gotten the worst shaft of all, based on the
few panels we've seen him in, is Captain Marvel. Waid better have
something up his sleeve, as far as the Big Red Cheese is concerned, or I'm
gonna be mad...
Paul
Abhay Khosla
On 18 Jun 1996, Andrew A. Apold wrote:
> Andrew looked up from his commemorative LSH/LSV chess set when he heard
someone using Marc Singer's account > say:
> >And just to deflate the obvious counterargument, that "those details don't
> >matter to the story" -- they would if it were a good story. Every little
> >detail would. Every character and background would be as crisply delineated
> >and as well-characterized as the Superman/Magog scene. Instead, we just
> >have a bunch of costumed ciphers, and it's hard to care about them.
> The whole point is that they are completely dehumanized, removed, and
> detatched. > You aren't supposed to care for them. Maybe Kal and Diana,
> that's it. And they > are taking on the aspects of the tragic hero pretty
> quick. > > I would have loved to see the scenes where he gets GL, Flash,
I'm not supposed to care for anyone but Kal and Diana? It sounds like
you're making excuses for a weakness of the miniseries. Why shouldn't I
care for the Phil-wanabe... Reverand Whatshiname... Norm? The people of
this world like Watchmen had the newstand vendor. With a cast this big?
Whats the point of a story where you don't care for people unless the plot
is so intricate that its a joy to itself(ie the Invisibles)... and thats
simply not the case with this Batman vs. Superman war story thus far...
But god I love Waid's Aquaman...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
GSHowler
First of all, chill out with how the characters are being treated.
Second, don't jump to conclusions what will happen in the end of this
series. We don't really know if Supes and Bats will have an all out
battle or if Capt. has really gone mental and turned evil. If it really
hasn't happened yet, you really can't comment on this like that until it
actually occurs. That said, onto the focus of this original post, which
was to poll people's opinions which side is better than the other.
Me answer, it's both Sueprman & Batman are right, and they are both wrong.
No side has all the equal answer to all the questions because in time,
they can't tell what the actual consequences will be until it happens.
Superman believes he's doing the right thing to corral the "Image heroes"
to stop waging war and putting innocents in harms way. Superman believes
he has to force the others to conform to his vision of what it means to be
a real hero. That is in the business of saving lives and stopping evil
because it's the right thing to do. Superman is what, the "father of all
heroes" and he sees all the other heroes as "spoiled brats" and so he
builds a prison to teach them to behave or else.
Batman has more complex reasons for thinking that his way is right. He
was born as Batman by his parent's murder, so his sense of justice is far
different than Superman's. Batman's methods may be hardlined, but they
get the job done. Case in point, and he indicated this in KC2, that while
his methods may scare even ordinary citizens, the public knows that
without the Batman to protect them, chaos and criminals would rule the
streets of Gotham. When Superman left Metropolis, that's exactly what
happened. Still, Batman is criticized because it seems that the public
has no say in the way he operates. Hence the "police state". I don't
know if that's true, but I think Bruce is still obsessed with the idea
that only he truely has the power to save people's lives because no one
else can or would. If the police are ineffectual in saving people from
getting killed, then Batman's way has to be the only way.
So in a sense, both Superman and Batman are dangerously close to the
facistic ideas people think they are moving toward. But, I think the
confusion lies in the idea that both of them are equally obsessed with
saving lives and doing the right thing. The problem lies with the
possibility that they are blind to the fatal consequences of their actions
no matter how much good they can do.
So who is right and who is wrong. Well, Batman's understands far more
about the state of the world than Superman. He understands the dynamics
of the superhero situation and he is trying to create a solution that
doesn't do further irrepable harm to the people of Earth. But I don't
like the idea that Batman spurned Superman's help and he could have told
him what was going on about the MLF. But Superman was determined with
WW's advice to build a new prison to house the "criminals" and that was
probably the biggest mistake ever made. Superman, started the spark, WW
fanned the flames, Batman thinks he can douse the fire, but will his
solution work or make it worse? Only the time will tell......
Howler......
Abhay Khosla
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Kevin&Peggy wrote:
> ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
> >In article <4puv7n$4...@news.inforamp.net>,
> >Kevin&Peggy <pe...@inforamp.net> wrote:
> >>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
> >>I understand what you're saying, but it really doesn't "deflate" the
> >>counterargument you note. The story so far is about Superman, WW, and
> >>Batman - everyone else is delegated background. The characterization
They really should have lost Norm Mckay...
> >I'm afraid it does, because it means that all the other wonderful details
> >thrown in by the art -- the plethora of costumed characters that get much
> >more panel time than Batman and Wonder Woman and possibly more than
> >Superman -- are superfluous. And if over half the story is just eye candy,
> >then that's a problem.
> >Ross has done a wonderful job of packing the art with meaning and nuance
> >and history. The writing should at least match it.
> Having a more detailed Robin and showing his relationship with Batman
> could easily give us some interesting Robin/Batman scenes. Who knows,
> maybe such scenes will pop up in the next two issues. If they don't,
> it's not because Waid's writing isn't up to Ross' artwork in detail
> and meaning and nuance. It just means that this story isn't about
> Batman's relationship with Robin. And I think it's pretty unfair to
> say that the writing of KC isn't filled with nuances.
This suffers from maxiseriesitis. Anyone notice they don't do 12 issue
limited series anymore? All the limited series now are 4 issues. And
you can't do SHIT in 4 issues.
Frank Miller did Batman. Granted. But thats one character.
Kurt Busiek did Marvels. Granted. But wasn't that Phil's story MORE
than anything else?
Zero Hour. Marvel vs. DC. Kingdom Come. Too much that needs saying,
too large a cast and too great a consequence shoved and pushed into 4
issues such that its simply ends up not having the weight it needs, the
details it needs. Kingdom Come has the ILLUSION of those details
entirely due to Alex Ross. But being told "What Alex is drawing makes
sense" and knowing whats going on myself in the complex entirety are
worlds apart.
Now Alex Ross couldn't do 12 issues in reasoneable time. And for what
they're doing, they're pushing those 4 issues to the LIMIT. But its not
going to be very fufilling in the detail department. The trick now is
watching Waid and seeing if he can get just that right balance of
chharacterizing the characters so we give a damn but still giving us the
details and the plot too... He'll do fine, but we'll end up with is 4
issues worth of things people speculate about constantly, it'll get dull...
Lets just hope Kal, DIana and Bruce have enough weight to make it worth it...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Marc Singer
In article <4q2hla$p...@panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: I'm afraid it does, because it means that all the other wonderful details
>: thrown in by the art -- the plethora of costumed characters that get much
>: more panel time than Batman and Wonder Woman and possibly more than
>: Superman -- are superfluous. And if over half the story is just eye candy,
>: then that's a problem.
>
I didn't phrase that very well. I consider over half of the storytelling
that has been done, *way* over half, to be done through the art, and most
of the art is unfortunately just eye candy because there's no discernable
writing being done on all those empty costumes. (Perhaps the most well-
written character is, in this sense, the Gentleman Ghost.)
That's funny, I consider
>the analyses many people have been doing re: the politics and ethics and
>other Major Questions raised by the focus on certain characters to be
>*well* over half the story, and the cameos an amusing bonus.
Those are certainly more interesting matters, but unfortunately they
comprise only a tiny part of the actual work that's being done. Most
of the storytelling energy seems to reside in the art and the plethora
of sadly underdeveloped characters.
And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
"Who's who?" in the annotations?
>: Besides, the lack of certain details does hurt the portrayal of the three
>: main characters. Robin has been mentioned prominently, but has gotten no
>: characterization or even dialogue -- a real shame, since a better-developed
>: Robin would help us understand Batman better...
>
>Waid and Ross *can't* concentrate on EVERYone. We concentrated mostly on
>McCay last issue, and on the Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman troika this
>time. I dare say the "ciphers" will get more "screen time" as their
>characterization warrants-- and I also maintain that dialogue isn't the
>only way a character is advanced, especially with as talented an artist
>as Ross.
That's true, but Ross has pushed the art as far as it can go, expending
100% of his capability to tell the story. Waid hasn't done the same with
the writing. And back to the start of your paragraph, Waid obviously can't
concentrate on everyone, but in two issues and 96 pages he should focus on
more than three or four characters. (I think Magog has had some great
development, but McCay is still a cipher, an excuse to use forced Biblical
allusions and little more. He's the theological equivalent of Doctor Who's
companions. "But who is this strange unfamiliar name 'Hawkman'?" He's the
bird-man, you moron, you saw him LAST ISSUE! But I digress...)
>: The same could be said for Donna Troy and Wonder Woman, or XTC and
>: Power Girl and Superman.
>
>I think Wonder Girl has received some interesting characterization
>without her having to say a word, simply through some of her actions.
Like what? She's apparently delighted to see Diana, embarrassed to interrupt
her, and afraid when Superman gets blasted. Not too revealing.
>I agree re: XTC and Power Girl, who have mostly been seen in battle
>stances, but I'm pleased with what I see so far of Aria and Nightfire,
>and hope they get a little more time as well in #s 3 and 4.
Who's Aria? Is that Barda's and Scott's kid? This points directly at
one of the problems with the series -- who *are* these costumes? And by
the way, it's supposedly "Nightstar," although of course nothing in the
comic confirms that name over yours.
Something is wrong when I can learn more about the comic from racdu than
from the comic itself.
>We don't know yet which "minor" characters will wind up mattering; there
>are two more issues to go.
The important thing, I think, is that by now *some* of them should have
mattered.
>: Ross has done a wonderful job of packing the art with meaning and nuance
>: and history. The writing should at least match it.
>
>I think it does, easily.
I wish I could agree.
Marc
Marc Singer
In article <4q6bdq$b...@dopey.magg.net>,
Andrew A. Apold <mor...@magg.net> wrote:
>Andrew looked up from his commemorative LSH/LSV chess set when he heard someone using Marc Singer's account
>say:
>
>>it's shown almost none of the little details and the fleshed out backstory
>>matter to the story" -- they would if it were a good story. Every little
>>detail would. Every character and background would be as crisply delineated
>>and as well-characterized as the Superman/Magog scene. Instead, we just
>>have a bunch of costumed ciphers, and it's hard to care about them.
>
>The whole point is that they are completely dehumanized, removed, and detatched.
>You aren't supposed to care for them. Maybe Kal and Diana, that's it. And they
>are taking on the aspects of the tragic hero pretty quick.
An important distinction -- there is caring for characters because I like
them, which I certainly don't have to do for all the characters in KC, and
there is caring about characters because they are interesting and engaging.
It's okay if the first is absent, but it's a big problem if the second is.
And so far, most of the characters have been thoroughly uninteresting --
because there's nothing there.
To Alex Ross's tremendous credit, the art generates a lot of initial
interest in "who is this person/how have they changed from the regular
continuity/hey, is that Garth?" and so forth. But that can only run so
long if the writing doesn't pick up where the art leaves off. Waid simply
needs to be doing more work, the way Ross is. It wouldn't be hard --
mention a few names in the dialogue, make a few captions less pretentious
and more informative -- but it's not getting done.
I might even buy that the "new generation" of heroes are supposed to be
faceless and uninteresting -- although that would and does still make for
a much less interesting reading than a bunch of individuals with identity
and motivation -- but the Justice League is explicitly reacting against
that. And it isn't like they're inventing whole new characters, either,
since most of them draw on existing heroes.
>I would have loved to see the scenes where he gets GL, Flash, Hawkman, etc. to
>return and join him, but at many times less is more.
I have to disagree with that particular example, though. Partially because
I also would have liked to see him "putting the band back together," but
mostly because KC instead took a very space-wasting, low-yield approach
to introducing GL, Flash, and Hawkman. Each of these characters got one
gorgeous page that introduced them for no reason, and yet we know next to
nothing about them. And they're the *most* developed, unfortunately.
Marc
Abhay Khosla
On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, Christopher Shea wrote:
Someone claiming to be me said:(No it was me but ... nevermind...)
> >Eh. Very he on that scene. Why not have Somebody, Anybody say that
> >these new heroes aren't so bad, at least try to make that argument? I
> >thought Magog would be nice for that- instead he was just hammering in
> >the point for the millionth time...
> I thought that _was_ the point of the scene -- that Magog, even though he
> was one of the New Breed, was still capable of feeling remorse for his
> mistakes, that he wasn't unredeemable. If he'd said, "So we killed a
> million people. Well, we got the Parasite anyway, and you have to expect
> some collateral damage. Now buzz off, you bunch of dried-up senior
> citizens" _that'd_ be heavy-handed.
I want Jack Nicholoson to be in Kingdom Come. Yknow like in a Few Good
Men. You know you hate the guy he's the villain for the whole movie but
he gets up there at the end and he blows you away and he makes sure you
know why he exists and why he thinks he HAS to exist.
Instead, none of these heroes think they HAVE to exist. Well dammit,
thats not enough for me. This is making some sort of point about comics,
this miniseries? All that scene said to me was "There is no defense from
yer Maximum Presses except remorse when confronted with their evil." And
I think if you were to go to Rob Liefeld today, he'd say "I'm not doing
anything wrong. I'm following my heart and my vision. It differs from
yours."
That or "Joy Beth Creel will you marry me?" Or how about "We're taking
you down hard AND fast!!!" Well actually Eric Stephenson would say it
for Rob...something, dammit...
I can't separate the message from the scene(because the message is being
bombed on us like Agent Orange) and its ruined the scene for me
personally. Everyone else loved it though. Who cares? Curt Swan is
dead, it doesn't matter...Rest in peace Mr. Swan, we loved ya...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Marc Singer
In article <4q6lun$4...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
>>I'm afraid it does, because it means that all the other wonderful details
>>thrown in by the art -- the plethora of costumed characters that get much
>>more panel time than Batman and Wonder Woman and possibly more than
>>Superman -- are superfluous. And if over half the story is just eye candy,
>>then that's a problem.
>
>and probably Captain Marvel, you would prefer the usual blah backgrounds,
>faceless crowd scenes, etc. that one finds in a normal comic book?
Don't take this too personally, but that's a tremendously stupid question.
Where did I even imply I would prefer "the usual blah backgrounds" et al?
I don't want Ross to tone down his art, I want Waid to crank up his writing.
I think he's mostly been coasting through these first two issues.
> Wade
>couldn't delve into all the characters Ross is painting in a 12-issue
>maxi series.
No, but Waid *could* delve into all the characters he's delved into so
far in a 8-page ashcan. I'd like to see him show a little more than
that. It's not too much to ask, especially when we've seen other creators
give plenty of development to wide ranges of characters in stories like
these. Even *names* for half of them would be something, and would take
virtually no effort.
> Does that mean Ross shouldn't paint them?
Please, I would love to know where I said Ross should stop painting. I
mean, I do secretly wish Don Heck were drawing Kingdom Come, but I thought
I'd cleverly concealed that.
If Waid & Ross
>had 12 issues to delve into Robin and some of the other characters you
>want to see more of, then there would be 12 issues more of rich detailed
>backgrounds with faces of people that you couldn't deal with in 12
>issues, and you would be complaining because the story didn't give any
>time to *those* people.
Since you can't even understand what I wrote in this universe, I doubt
you'd know what I'd think in some alternate one. A series that did enough
writing for enough characters would be great, no matter how many extras
were in the background. A series that doesn't provide enough writing and
background will have a flaw, no matter how fantastic the art is and how
much of the slack it manages to carry.
Marc
Matt Linton
In article <cshea-17069...@cshea.dialup.access.net> cs...@panix.com (Christopher Shea) writes:
>Path: tir.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!cshea.dialup.access.net!user
>From: cs...@panix.com (Christopher Shea)
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.dc.universe
>Subject: Re: KC: Dissenting Opinion
>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 20:34:18 -0500
>Organization: Willy Wonka's Candy-Coated Ideas, Inc.
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: <cshea-17069...@cshea.dialup.access.net>
>References: <ZtOPEUE...@delphi.com> <Pine.SOL.3.91.960614...@tron.rs.itd.umich.edu> <cshea-14069...@cshea.dialup.access.net> <noir.142...@tir.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cshea.dialup.access.net
>In article <noir.142...@tir.com>, no...@tir.com (Matt Linton) wrote:
>>In article <cshea-14069...@cshea.dialup.access.net>
>cs...@panix.com (Christopher Shea) writes:
>>>>>Wasn't Aquaman well conceived? Very surprising. Characterization on
>>>>the whole has been sparse- Superman's been top notch, Bats has been
>>>>Bruce, I'm uncertain on Wonder Woman and thats it. The new heroes aren't
>>>>really a factor in the story. Mckay isn't really around. The Justice
>>>>League hasn't said a word. And the MLF isn't completely fleshed out
>>>>yet... I guess its just to focus on where the action is, on Supes and Bats...
>>>>
><snip>
>Um, Matt -- I didn't write that. Not that I don't agree with it, but I
>just thought I'd point out the misattribution.
>--
>Christopher Shea cs...@panix.com, 74007...@compuserve.com
>That's Christopher, _not_ Chris. Thenk yew.
Sorry. My news server will only let me post if I have more original text than
what I'm replying to, which forces me to do some creative snipping.
Occasionally I get a little sloppy, and for that I apologize. Feel free to
mis-quote me back.
And just to fill up space, and out of curiousity, what did you say, Chris?
And whoever did write that, who are you??
I'm just going to babble now because it won't post it yet. Hmm...might as well
try and start a thread. What does everyone think of an in-continuity JSA
series set in the 50's, by James Robinson and Paul Smith. The Golden Age was
great, and I don't really understand why it had to be an Elseworlds. Also,
how about a new JSA series with the new versions of old JSAer's. You could
have Black Canary as the leader, and Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Starman,
and Jesse Quick as members. What do you think?
Matt, still getting the hang of this com...poo..ter? stuff.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: That's funny, I consider
: >the analyses many people have been doing re: the politics and ethics and
: >other Major Questions raised by the focus on certain characters to be
: >*well* over half the story, and the cameos an amusing bonus.
: Those are certainly more interesting matters, but unfortunately they
: comprise only a tiny part of the actual work that's being done. Most
: of the storytelling energy seems to reside in the art and the plethora
: of sadly underdeveloped characters.
: And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
: attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
: "Who's who?" in the annotations?
But that's *Usenet*, Marc. More people are ALWAYS going to opt to search
for the minutiae than argue over ethics and politics. Just because more
people *here* are playing Where's Waldo than When is a Villain Not a
Villain, doesn't mean Ross and Waid are doing a Where's Waldo book.
: Ross has pushed the art as far as it can go, expending
: 100% of his capability to tell the story. Waid hasn't done the same with
: the writing.
Well, I disagree, but I'm probably biased. <g>
: And back to the start of your paragraph, Waid obviously can't
: concentrate on everyone, but in two issues and 96 pages he should focus on
: more than three or four characters. (I think Magog has had some great
: development, but McCay is still a cipher, an excuse to use forced Biblical
: allusions and little more. He's the theological equivalent of Doctor Who's
: companions. "But who is this strange unfamiliar name 'Hawkman'?" He's the
: bird-man, you moron, you saw him LAST ISSUE! But I digress...)
Okay, I see your point. But I don't have a problem with focusing only on
a few characters.
: >I agree re: XTC and Power Girl, who have mostly been seen in battle
: >stances, but I'm pleased with what I see so far of Aria and Nightfire,
: >and hope they get a little more time as well in #s 3 and 4.
: Who's Aria? Is that Barda's and Scott's kid? This points directly at
: one of the problems with the series -- who *are* these costumes? And by
: the way, it's supposedly "Nightstar," although of course nothing in the
: comic confirms that name over yours.
Yes, Aria is Barda's and Scott's kid, and I think the costume makes that
obvious. My bad about the Nightstar name.
: Something is wrong when I can learn more about the comic from racdu than
: from the comic itself.
But the names aren't the point.
: >We don't know yet which "minor" characters will wind up mattering; there
: >are two more issues to go.
: The important thing, I think, is that by now *some* of them should have
: mattered.
I guess we're just looking for different things from this series. I'm
not that interested in playing Spot the Cameo, but I think a very solid
story is being told so far, and I'm intrigued.
jnevins
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>: And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
>: attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
>: "Who's who?" in the annotations?
As the compiler/collator of the annos, I think I should speak up now.
I'm concentrating on the Who's Who end of things because the story's not
over yet, so I don't see anything particularly fruitful coming out of a
detailed analysis of the ethics and politics of the series.
More importantly, I've found the signal-to-noise ratio of discourse here
to be...well...poor, to put it kindly. Too many unwarranted personal
attacks, too much unfounded vitriol, too many Young Curmudgeons venting
their spleen, and too little rational discussion.
IMHO, of course.
jess
Bryant Durrell
In article <4q8m9q$l...@panix.com>,>: And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
>: attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
>: "Who's who?" in the annotations?
>
>for the minutiae than argue over ethics and politics. Just because more
>people *here* are playing Where's Waldo than When is a Villain Not a
>Villain, doesn't mean Ross and Waid are doing a Where's Waldo book.
But sometimes the minutiae have more to do with the story... look at
discussion of Invisibles, frex. Lots of nice little art details and
story details -- that matter. I don't think it's going to turn out
to be relevant that Deadman can see our narrators.
--
Bryant Durrell http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
dur...@innocence.com http://www.innocence.com/fengshui
dur...@bofh.net http://www.innocence.com/shadowfist
big black nemesis parthenogenesis no one move a muscle as the dead come home
Jonathan Woodward
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
> And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
> attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
> "Who's who?" in the annotations?
-There's been a fair amount of both... but this group's talents
lie in the latter field. We're _all_ comics fans, but few of us are
professional philosophers. We will inevitably discuss those things we
know more about.
-The problem here is that, with the story and plot of KC being
what they are, Waid & Ross had a choice between giving us supporting
characters with no dialogue who were _complete_ ciphers (e.g., "guy in
red costume with blue gloves who bears no connection to any previous DC
character") and supporting characters with no dialogue who _do_ have a
connection to previous DC characters (e.g., "guy in Dr. Mid-Nite's cape
and cowl who appears to be made out of black fog"). The latter are more
interesting and also have power as icons. It could be argued that the
story "ought" to give us more data on these figures, but _that's not what
the story is about_. Doing so would be a divergence from the point.
-JW
Jonathan Woodward wood...@ftp.com or @io.com http://www.io.com/~woodward/
A! JW22 WAR++ PI++ BR+++i^ SL+++!^ SK++ RI+++! RU+i GDF->+ BU+i MI~ SNi HN+!
CB-->+ MM+^/+++! DC++i^ JW++++i P+++ Dpfwo[ds] Tow* $+++dvc Vj+r+ TBrain M
GCS/O a- C+++$ W++>+++$ N++ w++ t++ 5+ R+>+++$ b+++ DI++++ G++>++++ T+++$ y+
"I'm tempted to start a newsgroup alt.tv.animaniacs.JW.die.die.die!" -TM
Joe Gorde
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Those are certainly more interesting matters, but unfortunately they
: comprise only a tiny part of the actual work that's being done. Most
: of the storytelling energy seems to reside in the art and the plethora
: of sadly underdeveloped characters.
I have to agree with Marc -- the ethical & political issues at work
here aren't being explored to any great depth. Granted, there are two
issues left, but the book hasn't been very complex philosophically so far.
The plot is equally simplistic, and at times the book reads more
like a story proposal than a fully fleshed-out piece of work. I think
the 'time passes' scenes particularly hurt the book in this regard.
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >Waid and Ross *can't* concentrate on EVERYone. We concentrated mostly on
: >McCay last issue, and on the Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman troika this
: >time.
No, they can't concentrate on everyone, but even the major players aren't
developed _that_ well, Batman in particular, and, as Marc said, McKay
seems to be little more than a device to justify all the biblical imagery.
Hawkman, GL, Flash, and the rest of the "Justice League" don't have any
of the interaction I associate with superhero teams -- they might as well
be Batbots for all the personality they have.
Robert Faires
> I completely disagree with this "apples and oranges" line; people are only
> claiming it because Watchmen so completely blows KC (and most other comics)
> in the dust that it seems like two different things. But Kingdom Come is
> attempting many of the same things Watchmen and Dark Knight returns were --
> building a new or mostly-new setting, exploring it through its characters
> and its backstory, slowly unravelling it through the plot -- and if KC
> doesn't measure up, perhaps it isn't due to a difference in genus.
>
> All that is a little irrelevant, though, because even if they truly *are*
> apples and oranges, KC still has sparse and insufficient characterization
> and detail on its *own* merits. The series would really benefit from more
> development of more characters, and unfortunately, it hasn't bothered to
> try so far.
Marc, I've been following your comments in this thread with a lot of
interest and not a little sympathy - I've found some of your arguments
regarding the series to be rather persuasive - but, with all due respect,
I find this last comment of yours somewhat disturbing. Maybe I'm reading
too much into it - and I trust you'll tell me if I am - but in contending
that the series "hasn't bothered to try" to develop the characters here
more fully, it sounds to me like youąre being dismissive of Mark Waid's
contributions, and though it isn't spoken I glean from it an implication
that "he hasn't worked hard enough" or "he didn't even make an effort" in
regard to characterization. Talk about what doesn't work for you, pick
apart the story, but let's give the creators the benefit of the doubt when
it comes to their efforts. Even when you cast the phrase in terms of the
series and not the creators, the remarks reflect on the people involved.
If I misconstrued your meaning, I withdraw my comments and apologize.
That said, I want both to agree and disagree with a few of your
observations. I'm with you in regard to length; four issues ought not be a
determining factor in the depth of a piece. Setting aside those oft
referred-to warhorses DARK KNIGHT and WATCHMEN for a different Usenet
favorite, I think you can find some surprising depth in the farewell tale
of the pre-Crisis Superman, "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?"
Two standard-size issues, but Alan Moore crammed a - pardon the pun -
legion of characters into them and managed some rich and telling
characterizations of longtime figures in the bargain.
Now, *that* said, I'll add that our mileage varies a bit on the
characterization that is being provided in KINGDOM COME. I'll go along
with you when you say that there could be more and that more would enhance
the series. I think you make a valid point in stating that the development
of certain characters who have been silent and in the background to this
point - Dick Grayson being the most obvious one, but also Wonder Girl, and
I'm very curious about Power Girl and what her relationship to Superman is
in this world - would provide greater understanding of the story's major
figures. But I also feel we've gotten a lot of choice characterization so
far: Wesley Dodds, who was so committed to his visions that he climbed
literally from his deathbed to address them; the Flash, whoever he is,
whose life has become an endless race to serve others; the daughter of
Barda and Scott Free, who reacted to Superman's presence with almost
religious awe; Ollie Queen, who expressed an old diehard liberal's
skepticism for authority with tangy sarcasm; Vandal Savage, who displayed
a too-world-weary-for-words disdain for human life; Luthor, who revealed
the depth of his hatred of Superman in an obsessive outburst; Arthur, who
expresses once and for all his distance from the surface world and his
former colleagues; the Spectre, ever the avenger who could not resist
bristling at Savage's callous murder; even Norman McKay, who - at least in
issue 1 - expressed a deeply troubled soul regarding the responsibilities
of humanity.
Okay, maybe all those characterizations didn't work for you, but they did
for me and all had their roots in Waid's text, the words as opposed to the
pictures. I don't feel the burden of telling the story should be evenly
divided between the words and the pictures - which is what I get from a
lot of your comments - but I do see the words doing a lot here to enhance
characterization. Waid *is* telling us things about many of these figures,
not only in what they say but how they say them: Batman's insistent use of
"Clark" to needle Superman, Luthor's pointed use of "boy" in referring to
Captain Marvel, Arthur's consistently diplomatic way of speaking, firm but
respectful.
And more than that, I see the words delivering the punctuation to the
drama. I guess the thing I admire most about Waid as a writer is the way
he can deliver a punchline. He'll set up a moment with dramatic momentum
and hit it home with just a handful of words: The UN press conference,
then Superman's "We'll make things right again"; the Batcave conversation,
with Batman's "Perhaps we should ask Magog"; the club scene, with
Superman's "Party's over"; the Superman-Magog confrontation, with
Superman's "We are at war." There are others, but you get the idea: terse
comments that zing home the impact of the scene, and most of the time,
Waid pulls such scenes off at the bottom of a page, where they receive the
full benefit of sequential storytelling's momentum. Anyway, maybe you
weren't criticizing Waid's work to the degree that I thought you were, but
whether you were or not, I feel it bears saying that the words are
contributing mightily to my enjoyment of the series, and I feel they
reveal much of the craft Mark Waid invests in his work.
And thanks for the thought you've invested in discussing the work, too.
Robert Faires
Austin, Texas
DrotharRex
I'm hesitant right now to commit to one group or the other, mainly because
of one niggling little detail.
The @#$%! series isn't over yet.
I realize that this is intended as a speculative thread, but I still can't
commit. For one thing, while it's obvious Bats is using Luthor, it's not
yet obvious how. We don't know his intentions or his motivation in all
this.
We also don't know how far Superman's going to go. If he jails anyone who
doesn't side with him, that very different than if he just jails the
uncontrolable ones who are a genuine threat to the populace.
So I've got a wait and see attitude. Ask me again in seven (or is it
eight?) weeks.
Drothar the Omniscient, King of the Wombat People
---------------------------------------------
This sig intentionally left blank.|
---------------------------------------------
Marc Singer
In article <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>,>>: And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
>>: attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
>>: "Who's who?" in the annotations?
>
>
>I'm concentrating on the Who's Who end of things because the story's not
>over yet, so I don't see anything particularly fruitful coming out of a
>detailed analysis of the ethics and politics of the series.
I'd just like to say that I don't hold your annotations, or any of the
people who have contributed to them, in any less regard than all the
discussions of the supposedly weighty matters. In fact, I'm enjoying the
annotations quite a bit. I hold *Waid* in less regard for writing a
story in which the most important story element is the annotation aspect
(and for making online annotations very *necessary* to get the whole story),
but that's another matter entirely. Annotating comics is wholly worthwhile
for a fan, but writing a comic that's little more than a source of
annotations isn't so worthwhile for a writer.
On an unrelated note, there's no reason people can't discuss the ethics,
politics, whatever present in the issues that have already been completed.
The issues are works unto themselves, and *should* be discussable before
the whole story is finished. I'm glad people here are discussing them.
>More importantly, I've found the signal-to-noise ratio of discourse here
>to be...well...poor, to put it kindly. Too many unwarranted personal
>attacks, too much unfounded vitriol, too many Young Curmudgeons venting
>their spleen, and too little rational discussion.
Yes, I've found nothing gets the spleen going more than when a few people
dare to voice displeasure with a work that a) the majority of posters like,
or b) is written by a resident favorite, or c) both of the above. Although
I don't think those criticism-flayers, who truly put the "fan" back in
"fanatic," were who you were referring to, I think that's where most of
the noise comes from.
Marc
John B 821
In article <4q6f3o$j...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>, da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew
Daly) writes:
<space, just in case.>
>Selina would be a part of Bruce's cadre, sent to further pad out
>the MLF in case Ibn wasn't completely loyal.
>
Can we speculate on the parentage of the "kitten with a whip" seen
wall-crawling in the bar and on the cover of KC1 cuddling the Spectre?
Maybe Xu'Ffasch isn't Bruce's only offspring. Her costume looks as
Burtonesque as Robin's.
-
"If I wanted to hear from a nostril, I would have sneezed."
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Bryant Durrell (dur...@best.com) wrote:
: In article <4q8m9q$l...@panix.com>,: >: And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
: >: attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
: >: "Who's who?" in the annotations?
: >
: >people *here* are playing Where's Waldo than When is a Villain Not a
: >Villain, doesn't mean Ross and Waid are doing a Where's Waldo book.
: But sometimes the minutiae have more to do with the story...
Yes, but I don't think that's the case here. I think the minutiae (i.e.,
all the cameos) in KINGDOM COME are window dressing-- as I say, a bonus.
NOT the point of the story.
Paul O'Brien
joeg...@stimpy.us.itd.umich.edu (Joe Gorde) writes:
>I have to agree with Marc -- the ethical & political issues at work
>here aren't being explored to any great depth. Granted, there are two
>issues left, but the book hasn't been very complex philosophically so far.
I'm suspending judgement until the series concludes. It's a
perfectly decent story, solidly told, with marvellous art, but
I'm not enjoying it as much as Marvels and it's certainly not
up there with Watchmen. It's good, but it's not Shakespeare.
Paul O'Brien
pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk, 1995 SLT (News) 228
Young uniformed lives in uniform lines with uniform ties.
jnevins
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>In article <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>,
>jnevins <jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> wrote:
>>>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>>
>>>: And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
>>>: attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
>>>: "Who's who?" in the annotations?
>>
>>As the compiler/collator of the annos, I think I should speak up now.
>>
>>I'm concentrating on the Who's Who end of things because the story's not
>>over yet, so I don't see anything particularly fruitful coming out of a
>>detailed analysis of the ethics and politics of the series.
>I'd just like to say that I don't hold your annotations, or any of the
>people who have contributed to them, in any less regard than all the
>discussions of the supposedly weighty matters. In fact, I'm enjoying the
>annotations quite a bit. I hold *Waid* in less regard for writing a
>story in which the most important story element is the annotation aspect
>(and for making online annotations very *necessary* to get the whole story),
>but that's another matter entirely. Annotating comics is wholly worthwhile
>for a fan, but writing a comic that's little more than a source of
>annotations isn't so worthwhile for a writer.
well, i'd disagree that the annotation is the most important story
element. I've read your posts about this - we simply have a difference
of opinion. No amount of responses from me is going to change your
mind. And vice-versa.
>On an unrelated note, there's no reason people can't discuss the ethics,
>politics, whatever present in the issues that have already been completed.
>The issues are works unto themselves, and *should* be discussable before
>the whole story is finished. I'm glad people here are discussing them.
>>More importantly, I've found the signal-to-noise ratio of discourse here
>>to be...well...poor, to put it kindly. Too many unwarranted personal
>>attacks, too much unfounded vitriol, too many Young Curmudgeons venting
>>their spleen, and too little rational discussion.
>Yes, I've found nothing gets the spleen going more than when a few people
>dare to voice displeasure with a work that a) the majority of posters like,
>or b) is written by a resident favorite, or c) both of the above. Although
>I don't think those criticism-flayers, who truly put the "fan" back in
>"fanatic," were who you were referring to, I think that's where most of
>the noise comes from.
My problem isn't with voicing displeasure; it's with the personal
invective that shows up all too often here. Moreover, the tone of too
many of the negative reviews is, in my eyes, too contemptuous of the
writers themselves.
Put another way, it's one thing to say that "I didn't enjoy X because I
felt that the characterization was weak." It's quite another to say that
"X is a bad writer" based solely on one book.
jess
Michael Straight
In article <4qaau2$b...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>,
Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>I'd just like to say that I don't hold your annotations, or any of the
>people who have contributed to them, in any less regard than all the
>discussions of the supposedly weighty matters. In fact, I'm enjoying the
>annotations quite a bit. I hold *Waid* in less regard for writing a
>story in which the most important story element is the annotation aspect
>(and for making online annotations very *necessary* to get the whole story),
>but that's another matter entirely. Annotating comics is wholly worthwhile
>for a fan, but writing a comic that's little more than a source of
>annotations isn't so worthwhile for a writer.
I accidentally deleted your response to my post in another thread, so
I'll answer this one. I really think your problem is not with Waid's
story so much as Ross's art.
Pretend that you took Waid's story and had some regular artist do it with
pencil and ink. It would still be one of the best Elseworlds stories I've
read out of DC ("Golden Age" would be recent example of a better story).
Certainly better than any of the Elseworld annuals I've read.
Your criticism really seems to me that Ross is painting a lot of
characters that Waid isn't writing dialogue for (or putting identifying
captions under). Any "normal" comic that explored this much
characterization in Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman (to a lesser extent),
Captain Marvel (probably coming up), and McCay (who mostly observes in #2
but who I feel we got to know in #1) would be considered excellent (not to
mention lesser parts by Aquaman and Magog which were hardly cardboard).
It just pales because there are so many other faces in the picture that
aren't getting the same focus.
Waid has said that he's deliberately cut alot of dialogue because he felt
Ross's painting could carry more of the storytelling. Take the scene
where Wonder Girl, Guardian, and Cyborg are welcomed to the League - would
it really have been better if they'd chatted for a few panels about where
they'd been and how each of them feel about the situation?
I've read and enjoyed both issues without looking at the annotations
(which are *fun* but not necesssary to understand the story). I don't
need to know the names of the JLA to follow the story, I'm curious, but
any richly-detailed world is going to make me curious about the backstory
behind the details.
I won't say the Waid's story is above criticism. I think a scene showing
exactly what happens when the JLA encounters a group of metas, what do
they say to each other, what do the metas who refuse to join say, etc,
would be helpful. Does the JLA pick fights or only subdue metas who are
already fighting (e.g. Cathedral v.s. WHIZ, Americommando v.s. Red, White,
& Blue). Scenes of Superman recruiting GL, Flash, etc. would have been
natural places for characterization, but were probably omited to accent
the impact of the JL's return at the beginning of KC#2. I also agree that
some of the detail could be used to greater effect in the plot rather than
being just for fun (as somebody said, it probably won't matter that
Deadman can see McCay); of course we don't know until #4 which details
were or weren't significant.
But I still think this is one of the better Elseworld-type stories I've
read even without Ross's art, and with Ross's art it's a comic I'm really
excited about. "The Last Avengers Story," for comparison, had more
"characterization," but a pretty thin plot and too many pages were taken
up with "look what (usually tragic thing) happened to so-and-so."
Kingdom Come is able to give us a more complex plot by not getting bogged
down by telling us what everyone in the DCU has been doing for the last
10 years. "Magog and his ilk" may be something of straw men, but the
moral conflict among Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman is much less
black and white.
Superman-Batman conflicts have been done before, but the Superman-Wonder
Woman interaction is fresh and interesting. The jury's still out on what
the Spectre/McCay thing is leading up to, and it looks like we may see
some interesting characterization for Captian Marvel. It's not Watchmen,
it might not even be as good as The Golden Age (we'll see how it turns
out), but so far it's the best comic story I've read this year, and the
art is the best I've seen from Ross.
I guess this makes Michael Straight one of the mindless Waid drones.
Marc Singer
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960618...@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Abhay Khosla <akh...@umich.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Kevin&Peggy wrote:
>
>> Having a more detailed Robin and showing his relationship with Batman
>> could easily give us some interesting Robin/Batman scenes. Who knows,
>> maybe such scenes will pop up in the next two issues. If they don't,
>> it's not because Waid's writing isn't up to Ross' artwork in detail
>> and meaning and nuance. It just means that this story isn't about
>> Batman's relationship with Robin. And I think it's pretty unfair to
>> say that the writing of KC isn't filled with nuances.
Hmm, that's a good point, but I'd like to say a brief word about what is
easily the most popular argument in defense of KC's writing, "the story
isn't about that." Name anything KC fails to deliver, and "the story isn't
about that."
I'm afraid that sometimes, the story *should* be about that. Especially
when "that" does not refer to specific plot points and characters, but to
a need for *any* plot points and characters beyond the narrow range of ones
it has. I think a decent story really should have a decent amount of
development beyond the small number of principals. Especially when the
story claims such a grand, earth-shattering status for itself. There could
at least be an earth for it to shatter...
Also, I'm afraid the writing has been more or less devoid of detail, nuance,
and development. Some scenes are happy exceptions, like the Magog
confrontation or the revelation of what happened in Kansas. But most of
the time, any time you drift beyond the Big Three heroes or the simple
"old good, young bad" message, there's just nothing there. The bar scene
stands out in my mind as a scene that was really fun to people-spot the
first time around, and really dull every other time. Because after you've
read the crowd, there's little else. Justice League scenes are even more
frustrating, because there I *really* want to know more about these heroes,
but this select group of characters is also relegated to cipher status.
>Zero Hour. Marvel vs. DC. Kingdom Come. Too much that needs saying,
>too large a cast and too great a consequence shoved and pushed into 4
>issues such that its simply ends up not having the weight it needs, the
>details it needs. Kingdom Come has the ILLUSION of those details
>entirely due to Alex Ross. But being told "What Alex is drawing makes
>sense" and knowing whats going on myself in the complex entirety are
>worlds apart.
Very good points. I wouldn't actually say that Alex Ross is *just* creating
an illusion of detail, because he's doing a fantastic job -- doing everything
he can, I'd say. But at some point the writing needs to come in and pick
up where the art can't go any further.
Marc
Marc Singer
In article <4q8m9q$l...@panix.com>,>: And the discussion here actually reflects this. What's getting more
>: attention, the debates over ethics and politics, or the long analysis of
>: "Who's who?" in the annotations?
>
>for the minutiae than argue over ethics and politics. Just because more
>people *here* are playing Where's Waldo than When is a Villain Not a
>Villain, doesn't mean Ross and Waid are doing a Where's Waldo book.
I think the skewed discussion accurately reflects the fact that most of
the questions raised by the book, and certainly most of the detailed
character work put into the book, are of the "Who's that?" variety.
>Okay, I see your point. But I don't have a problem with focusing only on
>a few characters.
I would even be fine with only *focusing* on a few characters, as long as
it at least *created* more characters. Dark Knight Returns really only
focused on four or five characters, but fleshed out many more. Kingdom
Come has barely even named anybody else.
>: >I agree re: XTC and Power Girl, who have mostly been seen in battle
>: >stances, but I'm pleased with what I see so far of Aria and Nightfire,
>: >and hope they get a little more time as well in #s 3 and 4.
>
>: Who's Aria? Is that Barda's and Scott's kid? This points directly at
>: one of the problems with the series -- who *are* these costumes? And by
>: the way, it's supposedly "Nightstar," although of course nothing in the
>: comic confirms that name over yours.
>
>Yes, Aria is Barda's and Scott's kid, and I think the costume makes that
>obvious.
I agree that the costume makes her parentage obvious; my point is that the
name comes out of nowhere, and isn't given anywhere in the comic.
> My bad about the Nightstar name.
And my point is that it's really not your bad, since we've seen nothing
outside a promo flyer and some net discussion to say that she is Nightstar
and not Nightfire.
>: Something is wrong when I can learn more about the comic from racdu than
>: from the comic itself.
>
>But the names aren't the point.
Well, they are when the point is that the comic should develop its
background a little better. :)
>I guess we're just looking for different things from this series. I'm
>not that interested in playing Spot the Cameo,
Nor am I, Elayne. Unfortunately, Spot the Cameo is virtually all one can
do with it so far, and even there one has to rely on the net for information
and not the comics themselves. I would prefer a comic in which we didn't
have to play Spot the Cameo, because at least a significant portion of the
supporting characters would be better developed.
> but I think a very solid
>story is being told so far, and I'm intrigued.
I am too, but I know I would be intrigued much more if this story and
its few characters didn't exist in isolation and if the other heroes were
more than just costumed wallpaper.
Marc
Marc Singer
What about "X is a bad writer in this one book"? Or more to the point of
this particular issue, "X's writing is bad in this one area of this one
book"? That's not really saying Waid -- oops, I mean X! -- is a bad
writer, period. But it is saying his writing is faltering in some parts.
(For that matter, I think if anyone truly felt a writer was doing poorly
in *only* one book, there would be loads of disclaimers and qualifiers like
"this is uncharacteristically weak" or "I like everything else X does,
*but*...". There has to be a pattern or a history of disappointment to
start generalizing out like that...)
Marc
jnevins
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>In article <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>,
>jnevins <jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> wrote:
>>My problem isn't with voicing displeasure; it's with the personal
>>invective that shows up all too often here. Moreover, the tone of too
>>many of the negative reviews is, in my eyes, too contemptuous of the
>>writers themselves.
>>
>>Put another way, it's one thing to say that "I didn't enjoy X because I
>>felt that the characterization was weak." It's quite another to say that
>>"X is a bad writer" based solely on one book.
>What about "X is a bad writer in this one book"? Or more to the point of
>this particular issue, "X's writing is bad in this one area of this one
>book"? That's not really saying Waid -- oops, I mean X! -- is a bad
>writer, period. But it is saying his writing is faltering in some parts.
I wasn't restricting my comments to Waid - or to you, certainly. But,
taking the example of Waid - I definitely think that saying "X is a bad
writer in this one book" is less useful than "X's writing is bad in this
one area etc."
>(For that matter, I think if anyone truly felt a writer was doing poorly
>in *only* one book, there would be loads of disclaimers and qualifiers like
>"this is uncharacteristically weak" or "I like everything else X does,
>*but*...". There has to be a pattern or a history of disappointment to
>start generalizing out like that...)
The larger point here, which I don't think I've made sufficiently, is
that a lot of the criticism here - and elsewhere, too - is fairly inexact
and much too subjective. All criticism is subjective, of course, but I
find criticism like "Roy Thomas' dialogue defies belief - try and say his
lines out loud and see how awkward it sounds in your mouth" more apt,
because it's based in a relatively sound, albeit subjective, critical
precept (realism), rather than "the sex scenes in STM were tawdry and
added nothing to the plot."
I'm not sure I'd agree with those charges - what some find tawdry, others
might find touching, and your definition of what adds or detracts from a
plot is of course going to differ from someone else's.
To put it another way, too many of the criticisms I've read here - and
perhaps I just haven't read enough of them - are based on critiquing
the artistic choices of the writer/artist, rather than their technical
skill in executing those choices.
Moreover - and more unpleasantly to me - there is a tendency in the
critics here to wax somewhat, shall we say, indignant. Even
self-righteous. I don't find that enjoyable to read, especially since
the targets don't really deserve that level of vitriol. (am I being
self-righteous when I say that? sure, I admit that. But in critiquing an
artist's work, esp. where s/he might read it, I'dmodulate the tone of my
review - not necessarily the sentiment, but the tone)
The _Kindly Ones_ storyline wasn't to your taste, as I recall. You had
some harsh words to say about it. But compared to, say, the Lobdell
X-books, are some of the Image books, the _Kindly Ones_ was the Taj Mahal
of comics.
This doesn't mean that I believe we should take it easy on artists
because they aren't horrible, merely that we shouldn't call artists
horrible if they are -still- light-years beyond their competition.
Okay. That's enough of me. I know yield the floor to my distinguished
colleague from wam.umd.edu....
jess
Joe Gorde
Michael Straight (stra...@email.unc.edu) wrote:
: It would still be one of the best Elseworlds stories I've
: read out of DC ("Golden Age" would be recent example of a better story).
Damning KC with faint praise, I think. Most of the Elseworlds stories (at least,
since they've been using that label) suck, IMO.
: Waid has said that he's deliberately cut alot of dialogue because he felt
: Ross's painting could carry more of the storytelling.
IIRC, Waid cut captions, not dialogue. I could be misremembering, though.
--
joeg...@umich.edu * Listen. Love means nothing at all. Life means nothing at all.
Matt Linton
In article <4q6f3o$j...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM> da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) writes:
.
>Personally, I think that the Riddler is going on like that because
>he's really the Martian Manhunter, uncomfortable with the role.
>Selina would be a part of Bruce's cadre, sent to further pad out
>the MLF in case Ibn wasn't completely loyal.
My second guess about the identity of MM was Riddler (after Luthor), but I
really don't think so. There is also a flaw in your logic. Martian Manhunter
wouldn't be uncomfortable with the role. He's been doing the superhero thing
longer than just about anyone in the DC Universe, and I'm sure by this point
he would be quite comfortable. Don't underestimate J'onn J'onnz.
I do agree that Selina is part of Bruce's little gang. She's not the type to
just join up with these nuts. There's no profit in it.
>Matthew Daly .
Matt, who is still wondering what happened to Tim Drake in KC.
"Did you hear what he called me? He called me a demon! And hellspawn! I
mean, do I even look like a demon? I'm a f*****g teddy bear!"--Bruin Bear
Edward Mathews
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: In article <4q8m9q$l...@panix.com>,
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
:
: >I guess we're just looking for different things from this series. I'm
: >not that interested in playing Spot the Cameo,
:
: Nor am I, Elayne. Unfortunately, Spot the Cameo is virtually all one can
: do with it so far, and even there one has to rely on the net for information
: and not the comics themselves. I would prefer a comic in which we didn't
: have to play Spot the Cameo, because at least a significant portion of the
: supporting characters would be better developed.
:
: > but I think a very solid
: >story is being told so far, and I'm intrigued.
:
: I am too, but I know I would be intrigued much more if this story and
: its few characters didn't exist in isolation and if the other heroes were
: more than just costumed wallpaper.
:
: Marc
:
I find this to be a very interesting ride thus far... I think part of the
point is that the other heroes are just costumed wallpaper. In Greek
Mythology, who cares about the various demi-gods? I would rather know
that they are there in the background and focus on Zeus, Hera, Poseidon,
Hades, Hermes, etc... My hopes for this story is that it gives the DC
Universe an ending. To paraphrase Frank Miller, a legend needs an ending,
even if it is an alternate ending. Dark Knight gave Batman an ending. If
anything, this strengthened the legend. Who cares if the daughter of
Starfire and Nightwing is called StarNightStarBright? The window dressing
is a bonus to the continuity hounds (myself included), but what captivates
me with this story is that it is shaping up to be a well written ending to
a series of legends... it may be a very tragic ending... it may resolve
with an air of hope... one thing that can be said, IMHO, at this point in
time is that the set-up for that ending has been well executed thus far.
I lent my first two issues to a friend who hasn't touched a comic in years
and was an X-Men collector. Having no knowledge of the minor touches that
had been thrown in or most of the non-SuperFriends characters, he really
liked the story. He asked to see issue 3. (Not having connections at DC,
I had to explain why that was impossible...) I can't wait for it, either.
Ed (waiting for Olympus to fall from the sky) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
Sean Med
<<All criticism is subjective, of course, but I find criticism like "Roy
Thomas' dialogue defies belief - try and say his lines out loud and see
how awkward it sounds in your mouth" more apt, because it's based in a
relatively sound, albeit subjective, critical precept (realism)>>
That's precisely the criticism I have of James Robinson's writing on
Starman, so I'm glad to make the cut.
Sean
jnevins
sea...@aol.com (Sean Med) writes:
You mean of the dialogue?
Huh. I've rather enjoyed his dialogue there. Now I'll have to go back
and read it aloud, of course.
jess
Marc Singer
In article <onstage-1906...@pagopago.auschron.com>,
Robert Faires <ons...@auschron.com> wrote:
>In article <4q431j$d...@rac5.wam.umd.edu>, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) wrote:
>
>> All that is a little irrelevant, though, because even if they truly *are*
>> apples and oranges, KC still has sparse and insufficient characterization
>> and detail on its *own* merits. The series would really benefit from more
>> development of more characters, and unfortunately, it hasn't bothered to
>> try so far.
>
>too much into it - and I trust you'll tell me if I am - but in contending
>that the series "hasn't bothered to try" to develop the characters here
>more fully, it sounds to me like youąre being dismissive of Mark Waid's
>contributions, and though it isn't spoken I glean from it an implication
>that "he hasn't worked hard enough" or "he didn't even make an effort" in
>regard to characterization. Talk about what doesn't work for you, pick
>apart the story, but let's give the creators the benefit of the doubt when
>it comes to their efforts. Even when you cast the phrase in terms of the
>series and not the creators, the remarks reflect on the people involved.
>If I misconstrued your meaning, I withdraw my comments and apologize.
No, I'm afraid you're dead on. Being forced to say the same thing over
and over again in the same thread has sharpened my tongue and shortened
my temper. Nevertheless, I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it
were true. I find the characterization -- not of the three principals,
but of almost everyone else -- to be sorely lacking, and I know Waid has
done much better characterization in the past.
>That said, I want both to agree and disagree with a few of your
>observations. I'm with you in regard to length; four issues ought not be a
>determining factor in the depth of a piece. Setting aside those oft
>referred-to warhorses DARK KNIGHT and WATCHMEN for a different Usenet
>favorite, I think you can find some surprising depth in the farewell tale
>of the pre-Crisis Superman, "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?"
>Two standard-size issues, but Alan Moore crammed a - pardon the pun -
>legion of characters into them and managed some rich and telling
>characterizations of longtime figures in the bargain.
A splendid example. The Golden Age leaps to mind as another limited series
(of equal length to KC) which managed incredibly rich characterization of
all characters. That also had a parade of "cameo costumes," but so many
of the heroes -- and every hero who was even remotely important to the
story -- got some good development.
>But I also feel we've gotten a lot of choice characterization so
>far: Wesley Dodds, who was so committed to his visions that he climbed
>literally from his deathbed to address them; the Flash, whoever he is,
>whose life has become an endless race to serve others; the daughter of
>Barda and Scott Free, who reacted to Superman's presence with almost
>religious awe; Ollie Queen, who expressed an old diehard liberal's
>skepticism for authority with tangy sarcasm; Vandal Savage, who displayed
>a too-world-weary-for-words disdain for human life; Luthor, who revealed
>the depth of his hatred of Superman in an obsessive outburst; Arthur, who
>expresses once and for all his distance from the surface world and his
>former colleagues; the Spectre, ever the avenger who could not resist
>bristling at Savage's callous murder; even Norman McKay, who - at least in
>issue 1 - expressed a deeply troubled soul regarding the responsibilities
>of humanity.
I agree with about half of these. And while I disagree with the other half
(I thought Vandal Savage killing the secretary was yet another example of
Waid writing a casual murder of an underling just to show how bad the bad
guy was -- King's "You ham" almost saved the scene, though), I can see
how they all emerge from the writing and not the art.
My problem is that I consider everything you just listed to be *all* of
the supporting cast development we've seen. You hardly left anyone out.
(Magog, whom I like a lot and who was done very well. That's about it.)
So *this* is what we have in Waid's defense: Spectre -- 1 panel of writing
out of two full issues; Scott and Barda's kid -- not even given her own
name, and used just to make another Christ parallel to Superman, in this
issue's installment of our Subtle Theme; the Flash -- silent cipher; Oliver
Queen -- straight out of Dark Knight Returns. I agree, this *is* the best
we're seeing outside of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.
>Okay, maybe all those characterizations didn't work for you, but they did
>for me and all had their roots in Waid's text, the words as opposed to the
>pictures. I don't feel the burden of telling the story should be evenly
>divided between the words and the pictures - which is what I get from a
>lot of your comments - but I do see the words doing a lot here to enhance
>characterization.
I don't so much feel that the burden should be *evenly* divided between
writing and art, but that *both* should be doing something. The art far
exceeds the writing. That would probably be true of any story with Alex
Ross art, and wouldn't be a problem *if* I felt the writing were doing all
it could. Or even if I felt it were doing enough. I don't.
Waid *is* telling us things about many of these figures,
>not only in what they say but how they say them: Batman's insistent use of
>"Clark" to needle Superman, Luthor's pointed use of "boy" in referring to
>Captain Marvel, Arthur's consistently diplomatic way of speaking, firm but
>respectful.
I could refute each one of these (except Arthur, whom I also liked), but
that isn't really the point. That would just be demonstrating that I don't
like what Waid is telling us (which is sometimes true, as with the straight
outta Miller Bruce Wayne). I'm more concerned about the vast portions of
the story where he tells us nothing. How characters say things is an
important tool, but most of these people are saying nothing.
>And more than that, I see the words delivering the punctuation to the
>drama. I guess the thing I admire most about Waid as a writer is the way
>he can deliver a punchline. He'll set up a moment with dramatic momentum
>and hit it home with just a handful of words: The UN press conference,
>then Superman's "We'll make things right again"; the Batcave conversation,
>with Batman's "Perhaps we should ask Magog"; the club scene, with
>Superman's "Party's over"; the Superman-Magog confrontation, with
>Superman's "We are at war." There are others, but you get the idea: terse
>comments that zing home the impact of the scene, and most of the time,
>Waid pulls such scenes off at the bottom of a page, where they receive the
>full benefit of sequential storytelling's momentum. Anyway, maybe you
>weren't criticizing Waid's work to the degree that I thought you were, but
>whether you were or not, I feel it bears saying that the words are
>contributing mightily to my enjoyment of the series, and I feel they
>reveal much of the craft Mark Waid invests in his work.
I agree with all of this, except perhaps the club scene, but it's also not
really what bothers me. I'm not so concerned with what Waid says when he
says something, as the all-too-frequent times when he says nothing. He
does the best terse comments, but silence isn't terse.
I think there are a few scenes where Waid's writing really shines, sometimes
even better than the art does. But in the scenes and the setting that lie
between and behind those bright spots, I see a pretty pronounced lack of
development.
>And thanks for the thought you've invested in discussing the work, too.
Same here.
Marc
Abhay Khosla
On 21 Jun 1996, Edward Mathews wrote:
> I find this to be a very interesting ride thus far... I think part of the
> point is that the other heroes are just costumed wallpaper. In Greek
> Mythology, who cares about the various demi-gods? I would rather know
> that they are there in the background and focus on Zeus, Hera, Poseidon,
> Hades, Hermes, etc... My hopes for this story is that it gives the DC
Well that may be why I never liked Greek, though you already listed more
heroes than KC is going into. In Norse, they are very specific on how
everybody bought it. Personally, Flash and Green Lantern and Hawkman are
three guys almost as old as Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, as
intrinsic to the DCU as anybody, and they ain't said word one, Ross has
been characterizing them. If it serves the story, we'll see, but thats
ntot how I would have done Odin if I were Mr. Edda...
> Universe an ending. To paraphrase Frank Miller, a legend needs an ending,
> even if it is an alternate ending. Dark Knight gave Batman an ending. If
Alan Moore said that in the opening, didn't he?
> anything, this strengthened the legend. Who cares if the daughter of
> Starfire and Nightwing is called StarNightStarBright? The window dressing
Thats fine. But there are ALOT of characters, but seeing 4? Even
characters with dialogue- what is Luthor doing so far?
The book is great if you don't look aat it as anything but a an okay
story with great art. A fitting Ragnarok, a next Watchmen, an
achievement- NO. A good story with Great art- yes. And even then the
reason its a good story isn't the reams of details...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
B Skinner
On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Matt Linton wrote:
> Matt, who is still wondering what happened to Tim Drake in KC.
I dont have the book with me, but I'm pretty sure I saw Tim on one of
the screens in the batcave. Anyone know better?
Ben Skinner
Paul Meyers II
On 18 Jun 1996, Carter Lupton wrote:
> ... and anyway the concept of inherent nobility is
> false, so we'll make Hal a super-villain so readers will accept our newer,
> younger, inexperienced, self-doubting, angst-ridden, haven't-got-a-clue-
> about-life, let alone being a hero, Kyle Rayner.
Thanks, Carter. That sums up for me perfectly the problem I have with
so many comics these days. And the fact that DC does this so much *less*
than other companies is why I stick with them.
I'm still ticked about Hal, though. :(
Take care,
jnevins
B Skinner <pmy...@unix.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk> writes:
Unless Tim Drake is the new Zatara, no, that's not him.
jess
Marc Singer
In article <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>,
jnevins <jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> wrote:
>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>
>>In article <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>,
>>jnevins <jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> wrote:
>>>Put another way, it's one thing to say that "I didn't enjoy X because I
>>>felt that the characterization was weak." It's quite another to say that
>>>"X is a bad writer" based solely on one book.
>
>>What about "X is a bad writer in this one book"? Or more to the point of
>>this particular issue, "X's writing is bad in this one area of this one
>>book"? That's not really saying Waid -- oops, I mean X! -- is a bad
>>writer, period. But it is saying his writing is faltering in some parts.
>
>I wasn't restricting my comments to Waid - or to you, certainly. But,
>taking the example of Waid - I definitely think that saying "X is a bad
>writer in this one book" is less useful than "X's writing is bad in this
>one area etc."
But isn't the *latter* what's been said in these threads, time and time
again? Hasn't every single person who's been fool enough to criticize KC
provided ample testimony for why they feel that way, whether it be the
kill-the-young message or the narrow range of characterization?
>The larger point here, which I don't think I've made sufficiently, is
>that a lot of the criticism here - and elsewhere, too - is fairly inexact
>and much too subjective. All criticism is subjective, of course, but I
>find criticism like "Roy Thomas' dialogue defies belief - try and say his
>lines out loud and see how awkward it sounds in your mouth" more apt,
>because it's based in a relatively sound, albeit subjective, critical
>precept (realism), rather than "the sex scenes in STM were tawdry and
>added nothing to the plot."
That comparison is very true, but it only works because you've stacked
the sides. I find it a pretty safe bet that at some other time in the
discourse, perhaps even in the selfsame post, the Thomas critic said "Roy
Thomas's dialogue is terrible" and the Wagner critic gave specific reasons
why they didn't like the sex scenes.
In fact, Jess, I *know* the Wagner critic did, because you just *happened*
to have picked as your negative example something very similar to a view
I and only I have expressed in these parts. (And it is, in fact, only
similar, and a slight misrepresentation, because "tawdry" is a word
used by those who would paint any critic of SMT's sex scenes as a
modern-day prude, not by the critic himself.)
Furthermore, those criticisms differ only in degree -- and not much in
degree. Both make very *specific* points about the writing. Both are
subjective, as you often say but seem to believe for only one of them.
>To put it another way, too many of the criticisms I've read here - and
>perhaps I just haven't read enough of them - are based on critiquing
>the artistic choices of the writer/artist, rather than their technical
>skill in executing those choices.
My initial response is that most criticisms of the artistic choices *do*
boil down to criticizing technical skill, like, oh I don't know just purely
by random example, Waid's skill in fleshing out a large cast of characters
in Kingdom Come #2. But that's actually beside the point.
My secondary feeling, more to the point, is that criticizing artistic choices
is indeed a valid form of criticism. Yes, Schwarzenegger might *choose* to
make moronic action movies and make them perfectly, but that doesn't mean
his choice places the flick above charges of stupidity. (Using Arnold purely
as an example -- I really like some of his movies, detest others.) It
seems like you're insisting upon an altogether too narrow standard for
criticism, where certain things are above reproach even though they shouldn't
be. The choices made at the beginning of a work are just as much a part
of it as the technical skill in finishing the work, and just as valid
topics for criticism.
>Moreover - and more unpleasantly to me - there is a tendency in the
>critics here to wax somewhat, shall we say, indignant. Even
>self-righteous. I don't find that enjoyable to read, especially since
>the targets don't really deserve that level of vitriol. (am I being
>self-righteous when I say that? sure, I admit that.
Well, that line saved this paragraph.
>But in critiquing an
>artist's work, esp. where s/he might read it, I'dmodulate the tone of my
>review - not necessarily the sentiment, but the tone)
To me, that just reeks of hypocrisy. I don't see that much vitriol in
the criticisms here, except the occasional "_____ sucks" post, and let's
face it, there are many other reasons to dismiss those. I'd hate to think
that reviewers and critics (especially critics) are reining in their honest
feelings just because they think the subjects might be reading them, and
I'm wholly glad to see that most reviewers here don't. A bad comic is a
bad comic, no matter who's reading the review.
And again, it seems like you're restricting criticism and reviews to an
artificial, narrow standard. Why should people only modulate the tone of
negative reviews? Why shouldn't they modulate the tone of positive reviews,
in deference to any readers who didn't like the book, or creators who feel
it wasn't their best work? A ban, I say, a ban on all reviews that have
lines like "Well, sirs, Mr. Marz has done it again. Rarely has a writer
placed severed women in the fridge with such aplomb. And Kudos to Lee
Loughridge for the realistic coppery color in the blood in every panel!"
Hey, if that's what the reviewer thinks, that's what they think. I don't
see why any review should be reined in, provided it tells exactly why the
poster feels the way they do. Most of the ones here do.
>The _Kindly Ones_ storyline wasn't to your taste, as I recall.
Just to pick another random example, right, Jess?
>You had
>some harsh words to say about it. But compared to, say, the Lobdell
>X-books, are some of the Image books, the _Kindly Ones_ was the Taj Mahal
>of comics.
Only if the Taj Mahal is suffering some serious water damage. I would
rather read the best X-book possible (whatever that is these days) than
an artsy-fartsy classic that's just not living up to its potential.
This idea, that "good" comics (as selected and approved by the near-
homogenous tastes of rac* readers, no doubt) are above reproach because
worse stuff is out there, is another artificial standard which I have to
reject. A book should be judged on its *own* merits. Nothing else. I
don't care how crappy the rest of comics is, a flawed comic is a flawed
comic. Nothing should restrain a reviewer from saying so, and why.
Frankly, if there is any reviewer who regularly waters down their opinion
based on how the industry as a whole is doing... I doubt I could take their
comments too seriously.
>This doesn't mean that I believe we should take it easy on artists
>because they aren't horrible, merely that we shouldn't call artists
>horrible if they are -still- light-years beyond their competition.
Criticizing flaws isn't calling them horrible... unless, of course, the
flaws really are that bad (and in The Kindly Ones, I think you'd have a
strong case). Again, every review I see here does get down to the specifics,
instead of just staying up in the "____ sucks" level where you seem to
be booking most negative reactions. And *no* reviewer, I repeat, *no*
reviewer, should feel they have to restrain their opinions on the general
level just because they know some people will disagree.
>Okay. That's enough of me. I know yield the floor to my distinguished
>colleague from wam.umd.edu....
Thank you, Senator Nevins...
Marc
jnevins
Tonight, on _Crossfire_, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>>>jnevins <jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> wrote:
>>>>Put another way, it's one thing to say that "I didn't enjoy X because I
>>>>felt that the characterization was weak." It's quite another to say that
>>>>"X is a bad writer" based solely on one book.
>>
>>>What about "X is a bad writer in this one book"? Or more to the point of
>>>this particular issue, "X's writing is bad in this one area of this one
>>>book"? That's not really saying Waid -- oops, I mean X! -- is a bad
>>>writer, period. But it is saying his writing is faltering in some parts.
>>
>>I wasn't restricting my comments to Waid - or to you, certainly. But,
>>taking the example of Waid - I definitely think that saying "X is a bad
>>writer in this one book" is less useful than "X's writing is bad in this
>>one area etc."
>But isn't the *latter* what's been said in these threads, time and time
>again? Hasn't every single person who's been fool enough to criticize KC
>provided ample testimony for why they feel that way, whether it be the
>kill-the-young message or the narrow range of characterization?
I'm not restricting my comments solely to the criticisms of Kingdom Come
- but no, a lot of the criticisms -don't- have the latter message. At
least, the reviews I've read.
>>The larger point here, which I don't think I've made sufficiently, is
>>that a lot of the criticism here - and elsewhere, too - is fairly inexact
>>and much too subjective. All criticism is subjective, of course, but I
>>find criticism like "Roy Thomas' dialogue defies belief - try and say his
>>lines out loud and see how awkward it sounds in your mouth" more apt,
>>because it's based in a relatively sound, albeit subjective, critical
>>precept (realism), rather than "the sex scenes in STM were tawdry and
>>added nothing to the plot."
>That comparison is very true, but it only works because you've stacked
>the sides. I find it a pretty safe bet that at some other time in the
>discourse, perhaps even in the selfsame post, the Thomas critic said "Roy
>Thomas's dialogue is terrible" and the Wagner critic gave specific reasons
>why they didn't like the sex scenes.
I picked the Roy Thomas example because that's something *I've* said.
And, as it happens, I've found that in nearly every comic book I've ever
read by Roy Thomas, the dialogue *is* painful.
>In fact, Jess, I *know* the Wagner critic did, because you just *happened*
>to have picked as your negative example something very similar to a view
>I and only I have expressed in these parts. (And it is, in fact, only
>similar, and a slight misrepresentation, because "tawdry" is a word
>used by those who would paint any critic of SMT's sex scenes as a
>modern-day prude, not by the critic himself.)
>Furthermore, those criticisms differ only in degree -- and not much in
>degree. Both make very *specific* points about the writing. Both are
>subjective, as you often say but seem to believe for only one of them.
I disagree. One is a critique of technical ability - i.e., that the
dialogue lacks verisimilitude. Another is a critique of an artistic
choice. But perhaps, as you say, I'm misremembering your comments.
Perhaps you could repeat them?
>>To put it another way, too many of the criticisms I've read here - and
>>perhaps I just haven't read enough of them - are based on critiquing
>>the artistic choices of the writer/artist, rather than their technical
>>skill in executing those choices.
>My initial response is that most criticisms of the artistic choices *do*
>boil down to criticizing technical skill, like, oh I don't know just purely
>by random example, Waid's skill in fleshing out a large cast of characters
>in Kingdom Come #2. But that's actually beside the point.
Well, again, I disagree. Technical ability is far easier to critique
than artistic choices. For example - and, again, correct me if I'm wrong
- but you've been critical of KC for not fleshing out the secondary
characters. I'd say that that isn't a criticism of technical ability,
but rather a criticism of his artistic choice. He didn't choose to flesh
them out, which is why they aren't fleshed out. He is concentrating on
Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman. Who are beginning to be fleshed
out. Criticizing Waid for not fleshing out, say, the Ray is like
criticizing the _Mona Lisa_ because there wasn't more background. It's
simply not critically valid to criticize something because it wasn't done
the way you'd have done it; for functional criticism you have to accept
the art on the artist's terms. Put another way, criticizing _Guernica_
because it's not "realistic" doesn't do anyone any good, because you
aren't working off the same basic assumptions as the artist.
>My secondary feeling, more to the point, is that criticizing artistic choices
>is indeed a valid form of criticism. Yes, Schwarzenegger might *choose* to
>make moronic action movies and make them perfectly, but that doesn't mean
>his choice places the flick above charges of stupidity. (Using Arnold purely
>as an example -- I really like some of his movies, detest others.) It
>seems like you're insisting upon an altogether too narrow standard for
>criticism, where certain things are above reproach even though they shouldn't
>be. The choices made at the beginning of a work are just as much a part
>of it as the technical skill in finishing the work, and just as valid
>topics for criticism.
But, again, criticizing artistic choices is a far more subjective type of
criticism than one criticizing technical ability. Taking Arnold as an
example, which of the following statements is better criticism: That his
choice of a Philip K. Dick story on which to base _Total Recall_ was
poor, or that the dialogue and characterization of women and Arabs in
_True Lies_ smacked of stereotyping?
"Better criticism" is itself a subjective statement, tru, and one on
which I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. In which case
I suppose I'll have to content myself with saying that I disagree with
the format of your criticism.
>>Moreover - and more unpleasantly to me - there is a tendency in the
>>critics here to wax somewhat, shall we say, indignant. Even
>>self-righteous. I don't find that enjoyable to read, especially since
>>the targets don't really deserve that level of vitriol. (am I being
>>self-righteous when I say that? sure, I admit that.
>Well, that line saved this paragraph.
You diidn't answer my point, however.There is a difference between
calling a comic book badly done and calling the artist a bad person - and
I think a lot of the negative criticism here crosses that line.
>>But in critiquing an
>>artist's work, esp. where s/he might read it, I'dmodulate the tone of my
>>review - not necessarily the sentiment, but the tone)
>To me, that just reeks of hypocrisy. I don't see that much vitriol in
I'd call it politesse, or one of the brands of civil discourse. YMMV,
however.
>the criticisms here, except the occasional "_____ sucks" post, and let's
>face it, there are many other reasons to dismiss those. I'd hate to think
>that reviewers and critics (especially critics) are reining in their honest
>feelings just because they think the subjects might be reading them, and
>I'm wholly glad to see that most reviewers here don't. A bad comic is a
>bad comic, no matter who's reading the review.
But there are ways of saying that that aren't abrasive or hateful. If,
for example, a racial stereotype were to show up in, perhaps, _The
Flash_, one could say "this portrayal is racist" or one could say "Waid
is a racist." The former is legitimate criticism; the latter is an
attack on the artist. If that is a reviewer's intention, then s/he
should say so, rather than masking what they say as honest criticism.
>And again, it seems like you're restricting criticism and reviews to an
>artificial, narrow standard. Why should people only modulate the tone of
>negative reviews? Why shouldn't they modulate the tone of positive reviews,
>in deference to any readers who didn't like the book, or creators who feel
>it wasn't their best work? A ban, I say, a ban on all reviews that have
>lines like "Well, sirs, Mr. Marz has done it again. Rarely has a writer
>placed severed women in the fridge with such aplomb. And Kudos to Lee
>Loughridge for the realistic coppery color in the blood in every panel!"
>Hey, if that's what the reviewer thinks, that's what they think. I don't
>see why any review should be reined in, provided it tells exactly why the
>poster feels the way they do. Most of the ones here do.
I'm not saying one should be disingenuous in a review, merely that a
civil tone should be maintained throughout the review. I don't see that
as a function of being a critic, but rather as a social animal operating
as a member of the Usenet community.
I think we're talking about two separate issues here, though. The first
is the quality of the reviews - artistic choices vs. technical
execution. The second is the tone in which the reviews are written.
>>The _Kindly Ones_ storyline wasn't to your taste, as I recall.
>Just to pick another random example, right, Jess?
Since it was the one that sprang to mind first - you will admit that you
are one of the more notable critics here, and perhaps the one least
inclined to mince words.
>>You had
>>some harsh words to say about it. But compared to, say, the Lobdell
>>X-books, are some of the Image books, the _Kindly Ones_ was the Taj Mahal
>>of comics.
>Only if the Taj Mahal is suffering some serious water damage. I would
>rather read the best X-book possible (whatever that is these days) than
>an artsy-fartsy classic that's just not living up to its potential.
>This idea, that "good" comics (as selected and approved by the near-
>homogenous tastes of rac* readers, no doubt) are above reproach because
>worse stuff is out there, is another artificial standard which I have to
>reject. A book should be judged on its *own* merits. Nothing else. I
>don't care how crappy the rest of comics is, a flawed comic is a flawed
>comic. Nothing should restrain a reviewer from saying so, and why.
>Frankly, if there is any reviewer who regularly waters down their opinion
>based on how the industry as a whole is doing... I doubt I could take their
>comments too seriously.
You had some harsh words to say at the end of the Kindly Ones - something
along the lines of "What a horrible end to a bad series" - you were more
eloquently damning, of course. But to call the Kindly Ones bad is to
overlook the rest of the crap out there - and by calling it "bad" you
neutralize criticism of the truly horrible stuff out there. The Kindly
Ones may have been a let-down from previous issues - but can you honestly
say that if you read that and read, oh, some atrociously-written Bad Girl
art, that they are both "bad"? If I call some lesser work by an
acknowledged master "bad" - say, one of Merwin's early poems - what
language do I use to describe _Bridges of Madison County_ or a Star Trek
fanfic?
As for judging a book on its own merits - no work exists in a vacuum. I
wouldn't want a critic to water his criticisms down, but to judge an
artistic work independent of its field, its time and its place isn't good
criticism. Take Giotto - earliest of the "great" painters. Looked at
today, he's flat and awkward. Within the context of his time, he was
head and shoulders beyond his competition.But to say he's "bad" just
isn't good criticism.
>>This doesn't mean that I believe we should take it easy on artists
>>because they aren't horrible, merely that we shouldn't call artists
>>horrible if they are -still- light-years beyond their competition.
>Criticizing flaws isn't calling them horrible... unless, of course, the
>flaws really are that bad (and in The Kindly Ones, I think you'd have a
>strong case). Again, every review I see here does get down to the specifics,
>instead of just staying up in the "____ sucks" level where you seem to
>be booking most negative reactions. And *no* reviewer, I repeat, *no*
we must be reading different reviews, then.
>reviewer, should feel they have to restrain their opinions on the general
>level just because they know some people will disagree.
I wouldn't say restrain, nor would I want anyone to. But keep a veneer
of civility? I don't think that's too much to ask.
jess, beginning to feel like I shouldn't have said anything in the first
place
Johanna Draper
In article <4qc0no$k...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>I think the skewed discussion accurately reflects the fact that most of
>the questions raised by the book, and certainly most of the detailed
>character work put into the book, are of the "Who's that?" variety.
You're working from faulty evidence. On CompuServe, there was a greater
proportion of issue discussion; does that mean that the book they read had
more questions in it? No, of course not; it means that the two fora have
different audiences interested in different things.
>I agree that the costume makes her parentage obvious; my point is that the
>name comes out of nowhere, and isn't given anywhere in the comic.
I find it fascinating to look at how writing is changing with the
confluence of media. Perhaps knowing that the fans can so much more easily
talk to one another (and create the annotations) in areas like this one
will continue to influence writing.
>Unfortunately, Spot the Cameo is virtually all one can do with it so
>far,
I disagree, obviously, but I doubt there's any point in continuing to make
the same points over.
Johanna
Joe Gorde
jnevins (jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu) wrote:
: I disagree. One is a critique of technical ability - i.e., that the
: dialogue lacks verisimilitude.
Perhaps the writer intentionally wrote the dialogue that way, in order to achive a
particular effect. In this example, I doubt it, but my point is that it's often
_really_ difficult to know what the writer's goals are, and thus difficult to
determine whether the problem is with technical skill or an artistic choice; the
line between the two is extremely fuzzy. For example:
Critic: "I'm unimpressed with KC because of the lack of development of the
secondary characters."
Fan: "It's not valid to criticize artistic choices, it's only valid to criticize
technical ability."
Critic: "Okay, Waid made an artistic choice to write an interesting comic. I'm
not criticizing that choice. I'm criticizing it's execution; KC would be more
interesting if the secondary characters were developed. So, Waid's technical
ability in creating interesting comics falls short here for me."
: Criticizing Waid for not fleshing out, say, the Ray is like
: criticizing the _Mona Lisa_ because there wasn't more background.
If the _Mona Lisa_ had been painted with more background, would it be as great?
How about if she were painted with a mustache, or bald? When we judge a work of
art, we don't only judge technical execution, we also judge content (aka artistic
choices). Otherwise, I've seen lots of work by photorealistic painters that would
rank with the masters if technical skill were the only yardstick.
: It's
: simply not critically valid to criticize something because it wasn't done
: the way you'd have done it; for functional criticism you have to accept
: the art on the artist's terms.
This presumes that you know what the artist's terms are. *Any* criticism can be
countered by saying, "the artist meant to do that, it was an artistic choice."
Yes, but there is such a thing as a bad artistic choice. Note that 'bad' here is
completely subjective. What is a bad artistic choice for one reader might be a
good one for another. Let's take a classic example [Spoilers for _Watchmen_ ahead]:
Critic #1: "The ending to _Watchmen_ is ridiculous. The introduction of a giant
alien life form is a completely unrealistic and silly climax to an otherwise
sober work."
Critic #2: "You're missing the point; that's part of Moore's central theme, his
commentary on the medium and the genre. It's perfectly appropriate to have a
silly plot; superheros are silly. That's part of what Moore is saying here."
Both of these statements are valid. For many readers, Moore's use of the alien as
a plot device completely destroys the tone of the work, while others point out
that thematically it works very well. You're saying that Critic #1 shouldn't even
have opened her mouth because she's criticizing an artistic choice. Note that
Critic #2 *doesn't* simply say "it's an artistic choice, you can't criticize it"
but instead offers an explanation for why the device works for him. This doesn't
make the first critic's criticism any less valid, but it may make her change her
mind (just as her comments might change the mind of Critic #2).
: But, again, criticizing artistic choices is a far more subjective type of
: criticism than one criticizing technical ability.
You're in big trouble if you're somehow seeking to avoid subjectivity. *All*
criticism is subjective, Jess. Even your "unrealistic dialogue" criticism,
since it's a subjective judgement to place value on realistic dialogue. I think
you'd be surprised at how many excellent comics, films and novels have unrealistic
dialogue -- for one thing, people in real life stammer and pause a lot more than
people in stories usually do.
: There is a difference between
: calling a comic book badly done and calling the artist a bad person - and
: I think a lot of the negative criticism here crosses that line.
Hm. Can you quote some examples?
: The Kindly
: Ones may have been a let-down from previous issues - but can you honestly
: say that if you read that and read, oh, some atrociously-written Bad Girl
: art, that they are both "bad"?
Yes, I can, at least. There are different degrees of "bad", of course, and it's
perfectly legitimate to call one work "bad" and another "worse."
: If I call some lesser work by an
: acknowledged master "bad" - say, one of Merwin's early poems - what
: language do I use to describe _Bridges of Madison County_ or a Star Trek
: fanfic?
"More vile than my most unpleasant bowel movement."
: Take Giotto - earliest of the "great" painters. Looked at
: today, he's flat and awkward. Within the context of his time, he was
: head and shoulders beyond his competition.But to say he's "bad" just
: isn't good criticism.
That depends on the level of reasoning behind the critic's negative opinion,
doesn't it? A good critique is more thorough than simply labelling something
"bad" or "good".
--
joeg...@umich.edu * she's got a boyfriend and she doesn't like you.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: I'd just like to say that I don't hold your annotations, or any of the
: people who have contributed to them, in any less regard than all the
: discussions of the supposedly weighty matters. In fact, I'm enjoying the
: annotations quite a bit. I hold *Waid* in less regard for writing a
: story in which the most important story element is the annotation aspect
: (and for making online annotations very *necessary* to get the whole story),
: but that's another matter entirely. Annotating comics is wholly worthwhile
: for a fan, but writing a comic that's little more than a source of
: annotations isn't so worthwhile for a writer.
You do realize, don't you, that most of the little cameos that *lead* to
these annotations are in fact the work of Alex Ross, not Mark Waid? I
think Waid said at the Kingdom Come panel this past weekend that the
"spot the characters" game was something like 90% Ross.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >I guess we're just looking for different things from this series. I'm
: >not that interested in playing Spot the Cameo,
: Nor am I, Elayne. Unfortunately, Spot the Cameo is virtually all one can
: do with it so far...
Really? Then I guess my review and, more interestingly, Warren Ellis'
review are pointless, because neither focused on Spot the Cameo.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
jnevins (jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu) wrote:
: Moreover - and more unpleasantly to me - there is a tendency in the
: critics here to wax somewhat, shall we say, indignant. Even
: self-righteous. I don't find that enjoyable to read, especially since
: the targets don't really deserve that level of vitriol.
Ah, good. This means I'll stand out even more. :) :) :)
Matthew Daly
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>
>I'd just like to say that I don't hold your annotations, or any of the
>people who have contributed to them, in any less regard than all the
>discussions of the supposedly weighty matters. In fact, I'm enjoying the
>annotations quite a bit. I hold *Waid* in less regard for writing a
>story in which the most important story element is the annotation aspect
>(and for making online annotations very *necessary* to get the whole story),
>but that's another matter entirely. Annotating comics is wholly worthwhile
>for a fan, but writing a comic that's little more than a source of
>annotations isn't so worthwhile for a writer.
I think it's a fun story no matter what you're reading it for -- Who's
Who, What'll Happen Next, or What Does It All Mean?
I _would_ like to ask TPTB around here if we could put in an extra keyword
in future issues for Who's Whos. They take up more than 1/2 of the
bandwidth, and it seems that most people aren't participating in them so
much as in other parts of the discussion. Just my $0.02.
(I've got nothing against Who's Whos, and I print out the collected
annotations so that I can get all the things I've been missing. It's
just seeing 15 people pointing out the Human Bomb playing Pull The
Finger like they're the first people to notice it....)
>On an unrelated note, there's no reason people can't discuss the ethics,
>politics, whatever present in the issues that have already been completed.
>The issues are works unto themselves, and *should* be discussable before
>the whole story is finished. I'm glad people here are discussing them.
I agree. And, with all respect due to Warren Ellis, if we shouldn't be
discussing the story after we've only read 1/4 of it, then they
shouldn't be releasing it to us 1/4 at a time....
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly I don't buy everything I read ... I haven't
da...@ppd.kodak.com even read everything I've bought.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
Abhay Khosla
On 20 Jun 1996, Marc Singer wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960618...@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> Abhay Khosla <akh...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Kevin&Peggy wrote:
> it has. I think a decent story really should have a decent amount of
> development beyond the small number of principals. Especially when the
> story claims such a grand, earth-shattering status for itself. There could
> at least be an earth for it to shatter...
In Waid's defense, he's been one yelling for one helluva long time that he
has nothing to do with the ad copy. Whoever wrote the ad copy for Kingdom
Come was... well... maybe not making a good decision by framing the story
when it came out as being comparable with two of the genre's very best
works, not exactly a good way of framing things in a reader's mind. Can't
fault Waid that.
DC didn't even believe Dark Knight would be successful according to
Howard Chaykin, so its kinda funny. Us Readers MADE Watchmen and Dark
Knight Returns things to be compared to, and it'll be us that'll decide
if KC is worth it, not Mr. Previews-Copy. Not Waid's fault, hurt the
man more than anything framing it that way...kind of sad really...
> Also, I'm afraid the writing has been more or less devoid of detail, nuance,
> and development. Some scenes are happy exceptions, like the Magog
> confrontation or the revelation of what happened in Kansas. But most of
> the time, any time you drift beyond the Big Three heroes or the simple
> "old good, young bad" message, there's just nothing there. The bar scene
> stands out in my mind as a scene that was really fun to people-spot the
> first time around, and really dull every other time. Because after you've
I find this the most intriguing scene in #2 because noone's asking about
it. The new heroes- what were they doing wrong? What- stretching
Plastic Man? Who cares- thats his power, he stretches, who cares if he
gets stretched!!! Drinking? Thats what deserves the Apocalypse- having
a drink? My dad had a drink the other night- Superman's not going to
melt him with his heat vision later, is he- not my DAD!!! The Human Bomb
blowing folks up? C'mon folks- is anyone really thinking the biggest
problem with superhero comics today are those violent, vioolent Freedom
Fighters! Its Doll-Man's fault!
But then we just get some-old-guy calling them Beasts, the Spectre saying
they'll be culled or whatever, and then Superman walks in and smashes the
party and tells everyone he's taking over. He's a PARTY-POOPER, and
everyone thinks that scene's a GOOD SCENE with Superman.
Its such a wierd scene that the art manages to make you not wonder about
things, but writing-wise, its so bizarre its interesting to me. The
dialogue's good, but yknow, a caption here and there saying "They were
doing bad stuff" would have made that make sense. Instead its "Superman
Stops People From Drinking." Huh? And whats more, isn't that Hal Jordan's
or Tony Stark's job?
Its a wierd book...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
ato...@delphi.com
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>So, given a four-issue series that focuses on Supes, WW, Batman, Luthor,
>and probably Captain Marvel, you would prefer the usual blah backgrounds,
>faceless crowd scenes, etc. that one finds in a normal comic book? Wade
>couldn't delve into all the characters Ross is painting in a 12-issue
>maxi series. Does that mean Ross shouldn't paint them? If Waid & Ross
>had 12 issues to delve into Robin and some of the other characters you
>want to see more of, then there would be 12 issues more of rich detailed
>backgrounds with faces of people that you couldn't deal with in 12
>issues, and you would be complaining because the story didn't give any
>time to *those* people.
I think the telling observation is that the bulk of posts on Kingdom
Come have been people identifying the heroes old and new in the backgrounds.
If this is the thing we can talk most about, what sort of substance is this
story really offering us?
Mick
jnevins
ato...@delphi.com writes:
If we're all playing Who's Who after the series is over, then you might
have a point. But we're only 2 issues in, so any discussion of themes is
necessarily premature. Which is why people have been holding back.
jess
Matt Linton
In article <4qjsdf$a...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>Path: tir.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!news.eff.org!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!hecate.umd.edu!cville-srv.wam.umd.edu!rac2.wam.umd.edu!not-for-mail
>From: ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer)
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.dc.universe
>Subject: Re: Critical reviews (was re: KC: Dissenting Opinion)
>Date: 23 Jun 1996 12:46:39 -0400
>Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
>Lines: 147
>Message-ID: <4qjsdf$a...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>
>References: <ZtOPEUE...@delphi.com> <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> <4qcd44$1...@rac2.wam.umd.edu> <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: rac2.wam.umd.edu
>
>In article <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>,
>jnevins <jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> wrote:
>>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>>
>>>In article <jnevins....@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>,
>>>jnevins <jne...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu> wrote:
>>>>Put another way, it's one thing to say that "I didn't enjoy X because I
>>>>felt that the characterization was weak." It's quite another to say that
>>>>"X is a bad writer" based solely on one book.
>>
>My initial response is that most criticisms of the artistic choices *do*
>boil down to criticizing technical skill, like, oh I don't know just purely
>by random example, Waid's skill in fleshing out a large cast of characters
>in Kingdom Come #2. But that's actually beside the point.
Regarding this, I'm one of the people who brought up the problem with too many
characters, too little space. I don't think this entirely Waid's fault.
Personally, I think both Waid and Ross are to blame. I also think that there
are few writers who could pull this off as well as Waid and Ross have.
>Only if the Taj Mahal is suffering some serious water damage. I would
>rather read the best X-book possible (whatever that is these days) than
>an artsy-fartsy classic that's just not living up to its potential.
I have a serious problem with this. It seems that too often we,as fans, get
our expectations up about a book, and it colors our judgement. People do the
same thing with movies. To give an example, I loved Pulp Fiction and Resevoir
Dogs. I thought Desperado was a great, fun movie. So when I heard that
Tarantino and Rodriguez were working together on From Dusk Til Dawn, I
expected something truly amazing. What I got was half a Tarantino movie and
half a Rodriguez movie. People that I've talked to who aren't really familiar
with T. and R. loved the movie. Because I had my expectations up, I was
disappointed. To give a reverse example, I had very low expectations for the
movie Flirting With Disaster, so when I saw it, I was very surprised to find
that I loved it. To get off of my tangent, I might enjoy, say, the latest
good X-men better than the latest good Kingdom Come. Why? Because I'd have
lower expectations for it. That doesn't make IT any better, or KC any worse.
>This idea, that "good" comics (as selected and approved by the near-
>homogenous tastes of rac* readers, no doubt) are above reproach because
>worse stuff is out there, is another artificial standard which I have to
>reject. A book should be judged on its *own* merits. Nothing else. I
>don't care how crappy the rest of comics is, a flawed comic is a flawed
>comic. Nothing should restrain a reviewer from saying so, and why.
>Frankly, if there is any reviewer who regularly waters down their opinion
>based on how the industry as a whole is doing... I doubt I could take their
>comments too seriously.
Oops, didn't see this before I wrote that last paragraph. I guess that's just
a "ditto".
Matt--and under "redundant" in the dictionary, he saw "redundant"
SGARRE
Abhay Khosla wrote:
> I find this the most intriguing scene in #2 because noone's asking about
> it. The new heroes- what were they doing wrong? What- stretching
> Plastic Man? Who cares- thats his power, he stretches, who cares if he
> gets stretched!!! Drinking? Thats what deserves the Apocalypse- having
> a drink? My dad had a drink the other night- Superman's not going to
> melt him with his heat vision later, is he- not my DAD!!! The Human Bomb
> blowing folks up? C'mon folks- is anyone really thinking the biggest
> problem with superhero comics today are those violent, vioolent Freedom
> Fighters! Its Doll-Man's fault!
>
> But then we just get some-old-guy calling them Beasts, the Spectre saying
> they'll be culled or whatever, and then Superman walks in and smashes the
> party and tells everyone he's taking over. He's a PARTY-POOPER, and
> everyone thinks that scene's a GOOD SCENE with Superman.
> Its a wierd book...
Actually, that's why I like this scene. I left KC #1 with reservations
because I felt that it was going to be a "new-Bad, Old-Good" story. The
bar scene (and particularly the "they will be tamed" line), and the Magog
scene, made me look forward to the book much more. I didn't wan't to see
a book about how "kids today" are violent and rebellious 'cause "that's
how they are", I wanted a book that got into the nitty-gritty of the
problem and, within the confines of using established characters, this
book seems to be doing that. I agree with you, if you're saying that the
bar scene was good. In the end, Supes and the Spectre don't come off as
being particularly nice guys, but we fell for Supes.
Gyro G.
Marc Singer
>
>>But isn't the *latter* what's been said in these threads, time and time
>>again? Hasn't every single person who's been fool enough to criticize KC
>>provided ample testimony for why they feel that way, whether it be the
>>kill-the-young message or the narrow range of characterization?
>
>I'm not restricting my comments solely to the criticisms of Kingdom Come
>- but no, a lot of the criticisms -don't- have the latter message. At
>least, the reviews I've read.
If you throw out "it sucks" posts and plot-summary reviews, which
I don't consider to be criticism at all, most critics and reviewers
here tend to say why they feel the way they feel.
>>>The larger point here, which I don't think I've made sufficiently, is
>>>that a lot of the criticism here - and elsewhere, too - is fairly inexact
>>>and much too subjective. All criticism is subjective, of course, but I
>>>find criticism like "Roy Thomas' dialogue defies belief - try and say his
>>>lines out loud and see how awkward it sounds in your mouth" more apt,
>>>because it's based in a relatively sound, albeit subjective, critical
>>>precept (realism), rather than "the sex scenes in STM were tawdry and
>>>added nothing to the plot."
>
>>That comparison is very true, but it only works because you've stacked
>>the sides. I find it a pretty safe bet that at some other time in the
>>discourse, perhaps even in the selfsame post, the Thomas critic said "Roy
>>Thomas's dialogue is terrible" and the Wagner critic gave specific reasons
>>why they didn't like the sex scenes.
>
>I picked the Roy Thomas example because that's something *I've* said.
>And, as it happens, I've found that in nearly every comic book I've ever
>read by Roy Thomas, the dialogue *is* painful.
Aha, the truth is out! Please feel free to construct more comparisons where
whatever you said is better than whatever I said. :)
At any rate, the comparison will naturally come out that way if you pick
a very, very general comment from one critic and a very detailed one from
another, and then claim they are representative of those critics' entire
reviewing styles. I could just as easily yank your "the dialogue *is*
painful" and put it next to the time I did a detailed sentence diagram of
Dan Jurgens' grammar in an old Superman story, and it would seem that you're
being more judgmental and (gasp!) subjective. That's just as untrue.
>>In fact, Jess, I *know* the Wagner critic did, because you just *happened*
>>to have picked as your negative example something very similar to a view
>>I and only I have expressed in these parts. (And it is, in fact, only
>>similar, and a slight misrepresentation, because "tawdry" is a word
>>used by those who would paint any critic of SMT's sex scenes as a
>>modern-day prude, not by the critic himself.)
>
>>Furthermore, those criticisms differ only in degree -- and not much in
>>degree. Both make very *specific* points about the writing. Both are
>>subjective, as you often say but seem to believe for only one of them.
>
>I disagree. One is a critique of technical ability - i.e., that the
>dialogue lacks verisimilitude. Another is a critique of an artistic
>choice. But perhaps, as you say, I'm misremembering your comments.
>Perhaps you could repeat them?
Well, I don't want to drift too far off the subject, and actually I don't
need to. Even the paraphrased, simplified argument you used, "the sex
scenes added nothing to the plot," is a comment on technical ability --
plotting and pacing. And in my specific comments, I went on at some
length (as I always do :)) about why the plot was already completely
stopped and why the sex scenes simply meandered further. That's not just
criticizing the artistic choice of including them, but the technical skill
with which they and the arc as a whole were plotted. The line between
"artistic choice" and "technical skill" is a very blurry one. And, when
it's used as rigidly as you suggest, a very artificial one.
>>>To put it another way, too many of the criticisms I've read here - and
>>>perhaps I just haven't read enough of them - are based on critiquing
>>>the artistic choices of the writer/artist, rather than their technical
>>>skill in executing those choices.
>
>>My initial response is that most criticisms of the artistic choices *do*
>>boil down to criticizing technical skill, like, oh I don't know just purely
>>by random example, Waid's skill in fleshing out a large cast of characters
>>in Kingdom Come #2. But that's actually beside the point.
>
>Well, again, I disagree. Technical ability is far easier to critique
>than artistic choices. For example - and, again, correct me if I'm wrong
>- but you've been critical of KC for not fleshing out the secondary
>characters. I'd say that that isn't a criticism of technical ability,
>but rather a criticism of his artistic choice. He didn't choose to flesh
>them out, which is why they aren't fleshed out.
Managing presence and absence, knowing what is needed and what is not,
is itself part of technique. Some creators get criticized for putting too
much in their works. (Charles Dickens and Oliver Stone leap to mind.)
That's a technical matter as well as a creative choice, because they use
technique while including all these extra characters and words and shots,
and while deciding they must be included. Others get criticized for not
including enough -- and that, too, is often a matter of technique, because
juggling or creating a sufficient number of characters or words or shots
is also a matter of skill.
This insistence that "artistic choice" is exempt from criticism also seems
to be founded on the idea that we can unquestionably know what the
author's intention is -- and if we somehow do know, that the work the
author *intended* to make is actually more important than the one we finally
receive. Yet it's hard to tell which inclusions or omissions boil down to
choice and which come down to skill. Even in a work where the absence is
clearly intentional, like "Waiting for Godot," there is still a lot of
skill used in conveying that absence. Discussing it can be a matter of
discussing technique as well as choice. One person might know Beckett
meant for everything to be missing, but not like the way he wrote the void.
Another might feel the lack of normal characterization in "Godot" is done
with skill, but then compare it to "Kingdom Come," saying there the lack
character isn't rendered with skill but exists only because character is
barely rendered at all. In any work where the intentions are more unclear
than "Godot," like "Kingdom Come," it's hard to say where artistic choice
ends and skill begins. (Yes, I know I just constructed a comparison in
which "KC" is more vague than "Godot." I may have to save this post.)
>Criticizing Waid for not fleshing out, say, the Ray is like
>criticizing the _Mona Lisa_ because there wasn't more background.
A very important point -- I'm not criticizing Waid for not fleshing out the
Ray. Or Robin, or XTC, or anyone else. I'm criticizing him for not fleshing
out *anyone* beyond three or four characters in 96 pages. Note the
difference. Not liking it because it doesn't make the Ray the star may well
be going after an artistic choice, and going after one that really isn't
a valid target. (I would say so.) Not liking it because it doesn't
develop *anyone* goes after the skill in writing a large cast and the choice
of keeping the characterization very simplistic and narrow, and those are
*both* valid areas to criticize.
>It's
>simply not critically valid to criticize something because it wasn't done
>the way you'd have done it;
No, but that's not what I'm doing. That's only what you say I'm doing.
>for functional criticism you have to accept
>the art on the artist's terms. Put another way, criticizing _Guernica_
>because it's not "realistic" doesn't do anyone any good, because you
>aren't working off the same basic assumptions as the artist.
The best analogy to this would be criticizing Kingdom Come because it's
not cubist -- not criticizing it because it makes some errors and omissions
even within its realistic frame and assumptions.
>>My secondary feeling, more to the point, is that criticizing artistic
choices
>>is indeed a valid form of criticism. Yes, Schwarzenegger might
*choose* to
>>make moronic action movies and make them perfectly, but that doesn't mean
>>his choice places the flick above charges of stupidity. (Using Arnold
purely
>>as an example -- I really like some of his movies, detest others.) It
>>seems like you're insisting upon an altogether too narrow standard for
>>criticism, where certain things are above reproach even though they
shouldn't
>>be. The choices made at the beginning of a work are just as much a part
>>of it as the technical skill in finishing the work, and just as valid
>>topics for criticism.
>
>But, again, criticizing artistic choices is a far more subjective type of
>criticism than one criticizing technical ability.
*Why*? This seems to be a very artificial and all too convenient
division, with the two criticisms not only rigidly separated, but one far
more subjective than the other. Both are false divisions. Is there
really anything less subjective about not liking the wordy sentences
of Roy Thomas (or, at the other end of the spectrum, the terse ones of
James Robinson) rather than not liking the narrow characterization of Mark
Waid or the nonexistent characterization of Rob Liefeld? Waid's character-
ization, or lack thereof, is still done using technical skill; Thomas's love
for exposition is still his artistic choice. And both opinions can range
from the subjective, to the nearly objective (when supported by a strong
argument and details).
>Taking Arnold as an
>example, which of the following statements is better criticism: That his
>choice of a Philip K. Dick story on which to base _Total Recall_ was
>poor, or that the dialogue and characterization of women and Arabs in
>_True Lies_ smacked of stereotyping?
Again, a stacked comparison doesn't really prove anything. Which of the
following statements is better criticism: That Total Recall had the
same muddled theme and contradictory subtext of the Philip K. Dick story
that spawned it, or that the choice of stereotypical Arabs as villains and
women as ingenues in True Lies was poor? (Actually, I've somewhat undercut
my own point, as I think all four of these can be good arguments. But I
just wanted to flip the criticisms, to show that either can boil down to
artistic choice or technical skill... because the two blur together so
easily.) Which is better criticism? Depends on which is better argued,
and which is truer of the work it criticizes.
>"Better criticism" is itself a subjective statement, tru, and one on
>which I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. In which case
>I suppose I'll have to content myself with saying that I disagree with
>the format of your criticism.
That's fine, but then expect me to disagree with the format or your critique
of my criticism. :) I think it's founded on artificial and unrealistic
divisions. And I think it's applied awfully selectively.
>>>Moreover - and more unpleasantly to me - there is a tendency in the
>>>critics here to wax somewhat, shall we say, indignant. Even
>>>self-righteous. I don't find that enjoyable to read, especially since
>>>the targets don't really deserve that level of vitriol. (am I being
>>>self-righteous when I say that? sure, I admit that.
>
>>Well, that line saved this paragraph.
>
>You diidn't answer my point, however.
Frankly, that's because I don't consider that point to have much relevance
to this discussion. I see lots of criticism of writing, but outside of
trolls and drive-bys and flames -- which aren't criticism -- little vitriol
or personal attacks.
>There is a difference between
>calling a comic book badly done and calling the artist a bad person - and
>I think a lot of the negative criticism here crosses that line.
Such as...? The only personal criticism I can think of is the criticism
of Dave Sim, but he invited that by making his persona and his views an
actual part of his story. And there's lots of casual panning of creators
who are perceived to be disliked by all rac*, but it's not in actual
criticism.
>>>But in critiquing an
>>>artist's work, esp. where s/he might read it, I'dmodulate the tone of my
>>>review - not necessarily the sentiment, but the tone)
>
>>To me, that just reeks of hypocrisy. I don't see that much vitriol in
>
>I'd call it politesse, or one of the brands of civil discourse. YMMV,
>however.
If you're just calling for a polite tone regardless of opinion, that's
politesse. However, all of your posts up to this point have been
condemning negative opinions, labelling them as "bad criticism" and
arguing they should be restrained. And restraining content, especially
if it's *just* because the writers might read it, reeks of hypocrisy.
>But there are ways of saying that that aren't abrasive or hateful. If,
>for example, a racial stereotype were to show up in, perhaps, _The
>Flash_, one could say "this portrayal is racist" or one could say "Waid
>is a racist." The former is legitimate criticism; the latter is an
>attack on the artist. If that is a reviewer's intention, then s/he
>should say so, rather than masking what they say as honest criticism.
Most of the critics I read here (and perhaps I've just learned how to
automatically separate the wheat from the chaff) always criticize the work,
the portrayal, and not the author. Or are up front when they make a bold
claim like the one you mention.
Furthermore, why would voicing a personal opinion, even one as extreme as
"X is a racist" not be "honest criticism"? Once again, you seem to be
making some very narrow definitions of what's good criticism -- and anything
that's not nice or cheerful or diluted enough gets thrown out.
>I'm not saying one should be disingenuous in a review, merely that a
>civil tone should be maintained throughout the review.
Hmm. I can see how that's a tricky position to argue when you're
simultaneously arguing that certain kinds of criticism (all negative, it
seems) are bad -- because uncivil tones generally don't crop up in positive
reviews, although I briefly thought to argue that sycophancy is just as
annoying. Taken together with the attempt to define and condemn "bad
criticism," this call for a kinder, gentler review just seems to be another
angle for painting all negative criticism as bad. But you're right, they
are two separate issues.
>>>The _Kindly Ones_ storyline wasn't to your taste, as I recall.
>
>>Just to pick another random example, right, Jess?
>
>Since it was the one that sprang to mind first - you will admit that you
>are one of the more notable critics here, and perhaps the one least
>inclined to mince words.
I wouldn't say that I'm notable, but unfortunately it seems that I'm becoming
memorable...
>>This idea, that "good" comics (as selected and approved by the near-
>>homogenous tastes of rac* readers, no doubt) are above reproach because
>>worse stuff is out there, is another artificial standard which I have to
>>reject. A book should be judged on its *own* merits. Nothing else. I
>>don't care how crappy the rest of comics is, a flawed comic is a flawed
>>comic. Nothing should restrain a reviewer from saying so, and why.
>>Frankly, if there is any reviewer who regularly waters down their opinion
>>based on how the industry as a whole is doing... I doubt I could take their
>>comments too seriously.
>
>You had some harsh words to say at the end of the Kindly Ones - something
>along the lines of "What a horrible end to a bad series" - you were more
>eloquently damning, of course. But to call the Kindly Ones bad is to
>overlook the rest of the crap out there - and by calling it "bad" you
>neutralize criticism of the truly horrible stuff out there.
I'll now demonstrate some of my famous non-mincing of words: bullshit.
I really do believe that argument is completely and utterly wrong. How
can criticism "neutralize" other kinds of criticism, especially when it's
honest and well-supported and (IMO) one hundred percent accurate? This
idea just strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. I strongly doubt anybody
thought "I'll ignore all the criticism of Lobo because some guy said Sandman
was bad, too." I doubt that my criticism of The Kindly Ones weakened anyone
else's reviews in any way, shape, or form, and I doubt it would have if
everyone in the nation had read it.
The quality of every other book in the comics industry has nothing to
do with the quality of an issue of The Kindly Ones. And vice versa. And
that's true for any comic. So what if there are worse comics? There will
always be *one* comic worse than whatever comic a reviewer is reviewing at
the moment. There will always be a better one, too, but I don't see you
saying that my calling Jim Lee's WildCATs good is diluting criticism of all
the truly good stuff out there. A critic is never obligated to alter their
views because they want to send the "proper message" to the comics industry.
Anyone who does is being deceitful, mostly to themselves.
>The Kindly
>Ones may have been a let-down from previous issues - but can you honestly
>say that if you read that and read, oh, some atrociously-written Bad Girl
>art, that they are both "bad"?
Gee, those artists *chose* to create Bad Girl art and rendered it with
great technical skill. Good thing that doesn't make your views "bad
criticism."
If they're bad comics, they're bad comics. The Kindly Ones will probably
still be better than the BGA, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad.
>As for judging a book on its own merits - no work exists in a vacuum. I
>wouldn't want a critic to water his criticisms down, but to judge an
>artistic work independent of its field, its time and its place isn't good
>criticism. Take Giotto - earliest of the "great" painters. Looked at
>today, he's flat and awkward. Within the context of his time, he was
>head and shoulders beyond his competition.But to say he's "bad" just
>isn't good criticism.
Actually, neither of your two penultimate statements seem to be good
criticism. We don't have to compare Giotto to his competition to say
he's good or bad. In fact, when I say a book (or a painting) should be
judged on its own merits, I mean accounting for things like time and place
as well as potential and quality -- just not how good any other comic or
painting is.. On his own merits, Giotto is a great painter of the proto-
Renaissance. We shouldn't expect him to use modern perspective or
anatomy -- just as we shouldn't expect Gaiman to settle for an overlong,
meandering plot and an indulgent affirmation of suicide. I'm not arguing
for a vacuum, I'm just saying that one work's quality has little to nothing
to do with the quality of its contemporaries.
>I wouldn't say restrain, nor would I want anyone to. But keep a veneer
>of civility? I don't think that's too much to ask.
No. Unfortunately, you're asking for it at the same time you're asking for
some very tight restrictions and some very negative (and IMO artificial)
labels for any criticism that's less than positive. The total effect is
an impression that you're asking for the restraining, or at least the
condemnation, of any criticism more negative that what you yourself would
voice.
Marc
Marc Singer
In article <4qkuig$f...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <4qc0no$k...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>>I think the skewed discussion accurately reflects the fact that most of
>>the questions raised by the book, and certainly most of the detailed
>>character work put into the book, are of the "Who's that?" variety.
>
>You're working from faulty evidence. On CompuServe, there was a greater
>proportion of issue discussion; does that mean that the book they read had
>more questions in it? No, of course not; it means that the two fora have
>different audiences interested in different things.
Why is *my* evidence necessarily the faulty set? :) Doesn't Compuserve
tend to have a much greater number of creators and pros, possibly including
the creators of Kingdom Come and definitely including a greater number
of people who regularly speak with them? For all we know here, the more
direct creator input may have answered all the "Who's that?" questions
already and made them unnecessary. At any rate, there are far more reasons
than just the discussion here to conclude the most information given by
Kingdom Come springs from the scenery and the spear-carriers.
Just out of curiosity, what was the issue discussion on Compuserve?
>>I agree that the costume makes her parentage obvious; my point is that the
>>name comes out of nowhere, and isn't given anywhere in the comic.
>
>I find it fascinating to look at how writing is changing with the
>confluence of media. Perhaps knowing that the fans can so much more easily
>talk to one another (and create the annotations) in areas like this one
>will continue to influence writing.
I've been thinking about this argument myself. Someone could easily claim
that Kingdom Come's complete text is a hypermedia collage of printed comic
and online discussion and overpriced unreleased trading card set, interlinked
to produce a vast web of blah blah blah... doesn't change the actual writing
of the comic one bit, though.
Marc
Johanna Draper
In article <RjOO0jy...@delphi.com>, <ato...@delphi.com> wrote:
>I think the telling observation is that the bulk of posts on Kingdom
>Come have been people identifying the heroes old and new in the backgrounds.
>If this is the thing we can talk most about, what sort of substance is this
>story really offering us?
As I pointed out elsewhere, that says more about us than about the book. In
other fora, the ideas are being discussed more than the cameos.
Johanna
Marc Singer
In article <4qm3l0$i...@panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
>: annotations quite a bit. I hold *Waid* in less regard for writing a
>: story in which the most important story element is the annotation aspect
>: (and for making online annotations very *necessary* to get the whole story),
>: but that's another matter entirely. Annotating comics is wholly worthwhile
>: for a fan, but writing a comic that's little more than a source of
>: annotations isn't so worthwhile for a writer.
>
>these annotations are in fact the work of Alex Ross, not Mark Waid? I
>think Waid said at the Kingdom Come panel this past weekend that the
>"spot the characters" game was something like 90% Ross.
Ah, so Ross did even more work than I gave him credit for, and Waid did
even *less*. Instead of writing an annotation source, he wrote nothing
whatsoever.
Thanks for clearing that up, Elayne. :-)
Marc
(P.S. Yes, I did previously guess that Ross came up with all the background
people himself, but I meant that even the "foreground people" who have roles
in the story tend to just be subjects for annotations.)
Marc Singer
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960624...@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Abhay Khosla <akh...@umich.edu> wrote:
>On 20 Jun 1996, Marc Singer wrote:
>
>> it has. I think a decent story really should have a decent amount of
>> development beyond the small number of principals. Especially when the
>> story claims such a grand, earth-shattering status for itself. There could
>> at least be an earth for it to shatter...
>
>In Waid's defense, he's been one yelling for one helluva long time that he
No, nor did he write all the net-hype, and those did do much of the bragging.
However, the comic itself also claims to be important and earth-shaking,
especially when it uses devices like...
(Should I really go back here?)
...the portentious Biblical quotes, especially the ones written in script
on the first page and then repeated -- in case you didn't get the clever
parallelism -- in bold type on the last page. These and a million other
little touches are all used by the story to hype itself.
>>The bar scene
>> stands out in my mind as a scene that was really fun to people-spot the
>> first time around, and really dull every other time. Because after you've
>
>I find this the most intriguing scene in #2 because noone's asking about
>it.
But you're asking questions that the comic doesn't want you to consider. :)
>He's a PARTY-POOPER, and
>everyone thinks that scene's a GOOD SCENE with Superman.
Well, I would have thought it was a good scene for Superman if his big
inspirational speech had actually been inspirational...
>Its a wierd book...
You may be right.
Marc
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >think Waid said at the Kingdom Come panel this past weekend that the
: >"spot the characters" game was something like 90% Ross.
: Ah, so Ross did even more work than I gave him credit for, and Waid did
: even *less*. Instead of writing an annotation source, he wrote nothing
: whatsoever.
: Thanks for clearing that up, Elayne. :-)
Cute, and thanks for twisting my intention completely.
I'm sorry you don't like the story, but a number of us, including Warren
Ellis and myself, see quite a bit therein. It's your prerogative, of
course, to criticize it in whatever way you see fit, but I wish you
wouldn't make all sorts of pronouncements that other people's reviews
have all but countered by their very nature. Warren's review in
particular was thorough and well thought out. He didn't make it up from
whole cloth. He, like many of us, read SOMEthing in KINGDOM COME that
you obviously didn't, got excited about SOMEthing that didn't hook you.
If it's not there *for you*, that's fine. But please don't go saying it's
not there, *period*.
Johanna Draper
Marc said a lot of stuff, but let me just respond to:
>How can criticism "neutralize" other kinds of criticism, especially
>when it's honest and well-supported and (IMO) one hundred percent
>accurate?
Here's a couple of hypotheticals:
1) Critic A pans anything writer B does. A thus gets a reputation of
disliking B (for whatever reason, valid or not). When B puts out a book
that many people like and A pans it as well, people are likely to ignore
the criticisms (valid or not), instead saying, "oh, that's just A's
hobbyhorse."
[This is a fictional situation. I'm not implying anything about Marc's
criticisms of Kingdom Come. I'm just imagining possibilities in other
cases.]
2) Critic A pans anything company B does. Person C, working at B, thus
ignores A's comments, no matter how valid, because "obviously" A has some
sort of grudge against B and can't find anything good to say about them.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that a participating critic here has
a history and a viewpoint, and often, comments are interpreted in light of
that past.
>The quality of every other book in the comics industry has nothing to
>do with the quality of an issue of The Kindly Ones. And vice versa.
Not if you're looking at the medium or a genre as a whole.
Johanna
Joe Gorde
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: It's your prerogative, of
: course, to criticize it in whatever way you see fit, but I wish you
: wouldn't make all sorts of pronouncements that other people's reviews
: have all but countered by their very nature.
Um, no offense, Elayne, but the simple fact that you wrote a review of
something doesn't make it richly-layered. On the contrary, your reviews
have a tendancy to be long on plot summary and short on everything else;
it's a rare day when they examine things like thematic execution or
narrative structure more than superficially. I don't recall your KC
reviews being any different on this score.
I don't mean this to be a slam on you or your reviews, by the way; I have
occasionally found them to be very useful and informative. But they
hardly counter Marc's criticisms "by their very nature." In fact, one
could plausibly make a case that they _support_ them.
I missed Warren's review when it was posted, and only got the follow-ups,
so I can't comment on it.
Johanna Draper
In article <4qp5mo$2...@rac5.wam.umd.edu>,
Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>You're working from faulty evidence. On CompuServe, there was a greater
>>proportion of issue discussion; does that mean that the book they read had
>>more questions in it? No, of course not; it means that the two fora have
>>different audiences interested in different things.
>
>Why is *my* evidence necessarily the faulty set? :) Doesn't Compuserve
>tend to have a much greater number of creators and pros, possibly including
>the creators of Kingdom Come and definitely including a greater number
>of people who regularly speak with them?
Yes, CIS has more pros. The main participants in the Kingdom Come
discussion (last time I checked in), though, are the "normals", the people
who just regularly participate.
>any rate, there are far more reasons than just the discussion here to
>conclude the most information given by Kingdom Come springs from the
>scenery and the spear-carriers.
I disagree. I find Kingdom Come a very interesting, complexly layered
story. But I know that I have no hope of convincing you of this, although I
would think that my usual dislike of Waid's work would demonstrate that
this is somehow different.
>Just out of curiosity, what was the issue discussion on Compuserve?
Mainly revolving around the nature of heroism and the kind of society
shown. I suspect some of it has to do with the age difference; the older
fans have more chance of recognizing the cameos, and they're more likely to
agree with a "new isn't necessarily good" theme.
Johanna
jnevins
dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
>Marc said a lot of stuff, but let me just respond to:
>>How can criticism "neutralize" other kinds of criticism, especially
>>when it's honest and well-supported and (IMO) one hundred percent
>>accurate?
My point was that it doesn't neutralize other criticisms - it neutralizes
your own. By calling a weak effort by a good artist "bad," you then
weaken that word for use against the egregiously horrible stuff out there
- in essence you equate the two, which is bad criticism.
This can be avoided by saying "this is a bad effort by X's standards."
But I haven't seen much of that type of qualifying here.
Of course, maybe I just haven't been reading closely enough...<G>
jess
jnevins
*sigh*
I just got through a very long response to your post, Marc, when my
server ate everything I'd written. I just don't have the energy to
retype it.
Besides, I'm going off to the wilds of Nova Scotia and PEI in a day or
two and will be off-line for a while, so you'd have gotten the last word
in this debate anyhow.
jess, bowing out but not admitting defeat <G>
Katharine Martin
Mick wrote:
>I think the telling observation is that the bulk of posts on Kingdom
>Come have been people identifying the heroes old and new in the
>backgrounds.
Well, there've also been a lot, and could be more, posts about whether
this apocalypse stuff is just a metaphorical apocalypse or the Real Live
Apocalypse, and, if it's a metaphorical one, whether the Biblical quotes
are heavy handed or not. Or, hey, even if it's a real one, are the
Biblical quotes heavy handed. And whether, if it's a metaphorical one,
the Biblical quotes are necessary.
Also, this lack of characterization - is it really there? And whether
Waid's picking wholesale from TDKR or not.
And I could (and might, sometime) go on for ages about what issues this
brings up in terms of violence, methods, and whether anyone's methods are
better than anyone else's.
>If this is the thing we can talk most about, what sort of substance is this
>story really offering us?
Actually, quite a bit.
--
Kate Martin jul...@haven.boston.ma.us k...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
"Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good laugh." - I.G.
"Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,/ A medley of extemporanea;/ And love
is thing that can never go wrong;/ And I am Marie of Roumania." -- Parker
Marc Singer
Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Marc said a lot of stuff, but let me just respond to:
>>when it's honest and well-supported and (IMO) one hundred percent
>>accurate?
>
>1) Critic A pans anything writer B does. A thus gets a reputation of
>disliking B (for whatever reason, valid or not). When B puts out a book
>that many people like and A pans it as well, people are likely to ignore
>the criticisms (valid or not), instead saying, "oh, that's just A's
>hobbyhorse."
>
>ignores A's comments, no matter how valid, because "obviously" A has some
>sort of grudge against B and can't find anything good to say about them.
Aren't both of these really examples of a critic nullifying his or her
own ethos, and through that his or her own criticism, rather than other
criticism of other books? The situation Jess described was negative
criticism of a "good" book somehow negating negative criticism of a "bad"
book. Even though the second half of your situation #1 addresses this,
your situation is still more a case of the critic undermining their *own*
critical ethos, not other people's comments on other comic books.
Also, both of these hypothetical situations seem to be based on the
critic making some rather odd judgment calls (if a person really hates
everything a writer or company does, they'd probably just stop reading
that writer or company -- especially here on all-volunteer Usenet), not
on making valid criticism of "good" comics.
So while these are examples of criticism neutralizing criticism, I don't
know if they would support a contention that one shouldn't say bad things
about "good" comics because it will hurt criticism of "bad" comics.
Marc
Marc Singer
>
>I just got through a very long response to your post, Marc, when my
>server ate everything I'd written. I just don't have the energy to
>retype it.
I know that frustrating feeling... my server was down when I first tried
to post *both* of my responses to you, and I had to cut and paste them
to my word processor to keep from losing them. Do you get the feeling
some gray eminence of the Internet doesn't want this discussion to
continue? :)
>Besides, I'm going off to the wilds of Nova Scotia and PEI in a day or
>two and will be off-line for a while, so you'd have gotten the last word
>in this debate anyhow.
Not that the last word is necessarily the best.
Marc
Marc Singer
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >You do realize, don't you, that most of the little cameos that *lead* to
>: >these annotations are in fact the work of Alex Ross, not Mark Waid? I
>: >think Waid said at the Kingdom Come panel this past weekend that the
>: >"spot the characters" game was something like 90% Ross.
>
>: Ah, so Ross did even more work than I gave him credit for, and Waid did
>: even *less*. Instead of writing an annotation source, he wrote nothing
>: whatsoever.
>: Thanks for clearing that up, Elayne. :-)
>
>Cute, and thanks for twisting my intention completely.
If your intention was to refute me by misinterpreting what I said -- and
be a little condescending in the process -- then perhaps it's good that
I twisted it.
>I'm sorry you don't like the story, but a number of us, including Warren
>Ellis and myself, see quite a bit therein.
Didn't Warren Ellis actually say it was nothing more than a well-told
Ripping Yarn? That's actually very close to how I feel about it (but
I'm sorry if this twists any attempt to use name-dropping to boost an
argument).
I do like the story, otherwise I wouldn't have come back for #2. I've
said I liked the story. But I've also said which elements absolutely
fail to work for me, and why the story just isn't all it's cracked up to
be (including all it, er, cracks itself up to be) for me. It's just the
nature of racdu that the "dissenting" posts are the ones that will be
replied to and debated and noticed the most.
It's your prerogative, of
>course, to criticize it in whatever way you see fit, but I wish you
>wouldn't make all sorts of pronouncements that other people's reviews
>have all but countered by their very nature. Warren's review in
>particular was thorough and well thought out. He didn't make it up from
>whole cloth.
Golly gee, Elayne, and I did make mine up.
I make "all sorts of pronouncements" based on what I see after plenty of
careful readings and rereadings. And on my reaction to what I see. That's
all any of us have to go on. And while some people can counter those
"pronouncments" my actually making points. I'm afraid nobody -- not even
the incredibly well-connected net.review champion -- has made a post so
awe-inspiringly deep that its very nature proves *anything* one way or
the other.
He, like many of us, read SOMEthing in KINGDOM COME that
>you obviously didn't, got excited about SOMEthing that didn't hook you.
And I, like so many others (does citing an silent majority really prove
anything?) read SOMEthing in Kingdom Come that you obviously didn't,
got annoyed by SOMEthing that hooked you. So?
>If it's not there *for you*, that's fine. But please don't go saying it's
>not there, *period*.
And if you had no problems with it, that's fine too. But that doesn't
mean other people don't see problems -- not in their minds, but in the
damn comic -- that they feel compelled to mention. There are plenty of
good reasons to say why the characterization, or message, or whatever
is problematic, and the mere *existence* of dissenting opinions isn't
enough to counter them.
No, the ideal response would be to provide other reasons why it all
comes together and works wonders. In fact, *I* think there are plenty
of reasons. It's just that name-dropping, silent majorities, and presuming
the authority to dictate whose reaction is accurate and whose is all in
their head, aren't among them.
Marc
Joe Gorde
: What the hell have YOU been reading?
Sigh, I figured you'd take that more personally than I'd intended. Yes, you point
out thematic elements where you see them. Note the phrase "...more than
superficially" in my post; you don't generally dissect these elements to any
degree, nor do you address things like symbolism, narrative voice, composition,
subtext, etc etc in very much depth.
I could go on but I'm honestly not trying to slam you. Probably, you and I simply
have different ideas of what "in depth" means. This dosn't mean your reviews are
poor ones, it just means that they aren't probing enough to answer my (and
Marc's) reservations about KC. I've read all the reviews and discussion of KC, I
see and understand the issues that everyone else does, and I *still* don't think
the writing is particularly complex or richly-layered. Marc presumably feels the
same way, and he seems as well-informed as anyone. Perhaps we simply expect more
from our comics before we call them great than you do.
Johanna Draper
Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Aren't both of these really examples of a critic nullifying his or her
>own ethos, and through that his or her own criticism, rather than other
>criticism of other books?
Perhaps. I was trying to talk about the need to be aware of the history one
is creating and the group perception, in the hopes of widening the
discussion.
But how about this hypothetical: critic A's negative comments about book B
are ignored by writer C due to a large number of pointless negative
comments occurring at the same time. Critic A isn't responsible for that,
but one should always consider the temperature of the water before jumping
in.
>The situation Jess described was negative criticism of a "good" book
>somehow negating negative criticism of a "bad" book.
Hmmm ... I agree that if you go around calling a well-respected book awful,
you're going to seem less credible to some people, because your scale seems
set differently. (Along the lines of "if you think Watchmen is awful, then
what do you think is good?")
>Also, both of these hypothetical situations seem to be based on the
>critic making some rather odd judgment calls (if a person really hates
>everything a writer or company does, they'd probably just stop reading
>that writer or company -- especially here on all-volunteer Usenet),
You'd be surprised. Some people love to make a rep for themselves, even if
that rep is Writer X's worst enemy. And we all know that people keep buying
comics even when they know they don't like them, for a variety of reasons.
>So while these are examples of criticism neutralizing criticism, I don't
>know if they would support a contention that one shouldn't say bad things
>about "good" comics because it will hurt criticism of "bad" comics.
Well, they weren't necessarily intended to support that contention,
although I do agree with it to some degree. Basically, I think that every
time someone posts a review, they're adding to the picture others have of
them. If all they post are negatives, then that adds up to a picture of a
picky person, perhaps, or one who doesn't know how to enjoy comics. Or
someone who should try some new titles, or someone who should learn how to
say something positive.
Johanna
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, joeg...@ren.us.itd.umich.edu (Joe Gorde) says:
>Katharine Martin (jul...@flash-gordon.haven.boston.ma.us) wrote:
>: Well, there've also been a lot, and could be more, posts about whether
>: this apocalypse stuff is just a metaphorical apocalypse or the Real Live
>: Apocalypse, and, if it's a metaphorical one, whether the Biblical quotes
>: are heavy handed or not. Or, hey, even if it's a real one, are the
>: Biblical quotes heavy handed. And whether, if it's a metaphorical one,
>: the Biblical quotes are necessary.
>:
>: Also, this lack of characterization - is it really there? And whether
>: Waid's picking wholesale from TDKR or not.
>
>But the fact that these discussions exist doesn't prove that the book has
>any real substance -- in fact, that's what the people arguing these
>points are trying to determine.
But there have been several posters who have argued that since the
majority of postings on KC are about who is who than that is all that
there is to the book, so why can't we use the discussion about the themes
as examples that there *is* more to the book?
>
>: And I could (and might, sometime) go on for ages about what issues this
>: brings up in terms of violence, methods, and whether anyone's methods are
>: better than anyone else's.
>
>But, see, this is nothing new. I have an issue of Daredevil from
>the late 80's that includes a Punisher guest appearance, and it addresses
>these very same issues, to approximately the same depth as KC.
>And I'm sure that issue of Daredevil wasn't revolutionary, either; I've
>seen it done many times since, and I'm sure it was done many times
>before. It's practically a cliche of superhero crossovers.
The idea may not be revaloutionary - I doubt there are many ideas that
are. Its the presentation that counts. And KC, throwing in religious
alusions and heavily Iconic characters does that, IMO to a certain
degree. Its premature to be talking about how great or not in a
historical context, KC is.
>: >If this is the thing we can talk most about, what sort of substance is this
>: >story really offering us?
>:
>: Actually, quite a bit.
>
>Maybe it is, but you haven't shown us any. So far, here's what we've
>got: Spot-the-Cameo; heavy-handed (and trite) biblical imagery; weak
>(and unoriginal) characterization; the "old good - new bad" generation
>gap cliche; the "whose methods are better" cliche. This is a pretty poor
>showing for a book that's being hailed as the best superhero book in
>years, possibly ever.
But these are cliches to you. First off you are using the spot-the-cameo
to detract from the story, of which the spot the cameo really isn't the
point. Its ambience, not the raison d'etre.
The Old good - new bad I think is a cliche you are seeing that isn't
there. The way it is presented to me NONE of the sides are really the
right one. They all have serious problems. And maybe that is the point
of the whole story. That none of these ways are really good.
And couldn't you level the "whose methods are better" hoary cliche at
WATCHMEN and DKR? I think you could. Its not what cliche a story uses
but what effect and combination they have. It is often said that there
are no new stories. Thus, the quality of the story is in how its told
and what perspective it brings. And I'm interested in the quality and
perspective in KC.
>
>There are things to like about this book, mostly Ross-related. But it's
>nowhere near the same league as the established classics of the medium,
>or the genre.
>
And I think its way to early to be judging in a historical context a work
that isn't even done.
-Chris
--
====Ibis the Invincible - cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu===========
"You're a swell guy Cosmic Boy...but I'd sure hate to meet some of
your primeval ancestors in a Dark Alley!" -Sun Boy to Cosmic boy on seeing
the results of the Ancestor-Visualizer Machine in ADVENTURE COMICS #328
The Frankly Fantastic Booster-Man
good for himself....
Booster
> Paul Moorehead <moor...@math.washington.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.HPP.3.93.96061...@magritte.math.washington.edu>...
>
> On 18 Jun 1996, Carter Lupton wrote:
>
> > Paul Schwartzkopf (pschwar@swiftty) wrote:
> >
> >
> > : How about a little poll: Batman vs. Superman
> >
> > Although I'm enjoying the story, I think they've set up a straw man in
> > Supes. Sure, it's Elseworlds, but I don't think it's fair to have
Batman
> > acting more or less in character with his "real" continuity persona,
while
> > the KC Superman is very much at odds with his "real" persona. The
Superman
> > I know would never have retired from the never-ending battle in the
first
> > place. A "false" Superman has been created, which makes it easy for
Batman
> > to criticize him. Bruce has continued the fight while Superman bowed
out.
> > But I seem to recall a little story of a decade or so ago called The
Dark
> > Knight Returns in which Batman decided to come out of retirement as
> > Superman does in KC.
>
> I would disagree with the idea that Batman is "in character" in 'Kingdom
> Come'. Nothing, I think, could be further from the truth. On a purely
> cosmetic level, he's much too smug and flippant, but that's the way Mark
> Waid writes almost all of his characters. (I can only imagine the
effort
> of will it's taking for Mark Waid not to write some quips into
Superman's
> dialogue :) ) More substantially: Running Gotham like some kind of
> techno-dictatorship? Siding with Luthor? Bats is a loner. He has, in
> the past, struggled in groups and teams. But now he's running some
> world-wide resistance network. I don't know who this character is, but
> he's not the Batman I know.
>
> Supes hasn't gotten any better a treatment. I guess it's fair to say
that
> Lois's death would have affected him. But, while I wasn't really
bothered
> by the fact that Superman is supposed to have gone into reclusion for a
> while, he's bullying and railroading people, and letting Wonder Woman do
> the same to him. Doesn't sound like the Man of Steel.
>
> Somehow, even if it is an Elseworlds, Mark Waid has gotten permission to
> write a story in which DC's two top dogs turn their back on what they
used
> to stand for.
>
> Of course, the character who's gotten the worst shaft of all, based on
the
> few panels we've seen him in, is Captain Marvel. Waid better have
> something up his sleeve, as far as the Big Red Cheese is concerned, or
I'm
> gonna be mad...
>
> Paul
>
>
>
Matt and Vicki Holmes
[on the bar scene in Book Two:]
>I find this the most intriguing scene in #2 because noone's asking about
>it. The new heroes- what were they doing wrong? What- stretching
>Plastic Man? Who cares- thats his power, he stretches, who cares if he
>gets stretched!!! Drinking? Thats what deserves the Apocalypse- having
>a drink? My dad had a drink the other night- Superman's not going to
>melt him with his heat vision later, is he- not my DAD!!! The Human Bomb
>blowing folks up? C'mon folks- is anyone really thinking the biggest
>problem with superhero comics today are those violent, vioolent Freedom
>Fighters! Its Doll-Man's fault!
>But then we just get some-old-guy calling them Beasts, the Spectre saying
>they'll be culled or whatever, and then Superman walks in and smashes the
>party and tells everyone he's taking over. He's a PARTY-POOPER, and
>everyone thinks that scene's a GOOD SCENE with Superman.
Maybe I "got it" because I'm an old fogey myself, but what made the
goings on in the bar BAD was that it was being done by characters who
probably consider themselves "heroes". Now, we could go down that
dusty path that athletes and actors have tread lately, where they
proclaim, "I'm NOT a role model!" but let's face it, heroes (the real
kind) are SUPPOSED to be role models. That's part and parcel of the
gig. If a person's not prepared to live with that, they shouldn't
call themself a hero. To me, THAT'S the message the Man of Steel is
delivering in that scene. And I agree 100%.
>Its such a wierd scene that the art manages to make you not wonder about
>things, but writing-wise, its so bizarre its interesting to me. The
>dialogue's good, but yknow, a caption here and there saying "They were
>doing bad stuff" would have made that make sense. Instead its "Superman
>Stops People From Drinking." Huh? And whats more, isn't that Hal Jordan's
>or Tony Stark's job?
They weren't acting like heroes. They were acting like irresponsible
kids (pulling tricks on each other, endangering each other).
Matt Holmes
mho...@mars.execulink.com
Now the proud owner of a page of original art actually
WRITTEN BY ALAN MOORE!