Waid Wit (or, in defense of Ka-Zar)
edmu...@earthlink.net
I know there are a few Waid bashers here (till now, I didn't know such a
creature existed) , but there's one thing I can never get over: his
indomitable wit. He, PAD, and Jim Starlin are incapable of writing a
comic without one or two really great lines.
Only one thing I didn't much like...why did Mark stage the scenes with
the multi-powerful evil businessman in New York? This guy seems like
he's pretty powerful (in a financial sense), what with all the
technology and the big building and such. Are we to believe that with
the Kingpin, Rose, Silvermane, and now Fortunato, nobody has ever
noticed this guy before? It seems that every week there is a new "multi-
million-dollar businessman" or "world-reknown assassin" that everyone
has 'heard of'. BTW, does anyone else think he's Ka-Zar's brother?
Business Guy: "I understand you're the same Gregor who trained Kraven
the Hunter? Nice craftsmanship. What was your secret?"
Gregor: "I did not waste his time in sterile places like this."
Business Guy: "Nice view, eh? See all those buildings? Got that
one...that one...NEED this one...got it...need it..."
Ka-Zar: "'Go hunting', said Shanna. 'Bring back a little dinner.' A
simple enough request. Leave it to me to complicate things."
Ka-Zar: "I'm out of luck until Zabu--once more proving he's the brains
of the team--"
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
edmu...@earthlink.net wrote:
: I know there are a few Waid bashers here (till now, I didn't know such a
: creature existed) , but there's one thing I can never get over: his
: indomitable wit.
I don't think Mark's wit was ever in question. The "bashing" comes about
because much of that wit is spoilt when he does things like offing minor
and (seeming to off) major characters in his stories.
Personally, I think Mark is one of the wittiest people I know. If you
ever have a chance to see him on a panel at a convention, GO. He's
amazingly quick and funny, even more so in person than on paper.
- Elayne
--
"The kiss originated when the first male reptile licked the first female
reptile, implying in a subtle, complimentary way that she was as succulent
as the small reptile he had for dinner the night before."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Brian H. Bailie
In article <5g45kg$p...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> edmu...@earthlink.net wrote:
> : I know there are a few Waid bashers here (till now, I didn't know such a
> : creature existed) , but there's one thing I can never get over: his
> : indomitable wit.
>
> I don't think Mark's wit was ever in question. The "bashing" comes about
> because much of that wit is spoilt when he does things like offing minor
> and (seeming to off) major characters in his stories.
His homicidal tendencies are indeed annoying, but what spoils his humor
more than anything is the fact that he suffers from "Peter David
Syndrome". He never lets anything like characterization or plot get in the
way of any joke he feels like telling.
Much of Ka-Zar's dialogue was indeed amusing. But I never once felt any of
it was true to the character of Ka-Zar as we've seen him for the past 30
years.
With all the hubbub about Mark's trying to find out about previous
appearances a while back, you'd think he'd have spent more time on just
his history. This may be the first time some people will have been exposed
to him, but he's not a blank slate.
Besides, everyone knows that Shanna is the funny one. :)
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Jess Nevins
Brian H. Bailie wrote:
>
> In article <5g45kg$p...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
> Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> > edmu...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > : I know there are a few Waid bashers here (till now, I didn't know such a
> > : creature existed) , but there's one thing I can never get over: his
> > : indomitable wit.
> >
> > I don't think Mark's wit was ever in question. The "bashing" comes about
> > because much of that wit is spoilt when he does things like offing minor
> > and (seeming to off) major characters in his stories.
>
> His homicidal tendencies are indeed annoying, but what spoils his humor
> more than anything is the fact that he suffers from "Peter David
> Syndrome". He never lets anything like characterization or plot get in the
> way of any joke he feels like telling.
Of course, some of us feel that the jokes are part of the characterization,
but YMMV.
And I really think you'd be hard pressed to find the facts to back up your
comment about "homicidal tendencies," but YMMV.
> Much of Ka-Zar's dialogue was indeed amusing. But I never once felt any of
> it was true to the character of Ka-Zar as we've seen him for the past 30
> years.
Funny, I've been reading Marvel Comics for over 20 years now, and I never
thought that his previous writing contained much of what could even
charitably be called "characterization," but YMMV.
> With all the hubbub about Mark's trying to find out about previous
> appearances a while back, you'd think he'd have spent more time on just
> his history. This may be the first time some people will have been exposed
> to him, but he's not a blank slate.
That definitely wasn't the impression I came away from this issue with, but
YMMV.
jess
Brian H. Bailie
In article <332749...@ix.netcom.com>, Jess Nevins
<jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Brian H. Bailie wrote:
> >
> > His homicidal tendencies are indeed annoying, but what spoils his humor
> > more than anything is the fact that he suffers from "Peter David
> > Syndrome". He never lets anything like characterization or plot get in the
> > way of any joke he feels like telling.
>
> Of course, some of us feel that the jokes are part of the characterization,
> but YMMV.
That's all well and good. However, my point is that it's the first time in
the character's history that he'd have been portrayed that way, and as
such, it rings less than true. And I really wasn't kidding before. In the
long running previous Ka-Zar series, it was Shanna who was the funnier one.
Also the one who was more anxious to leave the jungle than Ka-Zar.
And come to think about it, Zabu was a whole lot funnier than Ka-Zar was also.
> And I really think you'd be hard pressed to find the facts to back up your
> comment about "homicidal tendencies," but YMMV.
Well, my mileage apparently isn't too far off of a lot of people's
including Waid himself. Especially considering how fast he's trying to
bring back a whole slew of characters he killed off during "Underworld
Unleashed.
"Hard pressed"? It's become somewhat of a joke how quickly he'll kill off
characters.
> > Much of Ka-Zar's dialogue was indeed amusing. But I never once felt any of
> > it was true to the character of Ka-Zar as we've seen him for the past 30
> > years.
>
> Funny, I've been reading Marvel Comics for over 20 years now, and I never
> thought that his previous writing contained much of what could even
> charitably be called "characterization," but YMMV.
I'm genuinely curious as to just what you've read containing Ka-Zar, then.
Certainly not his last series. And his characterization for the most part
has always been that, well... basically ripping off Tarzan. At times pretty
savage, but for the most part, well spoken and educated, but preferring to
live in the jungle as opposed to civilization. Pretty much on the stoic
side as well.
> > With all the hubbub about Mark's trying to find out about previous
> > appearances a while back, you'd think he'd have spent more time on just
> > his history. This may be the first time some people will have been exposed
> > to him, but he's not a blank slate.
>
> That definitely wasn't the impression I came away from this issue with, but
> YMMV.
You're welcome to your own opinion, certainly. But my mileage also includes
bristling at your inexplicable snottiness over my constructive criticism,
but, of course,... YMMV.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Brian H. Bailie (b.h.b...@larc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: His homicidal tendencies are indeed annoying, but what spoils his humor
: more than anything is the fact that he suffers from "Peter David
: Syndrome". He never lets anything like characterization or plot get in the
: way of any joke he feels like telling.
Do you think so? Whereas Peter has a tendency to go for a joke or pun at
the least excuse, I think with Mark it's more a compulsion to insert a
media reference every issue. I thought this was Brian's doing, but it
seems to go on in many of Waid's solo books as well, to the extent that
I've started actively *looking* for the Mandatory Media Reference of the
issue just to get it out of the way.
: Much of Ka-Zar's dialogue was indeed amusing. But I never once felt any of
: it was true to the character of Ka-Zar as we've seen him for the past 30
: years.
: With all the hubbub about Mark's trying to find out about previous
: appearances a while back, you'd think he'd have spent more time on just
: his history. This may be the first time some people will have been exposed
: to him, but he's not a blank slate.
Well, you know more about the character than I do. Someone once observed
that most of Waid's protagonists tend to speak with his voice, very glibly
and self-amusingly. It's not something I particularly mind, I think I
could listen to Mark for hours on end (well, I *have*), but it does have
the effect of giving his characters a sort of sameness of personality that
he has to work hard to overcome.
: Besides, everyone knows that Shanna is the funny one. :)
LOL!
Jess Nevins
Brian H. Bailie wrote:
>
> In article <332749...@ix.netcom.com>, Jess Nevins
> <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > His homicidal tendencies are indeed annoying, but what spoils his humor
> > > more than anything is the fact that he suffers from "Peter David
> > > Syndrome". He never lets anything like characterization or plot get in the
> > > way of any joke he feels like telling.
> >
> > but YMMV.
>
> That's all well and good. However, my point is that it's the first time in
> the character's history that he'd have been portrayed that way, and as
> such, it rings less than true. And I really wasn't kidding before. In the
Had you phrased it specifically, rather than in such a sweeping manner, I
might have agreed with you.
> > And I really think you'd be hard pressed to find the facts to back up your
> > comment about "homicidal tendencies," but YMMV.
>
> Well, my mileage apparently isn't too far off of a lot of people's
> including Waid himself. Especially considering how fast he's trying to
> bring back a whole slew of characters he killed off during "Underworld
> Unleashed.
> "Hard pressed"? It's become somewhat of a joke how quickly he'll kill off
> characters.
Names, please. He killed off Johnny Quick & the Blue Trinity member in Flash -
that's two deaths for over 50 issues. The entire point of Underworld Unleashed
was dealing with the "devil" & so it was inevitable that someone would be
dying. He killed off Ice during Invasion - but that was a war.
I hardly think that constitutes "homicidal." As for it being a "joke," lots of
things are jokes on the Internet, but very few of them have much semblance
of reality.
> > > Much of Ka-Zar's dialogue was indeed amusing. But I never once felt any of
> > > it was true to the character of Ka-Zar as we've seen him for the past 30
> > > years.
> >
> > Funny, I've been reading Marvel Comics for over 20 years now, and I never
> > thought that his previous writing contained much of what could even
> > charitably be called "characterization," but YMMV.
>
> I'm genuinely curious as to just what you've read containing Ka-Zar, then.
> Certainly not his last series. And his characterization for the most part
Yes, his last series. I thought it poorly written, with one- (or at best two-)
dimension "characterization."
> has always been that, well... basically ripping off Tarzan. At times pretty
> savage, but for the most part, well spoken and educated, but preferring to
> live in the jungle as opposed to civilization. Pretty much on the stoic
> side as well.
So characters can't change? Admittedly it is out of what you are calling
Ka-Zar's "character," but Waid has certainly laid the groundwork in the first
issue for why Ka-Zar might begin to envy the luxuries of civilization.
> > > With all the hubbub about Mark's trying to find out about previous
> > > appearances a while back, you'd think he'd have spent more time on just
> > > his history. This may be the first time some people will have been exposed
> > > to him, but he's not a blank slate.
> >
> > That definitely wasn't the impression I came away from this issue with, but
> > YMMV.
>
> You're welcome to your own opinion, certainly. But my mileage also includes
> bristling at your inexplicable snottiness over my constructive criticism,
> but, of course,... YMMV.
Funny, I'd have called your "constructive criticism" snottiness. Read your
first paragraph, about his "homicidal tendencies" and your sweeping indictment
of his writing. That's not constructive, that's sniping. And as such deserves
nothing more than snottiness.
Homicidal? If he were truly homicidal he'd have killed off the Flash's ex-
girlfriends and/or his friends to earn very cheap pathos in various stories.
The only error of that sort he made was with Johnny Quick - that's one death.
On this you base your "homicidal tendencies?" I know many others have said
this about Waid - but they, too, never seem to deal in specifics.
jess
MBRADY669
on 13 Mar 1997 00:07:51 -0500 fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)
wrote:
>I think with Mark it's more a compulsion to insert a
>media reference every issue. I thought this was Brian's doing, but it
>seems to go on in many of Waid's solo books as well, to the extent that
>I've started actively *looking* for the Mandatory Media Reference of the
>issue just to get it out of the way.
I dunno, compulsion may be too strong a word. With PAD, it's clearly a
compulsion--if he sees a good pun or joke a mile away, 9 times out of 10,
it seems like he'll direct the story towards it. With Mark, eh, I don't
think he's quite so ruled. If a situation presents itself where it
doesn't fit in an issue, I really don't think he'd jam one in anyway.
MattB
Peter Judge
Discussion about Mark Waid's homicidal tendencies reminds me of the 70s,
when Gerry 'Killer' Conway got a similar reputation. I can't remember
all his victims, but I know Gwen Stacey was one of them.
(that is a cue for other old-timers, by the way - who else *did* he kill
off?)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Judge
edmu...@earthlink.net
I may be wrong, but didn't he also kill Jean and Brian DeWolffe? (on
separate occasions, of course)
Randy Lander
Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Homicidal? If he were truly homicidal he'd have killed off the Flash's ex-
>girlfriends and/or his friends to earn very cheap pathos in various stories.
>The only error of that sort he made was with Johnny Quick - that's one death.
>On this you base your "homicidal tendencies?" I know many others have said
>this about Waid - but they, too, never seem to deal in specifics.
Specifics:
(Over the course of the past two years):
Johnny Quick
A member of Blue Trinity
Minions of every major villain he uses (Savitar, Gregor, etc.)
Captain Boomerang (Unforgivable, IMO)
Heat Wave
Captain Cold
Mirror Master
Weather Wizard
Rand Banion
(Seemingly) Zabu
Specific enough? :) Waid deserves the reputation he's got. He's still
a talented writer, but this is an unfortunate flaw in an otherwise
fine style.
rwla...@io.com<*>
My Home Page:http://www.io.com/~rwlander
This Post contains the opinions of one Randy Lander.
Had it been the biblical truth, your bushes would be
on fire.
Brian H. Bailie
In article <332811...@ix.netcom.com>, Jess Nevins
<jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I hardly think that constitutes "homicidal." As for it being a "joke," lots of
> things are jokes on the Internet, but very few of them have much semblance
> of reality.
I would never consider the comics groups as any sort of valid group for
what is "reality". But when I go into different comic shops and talk about
a Waid book, and on more than one occasion the first reaction is, "Oh? Who
dies in *this* one?", I'd say there's a pretty specific pattern developing.
> > I'm genuinely curious as to just what you've read containing Ka-Zar, then.
> > Certainly not his last series. And his characterization for the most part
>
> Yes, his last series. I thought it poorly written, with one- (or at best two-)
> dimension "characterization."
That may be true, but that's still the foundation you have to work with,
for better or worse. As I said, he's a Tarzan clone. That's been his
characterization.
> So characters can't change? Admittedly it is out of what you are calling
> Ka-Zar's "character," but Waid has certainly laid the groundwork in the first
> issue for why Ka-Zar might begin to envy the luxuries of civilization.
Of course characters can change. But when you swing a character around a
full 180 degrees on page 1, with no visible reason, that's not change.
That's getting a character wrong.
> Funny, I'd have called your "constructive criticism" snottiness. Read your
> first paragraph, about his "homicidal tendencies" and your sweeping indictment
> of his writing. That's not constructive, that's sniping. And as such deserves
> nothing more than snottiness.
>
> Homicidal? If he were truly homicidal he'd have killed off the Flash's ex-
> girlfriends and/or his friends to earn very cheap pathos in various stories.
> The only error of that sort he made was with Johnny Quick - that's one death.
> On this you base your "homicidal tendencies?" I know many others have said
> this about Waid - but they, too, never seem to deal in specifics.
I base it on Johnny Quick and the Blue Trinity member. I base it on Ice. I
base it on Captain Boomerang. I base it on the rest of the Rogue's Gallery.
I base it on Kingdom Come, not only for the vast pile of bones at the end,
but for little touches, such as where Savage snaps the neck of Luthor's
secretary. I base it on the decapitation of a motorcyclist in X-Men
Unlimited #10.
He may not even have the sheer head count of a single issue of Sgt. Rock,
but each time, I felt the deaths were unnecessary and cheap, and done for
no other reason than the same as why news programs will run stories on Teen
Hookers during ratings sweeps weeks. Because it will "shock" the audience
and cause a commotion.
Brian H. Bailie
In article <5g8237$h...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> Do you think so? Whereas Peter has a tendency to go for a joke or pun at
> media reference every issue.
Well, he needs to be more discriminating. As I said, sometimes they're
amusing, but if they're going to take me out of the story, then they're not
doing anybody any good.
> Well, you know more about the character than I do. Someone once observed
> that most of Waid's protagonists tend to speak with his voice, very glibly
> and self-amusingly.
(and Brian said) >> Besides, everyone knows that Shanna is the funny one. :)
>
> LOL!
Well, I wasn't really kidding here. Shanna was always much funnier than
Ka-Zar, and between him, her and Zabu, Ka-Zar still comes in a distant
third.
If Mark really wanted to wisecrack it up, he should have had Shanna being
the one to want to get out of the jungle for a while. It's truer to her
character.
But the book isn't called "Shanna".
And if that ain't a cue to hand the microphone back over to you, I don't
know what is. :)
Brian
(Yes, racmu, I've stirred up the bee's nest and left you do deal with it.)
Jess Nevins
Brian H. Bailie wrote:
>
> In article <332811...@ix.netcom.com>, Jess Nevins
> <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > I hardly think that constitutes "homicidal." As for it being a "joke," lots of
> > things are jokes on the Internet, but very few of them have much semblance
> > of reality.
>
> I would never consider the comics groups as any sort of valid group for
> what is "reality". But when I go into different comic shops and talk about
> a Waid book, and on more than one occasion the first reaction is, "Oh? Who
> dies in *this* one?", I'd say there's a pretty specific pattern developing.
Ah. Comic book stores and their audiences. Now _there_ is a reliable indicator
and critic of a writer's tendencies.
> > So characters can't change? Admittedly it is out of what you are calling
> > Ka-Zar's "character," but Waid has certainly laid the groundwork in the first
> > issue for why Ka-Zar might begin to envy the luxuries of civilization.
>
> Of course characters can change. But when you swing a character around a
> full 180 degrees on page 1, with no visible reason, that's not change.
> That's getting a character wrong.
Well, here's one place we differ. I didn't see it as a complete reversal, more
like him finally having doubts about life in the jungle being all that great.
His thoughts about some of the advantages of civilization, as opposed to
the jungle, strike me as entirely reasonable for someone who's been in
the jungle for that long.
> > Funny, I'd have called your "constructive criticism" snottiness. Read your
> > first paragraph, about his "homicidal tendencies" and your sweeping indictment
> > of his writing. That's not constructive, that's sniping. And as such deserves
> > nothing more than snottiness.
> >
> > Homicidal? If he were truly homicidal he'd have killed off the Flash's ex-
> > girlfriends and/or his friends to earn very cheap pathos in various stories.
> > The only error of that sort he made was with Johnny Quick - that's one death.
> > On this you base your "homicidal tendencies?" I know many others have said
> > this about Waid - but they, too, never seem to deal in specifics.
>
> I base it on Johnny Quick and the Blue Trinity member. I base it on Ice. I
> base it on Captain Boomerang. I base it on the rest of the Rogue's Gallery.
> I base it on Kingdom Come, not only for the vast pile of bones at the end,
> but for little touches, such as where Savage snaps the neck of Luthor's
> secretary. I base it on the decapitation of a motorcyclist in X-Men
> Unlimited #10.
Y'know, it's funny, but Waid's the only one this charge is laid against.
Does Roy Thomas get called "homicidal" for the deaths in his books? Better
still, how about Marv Wolfman? Crisis killed off a bunch of characters, and he
snuffed a few in Titans, but I've yet to hear anyone complaining about his
killer tendencies.
Johnny Quick was a mistake, no question about it. Blue Trinity - it's a minor
character, of the type that dies in comics all the time. Rogues Gallery -
they aren't really dead - they're coming back - they don't count, just the
same way that villains in all sorts of comics never really die. Kingdom Come
was an Elseworlds and doesn't count, because writers use Elseworlds to kill off
characters all the time - take the JLA Elseworlds in which Felix Faust took
over - he killed the JLA AND EVERYONE ELSE! Was Moore homicidal for the
body count in Twilight?
As for X-Men Unlimited #10, was Claremont homicidal for the many collateral
deaths among civilians that he caused in his tenure on the X-books?
Again, I don't see Waid being any more lethal to his characters than any number
of other comic book writers.
jess
Jess Nevins
Randy Lander wrote:
>
> Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Homicidal? If he were truly homicidal he'd have killed off the Flash's ex-
> >girlfriends and/or his friends to earn very cheap pathos in various stories.
> >The only error of that sort he made was with Johnny Quick - that's one death.
> >On this you base your "homicidal tendencies?" I know many others have said
> >this about Waid - but they, too, never seem to deal in specifics.
>
> (Over the course of the past two years):
> Johnny Quick
> A member of Blue Trinity
> Minions of every major villain he uses (Savitar, Gregor, etc.)
> Captain Boomerang (Unforgivable, IMO)
> Heat Wave
> Captain Cold
> Mirror Master
> Weather Wizard
> Rand Banion
> (Seemingly) Zabu
>
> Specific enough? :) Waid deserves the reputation he's got. He's still
> a talented writer, but this is an unfortunate flaw in an otherwise
> fine style.
Randy, I like & respect you and all, but you're wrong here.
JQ - a mistake on his part.
Blue Trinity - back up character. They die all the time.
Minions - they're red shirts! Lots of comic book writers kill them.
Rogues Gallery - Not dead.
Rand Bannion - Delano killed the first Shadowman. Eternal Warriors had
a few deaths in their first book. Old Turok died in the first Acclaim
issue. Practically all the Acclaim books started with the death of the
old Valiant name characters.
Zabu - not dead.
jess
M Waid
Jess Nevins wrote of Randy Lander's frothing accusations as to my
bloodthirstiness:
<<JQ - a mistake on his part.
Blue Trinity - back up character. They die all the time.
Minions - they're red shirts! Lots of comic book writers kill them.
Rogues Gallery - Not dead.
Rand Bannion - Delano killed the first Shadowman. Eternal Warriors had
a few deaths in their first book. Old Turok died in the first Acclaim
issue. Practically all the Acclaim books started with the death of the
old Valiant name characters.
Zabu - not dead.>>
I swore I wouldn't get into this, but I wanted to thank you for the
backup, Jess. Me, I don't accept that Johnny was a mistake, but I'll give
you Ice, which was (though, again, I was hardly the only writer on that
story arc, but I'll cop the responsibility if it'll make Randy's life
simpler). Oh, yeah, and Golden Glider, but show me a definitive body. As
Jess points out, villains come and go. (And who the hell CARES about
Golden Glider, anyway?)
And there are probably a few others here and there, but so far, I've
written 300 comic book stories--probably creating more characters than
I've offed, by the way--so those among us who are rational human beings
know how full of crap the accusation is that I can't write ten stories
without killing someone.
The snuff that made me laugh loudest was citing Rand Banion. Oh, that's
rich. Yeah, what a lousy murdering scum I am to kill off someone who was
SPECIFICALLY CREATED TO BE KILLED OFF. Still, compare that to Bob Kane
and Bill Finger, who killed off BOTH of Batman's parents! Or, better
yet--and thanks to Peyer for this observation--Jerry Siegel killed off an
entire PLANET full of Kryptonians in his VERY FIRST story, so the Rand
Banion murder rather pales by comparison. And how many broccoli people
were there, Mr. Claremont? How come no one yells at those guys? Because
they didn't kill Johnny Quick. That's the only reason.
And for Christ's sake, Zabu isn't dead. Haven't ANY of you people (Jess
excluded <g>) EVER read a comic book before? <g> What's next? I have to
give up writing cliffhangers altogether? I have to simply stop even
giving the APPEARANCE that characters are in danger? The moment someone
lumped Zabu into this already specious "argument," we all heard the
ringing sound of a gunshot through someone's own foot. Hee.
Dave Roy
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 21:48:18 -0800, edmu...@earthlink.net wrote:
>Peter Judge wrote:
>>
>> Discussion about Mark Waid's homicidal tendencies reminds me of the 70s,
>> when Gerry 'Killer' Conway got a similar reputation. I can't remember
>> all his victims, but I know Gwen Stacey was one of them.
>>
>> (that is a cue for other old-timers, by the way - who else *did* he kill
>> off?)
>I may be wrong, but didn't he also kill Jean and Brian DeWolffe? (on
>separate occasions, of course)
I don't remember Brian, but Peter David killed off Jean.
Dave Roy
Jess Nevins
M Waid wrote:
>
> Jess Nevins wrote of Randy Lander's frothing accusations as to my
> bloodthirstiness:
>
> <<JQ - a mistake on his part.
> Blue Trinity - back up character. They die all the time.
> Minions - they're red shirts! Lots of comic book writers kill them.
> Rogues Gallery - Not dead.
> Rand Bannion - Delano killed the first Shadowman. Eternal Warriors had
> a few deaths in their first book. Old Turok died in the first Acclaim
> issue. Practically all the Acclaim books started with the death of the
> old Valiant name characters.
> Zabu - not dead.>>
>
> I swore I wouldn't get into this, but I wanted to thank you for the
> backup, Jess. Me, I don't accept that Johnny was a mistake, but I'll give
My pleasure, Mr. Waid - I know you've got a well-earned distaste for
the more rabid fans among Usenet (and Randy isn't among them, really),
but we're not all like that - honest! (<g>)
Not that you have to respond to this, but since you may be reading...
I only felt that JQ's death was a mistake because, if such a hero is to
die, it should fit into one of a few standard categories:
a) Noble Death - the hero(ine) dies, but the very act of their dying saves
others. The lamented Chemical King falls into this category.
b) Tragic Death - the tearjerker death, viz. Phoenix (although she fits
into category a), too).
c) Pointless Death - wherein the writer makes a point about death, even/esp.
in a superheroic world, being random and meaningless, and that artists
shouldn't be constrained by categories like this (<g>) into making all
heroes' deaths heroic. During v4 Legion, in the Dominator-Earth war, one
of the long-time Academy Legionnaires died in an ambush, in the blink
of an eye (I think it was Lamprey).
d) Death By Combat - the hero(ine) goes up against someone tougher
and/or meaner, and dies. First Invisible Kid fits into this category.
When I say that they "should" fit into these categories, I only mean that
those categories are the ones I find most aesthetically & emotionally
pleasing (as far as heroes' deaths go). JQ not fitting into one of those
categories (as far as I could tell) is what sorta spoiled it for me.
Yes, he went out with style - you gave him his dignity before he died, for
which I'm grateful - but, well, I wished he'd have gone out in one of the
other ways. (Yes, I'd actually have been happier if Savatar had beaten
him to death; Karate Kid's death at the hands of Nemesis Kid is a brutal
read, but I find it aesthetically superior). Just MHO, of course.
jess
Jerry B. Ray
In article <19970314171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
M Waid <mw...@aol.com> wrote:
>Still, compare that to Bob Kane
>and Bill Finger, who killed off BOTH of Batman's parents! Or, better
>yet--and thanks to Peyer for this observation--Jerry Siegel killed off an
>entire PLANET full of Kryptonians in his VERY FIRST story, so the Rand
>Banion murder rather pales by comparison. And how many broccoli people
>were there, Mr. Claremont? How come no one yells at those guys? Because
>they didn't kill Johnny Quick. That's the only reason.
I think it was around 4 billion broccoli people, and Jim Shooter _did_
"yell at" Claremont and Byrne for it. :-) And most of the examples
you cite involve killing for "effect," with the possible exception of
Claremont/Byrne, let alone doing so repeatedly, which seems to be the
issue here. (And at the risk of causing the same result as I did over
in x-books a while back, I have to observe that your tone comes across
as just a little bit defensive here...)
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"I am so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month.
I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis."
-- Zaphod Beeblebrox
Robert J. Brown
It was Peter David who killed off Jean DeWolf in Spectacular Spider-Man,
issue 107.
Jess Nevins
Tom Galloway wrote:
>
> In article <19970314171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> M Waid <mw...@aol.com> wrote:
> >bloodthirstiness:
>
> you disagree with, but it was written in a calm, rational style. Frankly,
> this post of yours is a *lot* closer to frothing.
>
> >Rogues Gallery - Not dead.
>
> Elayne, they've been brought back because Mark realized he'd made a mistake
> in killing them. Saying they don't count because it was realized a mistake
> was made is, frankly, acknowledging that Randy was correct in using them as
> an example of bad deaths.
I'll leave the rest of this for Mr. Waid to deal with, but since you addressed
this to me...
Well, even if the above account is true, it still doesn't necessarily make
the case that Mr. Waid is "homicidal." Other writers kill off villains
and don't get stuck with this tag. Claremont snuffed a few in his run on
the X-books. Wolfman snuffed more than a few in Crisis. Morrison snuffed a
bunch during his run on _Animal Man_. Byrne has (seemingly) killed Orion &
DeSaad for good in _Fourth World_ (at least as far as I've heard - others may
have heard differently). Levitz killed, let's see now, Karate Kid, Superboy,
Nemesis Kid, the Empress (no, that was Giffen, wasn't it?), and more, I'm
sure, that I can't recall now.
I don't mean this to sound disingenuous or baiting, but...I still don't see
why what Mr. Waid has done is worse than what those writers - or many others
I could name - have done. The deaths of villains - and comic characters in
general - happens. In a world of superbeings such things are going to. We
may not like the manner in which Mr. Waid has killed off a specific
character or two, but to charge him with being more "homicidal" than other
writers strikes me as being unfair.
jess
edmu...@earthlink.net
M Waid wrote:
>
> Jess Nevins wrote of Randy Lander's frothing accusations as to my
> bloodthirstiness:
>
> Blue Trinity - back up character. They die all the time.
> Minions - they're red shirts! Lots of comic book writers kill them.
> a few deaths in their first book. Old Turok died in the first Acclaim
> issue. Practically all the Acclaim books started with the death of the
> old Valiant name characters.
> Zabu - not dead.>>
>
> I swore I wouldn't get into this, but I wanted to thank you for the
> backup, Jess. Me, I don't accept that Johnny was a mistake, but I'll give
> story arc, but I'll cop the responsibility if it'll make Randy's life
> simpler). Oh, yeah, and Golden Glider, but show me a definitive body. As
> Jess points out, villains come and go. (And who the hell CARES about
> Golden Glider, anyway?)
>
> And there are probably a few others here and there, but so far, I've
> written 300 comic book stories--probably creating more characters than
> I've offed, by the way--so those among us who are rational human beings
> know how full of crap the accusation is that I can't write ten stories
> without killing someone.
>
> The snuff that made me laugh loudest was citing Rand Banion. Oh, that's
> rich. Yeah, what a lousy murdering scum I am to kill off someone who was
> and Bill Finger, who killed off BOTH of Batman's parents! Or, better
> yet--and thanks to Peyer for this observation--Jerry Siegel killed off an
> entire PLANET full of Kryptonians in his VERY FIRST story, so the Rand
> Banion murder rather pales by comparison. And how many broccoli people
> were there, Mr. Claremont? How come no one yells at those guys? Because
> they didn't kill Johnny Quick. That's the only reason.
>
> excluded <g>) EVER read a comic book before? <g> What's next? I have to
> give up writing cliffhangers altogether? I have to simply stop even
> giving the APPEARANCE that characters are in danger? The moment someone
> lumped Zabu into this already specious "argument," we all heard the
> ringing sound of a gunshot through someone's own foot. Hee.
That's the spirit, Mark! (Do you mind if I call you Mark? Oh, you do?
Well, it hardly matters, because I'm gonna do it anyway) What do you
need me to stick up for you for, you can take care of yourself! Now stop
wasting time here and get back to writing Kingdom Come II! :)
Tom Galloway
In article <19970314171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
M Waid <mw...@aol.com> wrote:
>Jess Nevins wrote of Randy Lander's frothing accusations as to my
>bloodthirstiness:
Sorry, Mark, but what Randy wrote wasn't "frothing". It's something
you disagree with, but it was written in a calm, rational style. Frankly,
this post of yours is a *lot* closer to frothing.
>Rogues Gallery - Not dead.
Jess, they were dead and as I understand it not intended to return. Per
Elayne, they've been brought back because Mark realized he'd made a mistake
in killing them. Saying they don't count because it was realized a mistake
was made is, frankly, acknowledging that Randy was correct in using them as
an example of bad deaths.
>(And who the hell CARES about Golden Glider, anyway?)
Sorry Mark, but this statement bothers me a fair amount, and if anything
adds ammo to the "Mark Waid: Serial Killer :-)" line of thought. Glider
had several aspects which made her potentially interesting; she and
Captain Cold were one of relatively few supervillain siblings (who weren't
twins or had connected origins). She was psycho in an interesting way;
her psychosis and villain career was because she had a vendetta against
a character who then died; how does she deal with that? And the reason for
said vendetta was a dead boyfriend...who keeps coming back from the dead
by possessing other people (and in fact, it's possible that the Top's
characterization in your recent story dealing with him could have been
increased by mention/reaction to Glider's death).
OK, so you may disagree with the above and think there's nothing about
Glider that is at all interesting. In which case, why is her death
interesting? It's a character we don't care about, possibly because since
you don't care about, you've not tried to have the readers care
about. There's no real repercussion to it in the book. It seemingly boils
down to "This new Chillblaine is badass because he killed someone".
And that, I think, is why people are commenting on it. Because "throwaway
death", whether of a minor character, a flunky, or at the level of Ice
or Johnny Quick, is, from what appears to be a number of readers
perspectives, being used by you as a shorthand to say "See how badass
this person is?; they kill off a flunky every issue for no important reason"
or "See how important this story is?; we killed off someone". The deaths
aren't part of the story in terms of repercussions or effects, and so
they become trivial and thus begin to lose the effect they were intended for.
Killing someone is bad. But it's not by any means the only way a villain
can show he's a bad person. Show them causing someone pain which they'll
have to live with, either physically or emotionally. Have flunkies who
respect the villain be hurt by losing what respect the villain had for
them. Etc.
>And there are probably a few others here and there, but so far, I've
>written 300 comic book stories--probably creating more characters than
>I've offed, by the way--so those among us who are rational human beings
>know how full of crap the accusation is that I can't write ten stories
>without killing someone.
Sigh. Mark, I don't think anyone has said you can't "write ten stories
without killing someone". What people have said is that they've gotten
the impression that, on a regular basis, characters die in your stories.
With what seems to me a subtext of "die unnecessarily" in that it's not
important to the story that they die. And this serves to weaken stories
where it is important; say like your X-Men Unlimited focus on the dark
Beast; there's it's important to differentiate him from the "real" Hank
in that he cares nothing about human life. But this is weakened by the
various criminal masterminds who off henchlings for no reason as it has
to now overcome a "more of the same" attitude.
>The snuff that made me laugh loudest was citing Rand Banion. Oh, that's
>rich. Yeah, what a lousy murdering scum I am to kill off someone who was
>SPECIFICALLY CREATED TO BE KILLED OFF. Still, compare that to Bob Kane
>and Bill Finger, who killed off BOTH of Batman's parents! Or, better
>yet--and thanks to Peyer for this observation--Jerry Siegel killed off an
>entire PLANET full of Kryptonians in his VERY FIRST story, so the Rand
>Banion murder rather pales by comparison. And how many broccoli people
>were there, Mr. Claremont? How come no one yells at those guys? Because
>they didn't kill Johnny Quick. That's the only reason.
As I was saying about frothing...:-)
Yeah, the Waynes were killed off. Yeah, Krypton was killed off. But, as
you point out, those were the *first* stories. You killed off Banion *after*
your work created an impression that you kill off a lot of characters. In
other words, Banion's death works perfectly in a vacuum. But in the context
of "Waid has a rep for killing off characters" based on a fair amount of
work, it has to overcome that rep. And note that boy are there repercussions
of the Waynes and Krypton being killed off; how many stories over the years
have dealt with those deaths, not even including just the basic creation
of Batman and Superman.
>And for Christ's sake, Zabu isn't dead. Haven't ANY of you people (Jess
>excluded <g>) EVER read a comic book before? <g> What's next? I have to
>give up writing cliffhangers altogether? I have to simply stop even
>giving the APPEARANCE that characters are in danger? The moment someone
>lumped Zabu into this already specious "argument," we all heard the
>ringing sound of a gunshot through someone's own foot. Hee.
Mark, you're blinding yourself to something potentially important here.
You know that this sort of thing is a cliffhanger. I know that this
sort of thing is a cliffhanger. From what I've seen, most of the people
who have posted about this know this sort of thing is a cliffhanger.
But, based on your previous work, whether correctly in your eyes or not,
a fair number of people are jumping to the assumption that it's not.
Note that it's not just one or two people, but quite a few who have the
impression that there's a lot of killing off in your work. Frankly, what
it's sort of reminding me of is near the end of Claremont's X-Men run,
when a lot of stylistic points he'd used started becoming cliches. I
think you are overusing the cheap, quick, death as a shortcut, thus robbing
death of its impact when you want it to mean something more.
So, the point is that whether you like it or not, and you clearly don't,
a significant number of people do have the impression that you kill off
people pretty often. If this doesn't bother you, then don't do anything
about it. If it does bother you, I'd suggest that you try to steer clear
of deaths for a while. Try to come up with other ways to show that a
villain is a bad ass. Try to have other ways of indicating a story is
a major one other than "Somebody dies!". I think you're a good enough
writer to do so. Then, after a while, death can return to being something
in your bag of tricks without seeming to be one that gets pulled out too
often and thus trivialized.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Tom Galloway
In article <3329FB...@ix.netcom.com>,
Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>have heard differently). Levitz killed, let's see now, Karate Kid, Superboy,
>Nemesis Kid, the Empress (no, that was Giffen, wasn't it?), and more, I'm
>sure, that I can't recall now.
>
>I don't mean this to sound disingenuous or baiting, but...I still don't see
>why what Mr. Waid has done is worse than what those writers - or many others
>I could name - have done. The deaths of villains - and comic characters in
>general - happens. In a world of superbeings such things are going to. We
Jess, I think you missed the conclusion I came to in my post, which wasn't
quite explicitly stated. Said conclusion being that it's not so much that
there are many deaths in Mark's work, as that there are a lot of what
seem to be, for lack of a better word, trivial deaths. Which tend to
diminish it when Mark tries to make a point with death.
Take your Levitz counterexample. Offhand, I don't recall Levitz having crime
overlords kill off henchmen on a regular basis; punish, yes, but kill,
no. It's also worth noting that you're using examples over almost a ten year
period on a strip, or for the period you specifically cover, a five year
period (KK and NK died circa #4-5 of LSH v3, Superboy circa #38, Magnetic
Kid circa #63). Superboy was somewhat forced on Levitz, and his death did
have an impact on the characters (and I posted at the time that I thought he
missed a major oppotunity for characterization by not having the issue
following the death consist of small groups of Legionnaires talking about
what Superboy had meant to them, thus illustrating the Legionnaire's
character). Magnetic Kid was considered something of a throwaway death at
the time and criticized on that basis. And Karate Kid was a Giffen request,
although it also somewhat tied into the "Let's show what an important
storyline this is by killing someone.". However, once you kill Karate Kid,
Nemesis Kid's death (and it's particulars) follow quite reasonably from a
story viewpoint; the two had been arch-enemies since their first appearance,
and Val's wife *would* avenge him in the manner shown.
Also, you might note that a fair number of people on rac.dc.lsh have
complained about the number of deaths so far in the Legion reboot
(Kid Quantum [well, OK, so no one complained about this specific death
and I'll admit to telling Mark when he told me he'd be killed off that
I hoped it was a painful one], Apparition, Leviathan, and various other
serious injuries to Legionnaires), particularly over the relatively short
period of time since it started.
Anyway, my point is that death is in a comic writer's bag of tricks. But,
particularly in comics these days (as opposed to the 60s, where when
Ferro Lad and the Doom Patrol died, it was a major deal and no one
expected them to come back), it's been used too extensively and become
trivialized. In order for it to have an impact, it needs to matter in
terms of the story and have repercussions. After the third or fourth
instance in relatively quick succession of "I'm the villain. I have
henchmen. I'll kill one for no good reason other than to show that I'm
baaaaad", death becomes trivialized. Take another example; the Red
Trinity member who was killed; trivialized. We never see a funeral.
The only impact is in a panel or two, then it's completely forgotten
and overlooked. Heck, I don't think Wally even thought about Savitar
in terms of "you killed someone I knew with your speed stealing stunt".
It's not so much death itself that people seem to be bothered with; it's
the unnecessary death which weakens its use when it could be used to
good effect.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Randy Lander
Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Randy Lander wrote:
>>
>> Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Homicidal? If he were truly homicidal he'd have killed off the Flash's ex-
>> >girlfriends and/or his friends to earn very cheap pathos in various stories.
>> >The only error of that sort he made was with Johnny Quick - that's one death.
>> >On this you base your "homicidal tendencies?" I know many others have said
>> >this about Waid - but they, too, never seem to deal in specifics.
>>
>> Specifics:
>> (Over the course of the past two years):
>> Johnny Quick
>> A member of Blue Trinity
>> Minions of every major villain he uses (Savitar, Gregor, etc.)
>> Captain Boomerang (Unforgivable, IMO)
>> Heat Wave
>> Captain Cold
>> Mirror Master
>> Weather Wizard
>> Rand Banion
>> (Seemingly) Zabu
>>
>> Specific enough? :) Waid deserves the reputation he's got. He's still
>> a talented writer, but this is an unfortunate flaw in an otherwise
>> fine style.
>Randy, I like & respect you and all, but you're wrong here.
Back atcha, Jess, on both counts. :)
>JQ - a mistake on his part.
Sure, but he still did it. I'm not claiming Waid's a demon killer. I'm
claiming it's a weakness in his writing style that he needs to
correct.
>Blue Trinity - back up character. They die all the time.
>Minions - they're red shirts! Lots of comic book writers kill them.
Sure. But not consistently. I can't pick up (for example) one of Kurt
Busiek's books, think "Who dies on page 29?" and find someone dead
every time.
>Rogues Gallery - Not dead.
Yes they are. Deader than disco. The only reason they *might* be
coming back (I'll believe they're back when they're not zombies) is
because Waid realized he made a mistake. But when he killed them, he
intended them to be dead.
>Rand Bannion - Delano killed the first Shadowman.
Ennis, actually. I'll grant you that one. But he didn't kill off Tulip
or Cassidy in Preacher. He didn't kill off Six-Pack in Hitman.
>Eternal Warriors had a few deaths in their first book.
No characters that had any impact at all. They didn't pull a bait and
switch "look who the new Eternal Warrior is" and kill him off on the
last page.
>Old Turok died in the first Acclaim issue.
Okay, I'll grant you this one. But Fabian Nicieza doesn't have a
history of doing this in all of his other books.
>Practically all the Acclaim books started with the death of the
>old Valiant name characters.
>Zabu - not dead.
Nope. Which is the reason I'm still reading Ka-Zar. :)
Basically, Waid's developed a reputation as a killer (comic book
speaking, that is) because he does it every series, and in some cases,
every issue, consistently.
Randy Lander
mw...@aol.com (M Waid) wrote:
>Jess Nevins wrote of Randy Lander's frothing accusations as to my
>bloodthirstiness:
Frothing? Nice, Mark. Thanks. (I only froth at the Rogues Gallery, and
only until they're back will I do that.)
><<JQ - a mistake on his part.
>Blue Trinity - back up character. They die all the time.
>Minions - they're red shirts! Lots of comic book writers kill them.
>Rogues Gallery - Not dead.
>Rand Bannion - Delano killed the first Shadowman. Eternal Warriors had
>a few deaths in their first book. Old Turok died in the first Acclaim
>issue. Practically all the Acclaim books started with the death of the
>old Valiant name characters.
>Zabu - not dead.>>
>I swore I wouldn't get into this, but I wanted to thank you for the
>backup, Jess. Me, I don't accept that Johnny was a mistake, but I'll give
>you Ice, which was (though, again, I was hardly the only writer on that
>story arc, but I'll cop the responsibility if it'll make Randy's life
>simpler).
Doesn't change my life at all. I don't care that you offed Ice. Never
much liked the character myself, didn't read the story. You'll note
she wasn't on my list.
>Oh, yeah, and Golden Glider, but show me a definitive body. As
>Jess points out, villains come and go. (And who the hell CARES about
>Golden Glider, anyway?)
Not me. I only care about Captain Boomerang and Zabu, who is *not*
dead, thankfully.
>And there are probably a few others here and there, but so far, I've
>written 300 comic book stories--probably creating more characters than
>I've offed, by the way--so those among us who are rational human beings
>know how full of crap the accusation is that I can't write ten stories
>without killing someone.
So I'm irrational, is that the inference? Of course, I never made that
accusation, so maybe I'm taking offense too easily. The only
"accusation" I've made, and it's more a comment than anything else, is
that I feel the death toll has gotten a bit heavy in your books and it
is a flaw in your otherwise excellent writing. But, as I've said in
another post, you're the writer, I'm just the reader, so it's not like
I'm saying "Mark Waid should change this or he'll be drummed out of
comics."
>The snuff that made me laugh loudest was citing Rand Banion. Oh, that's
>rich. Yeah, what a lousy murdering scum I am to kill off someone who was
>SPECIFICALLY CREATED TO BE KILLED OFF.
Yes, yes, I know. I've heard this. Repeatedly. The reason I cited Rand
Banion is that I liked Rand Banion better than Donovan Wylie. I've
stated this repeatedly in my reviews. And anywhere I comment on X-O. I
realize he was created to be killed. I realize it's beyond silly to
wish he was still X-O. But it was a character I liked, so I listed
him. So sue me.
>And for Christ's sake, Zabu isn't dead. Haven't ANY of you people (Jess
>excluded <g>) EVER read a comic book before? <g> What's next? I have to
>give up writing cliffhangers altogether? I have to simply stop even
>giving the APPEARANCE that characters are in danger? The moment someone
>lumped Zabu into this already specious "argument," we all heard the
>ringing sound of a gunshot through someone's own foot. Hee.
No. I've said repeatedly that even if Zabu is dead, it bugged me
because I fully believed you had killed him. And that's what disturbed
me. Had someone else written that ending, I would have assumed it was
a typical comic book cliffhanger. When you wrote it, I assumed you'd
killed the tiger to give him a reason to go to New York. I'm thrilled
beyond belief to hear that he isn't dead.
Anyway, nice to see you around these parts again, Mark, even though
you flamed me rather nicely. :)
Hosun S. Lee
edmu...@earthlink.net wrote:
: Peter Judge wrote:
: >
: > Discussion about Mark Waid's homicidal tendencies reminds me of the 70s,
: > when Gerry 'Killer' Conway got a similar reputation. I can't remember
: > all his victims, but I know Gwen Stacey was one of them.
: >
: > (that is a cue for other old-timers, by the way - who else *did* he kill
: > off?)
: I may be wrong, but didn't he also kill Jean and Brian DeWolffe? (on
: separate occasions, of course)
Mark Waid is the SIN-EATER?!?!?!? Man, this explains so much!!! ;-)
But no, Peter David is the writer who knocked off Jean and Brian. Brian
came back later, I forget how, but it was during the times when Spider-Man
was a REALLY bad comic book. (From 1992-now....)
Gen Conway, blew up Krypton, I think. And ran over some nuns. And ate some
puppies....
--
Hosun Lee
E-Mail: ho...@syr.edu
WWW: http://web.syr.edu/~holee/
[Urr...Right. Umm...Some Quip Goes Here, Right?]
Hosun S. Lee
Sorry, GERRY Conway. Not GENE Conway. Yeeesh...
Jess Nevins
Hosun S. Lee wrote:
>
> Sorry, GERRY Conway. Not GENE Conway. Yeeesh...
Y'know, reading that post, I had a vision of _Gen-13 Conway_.
From the same publisher as _WildC.A.T.herine Yronwode_.
jess
Jess Nevins
Hey, wow! I didn't get flamed! I didn't flame anybody, either! D'you think,
like, that this new way of interacting might, y'know, spread to other
posters or something? <g>
Tom Galloway wrote:
>
> In article <3329FB...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >have heard differently). Levitz killed, let's see now, Karate Kid, Superboy,
> >Nemesis Kid, the Empress (no, that was Giffen, wasn't it?), and more, I'm
> >sure, that I can't recall now.
> >
> >I don't mean this to sound disingenuous or baiting, but...I still don't see
> >why what Mr. Waid has done is worse than what those writers - or many others
> >I could name - have done. The deaths of villains - and comic characters in
> >general - happens. In a world of superbeings such things are going to. We
>
> Jess, I think you missed the conclusion I came to in my post, which wasn't
> quite explicitly stated. Said conclusion being that it's not so much that
> there are many deaths in Mark's work, as that there are a lot of what
> seem to be, for lack of a better word, trivial deaths. Which tend to
> diminish it when Mark tries to make a point with death.
>
> Take your Levitz counterexample. Offhand, I don't recall Levitz having crime
> overlords kill off henchmen on a regular basis; punish, yes, but kill,
> no. It's also worth noting that you're using examples over almost a ten year
> period on a strip, or for the period you specifically cover, a five year
Again, not to be baiting you here, but Mr. Waid's run on Flash has been
about five years long.
> period (KK and NK died circa #4-5 of LSH v3, Superboy circa #38, Magnetic
> Kid circa #63). Superboy was somewhat forced on Levitz, and his death did
> have an impact on the characters (and I posted at the time that I thought he
> missed a major oppotunity for characterization by not having the issue
> following the death consist of small groups of Legionnaires talking about
> what Superboy had meant to them, thus illustrating the Legionnaire's
> character). Magnetic Kid was considered something of a throwaway death at
Now _that_ is a great idea. I wasn't on-line at the time, but I would have
agreed with you whole-heartedly - it would have been a splendid opportunity
to show (and not just tell) the effect of the Superboy/man legend.
> the time and criticized on that basis. And Karate Kid was a Giffen request,
> although it also somewhat tied into the "Let's show what an important
> storyline this is by killing someone.". However, once you kill Karate Kid,
> Nemesis Kid's death (and it's particulars) follow quite reasonably from a
> story viewpoint; the two had been arch-enemies since their first appearance,
> and Val's wife *would* avenge him in the manner shown.
True enough - I guess my point was that, taken out of context - which (it seems
to me) is what people are doing to Waid and character death - you could
make the same charge about Levitz and his characters.
> Also, you might note that a fair number of people on rac.dc.lsh have
> complained about the number of deaths so far in the Legion reboot
> (Kid Quantum [well, OK, so no one complained about this specific death
> and I'll admit to telling Mark when he told me he'd be killed off that
> I hoped it was a painful one], Apparition, Leviathan, and various other
> serious injuries to Legionnaires), particularly over the relatively short
> period of time since it started.
>
> Anyway, my point is that death is in a comic writer's bag of tricks. But,
> particularly in comics these days (as opposed to the 60s, where when
> Ferro Lad and the Doom Patrol died, it was a major deal and no one
> expected them to come back), it's been used too extensively and become
> trivialized. In order for it to have an impact, it needs to matter in
> terms of the story and have repercussions. After the third or fourth
> instance in relatively quick succession of "I'm the villain. I have
> henchmen. I'll kill one for no good reason other than to show that I'm
> baaaaad", death becomes trivialized. Take another example; the Red
> Trinity member who was killed; trivialized. We never see a funeral.
> The only impact is in a panel or two, then it's completely forgotten
> and overlooked. Heck, I don't think Wally even thought about Savitar
> in terms of "you killed someone I knew with your speed stealing stunt".
>
> It's not so much death itself that people seem to be bothered with; it's
> the unnecessary death which weakens its use when it could be used to
> good effect.
Well, as I posted in response to Mr. Waid's post, I think there's a
taxonomy of comic death - in case you missed it, comic death seems
to fall into one of four categories: 1) heroic, 2) tragic/tearjerker,
3) deliberately meaningless, 4) death by combat.
At least, it seems to me that that's how deaths in comics have always occurred -
in one of those four categories.
Now, it's possible - and I don't even presume to speak for Mr. Waid - that
he wrote the deaths he did to show that, in a comic book universe, death
would be a relatively common thing - in other words, to break out of
that tradition.
(BTW, as I recall, Starfinger killed off his henchmen (to keep on the Legion
tack)).
I'm not sure that trivializing death is such a bad thing, though. After all,
the readers are going to keep in mind the difference between a back-up
character and a minor villain and a major character. In Love & Rockets there
are plenty of minor deaths, and always has been - but when Tonantzin set
herself on fire I was - well, not upset, but affected. I don't see where
having an environment in which people die with regularity - because of who
they interact with (powerful supervillains) necessarily trivializes character
death.
I don't think we invest minor characters with the same amount of meaning as we
do with relatively major ones.
As for crime bosses killing their flunkies, that's never bothered me, because
the crime bosses who do so are evil - and insane. Given the world of comic
books, there's gonna be some characters like that; hell, in the real world
there are crime bosses - Mafia, Triad, Yakuza, Jamaican posse, Columbian
drug lords, etc - who do that. The Joker has a long tradition of killing his
flunkies, too, now that I think on it.
I would agree with you about repercussions and the need to show them - but
I can't fault Mr. Waid for skipping, say, the Trinity member's funeral (what
_was_ his name?) He only has 22-24 pages to work with every month, and he
most likely places a different priority on individual aspects of every story
than you or I would. Me, I'd like to see more of the relationship between
Wally & Linda - not them quarrelling, but them getting along well together -
what is it that draws them to each other? Why are they in love? (Yes, I am
Elayne's puppet - why do you ask? <g>) But in 22-24 pages certain things have
to be sacrificed.
Anyhow, I think the point I'm driving at is that a minor character's death,
unless there are good reasons for it (I recall a _wonderful_ backup piece
in _Nexus_ about some guy that Judah killed - it was written from the
point of view of the guy's pregnant girlfriend), is a trivial thing. For
Johnny Quick we got the funeral and the aftereffects with Jesse & Libby.
(McLaughlin: "WRONG! Mr. Galloway, your rebuttal!")
jess
Jess Nevins
Randy Lander wrote:
> >Randy, I like & respect you and all, but you're wrong here.
>
> Back atcha, Jess, on both counts. :)
oh, bite me :-)
> >JQ - a mistake on his part.
>
> Sure, but he still did it. I'm not claiming Waid's a demon killer. I'm
> claiming it's a weakness in his writing style that he needs to
> correct.
well, let's me deal with the other ones before I come back to this one.
> >Blue Trinity - back up character. They die all the time.
> >Minions - they're red shirts! Lots of comic book writers kill them.
>
> Sure. But not consistently. I can't pick up (for example) one of Kurt
> Busiek's books, think "Who dies on page 29?" and find someone dead
> every time.
Yeah, but I don't really think you can do that with one of Waid's books,
either.
Or, to look at it another way, Ennis tends to rack up a big body count
in the books he does. I think different comic book writers portray the
superbeing milieu in different ways; Busiek doesn't make death as
commonplace an occurrence as, say, Ennis or Waid does. I don't think
that means Waid necessarily puts too much death in his books, though.
> >Rogues Gallery - Not dead.
>
> Yes they are. Deader than disco. The only reason they *might* be
> coming back (I'll believe they're back when they're not zombies) is
> because Waid realized he made a mistake. But when he killed them, he
> intended them to be dead.
Again, I don't necessarily think this is that bad. Yes, I miss them -
but Wolfman killed off a bunch of characters in Crisis, and this charge
isn't laid against him. Villains die; that's part of the genre. We might
not like it, because we might have some affection for an individual
character or characters, but that's part of the ground rules of the
genre.
Moreover, the Rogues Gallery is back, Randy - keep reading the books :-)
> >Rand Bannion - Delano killed the first Shadowman.
>
> Ennis, actually. I'll grant you that one. But he didn't kill off Tulip
> or Cassidy in Preacher. He didn't kill off Six-Pack in Hitman.
But he killed Nightfist, and, um, what's his name - the "best hitman
in the world," the one hired to kill Monaghan - Johnny Navarone? They
might not have as much backhistory as the Golden Glider or the Rogues
Gallery, but they were memorable in their own ways - and they died. That
happens.
> >Eternal Warriors had a few deaths in their first book.
>
> No characters that had any impact at all. They didn't pull a bait and
> switch "look who the new Eternal Warrior is" and kill him off on the
> last page.
Well, if we can dismiss the deaths of characters who have no impact, then
we can dismiss the deaths of faceless henchmen and the masses in _Kingdom
Come_.
And I don't think he's done a bait-and-switch of that fashion with _any_
of his characters, unless I'm forgetting someone?
> >Old Turok died in the first Acclaim issue.
>
> Okay, I'll grant you this one. But Fabian Nicieza doesn't have a
> history of doing this in all of his other books.
Well, I don't think Waid has a history of doing that, either.
> >Practically all the Acclaim books started with the death of the
> >old Valiant name characters.
> >Zabu - not dead.
>
> Nope. Which is the reason I'm still reading Ka-Zar. :)
>
> Basically, Waid's developed a reputation as a killer (comic book
> speaking, that is) because he does it every series, and in some cases,
> every issue, consistently.
Again, I disagree.
But what do I know? :-)
jess
Adrilankha Elmo
I do.
Every character is somebody's favorite.
If you don't realize this, or if you don't respect this, then you are
part of the problem.
--
"Deep Babylon 95 - Siskidan, Kiranova, and Garibodo try to prove that the
Shadominion is responsible for the war between the Klintauri and the
Narndassians."--Theodore Miller
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
HallNash33
<<Discussion about Mark Waid's homicidal tendencies reminds me of the 70s,
when Gerry 'Killer' Conway got a similar reputation. I can't remember
all his victims, but I know Gwen Stacey was one of them.
(that is a cue for other old-timers, by the way - who else *did* he kill
off?) >>
Off the top of my head...
Green Goblin I (if he killed off Gwen Stacy, he had to kill off GG 1 as
well, since they were killed off an issue apart.)
Jackal
Spider-Clone
George Stacy (?)
I think that was the death toll of Conway's run.
Starving Writer
Dwight Williams
Adrilankha Elmo (mor...@riph5.rice.edu) writes:
> mw...@aol.com (M Waid) wrote:
>>(And who the hell CARES about Golden Glider, anyway?)
>
> I do.
As did I...
> Every character is somebody's favorite.
>
> If you don't realize this, or if you don't respect this, then you are
> part of the problem.
But the trouble -- I believe -- is that he cannot anticipate _everyone's_
tastes. Nor can I. Nor you, I suspect.
Therefore, he writes to please himself first and foremost as best he can.
All the others who agree with him on the results are more or less icing on
the proverbial pastry.
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Erewhon Elmo
You keep making this comparison, and it's simply not apt. Waid kills
characters wherever he goes. Wolfman kills characters almost exclusively
in Crisis, a title whose charter includes killing characters.
--
"Any closet is a walk-in closet if you try hard enough."
--Steve Connelly
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Jess Nevins
Erewhon Elmo wrote:
>
> Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > Wolfman snuffed more than a few in Crisis.
>
> You keep making this comparison, and it's simply not apt. Waid kills
> characters wherever he goes. Wolfman kills characters almost exclusively
> in Crisis, a title whose charter includes killing characters.
"Waid kills characters wherever he goes" is just not so. I listed a
bunch
of character deaths that people on the newsgroups complain about, and
why
they either weren't really deaths or were not nearly so egregious as
people
would have us believe they are. Moreover, people continually are taking
the
"deaths" of his characters out of context. If we are going to do that,
I don't see why I can't apply that same method to other writers.
FWIW, Wolfman killed off characters in the Titans, as well (Terra,
Cyborg -
who was brought back, but only (so I'm told) because of fan outcry,
which
is what people are charging about the Rogues Gallery), Jericho (or so
I'm told), Mme Zahn, the German guy who was Zahn's partner & who was
responsible for blowing up the original Doom Patrol, the HIVE mole who
became Kory's lover for one issue....I know there are others, but I
stopped
reading Teen Titans with issue 11 or so). And in Night Force (people
charge
Waid with being bloodthirsty - check out the body count in Night Force.
And,
for that matter, in Hitman. And John Constantine's book) And, I'm sure,
in
other books that Wolfman's written that I haven't read.
I'll say it again: when we break down these deaths and examine each
specific
case, and then compare Mr. Waid's work to what other authors have done
and
continue to do, he comes out looking no worse than other comic book
authors.
jess
Tom Galloway
In article <332C32...@ix.netcom.com> jjne...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Erewhon Elmo wrote:
>> You keep making this comparison, and it's simply not apt. Waid kills
>> characters wherever he goes. Wolfman kills characters almost exclusively
>> in Crisis, a title whose charter includes killing characters.
>FWIW, Wolfman killed off characters in the Titans, as well (Terra, Cyborg -
>who was brought back, but only (so I'm told) because of fan outcry, which is
>what people are charging about the Rogues Gallery), Jericho (or so I'm
>told), Mme Zahn, the German guy who was Zahn's partner & who was responsible
>for blowing up the original Doom Patrol, the HIVE mole who became Kory's
>lover for one issue....I know there are others, but I stopped reading Teen
>Titans with issue 11 or so).
Point of order on this; I consider anything starting from Titans Hunt to be
invalid due to the high probability of it being the editor's idea rather than
Marv's.
And, btw, that's Madame Rouge (note: not Rogue) and Admiral Zahn. So what
we've got there is an argument for two villains (in a story which resolved
a longhanging plot thread and fits for a vengeance story), Terra (where her
death had quite a few complications, and one can argue was necessary;
bringing her back cheapens her dramatic role as traitor and counterpart
in terms of life experiences to Donna Troy), HIVE mole I'll give you, since
it was a one-off, and you might want to toss in Kole, who per interviews
was created to die for Crisis and never really had much of an impact on the
team.
But that's one book over once again ten years or so. And most of the deaths
had major repercussions and were critical to the story in a dramatic sense.
More on this in a moment.
>And in Night Force (people charge Waid with being bloodthirsty - check out
>the body count in Night Force.
Heck, go for Tomb of Dracula where if Dracula didn't off someone it was an
unusual issue.
>And, for that matter, in Hitman. And John Constantine's book)
It's a book about a Hitman. One expects people to die. And the way the
book is set up is such that people dying and how they die is part of the
book's atmosphere. Ditto with Hellblazer, where it's both a horror book
and a major part of John's character is that his friends die on him
(parodied in the Pryde & Wisdom mini-series with a similar character
whose boss makes a point to say that he's never liked her at all).
>I'll say it again: when we break down these deaths and examine each specific
>case, and then compare Mr. Waid's work to what other authors have done and
>continue to do, he comes out looking no worse than other comic book authors.
And once again Jess, I'll agree with you...but point out that you're missing
the key points.
Point one: One must consider the tone/point of a book when considering whether
a writer is killing off "too many" people. For, say, Tomb of Dracula, you
pretty much expect a high body count. But for, say, Nova, which Marv was
writing at the same time as a light-hearted book about a early Spider-Manesque
teen hero, you don't. And there wasn't one in it. Offhand, I don't recall any
deaths save for the "Original hero dies passing on his powers to the lead
character" origin cliche and the "Yeah, yeah, sure the villain's dead, what
body?" type. The issue people are bringing up about Mark is that many of his
books, most of which are of the relatively light-hearted superhero type (as
opposed to grim'n'gritty), strike them as containing a higher amount of death
than is usual to the type of book, and its consistent over a variety of
books, making it a writer thing rather than a book thing.
Point two: trivializing death. Some characters can get away with killing off
henchmen on a regular basis. Namely, the Joker; he's nuts, and frankly you're
nuts or *very* stupid or *very* desparate to work for him (hmm, actually I'm
trying to remember if there's ever been a story told from the viewpoint of
a henchman of the Joker's [other than Harley Quinn] as to why someone would
work for him). But even for Darth Vader, I've heard jokes for years about
the disposable admirals in Empire Strikes Back; there's inspiring fear and
then there's inspiring the urge to never be anywhere near this nutcase.
Mark's developed a shorthand of showing that a villain is a badass because
he casually kills henchmen or random spear-carrier opponents. Like, say, a
number of Claremont's shorthands in X-Men, they worked at first, but over
time became cliches as, say, *every* attractive male would cause females
to think "Yum!" even if it didn't fit the woman's character.
There's also trivializing death for a storyline's sake. Which is where deaths
like the Red Trinity member and Johnny Quick and the Rogues come in. Here,
the shorthand is "This is an important storyline. See, someone dies!". This
isn't just a problem with Mark, but one becoming endemic (and unfortunately
Crisis is the progenitor of this). See, Zero Hour is important: 3 JSAers
die! See, Final Night is important: Hal Jordan dies! See, Eclipso is
important: Will Peyton dies! See, Armageddon 2001 is important: Dove dies!
Note that for most of these, we never see any followup or impact; save for
the casual mention in the new Starman of his existance, we've never seen
Will Peyton's friends and family mourn him or indicate that he ever even
existed. Ditto for the JSAers, or Dove, or even Hawk. It isn't the death
so much that people are minding, but the trivialization of the death of
characters someone may like for what comes across as being not a necessary
part of a story but rather something plopped in to try to make it more
meaningful than the actual story itself would be.
Point three: And here's the key point. Mark has gotten the rep as someone
who tends to kill off characters. He (and you) can like that rep or not,
can consider it justified or not, but it doesn't matter in the sense that
it exists. Which leaves the following options: 1) Ignore said rep entirely
and do whatever one would do anyway. 2) Dislike the rep enough to actively
not kill off characters for a year or so, and hold it up as example. 3)
Consider whether there's a point here, and think about whether a particular
death is necessary to the plot or just shorthand. Sort of like the old
Claremont joke of his suppostedly saying "Is there any reason this
character can't be a woman?", but subbing for it with "Is there any reason
why this has to be a death?".
Crossposted with followups changed to rac.misc, since this is getting away
from strictly Marvel U. issues.
tyg t...@netcom.com
SCAVENGER
In article <332ABA...@ix.netcom.com>, Jess Nevins
<jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Randy Lander wrote:
>
> >
> > Sure. But not consistently. I can't pick up (for example) one of Kurt
> > Busiek's books, think "Who dies on page 29?" and find someone dead
> > every time.
>
> Yeah, but I don't really think you can do that with one of Waid's books,
> either.
>
Of Course you can't ....Most Waid books are only 22 pages long!
Here's my take on the Mark Waid: Character Murderer thread.
Yeah..he's guilty.
I hadn't thought about it too much before, but looking back, yep guilty as heck.
I read Kazar and came to the last page, and I thought, "If he kills Zabu,
that;s it...I'm dropping this like a sack of potatoes" but of course it
was HIGHLY unlikely that he was gonna kill Zabu...Let's face it, the ONLY
reason to write Kazar is to get to write Zabu...otherwise you write Tarzan
(It's a lot more prestigious and I'm sure if Waid called up Dark Horse and
asked to write Tarzan, they'd give him a mini-series).
Rand Banion (the V2 Jack Boniface, the old Turok as well) were Abin Sur.
They die and thus give the hero their origin. Granted we had seen Banion
previously in X-O/Iron Man but he was Uncle Ben...created to die.
Golden Glider...well I cared about Golden Glider...it's sad to see a
writer admit to not caring about one of his characters. But her death was
a good one...It was the inevitable conclusion of her M.O. However that
Chillblaine then buys it the next issue cheapens the whole thing....He
should have gone on to become a MAJOR villain.
Henchmen: yes they're redshirts, but villians who kill their lackies find
themselves lakyless. Savitar is an exeption as his followers were
religious fanatics....Remember, Darth Vader really didn't kill that many
people. He punished incompetence pretty harshly, but all in all, only 2
die in ESB...Admiral Piett lives on to be killed by an A-Wing flying thru
his bridge in Jedi.
Johnny Quick: Yep, cheap death. In a way though, it was a mercy
death...Apparently Johnny had a brain aneurism or something that caused
him to forget that his corporation was built on motivational speaking,
which he was led to when he realized that his powers came from the
metagene. When Jessie was introd in the JSA series, Johnny knew the speed
formula was useless..just how he triggered his metagene. He proved to
Hourman the miraclo was also just a trigger, allowing him to go on to get
a cheap death in Zero Hour.
(which reminds me..an explanaition of metagene vs speed force would be
nice...Personaly, I've always assumed that the metagene is what makes
these people able to access the speed force (fyi, i explain Wally using
the speed formula to boost his speed as that it works cuz he thinks it
works, just using his power faster)
The people in the Beast story: good deaths.
Maybe Ingersoll can comment on Waid's cupability here.
---SCAVENGER Waid killed Ice? Really? Only one who seemed to care was
Guy..and boy did Beau Smith mine that for every bit of story value he
could.
BTW, As this has ventured into DC terrritory, I've crossposted to DCU, and
set follow-up to there.
Ben Cowles
> Sorry, GERRY Conway. Not GENE Conway. Yeeesh...
Back when I was reading lots of Marvel (late elementary school, early
middle school) I always confused Gerry Conway with Gerry Cooney. Conjures
up all sorts of exciting mental pictures.
--
Ben Cowles bco...@haverford.edu
"Make bank, not war." -- Dr. Dreidel, from _Suck_ (http://www.suck.com)
Erewhon Elmo
[crossposted and followups set to rec.arts.comics.dc.universe.]
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Dwight Williams) writes:
> Adrilankha Elmo (mor...@riph5.rice.edu) writes:
>> Every character is somebody's favorite.
>>
>> If you don't realize this, or if you don't respect this, then you are
>> part of the problem.
>
> But the trouble -- I believe -- is that he cannot anticipate _everyone's_
> tastes. Nor can I. Nor you, I suspect.
> Therefore, he writes to please himself first and foremost as best he can.
Nope, not an acceptable solution. The solution I'll accept has two prongs:
1. You're free to do anything you want to characters you create.
2. You have to leave characters you didn't create in a condition that
leaves them usable for the next writer to come along or make damn sure
that the story you do is so damn good that the changes you make are
acceptable.
For example, Kobra and Savitar whacking their henchmen, it's hard to
quibble with, except to say that it's stupid behavior for the characters
and a lazy way of establishing how badass K & S are.
But the deMatteis Martian Manhunter series? Dumb--it undoes thirty
years of continuity and changes the character from noble to neurotic,
from powerful myth to pathetic null.
--
The Watergate Principle: Government corruption is always talked about in the
past tense.
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
jsm...@imap1.asu.edu
M Waid (mw...@aol.com) wrote:
: And for Christ's sake, Zabu isn't dead. Haven't ANY of you people (Jess
: excluded <g>) EVER read a comic book before? <g> What's next? I have to
: give up writing cliffhangers altogether? I have to simply stop even
: giving the APPEARANCE that characters are in danger? The moment someone
: lumped Zabu into this already specious "argument," we all heard the
: ringing sound of a gunshot through someone's own foot. Hee.
He's not? Ohhh, mannnn!!! Great! There goes the mystery!
Really, though, I for one, never thought he was dead. In all the releases
about Ka-Zar I've read, most of them (IIRC) mentioned Zabu in them,
somewhere. Something along the lines of 'Walkies in Central Park', etc.
When I saw posts here reading SPOILERS- You know who's death, before I
picked up Ka-Zar, I was expecting Shanna to have been killed. I'm just
now reading these threads, and I think people have really gotten worked
up over nothing.
Admittedly, though, I'd never heard of Waid's 'legacy' of murdering
characters. I just picked up the book because I'd heard he did such a
great job on Cap. :)
--
------------------------
Cthuludrew, the Great Old One
(aka Andrew Theisen, mild mannered college student)
Church of Jimmy Buffett
"Actions have consequences."
Pedro Ramos
Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Well, as I posted in response to Mr. Waid's post, I think there's a
>taxonomy of comic death - in case you missed it, comic death seems
>to fall into one of four categories: 1) heroic, 2) tragic/tearjerker,
>3) deliberately meaningless, 4) death by combat.
This is a good attempt to distinguish the use of death in comics.
However, I think it needs to be worked on. Isn't heroic too similar to
death in combat? Can you give examples of deaths that fit in one type
and not the others?
Ben Reilly's death, for example, could probably fit into any of these
categories. Even though I'm not quite sure what a deliberately
meaningless death is.
Now, the Dark Phoenix's death, would it be called simply heroic and
tragic?
And would, for instance, Cyber's death fit into any of these types?
jsm...@imap1.asu.edu
Distribution:
Jess Nevins (jjne...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Brian H. Bailie wrote:
: >
: > Of course characters can change. But when you swing a character around a
: > full 180 degrees on page 1, with no visible reason, that's not change.
: > That's getting a character wrong.
: Well, here's one place we differ. I didn't see it as a complete reversal, more
: like him finally having doubts about life in the jungle being all that great.
: His thoughts about some of the advantages of civilization, as opposed to
: the jungle, strike me as entirely reasonable for someone who's been in
: the jungle for that long.
Don't forget that Ka-Zar has also had a long time in the 'civilized'
world, between the destruction of the Savage Land and it's subsequent
revival. Maybe the creature comforts really got to him.
I don't mind what might be seen by some as a 'complete character
rewrite'- every author has their own take on a character, and as long as
the take can be justified, as this can (and hopefully will be, in the
course of the story), I am more than willing to go along for the ride-
as long as it's well written.
For the record, though, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of Ka-Zar
leaving the Savage Land. I'll stick with it for a while, but personally,
I'd be more interested in reading something other than your standard
superhero fare, and would prefer him to remain in the SL. We'll see how
things go.
Jess Nevins
> >taxonomy of comic death - in case you missed it, comic death seems
> >to fall into one of four categories: 1) heroic, 2) tragic/tearjerker,
> >3) deliberately meaningless, 4) death by combat.
>
> However, I think it needs to be worked on. Isn't heroic too similar to
> death in combat? Can you give examples of deaths that fit in one type
> and not the others?
>
> Ben Reilly's death, for example, could probably fit into any of these
> categories. Even though I'm not quite sure what a deliberately
> meaningless death is.
>
> Now, the Dark Phoenix's death, would it be called simply heroic and
> tragic?
>
> And would, for instance, Cyber's death fit into any of these types?
I'd fit Dark Phoenix's death into category 1), since she goes at
heroically,
rather than tragically.
I'll try this again.
1) Heroically, so that his/her death saves others, helps improve a
situation,
or in some other way displays the attributes of what we call "heroism."
Phoenix goes here - she commits suicide to stop herself from getting
medieval
on the universe - as does Chemical Kid of the Legion of Superheroes.
2) Tragic/tearjerker, so that the death itself is a sad one. Mar-vell's
death
is a good example - the wasting death-by-cancer.
3) Deliberately meaningless, so that the death is a random occurrence. A
superhero being killed in a car accident, for example, would be one of
these.
4) Death by combat would be when the hero got beaten to death by a
stronger/
more vicious opponent.
I don't know about Ben Reilly, so I can't say, but Cyber threw himself
in
front of a bullet shot at Rahne, so he fits into category 1).
jess
Bala Menon
Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<332DE7...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Pedro Ramos wrote:
> >
> > Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Well, as I posted in response to Mr. Waid's post, I think there's a
> > >taxonomy of comic death - in case you missed it, comic death seems
> > >to fall into one of four categories: 1) heroic, 2) tragic/tearjerker,
> > >3) deliberately meaningless, 4) death by combat.
> >
> > And would, for instance, Cyber's death fit into any of these types?
> I don't know about Ben Reilly, so I can't say, but Cyber threw himself
> in
> front of a bullet shot at Rahne, so he fits into category 1).
Uhh, no, Jess. That was Doug (Cypher) Ramsey.
Cyber was the guy who was slaughtered around Wolverine #99 or so,
so that his adamantium skin could be used to rebuild Wolverine's
skeleton.
It does seem to avoid category 3, and that's the closest of the four
I can place it.
--
Bala Menon (b.m...@worldnet.att.net)
Judge
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Jess Nevins wrote:
> 1) Heroically, so that his/her death saves others, helps improve a
> situation,
> or in some other way displays the attributes of what we call "heroism."
> Phoenix goes here - she commits suicide to stop herself from getting
> medieval
> on the universe - as does Chemical Kid of the Legion of Superheroes.
>
> 2) Tragic/tearjerker, so that the death itself is a sad one. Mar-vell's
> death
> is a good example - the wasting death-by-cancer.
>
> 3) Deliberately meaningless, so that the death is a random occurrence. A
> superhero being killed in a car accident, for example, would be one of
> these.
>
> 4) Death by combat would be when the hero got beaten to death by a
> stronger/
> more vicious opponent.
>
> I don't know about Ben Reilly, so I can't say, but Cyber threw himself
> in
> front of a bullet shot at Rahne, so he fits into category 1).
No, CyPHer did that. Cyber was eaten by bugs so that Tyler, the
Apocalypse wanna be, could have adamantium to rebond to wolverine. It
happened in Wolverine 98-100.
Which brings up a fifth category:
5) Plot advancer. This would include the poor Russian fellow who fell to
his death at the beginning of Flash's Dead Heat, and Cyber. The
characters are killed so that the plot can either be established, or
simply move along.
Merry Christmas,
Judge
No applause, just throw money.
Maytree
>Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, as I posted in response to Mr. Waid's post, I think there's a
>>taxonomy of comic death - in case you missed it, comic death seems
>>to fall into one of four categories: 1) heroic, 2) tragic/tearjerker,
>>3) deliberately meaningless, 4) death by combat.
>
>This is a good attempt to distinguish the use of death in comics.
>However, I think it needs to be worked on. Isn't heroic too similar to
>death in combat? Can you give examples of deaths that fit in one type
>and not the others?
Death in combat would cover villain deaths. It would also cover
Elektra, who died in combat with Bullseye (the first time) but not
while doing anything heroic, nor was it honestly tragic. (Sad for
Matt, maybe, but there's nothing tragic about a fight between two
assassins in which one dies. That's to be expected.)
>Ben Reilly's death, for example, could probably fit into any of these
>categories. Even though I'm not quite sure what a deliberately
>meaningless death is.
The death of Jeanne DeWolf (sp?) in Spiderman probably qualifies. She
was gunned down by a nutcase in one of PAD's early works.
"Deliberately meaningless" would include deaths like this, where the
person dies for no good reason and their death accomplishes nothing.
Usually authors put them in just to make a statement contrasting death
in our reality (generally random and meaningless, like a plane crash
or AIDS) to death in the comics (generally intended to accomplish
something, like saving the world or preventing the death of
innocents.)
Side comment on the Death of Jeanne DeWolf: the cool thing about this
story was that Jeanne's death came at the start of the story, not the
end, and the story revolved around the reactions of other people to
her senseless murder. Very unusual and affecting.
The death of Jason Todd probably counts as deliberately meaningless,
too, though maybe you could stretch a point and call it tragic.
(Outside of the story context, I can't think of anything more
meaningless than dying because of 73 votes in a phone-in poll...)
>Now, the Dark Phoenix's death, would it be called simply heroic and
>tragic?
Heroic. Jean knew what she was doing and chose her own death. (Yes,
she DID! I don't wanna hear any nonsense about coccoons and
Phoenix-clones!) And her reasons for doing so were sound.
Tragic, IMO, would be when the character does something heroic where
he isn't expecting to necessarily die, but something goes wrong and
he's killed. Or, alternatively, where a character offers up his life
and dies, but the death turns out not to have been necessary. I can't
think of any major deaths that fall into this category off-hand.
Anyone else?
>And would, for instance, Cyber's death fit into any of these types?
Do you mean Cypher? Or is Cyber someone I don't know?
If you mean Cypher, I'd put it down as "Heroic", if I'm remembering
correctly. He took a bullet meant for Rahne, right? If my memory's
failing me and he just got gunned down, I'd put his death in the
"deliberately meaningless" category. (Since there's no "totally
stupid" category, which is where Cypher's death really belongs.Ptui!)
-- Maytree
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hawthorne
j...@rio.com
jennifer....@sierra.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Ian, you're introducing calm and reasonable thought into this thread.
Stop it at once. It's unnerving. Like hearing someone singing Xmas
carols in the graveyard." -- Mike Tittensor (mi...@heridoth.demon.co.uk)
Jess Nevins
Bala Menon wrote:
>
> Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <332DE7...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > > >taxonomy of comic death - in case you missed it, comic death seems
> > > >to fall into one of four categories: 1) heroic, 2) tragic/tearjerker,
> > > >3) deliberately meaningless, 4) death by combat.
> > >
>
> > in
> > front of a bullet shot at Rahne, so he fits into category 1).
>
> Cyber was the guy who was slaughtered around Wolverine #99 or so,
> so that his adamantium skin could be used to rebuild Wolverine's
> skeleton.
> It does seem to avoid category 3, and that's the closest of the four
> I can place it.
Well, I really meant my taxonomy to be limited to heroes, rather than
villains - but I'd say his fell into 3). Of course, villains - being
more expendable than heroes in the comic milieu - have a greater
variety of deaths available to them than heroes.
jess
jsm...@imap1.asu.edu
Distribution:
Maytree (j...@rio.com) wrote:
: Do you mean Cypher? Or is Cyber someone I don't know?
: If you mean Cypher, I'd put it down as "Heroic", if I'm remembering
: correctly. He took a bullet meant for Rahne, right? If my memory's
: failing me and he just got gunned down, I'd put his death in the
: "deliberately meaningless" category. (Since there's no "totally
: stupid" category, which is where Cypher's death really belongs.Ptui!)
I think they mean Cyber, as in the Wolverine villain with the adamantium
skin, who was eaten to death by mutant deathwatch beetles. Kind of
pointless, but an interesting way to go...
Pedro Ramos
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:39:29 -0600, Judge <poi...@students.uiuc.edu>
wrote:
> No, CyPHer did that. Cyber was eaten by bugs so that Tyler, the
>Apocalypse wanna be, could have adamantium to rebond to wolverine. It
>happened in Wolverine 98-100.
> Which brings up a fifth category:
>5) Plot advancer. This would include the poor Russian fellow who fell to
>his death at the beginning of Flash's Dead Heat, and Cyber. The
>characters are killed so that the plot can either be established, or
>simply move along.
Yes, that makes sense. I don't think it really fits "deliberately
meaningless", considering Jess and Maytree's definitions.
I mentioned Cyber, Wolverine's loud-mouthed nemesis, because he had a
peculiar death. He was devoured by alien-like carnivorous insects sent
upon him by villains who simply wanted to collect his adamantium,
which would remain after the bugs' feast. Now, this was neither
heroic, tragic or in combat. And not really meaningless either.
Peter Judge
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970318...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Judge <poi...@students.uiuc.edu> writes
> Which brings up a fifth category:
>5) Plot advancer. This would include the poor Russian fellow who fell to
>his death at the beginning of Flash's Dead Heat, and Cyber. The
>characters are killed so that the plot can either be established, or
>simply move along.
Hmm. Strikes me as a meta-category, in that it could apply to any of the
other categories, and I can't imagine anyone in the story seeing it that
way.
Whereas Xavier might say 'At least she went like a hero' when Phoenix
died (first time), he wouldn't say 'Well guys, now she's gone, we don't
have a member with ultimate powers and Chris Claremont won't have so
much trouble finding bad guys for us to go up against.'
:-)
From a fellow Judge:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Judge
Alleycat
Peter Judge wrote:
>
> In article <332f624a....@news.rio.com>, Maytree <j...@rio.com>
> writes
> >The death of Jason Todd probably counts as deliberately meaningless,
> >too, though maybe you could stretch a point and call it tragic.
> >(Outside of the story context, I can't think of anything more
> >meaningless than dying because of 73 votes in a phone-in poll...)
>
> kind of question), but this throwaway line sounds so bizarre I have to
> ask:
>
> Who was Jason Todd, how did he die, and what did the phone-in poll have
> to do with it?
Jason Todd was the second Robin. Apparently, he wasn't liked by
the readers that much. During the "Batman : Death in the Family"
storyline, the Bat-editors decided to hold a poll to see if the readers
wanted Jason dead. The readers said yes, and history was made.
Alleycat
Who found Jason Todd again in Bruce Wayne: Agent of SHIELD...
Peter Judge
In article <332f624a....@news.rio.com>, Maytree <j...@rio.com>
writes
>The death of Jason Todd probably counts as deliberately meaningless,
>too, though maybe you could stretch a point and call it tragic.
>(Outside of the story context, I can't think of anything more
>meaningless than dying because of 73 votes in a phone-in poll...)
Huh? I've been a bit out of it (and eventually, I will stop asking this
kind of question), but this throwaway line sounds so bizarre I have to
ask:
Who was Jason Todd, how did he die, and what did the phone-in poll have
to do with it?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Judge
Jess Nevins
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >I only felt that JQ's death was a mistake because, if such a hero is to
> >die, it should fit into one of a few standard categories:
>
> I'd add a fifth category: Lame character death. This death would be serious
> were it not that the comics audience sees the character as, well, very lame.
>
> Examples include the death of the Red Bee in All-Star Squadron, the death of
> several members of the JLA at the end of the original series, and possibly
> Kid Quantum in post-ZH LSH.
Now, I realize that no one's taken the Red Bee seriously for about 50
years
now, but the man was a bad-ass back during the Golden Age. I've read
some
of his original appearances - no one was laughing at him _then_.
ObMarvel: Any educated guesses out there as to when "Citizen V" is
revealed
as Baron Zemo and the Thunderbolts either a) rebel against him or b) go
along with his plan for evil?
jess
Ken Arromdee
Jess Nevins <jjne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I only felt that JQ's death was a mistake because, if such a hero is to
>die, it should fit into one of a few standard categories:
I'd add a fifth category: Lame character death. This death would be serious
were it not that the comics audience sees the character as, well, very lame.
Examples include the death of the Red Bee in All-Star Squadron, the death of
several members of the JLA at the end of the original series, and possibly
Kid Quantum in post-ZH LSH.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@randomc.com, karr...@nyx.nyx.net,
http://www.randomc.com/~arromdee)
"2000 members of the vegetable kingdom and I have to work with _tomatoes_!"
Adam Cadre
Jess Nevins wrote:
>
> ObMarvel: Any educated guesses out there as to when "Citizen V" is
> revealed as Baron Zemo and the Thunderbolts either a) rebel against
> him or b) go along with his plan for evil?
Umm... Issue V, perhaps?
[dodging tomatoes]
-----
Adam Cadre, Durham, NC
http://www.duke.edu/~adamc
HallNash33
Jason Todd is the 2nd Robin. (1st was Dick Grayson, now Nightwing.)
Anyway, there was a storyline in which Jason got caught in a bomb set by
the Joker. At the end of that cliffhanger there was a phone poll.
Readers could call in and vote whether they wanted to kill Jason or to
save Jason. He was so unpopular that readers voted to kill him. (I don't
think even Ben Reilly was that unpopular.)
Starving Writer