Something has happened...
Eric Kibler
than they were in the early nineties?
Alan Moore made me a writing snob in the eighties. I gradually discovered
the other U.K. writers and stayed away from most mainstream stuff.
The bad part is that the good alternative stuff has seemed to dry up, but
the mainstream superhero stuff is, for the most part, well-written.
Green Arrow, JSA, New X-Men, Amazing Spider-Man, Hulk, Avengers, Fantastic
Four, Aquaman, etc.--all comics I wouldn't have bothered with in the early
nineties--are now on my must-read list.
I like a longer read than what I'm getting, generally. I was raised on
Lee/Ditko nine-panel pages with loads of plot and dialogue, but the new
comics, even if too quickly read, are well plotted and written.
Am I gettin' soft, or is the writing of comics getting better?
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>Am I gettin' soft, or is the writing of comics getting better?
I can't tell if you're getting soft, but I think that there have never
been more well-written comics now, both within the superhero ghetto
and outside it, than there ever have been before. The field doesn't
have that crackling excitement it did in the mid-1980s, in large part
because of the financial woes, but *damn* there's a lot of good
material.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
George Grattan
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:11:23 -0500, "Eric Kibler" <reki...@raex.com>
> wrote:
>> Am I gettin' soft, or is the writing of comics getting better?
>
> I can't tell if you're getting soft, but I think that there have never
> been more well-written comics now, both within the superhero ghetto
> and outside it, than there ever have been before. The field doesn't
> have that crackling excitement it did in the mid-1980s, in large part
> because of the financial woes, but *damn* there's a lot of good
> material.
I tend to think the mid 1980s produced better product overall, but I think
we've been in a drought so long that the good stuff that's coming out now
looks better than it might otherwise. I don't see the same sense of
experimentation going on in even the better books that I did in the 1980s--
just very good (or competent) writers churning out stuff that's essentially
satisfying. I'd like for mainstream books to get a little more edgy or
experimental again, but, as Kevin says, the finances don't seem to exist to
support such risks. I think a lot of the better-written books out there
today are occupying fairly familiar ground, they're just doing it well.
--
Shalom, Peace, Salaam
George Grattan
Josh Brandt
Eric Kibler <reki...@raex.com> wrote:
>Is it just me, or are mainstream comics in general WAAAAY better written
>than they were in the early nineties?
>
>Alan Moore made me a writing snob in the eighties. I gradually discovered
>the other U.K. writers and stayed away from most mainstream stuff.
>Am I gettin' soft, or is the writing of comics getting better?
All the UK writers you thought were cool in the 80's and early 90's are now
writing the mainstream comics you listed right there.
Josh
--
J. Brandt / m...@solipsism.net / mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
where...@yahoo.com
George,
do you just mean the mainstream books in terms of being good but not
great? For instance, the concept (at least) of Stormwatch seems
pretty novel to me, and Micah's writing is of a pretty high standard.
Some of the Vertigo stuff likewise is inventive, at least for comics.
And in terms of black-and-white independents (even if you miss the
days before Dave Sim went completely mad), Finder is a pretty fine
piece of work. Anyways, I was wondering if you would elucidate a
little.
cheers,
John
George Grattan
> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:<BA7EADD6.101AF%gra...@rcn.com>...
>> on 2/23/03 1:13 PM, Kevin J. Maroney at k...@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> I tend to think the mid 1980s produced better product overall, but I think
>> we've been in a drought so long that the good stuff that's coming out now
>> looks better than it might otherwise. I don't see the same sense of
>> experimentation going on in even the better books that I did in the 1980s--
>> just very good (or competent) writers churning out stuff that's essentially
>> satisfying. I'd like for mainstream books to get a little more edgy or
>> experimental again, but, as Kevin says, the finances don't seem to exist to
>> support such risks. I think a lot of the better-written books out there
>> today are occupying fairly familiar ground, they're just doing it well.
>
> George,
> do you just mean the mainstream books in terms of being good but not
> great?
This is going to get problematic: I'm not sure "mainstream" is a useful term
anymore. :-) In an age where most readers get their books in specialty
stores, "mainstream" might be as useful a demarcation point as "alternative"
in music-- which is to say, not very useful. But if by mainstream we mean
Marvel and DC only, I'd say, yes: I think there's some very good material
being put out by those publishers (mostly DC), but not great or inventive or
exciting. I see that as a distinct difference from the 1980s, when both of
those big two publishers (again more DC than Marvel) were pushing various
envelopes in exciting ways month after month after month.
If, however, by mainstream, we mean more of a kind of straightforward take
on the superherho and related genres, so that we can include ABC, Wildstorm,
etc., then Ithink it gets harder to say, but it still seems there's a lot of
truly good work being done, but nothing that's making me sit up and take
notice with a tremendous charge. Or at least, nothing that's coming out in a
regularly, monthly format. (And that's fine-- I think the industry needs to
move away from that as the default.)
> For instance, the concept (at least) of Stormwatch seems
> pretty novel to me, and Micah's writing is of a pretty high standard.
You know, I've just read Johanna's amazingly positive review of this book
and your comment here on top of it makes me think I really need to check it
out, again. I dubious: I tend to think this kind of deconstruction train
left the station in 1986. As much as I love things in this line, there's
been so much of it in the last 15 years that even the best stuff (Ellis'
STORMWATCH and early AUTHORITY, Moore's TOM STRONG and SUPREME, etc.) seems
in some ways a bit more of the same old, same new.
But, you know what? I can tell I'm cranky this week. Don't listen to me. :-)
> Some of the Vertigo stuff likewise is inventive, at least for comics.
I agree. Of the few titles I really get a "buzz" from these days, I count
LUCIFER and Y: THE LAST MAN. MIDNIGHT, MA. Was great, too, and while I don't
think FABLES is always up to snuff, it does give a sense of excitement-- of
something new. Other "buzz books" for me are the BLUE MONDAY and HOPELESS
SAVAGES books, VERTIGO POP:LONDON, 21 DOWN (sorta), PAUL POPE'S 100%, TOP
TEN, CATWOMAN, AMELIA RULES, GOTHAM CENTRAL, LOEG, and PROMETHEA. It's not
that I always enjoy them, it's that I'm always intrigued by them, challenged
by them, confronted by them, and eager to see what they're going to do next.
These are books that cultivate the aesthetic of the possible, not the
familiar, and *that's* the aesthetic I see as having been ascendant more in
the 1980s than today.
But, looking over that last paragraph-- that's actually a pretty good list,
isn't it? :-)
> And in terms of black-and-white independents (even if you miss the
> days before Dave Sim went completely mad), Finder is a pretty fine
> piece of work.
I know, I know-- *everyone* tells me this. :-) I tried the first TPB when I
was too tired, I think, to give it a fair shot-- and haven't been compelled
to go back. I feel incredibly guilty about it.
>Anyways, I was wondering if you would elucidate a
> little.
Hope that helps. Again, I'm cranky. And no doubt nostalgic. That's a deadly
combo...
Johanna Draper Carlson
> This is going to get problematic: I'm not sure "mainstream" is a useful term
> anymore. :-)
For me, "mainstream" is Andi Watson's work, not a superhero book. :)
It's a term that more often than not confuses the discussion, yes.
> I see that as a distinct difference from the 1980s, when both of
> those big two publishers (again more DC than Marvel) were pushing various
> envelopes in exciting ways month after month after month.
That was my Golden Age -- all kinds of books being put out without being
directed into imprints to avoid tarnishing the core universe.
> it still seems there's a lot of truly good work being done, but
> nothing that's making me sit up and take notice with a tremendous
> charge.
It's easier to get excited when there are fewer choices, I think. There
are so many great possibilities today that it's harder to focus.
> I dubious: I tend to think this kind of deconstruction train
> left the station in 1986.
I wouldn't call STORMWATCH: TEAM ACHILLES deconstruction. I suppose you
could label part of it that, but it seems to me to be looking forward,
and I associate deconstruction with the opposite direction.
> > Finder is a pretty fine piece of work.
>
> I know, I know-- *everyone* tells me this. :-) I tried the first TPB when I
> was too tired, I think, to give it a fair shot
Try King of the Cats, the third. That's my favorite, and you don't need
to have read the first two to appreciate it.
Good analysis. I'm so glad you're posting stuff like this.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
New: Reviews of Crossovers, Gotham Central, Invincible, Stormwatch
James Schee
> I tend to think the mid 1980s produced better product overall, but I think
> we've been in a drought so long that the good stuff that's coming out now
> looks better than it might otherwise.
What kind of stuff did you see in the 80s that was sowonderful to you?
As someone who wasn't reading comics (outside of G.I. Joe) in that
decade I wonder what I missed.
I am about to try some 80s series that I'm buying from a friend. (Blue
Devil, Giffen's JLI and JLE, Captain Carrot & His Amazing Zoo Crew!,
Atari Force and an Elongated Man mini)
> I don't see the same sense of
> experimentation going on in even the better books that I did in the 1980s--
> just very good (or competent) writers churning out stuff that's essentially
> satisfying. I'd like for mainstream books to get a little more edgy or
> experimental again, but, as Kevin says, the finances don't seem to exist to
> support such risks. I think a lot of the better-written books out there
> today are occupying fairly familiar ground, they're just doing it well.
I wonder if it's a difference of opinion on what is edgy and
experimental now? Some of the themes Millar, Morrison, Marvel's MAX line
and others are doing are likely considered fairly edgy today.
Today's experimentation seems to be in trying to make stories more adult
oriented, while back then it was about trying different story styles and
genres.
James
George Grattan
joh...@discardme.comicsworthreading.com wrote:
>>
>> I see that as a distinct difference from the 1980s, when both of
>> those big two publishers (again more DC than Marvel) were pushing various
>> envelopes in exciting ways month after month after month.
>
> That was my Golden Age -- all kinds of books being put out without being
> directed into imprints to avoid tarnishing the core universe.
Yeah, the sense was that, for example, the DC universe was a big enough
place to contain Chaykin's Blackhawks, Blue Devil, Swamp Thing, The New
Titans, Amythest, the Question, LSH v4, Ambush Bug, etc. etc. without
busting apart at the seams, somehow. Now, I'm hard pressed to think of two
DC books in the same setting that as far apart from each other in approach
and style and tone as so many books were during that period.
But, seriously: are we just guilty of nostalgia here?
>
>> it still seems there's a lot of truly good work being done, but
>> nothing that's making me sit up and take notice with a tremendous
>> charge.
>
> It's easier to get excited when there are fewer choices, I think. There
> are so many great possibilities today that it's harder to focus.
That's certainly true. I can't even keep up, much less focus.
>
>> I dubious: I tend to think this kind of deconstruction train
>> left the station in 1986.
>
> I wouldn't call STORMWATCH: TEAM ACHILLES deconstruction. I suppose you
> could label part of it that, but it seems to me to be looking forward,
> and I associate deconstruction with the opposite direction.
Hmm. I think I see the difference there, but I'm not sure. (I don't have a
negative connotation in mind with deconstruction, though-- you might?) I
think, say, PROMETHEA and TOP TEN are both examples of deconstructive
approaches to genre materials that also move forward into their own new
territories, for example.
>
>>> Finder is a pretty fine piece of work.
>>
>> I know, I know-- *everyone* tells me this. :-) I tried the first TPB when I
>> was too tired, I think, to give it a fair shot
>
> Try King of the Cats, the third. That's my favorite, and you don't need
> to have read the first two to appreciate it.
Will do, thanks.
>
> Good analysis. I'm so glad you're posting stuff like this.
Aw, shucks...it's either this or my dissertation. :-)
George Grattan
>> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I tend to think the mid 1980s produced better product overall, but I think
>> we've been in a drought so long that the good stuff that's coming out now
>> looks better than it might otherwise.
>
> What kind of stuff did you see in the 80s that was sowonderful to you?
> As someone who wasn't reading comics (outside of G.I. Joe) in that
> decade I wonder what I missed.
>
> I am about to try some 80s series that I'm buying from a friend. (Blue
> Devil, Giffen's JLI and JLE, Captain Carrot & His Amazing Zoo Crew!,
> Atari Force and an Elongated Man mini)
I think those are all very much worth a look-- some of my favorites are in
that list already. I'd also add: The Question, the Shadow (both series),
Wasteland, early years of New Mutants and Infinity, Inc and The Outsiders,
The New Teen Titans, X-Men through the Smith run, Simonson's Thor, Byrne's
FF, 'mazing man, Ambush Bug, Checkmate, Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns,
Hellblazer, Swamp Thing, Black Orchid, Shade, Blackhawk (both series),
Perez's Wonder Woman, Elfquest, Dreadstar, Nexus, Badger, Legion, Suicide
Squad, Green Arrow, Animal Man, Young All-Stars, All-Star Squadron, various
sci-fi graphic novel adaptations from DC, The Killing Joke, DC's Star Trek
adaptations, Sword of the Atom, Ronin, Batman:Year One, Doom Patrol, Flash,
Dr. Fate, Miracleman, and Isabella's Hawkman work.
And that's just pretty much off the top of my head. Living in the past, moi?
:-)
>
>
>> I don't see the same sense of
>> experimentation going on in even the better books that I did in the 1980s--
>> just very good (or competent) writers churning out stuff that's essentially
>> satisfying. I'd like for mainstream books to get a little more edgy or
>> experimental again, but, as Kevin says, the finances don't seem to exist to
>> support such risks. I think a lot of the better-written books out there
>> today are occupying fairly familiar ground, they're just doing it well.
>
> I wonder if it's a difference of opinion on what is edgy and
> experimental now? Some of the themes Millar, Morrison, Marvel's MAX line
> and others are doing are likely considered fairly edgy today.
>
> Today's experimentation seems to be in trying to make stories more adult
> oriented, while back then it was about trying different story styles and
> genres.
That could be a useful distinction. I'll take experimental over what some of
these writers think is "adult" any day. I really don't see any new ground
being covered by many of the things that are being heralded as fresh and
exciting: Ultimate, Powers, Rising Stars, even Alias (to a lesser extent)
all feel deeply, deeply familiar to me. And hence not generally as
interesting to me as I sense they are to folks who weren't reading comics in
the 1980s. Morrison's X-Men has none of the sense of "Oh, my god, I can't
believe I'm reading this in a comic book" that his Animal Man and Doom
Patrol stories gave me-- I can't hear any boundaries being expanded. Ellis'
work intrigues me a bit more, when it comes out. :-) And I haven't fully
figured out my mostly positive response to Moore's ABC work...
--
Shalom, Peace, Salaam
George Grattan
>
> James
where...@yahoo.com
> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > This is going to get problematic: I'm not sure "mainstream" is a useful term
> > anymore. :-)
>
> For me, "mainstream" is Andi Watson's work, not a superhero book. :)
>
> It's a term that more often than not confuses the discussion, yes.
I agree; I used the term because George seemed to focus on them in his
original response to Kevin. In any case, it looks like Andi Watson
will be mixing the two (the Andi Watson stlye and the superhero genre)
in his new Oni book. Lots of fun, I hope. (Especially since I swore
I'd never look at another thing "written" by Bill Jemas, which makes
Namor off-limits.)
> > I see that as a distinct difference from the 1980s, when both of
> > those big two publishers (again more DC than Marvel) were pushing various
> > envelopes in exciting ways month after month after month.
>
> That was my Golden Age -- all kinds of books being put out without being
> directed into imprints to avoid tarnishing the core universe.
It makes me wonder yet again if the traditional superhero is more or
less exhausted. Don't it seem like the relatively exciting stuff --
Gotham Central, Stormwatch, the Ultimates (as far as I'm concerned :)
), X-Statix, Powers -- that bears on superheroes is all looking at the
universes from different perspectives? That is, in some way it's
treating the heroes more like people we recognize (greedy, morally
conflicted, etc.etc.), or the people in the stories are not
super-powered themselves, but normal folks forced to deal with them.
I'm reminded of how I thought that Neil Gaiman's Miracleman stories
were the only logical extension to Moore's: Moore wrote as if the
existence of a Superman would actually have real consequences in the
world . . . but after the consequences were laid out (or at least
framed, in a carpenterial sense), the only real thing to do was to see
how people would be affected by them, with Miraclefolk serving as,
heh, dei ex machina.
It seems like some of the stuff getting the most positive reviews or
interest is working back into other genres -- the police procedural,
the mystery, the Victorian period piece, the satire -- more so than
previously?
In a nutshell, I loved Simonson's Thor run. I only found Orion to be
good at certain points (like the Green Lantern story -- that was
great, no doubt). Is that because it's not as good, or just because
I'm older (or my judgment is bad), or because the classical superhero
stuff has aged too much?
> > it still seems there's a lot of truly good work being done, but
> > nothing that's making me sit up and take notice with a tremendous
> > charge.
>
> It's easier to get excited when there are fewer choices, I think. There
> are so many great possibilities today that it's harder to focus.
Amen. That was what I meant to respond to Eric's original posting.
> > I dubious: I tend to think this kind of deconstruction train
> > left the station in 1986.
>
> I wouldn't call STORMWATCH: TEAM ACHILLES deconstruction. I suppose you
> could label part of it that, but it seems to me to be looking forward,
> and I associate deconstruction with the opposite direction.
It's deconstructive relative to the superhero genre, perhaps, in that
the super-powered folk aren't bright and shiny, and the good guys are
non-powered humans. In any case, the writing is splendid. I have
been surprised by it all the way along -- not as intensely as you were
by #8, of course, Johanna -- in that I'm feeling that it's like a
well-constructed thriller . . . with pictures. It seems to me that
only rarely does comic writing rise to the level of a good genre
novel, but since Micah has at least reached that level, the
combination with pictures makes me feel like I'm getting a story of a
type I couldn't get anywhere else. (But I have to add that I seem to
be much less allergic to Mr. Portacio's art than you, Johanna.)
> > > Finder is a pretty fine piece of work.
> >
> > I know, I know-- *everyone* tells me this. :-) I tried the first TPB when I
> > was too tired, I think, to give it a fair shot
>
> Try King of the Cats, the third. That's my favorite, and you don't need
> to have read the first two to appreciate it.
Talisman (the 4th) is really nice too--the sweetest you might say--but
depends on stuff in the first two. I got an extra kick out of King of
the Cats inasmuch as at about the same time I was reading the Tom
Peyer Authority stories with the Religimon figure in them, as ghastly
an icon as the one in KotC.
Cheers,
John
Johanna Draper Carlson
> are we just guilty of nostalgia here?
Maybe. Maybe not. I think an argument can be made that the books we're
talking about would be seen as high quality in any decade.
> > I wouldn't call STORMWATCH: TEAM ACHILLES deconstruction. I suppose you
> > could label part of it that, but it seems to me to be looking forward,
> > and I associate deconstruction with the opposite direction.
>
> Hmm. I think I see the difference there, but I'm not sure. (I don't have a
> negative connotation in mind with deconstruction, though-- you might?)
Only in that it's been overused, so I'm tired of it.
> I think, say, PROMETHEA and TOP TEN are both examples of deconstructive
> approaches to genre materials that also move forward into their own new
> territories, for example.
Top Ten I wouldn't call deconstructive; it's simply one genre done with
elements of another. Promethea, yes, the Wonder Woman-copy stuff I'd
call deconstructive.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> It makes me wonder yet again if the traditional superhero is more or
> less exhausted.
That's part of the traditional genre path, but superheroes in comics
don't follow that, because they don't ever fade away.
I agree that there's a lack of straightforward traditional treatments of
superheroes, although some books (like Tech Jacket) are trying to keep
it going. It's easy for such to be ignored by a more experienced
(jaded?) audience.
> It seems like some of the stuff getting the most positive reviews or
> interest is working back into other genres -- the police procedural,
> the mystery, the Victorian period piece, the satire -- more so than
> previously?
Is that a reflection of the work or the audience demands or both?
If you've seen it all before, you look for variations (mutations?) to
give you a new approach.
> It's deconstructive relative to the superhero genre, perhaps, in that
> the super-powered folk aren't bright and shiny, and the good guys are
> non-powered humans.
Is that what's meant by deconstruction in this discussion? I find the
term as jello-like as "postmodern". :)
James Schee
> on 2/24/03 11:41 PM, James Schee at jameswsc...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I tend to think the mid 1980s produced better product overall, but I think
> >> we've been in a drought so long that the good stuff that's coming out now
> >> looks better than it might otherwise.
> >
> > What kind of stuff did you see in the 80s that was sowonderful to you?
>
> I think those are all very much worth a look-- some of my favorites are in
> that list already. I'd also add: the Shadow (both series),
> Wasteland,
What are these two?
> X-Men through the Smith run
Which Smith is this?
> And that's just pretty much off the top of my head. Living in the past, moi?
> :-)
Thanks for the list! A lot of it is stuff I've heard about, and some
I've even gone back and found.
> > I wonder if it's a difference of opinion on what is edgy and
> > experimental now? Some of the themes Millar, Morrison, Marvel's MAX line
> > and others are doing are likely considered fairly edgy today.
> >
> > Today's experimentation seems to be in trying to make stories more adult
> > oriented, while back then it was about trying different story styles and
> > genres.
>
> That could be a useful distinction. I'll take experimental over what some of
> these writers think is "adult" any day. I really don't see any new ground
> being covered by many of the things that are being heralded as fresh and
> exciting: Ultimate, Powers, Rising Stars, even Alias (to a lesser extent)
> all feel deeply, deeply familiar to me. And hence not generally as
> interesting to me as I sense they are to folks who weren't reading comics in
> the 1980s. Morrison's X-Men has none of the sense of "Oh, my god, I can't
> believe I'm reading this in a comic book" that his Animal Man and Doom
> Patrol stories gave me-- I can't hear any boundaries being expanded. Ellis'
> work intrigues me a bit more, when it comes out. :-) And I haven't fully
> figured out my mostly positive response to Moore's ABC work...
Oh I would take the experimental over that too. I wonder if the reason
we don't see "new" stuff is the retro phase we seem to be going through
right now? Most comics today seem to be either continuations of past
themes, or designed to remind you of something in the past or in another
medium.
Of course everyime one of the big two tries something a little different
it doesn't seem to sell, so i guess there are reasons for that.
Oh and a case could be made I guess that we've just read too much now,
and that surprising or giving us something new is pretty darn hard to
do.:)
James
Ken Small
Draper Carlson wrote:
>> It's deconstructive relative to the superhero genre, perhaps, in that
>> the super-powered folk aren't bright and shiny, and the good guys are
>> non-powered humans.
>
> Is that what's meant by deconstruction in this discussion? I find the
> term as jello-like as "postmodern". :)
What most people describe as "deconstructionist" *is* postmodernism.
The genre-bending stuff, anti-genre stuff (like described above) are
pretty much the hallmarks of postmodernism, along with a refutation of
the idea that there's a meaning or purpose behind it all.
I majored in English in college and I *still* don't have a good answer
for what deconstructionism is all about.
Michael Pastor
"Ken Small" <kens...@ignatz.local> wrote in message
news:slrnb5psj6....@ignatz.local...
So did my ex, as a grad student, and we just got to the point where I said
'It sounds to me as if this is all so self-referential.'
I went to dictionary.com and looked up the two terms, just to give a
reference point for both
Deconstructionism:
1. A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions
traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that
words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how
statements about any text subvert their own meanings: "In deconstruction,
the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but
only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, 'virtual texts'
constructed by readers in their search for meaning" (Rebecca Goldstein).
2. a philosophical theory of criticism (usually of literature or film) that
seeks to expose deep-seated contradictions in a work by delving below its
surface meaning
post-modernism:
1. Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against
earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical
elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes:
"It [a roadhouse]is so architecturally interesting... with its postmodern
wooden booths and sculptural clock" (Ruth Reichl).
2. art and literature and especially architecture in reaction against
principles and practices of established modernism
and just since they referenced it
modernism:
1. The deliberate departure from tradition and the use of innovative forms
of expression that distinguish many styles in the arts and literature of the
20th century.
2. art and literature that makes a self-conscious break with previous
genres
michael j pastor
where...@yahoo.com
> where...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > It makes me wonder yet again if the traditional superhero is more or
> > less exhausted.
>
> That's part of the traditional genre path, but superheroes in comics
> don't follow that, because they don't ever fade away.
Yeah, but why don't they? Does it have something to do with the genre
(until relatively recently) mostly being supported by kids, who only
read comics for a while and then moved on? (I'm reminded of this
macabre review of the most recent Hardy Boys books a couple of years
ago, in which Frank and Joe are described as being 75 years old but
still seeming to be teenagers in high school, living with their
parents, etc. Gave me the chills.)
> > interest is working back into other genres -- the police procedural,
> > the mystery, the Victorian period piece, the satire -- more so than
> > previously?
>
> Is that a reflection of the work or the audience demands or both?
I don't know. The audience doesn't seem to be rewarding those books
that highly in general. Not when X-treme X-men is no. 13 on the sales
list and even Y:TLM is only 92, with Unstable Molecules, Global
Frequency, Gotham Central, Ruse and Stormwatch below 100, to name a
few.
> If you've seen it all before, you look for variations (mutations?) to
> give you a new approach.
Argh! The m-word! Anyways, some of us do. But the sales seem to
suggest that fans as a whole don't . . . unless one of the reasons
that comic sales continue to shrink is that readers are abandoning
comics for other things to read which give them that variety.
> > It's deconstructive relative to the superhero genre, perhaps, in that
> > the super-powered folk aren't bright and shiny, and the good guys are
> > non-powered humans.
>
> Is that what's meant by deconstruction in this discussion? I find the
> term as jello-like as "postmodern". :)
I reckon we'd have to find out from George exactly what he meant by it
when he used it first. Although it seems to me that you could define
deconstruction post-modernistically as whatever the speaker (and
listener) make of it. Derrida loves jello, I hear. :)
BTW, I have no idea where I originally heard of the following, it
might even have been one of your reviews, but have you read 'Raven's
Children'? I think it appeals to the same folk who like Finder, in
general.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@discardme.comicsworthreading.com> wrote
> >
> > don't follow that, because they don't ever fade away.
>
> Yeah, but why don't they?
Artificial market manipulation, most obviously the startup of the direct
market, which was primarily focused on superhero comics.
> > If you've seen it all before, you look for variations (mutations?) to
> > give you a new approach.
>
> Argh! The m-word!
Heh. Sorry. :)
> the sales seem to
> suggest that fans as a whole don't . . .
Which group of fans are we discussing? There's no one group that behaves
consistently. If I had to guess, I'd say that the two largest are
nostalgic long-timers and new Wizard followers (to grossly
overgeneralize).
> unless one of the reasons
> that comic sales continue to shrink is that readers are abandoning
> comics for other things to read which give them that variety.
I think some do, yes, which is a shame. We don't give up any other media
when we outgrow a prominent genre -- we find other things to read/watch.
> it might even have been one of your reviews, but have you read 'Raven's
> Children'?
I tried an early issue, but I couldn't keep track of the characters, I
think the problem was. Thanks for the recommendation, though. I might
should give it another try sometime.
Dale Hicks
CAD29D.104...@nnrp02.earthlink.net>,
jameswsc...@earthlink.net says...
> >George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> [good 80's comics]
> > X-Men through the Smith run
>
> Which Smith is this?
I'd presume Paul Smith.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Tom Galloway
Ken Small <kens...@ignatz.local> wrote:
>I majored in English in college and I *still* don't have a good answer
>for what deconstructionism is all about.
I recommend the following attempt to define it, given the bias that I'm
also a computer science type.
http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html
tyg t...@panix.com
--
Currently looking for high-level tech writer/course developer/trainer work.
Extensive writing/training experience as well as software engineering skills.
Willing to do either contract or permanent work, as well as relocate.
Michael Pastor
"Tom Galloway" <t...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b3jsv8$h47$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <slrnb5psj6....@ignatz.local>,
> Ken Small <kens...@ignatz.local> wrote:
> >I majored in English in college and I *still* don't have a good answer
> >for what deconstructionism is all about.
>
> I recommend the following attempt to define it, given the bias that I'm
> also a computer science type.
>
> http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html
>
> tyg t...@panix.com
> --
Halfway through reading it, I called my friend who got his Masters in
English on discussed subject. How you managed to connect the
self-referential nature of the topic to the Galpagos Island birds is truly
beyond me, but it is truly brilliant. Kudos
michael j pastor
Tom Galloway
>English on discussed subject. How you managed to connect the
>self-referential nature of the topic to the Galpagos Island birds is truly
>beyond me, but it is truly brilliant. Kudos
I should make clear it's not my work; as stated under the title, it's by
Chip Morningstar.
where...@yahoo.com
> where...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@discardme.comicsworthreading.com> wrote
> > >
> > the sales seem to
> > suggest that fans as a whole don't . . .
>
> Which group of fans are we discussing? There's no one group that behaves
> consistently. If I had to guess, I'd say that the two largest are
> nostalgic long-timers and new Wizard followers (to grossly
> overgeneralize).
But all the groups together behave relatively consistently, right?
That was what I meant by comparing the better sales of what seems like
a very traditional comic which generally gets poor reviews, to the
lesser sales of postively-reviewed, more experimental comics (pace
George).
> > it might even have been one of your reviews, but have you read 'Raven's
> > Children'?
>
> I tried an early issue, but I couldn't keep track of the characters, I
> think the problem was. Thanks for the recommendation, though. I might
> should give it another try sometime.
Actually, I had the same problem to some degree. The reason I
associate the two stories, I suppose, is the sophistication of the
world-building with respect to anthropology that they share, and that
was one of my favorite elements.
Ken Small
> In article <slrnb5psj6....@ignatz.local>,
> Ken Small <kens...@ignatz.local> wrote:
>>I majored in English in college and I *still* don't have a good answer
>>for what deconstructionism is all about.
>
> I recommend the following attempt to define it, given the bias that I'm
> also a computer science type.
>
> http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html
Great article. Repeats a lot of what was going on my head as a
student, and one reason I never went off to grad school (although
hardly the main one). It throws a few babies out with the bathwater,
but understandably so given the huge volume of bathwater. I still find
a discussion of postmodernism very useful when applied to actual works--
but as I said elsewhere, to me that means more about self-referential
details, genre-bending, the refutation or assertion of meaning in a text.
And yes, I call them texts.
Do you still have that comment of mine about RAC and literary criticism
in your quote file?
George Grattan
joh...@discardme.comicsworthreading.com wrote:
> where...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> It makes me wonder yet again if the traditional superhero is more or
>> less exhausted.
>
> That's part of the traditional genre path, but superheroes in comics
> don't follow that, because they don't ever fade away.
>
> I agree that there's a lack of straightforward traditional treatments of
> superheroes, although some books (like Tech Jacket) are trying to keep
> it going. It's easy for such to be ignored by a more experienced
> (jaded?) audience.
I wonder if that's what's behind the relatively lukewarm response to a
(merely) solid book like POWER COMPANY? Busiek's AVENGERS run got
(deservedly) high marks from many fans, but came preloaded with nostalgia
value that made older/jaded readers want to like it, paradoxically. PC
doesn't have that. ASTRO CITY--also generally well regarded-- has an odd
combo of nostalgia and postmodern deconstruction of types (PLANETARY has
some of this as well). But PC plays things straight and is essentially
falling off the radar screen (there may well be other reasons for this, of
course, I'm just wool gathering here...)
On the other hand, a book that many, many fans seem to like, JSA, has always
struck me as very much by-the-numbers. Too much so, in fact. So who knows?
>
>> It seems like some of the stuff getting the most positive reviews or
>> interest is working back into other genres -- the police procedural,
>> the mystery, the Victorian period piece, the satire -- more so than
>> previously?
>
> Is that a reflection of the work or the audience demands or both?
>
> If you've seen it all before, you look for variations (mutations?) to
> give you a new approach.
And sometimes they turn out to be disappointing. RUSE had such great
promise, but I just ended up dropping it from my pull list.
>
>> It's deconstructive relative to the superhero genre, perhaps, in that
>> the super-powered folk aren't bright and shiny, and the good guys are
>> non-powered humans.
>
> Is that what's meant by deconstruction in this discussion? I find the
> term as jello-like as "postmodern". :)
How apt.
Tom Galloway
Ken Small <kens...@ignatz.local> wrote:
>Do you still have that comment of mine about RAC and literary criticism
>in your quote file?
You mean:
"I just reread this, and I should note that racm is anti-critical in
the lit-crit sense, not in that racmers are afraid to say something sucks."
--Ken Small
I actually prefer this one for some odd reason though... :-)
"I am shamed. I turn in my Tom Galloway Junior Trivia Cop Badge
and all rights and privleges that go along with it." --Ken Small
George Grattan
>>>
>>> What kind of stuff did you see in the 80s that was sowonderful to you?
>>
>> I think those are all very much worth a look-- some of my favorites are in
>> that list already. I'd also add: the Shadow (both series),
>> Wasteland,
>
> What are these two?
DC had two runs of THE SHADOW characters in the 1980s-- Kyle Baker was
involved with one, and Andy Helfer the other, IIRC. I haven't read them in
years, but I remember being very excited by them at the time. Different,
edgy stuff, in the context.
WASTELAND was a very short lived, very dark, very creepy, very good horror
anthology by DC during that period. Couldn't have made it more than six
issues of so, if memory serves.
>
>> X-Men through the Smith run
>
> Which Smith is this?
Paul Smith-- handled the art chores on Uncanny X-Men from just after Dave
Cockrum's second run ended (UXM 153 or so) to the end of the Madlyene Pryor
story (or so we all hoped...) in #175 or so. For me, the X-Men began going
dowhill at that exact point, and picked up great speed after UXM 200.
>>
> Thanks for the list! A lot of it is stuff I've heard about, and some
> I've even gone back and found.
You're welcome-- it was fun trying to dredge them all up without checking
anywhere.
> Oh and a case could be made I guess that we've just read too much now,
> and that surprising or giving us something new is pretty darn hard to
> do.:)
>
I think it is possible for consumers to become burned out in with regard to
one form of expression or another, and given most comics' fans reading
habits, it might well be likelier to happen in this hobby/art form than in
some others. Time away from the medium can be a great boost to its
creativity when one returns. :-)
George Grattan
>>> It's deconstructive relative to the superhero genre, perhaps, in that
>>> the super-powered folk aren't bright and shiny, and the good guys are
>>> non-powered humans.
>>
>> Is that what's meant by deconstruction in this discussion? I find the
>> term as jello-like as "postmodern". :)
>
> I reckon we'd have to find out from George exactly what he meant by it
> when he used it first.
That would depend upon George figuring out exactly what he meant by it when
he used it first, which he's too tired to do just now... :-)
Someone else has posted helpful capsule definitions in the thread-- and it
turns out the one for deconstruction is, in fact, the one I use with my
students. It's worth noting, as has been said, that in literary and cultural
criticism, the two terms are often conflated, at least casually, so that
when most folks talk about something being "postmodern" in its approach it's
generally safe to assume that thing is making use of deconstructive (or
self-consciously contingent) tactics within its narrative structure, and
that they probably mean to indicate that aspect moreso than the idea that
the thing is reacting against modernist principles/aesthetics in any
way--though, of course, it's probably doing that, too.
Or, to put it another way using a comics text we might all be familiar with,
Grant Morrison's ANIMAL MAN is postmodern in that it cultivates a sense of
surreality in its narrative structures and resists the urge (most of the
time) to subscribe to some preexisting grand narrative (Good wins out over
Evil) for its ultimate meaning. But part of its postmodernism lies in its
deconstructive aspects, too, in that it makes linguistic contingency a part
of its plot (like John Barth's famous short story "Lost in the Funhouse").
As Buddy comes to discover himself as character in a story, the nature of
the story itself is being deconstructed before our eyes as readers, that is,
shown to be dependent upon a whole chain of relationships that we normally
keep out of our field of awareness (text, reader, context, author, culture,
etc.).
George Grattan
> In article <slrnb5psj6....@ignatz.local>,
> Ken Small <kens...@ignatz.local> wrote:
>> I majored in English in college and I *still* don't have a good answer
>> for what deconstructionism is all about.
>
> I recommend the following attempt to define it, given the bias that I'm
> also a computer science type.
>
> http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html
I've read this somewhere before, I'm certain, and had the same amused,
ambivalent reactions. :-)
It's so much "on the money" on so many things, and yet also so off the mark
in so many ways. So much of the accuracy of that piece falls apart depending
on the individual school, department, and group of scholars there at the
time, to say nothing of their individual fields of interest.
I sometimes despair of ever convincing folks outside academia that English
professors don't *necessarily* do this kind of work, all the time, or even
that when they do they do so without a sense of proportion or humor about it
all. I blame Lynne Cheney for the perception that we're all a bunch of
secular-humanist jargonistas. :-)
Why, just the other day, I told myself to stop being so self-referential...
Philip M. Cohen
> WASTELAND was a very short lived, very dark, very creepy, very good horror
> anthology by DC during that period. Couldn't have made it more than six
> issues of so, if memory serves.
No, it actually made it to #18. (If you haven't read #18, you should.
They dump all the story elements from ##1-17 into a pile and set them on
fire.) I found there was a Ty Templeton story in #11, tracked it down,
and decided I needed all the rest too. Vertiginous and well worth
buying, particularly since complete sets are not hard to get for $1 a
book or less. My favorite series was Ostrander's Dead Detective, drawn
by William Meissner-Loebs. Each story opens with a detective sitting
dead in his office, a bullet hole in his forehead, somehow able to think
even though he's an immobile corpse. And then *strange* things begin to
happen.
--
Always carry a grapefruit, Treesong
Tom Galloway
George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>DC had two runs of THE SHADOW characters in the 1980s-- Kyle Baker was
>involved with one, and Andy Helfer the other, IIRC. I haven't read them in
>years, but I remember being very excited by them at the time. Different,
>edgy stuff, in the context.
Not quite. DC had what amounted to three very different Shadow runs.
The first was a mini-series written and drawn by Howard Chaykin. Per what
I recall from an interview with him at the time, he was pretty much
trying to piss off long time Shadow fans, among other things killing
off most of the classic Shadow agents in grotesque ways and rewriting
Kent Allard into the stereotypical 80s Chaykin male protagonist. Not quite
as severe as what he did to DC's sf characters in Twilight, but close.
The next was a 19 issue series that started off with Helfer and Sienkiewicz
through #6, Marshall Rogers pencilling #7 with Baker inks, and then Baker
doing the art for 8-19. While it kept the continuity of the Chaykin issues,
the tone changed from decandent to weird and black humor, especially when
Baker started doing the art.
Rumor has it that the reason the series was cancelled on a cliffhanger
(The Shadow and archfoe Shiwan Khan had both become heads on robot bodies)
was that someone at Street & Smith, who actually owns the Shadow character,
finally looked at the book and had a fit.
Promptly after that, The Shadow Strikes! started. This was classic pulp
style Shadow stories, set in the 1930s, and done by Gerald Jones and
Eduardo Barretto. I believe Jones wrote all 31 issues; dunno how many
Barretto did as I don't feel like going through all of the Grand Comics
Database entries (www.comics.org).
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I wonder if that's what's behind the relatively lukewarm response to a
> (merely) solid book like POWER COMPANY? Busiek's AVENGERS run got
> (deservedly) high marks from many fans, but came preloaded with nostalgia
> value that made older/jaded readers want to like it, paradoxically.
Characters play a much bigger value in purchasing than people may want
to realize. For another example, I think Mr. Brubaker's work on Gotham
Central is better than Catwoman, but people are more likely to talk
about latter, because it has a very recognizable central character.
I enjoyed Mr. Busiek's Avengers much more once I'd actually read the 70s
issues that seemed to be so much of an influence.
> On the other hand, a book that many, many fans seem to like, JSA, has always
> struck me as very much by-the-numbers. Too much so, in fact. So who knows?
Again, though, characters (considering the team as well) that people
have very strong attachments to.
> > If you've seen it all before, you look for variations (mutations?) to
> > give you a new approach.
>
> And sometimes they turn out to be disappointing. RUSE had such great
> promise, but I just ended up dropping it from my pull list.
Based on its promotion, Ruse was such a mutant blend of different genres
that there was too much promise for any book to fulfill.
George Grattan
> George Grattan wrote:
>
>> WASTELAND was a very short lived, very dark, very creepy, very good horror
>> anthology by DC during that period. Couldn't have made it more than six
>> issues of so, if memory serves.
>
> No, it actually made it to #18. (If you haven't read #18, you should.
Wow. I had no idea it lasted that long. I will definitely track these down,
thanks. It seemed, then, that it came and went so quickly-- but my comics
buying was getting disrupted by other concerns at that point.
George Grattan
joh...@discardme.comicsworthreading.com wrote:
> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if that's what's behind the relatively lukewarm response to a
>> (merely) solid book like POWER COMPANY? Busiek's AVENGERS run got
>> (deservedly) high marks from many fans, but came preloaded with nostalgia
>> value that made older/jaded readers want to like it, paradoxically.
>
> Characters play a much bigger value in purchasing than people may want
> to realize.
That's probably so. I tend to buy based on writer first, but I know that's
not the norm.
> I enjoyed Mr. Busiek's Avengers much more once I'd actually read the 70s
> issues that seemed to be so much of an influence.
Understandable. Heck, I tend to enjoy ASTRO CITY more the more I read every
comic published from 1938 forward.... :-)
>
>> On the other hand, a book that many, many fans seem to like, JSA, has always
>> struck me as very much by-the-numbers. Too much so, in fact. So who knows?
>
> Again, though, characters (considering the team as well) that people
> have very strong attachments to.
But there it can cut in the other direction. My own strongest attachments to
characters in comics are probably to the JSAers (and associated characters)
and to the Legion. In both cases with the current books, its precisely
because of those deep attachments that the efforts out now don't pass muster
with me.
>
>>> If you've seen it all before, you look for variations (mutations?) to
>>> give you a new approach.
>>
>> And sometimes they turn out to be disappointing. RUSE had such great
>> promise, but I just ended up dropping it from my pull list.
>
> Based on its promotion, Ruse was such a mutant blend of different genres
> that there was too much promise for any book to fulfill.
Possibly. I think telling a wider variety of detective stories might have
helped.
Johanna Draper Carlson
George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
> My own strongest attachments to characters in comics are probably to
> the JSAers (and associated characters) and to the Legion. In both
> cases with the current books, its precisely because of those deep
> attachments that the efforts out now don't pass muster with me.
Good point. Thus illustrating the potency of the combination of creators
and characters, and how one bad factor can overcome good feelings about
the other.
> > Based on its promotion, Ruse was such a mutant blend of different genres
> > that there was too much promise for any book to fulfill.
>
> Possibly. I think telling a wider variety of detective stories might have
> helped.
Did they ever tell a real detective story, with clues and things?
George Grattan
joh...@discardme.comicsworthreading.com wrote:
>>
>>> Based on its promotion, Ruse was such a mutant blend of different genres
>>> that there was too much promise for any book to fulfill.
>>
>> Possibly. I think telling a wider variety of detective stories might have
>> helped.
>
> Did they ever tell a real detective story, with clues and things?
Yes...and no. My memory of the first year of the book is that more often
than not the reader simply did not have the information that Archard did
along the way and so could not have co-solved the mystery at hand. That's a
valid way to tell a mystery or detective story, of course, it's just not my
preference. If Waid had mixed that approach more with stories in which we
had a shot at sleuthing ourselves, I'd have been happier.
Ken Small
> In article <slrnb5sk78....@ignatz.local>,
> Ken Small <kens...@ignatz.local> wrote:
>>Do you still have that comment of mine about RAC and literary criticism
>>in your quote file?
>
> You mean:
> "I just reread this, and I should note that racm is anti-critical in
> the lit-crit sense, not in that racmers are afraid to say something sucks."
> --Ken Small
>
> I actually prefer this one for some odd reason though... :-)
> "I am shamed. I turn in my Tom Galloway Junior Trivia Cop Badge
> and all rights and privleges that go along with it." --Ken Small
Ah, memories. But if we continue to be self-referential like this,
we are in danger of becoming postmodern. ;)
Ken Small
> WASTELAND was a very short lived, very dark, very creepy, very good horror
> anthology by DC during that period. Couldn't have made it more than six
> issues of so, if memory serves.
I think it ran for about 17 issues.
It also had a story which I swear was the inspiration for The Truman Show.
Not that it's all that original idea, or that they end up the same place,
but they start out very similarly (in this case, it's not a falling can
light, but a rip in the sky).
--