Johanna's Marvel Comments: Spider-Man, Ult. FF, more
Johanna Draper Carlson
http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html ]
Amazing Fantasy #3 is beginning to resemble Buffy the Vampire Slayer
more than any kind of Spider-book. There's the short, spunky lead, the
brooding tough guy in black trench, the geeky friend, the old stuffy guy
who doesn't like the plan, the attractive woman who takes digs wherever
she can... has this replaced Leader Guy, Tough Guy, Funny Geek Guy, and
Girl as the new team formula? Still no powers, still no costume, thus
still no cover that reflects the contents.
----
Mystique #18 is a disappointment. People say obvious things, and events
happen because the writer needs them to. It's meant to be a suspenseful
thriller full of double- and triple-crosses (mostly played on the
reader), but it falls flat, in part because the dialogue is so
pedestrian. I feel sorry for Sean McKeever, having to follow in Brian K.
Vaughan's shoes.
----
Many people are quite justifiably complaining about the hoops the reader
is expected to jump through to make the current Amazing Spider-Man
storyline work believably. #511 lost me with one silly point: who the
frack wears a headband under a skin-tight hood? And anyone with said
hood on doesn't have perfect little lookalike bangs once it's taken off
her.
The rest of it... Brian Hibbs summed up my feelings on this issue well
when he said
"Oddly enough, JMS and Deodato doing MARY JANE'S THEATRE ADVENTURES
might be an interesting comic -- it held my interest more than the "You
got your DNA in my peanut butter!" a-story, that's for sure."
----
I know traditional fans are complaining about Ultimate Fantastic Four
#10 being too slow and too talky and making fun of things they hold dear
(like the "fantasticar"), but I'm enjoying it more than most other
Marvel comics. The characters finally seem like real people to me.
Reed, instead of a remote egghead, is lot more understandable as a
teenage genius. He knew he was different even before the accident, and
now that he's got other different people he's responsible for, he's
still not sure how much they accept him. I can certainly relate to that
concern. People who need you for your smarts often ignore your feelings.
Johnny always made sense, as the hot-headed adolescent whose powers
reflected his mood swings. Here, he's impetuous, but not played solely
for comedy.
The version of Ben here doesn't reduce solely to walking angst. It
underlies his approach to life now, sure, making him the flipside of
Victor, both now encased and set apart from the world (an opposition I
hope is played up a bit more later). But when it doesn't need to come
up, it doesn't. He's still able to josh with Johnny as a
regular-sounding teen boy.
Sue is the best improvement of all. Teenage girls are often more mature
than the boys that surround them, and an older Sue, wiser in the ways of
the world, makes a terrific partner for Reed. Instead of worshipping
him, she protects him from his unthinking omissions.
Doom sometimes sounds a bit too much like the patented Warren Ellis
BadGuy, but he's the villain, so I don't care. The wonderful hero
characterizations makes up for it for me.
----
When the original Doom Patrol went out with a bang, they gave their
lives to save an entire town. In X-Statix #26, that team gives their
lives... for what? As the writer says, the details of the mission aren't
important, so the reader isn't even sure who they're fighting. What's
clear is that they're just doing it for the dough. Ah, how times ... and
"heroes"... have changed.
Instead of losing characters because sometimes a great sacrifice is
demanded, one is left with the impression that these characters are dead
simply to put a period on the series' end. I envision the editors
thinking "see, we really do mean it... for now."
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Blogging at http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: The rest of it... Brian Hibbs summed up my feelings on this issue well
: when he said
: "Oddly enough, JMS and Deodato doing MARY JANE'S THEATRE ADVENTURES
: might be an interesting comic -- it held my interest more than the "You
: got your DNA in my peanut butter!" a-story, that's for sure."
Incidentally, MARVEL KNIGHTS 4 writer Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa says that's
precisely the book he pitched to Marvel. But then they decided to make MARY
JANE a teen romance book, and Aguirre-Sacasa ended up on NIGHTCRAWLER instead.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com/
COMIKADO >> http://comikado.blogspot.com/
"Lucky for us some idiot thought it would be a great idea to protect the melting
ice caps by coating them with Europe's dark chocolate surplus."
-- Morrison, Seaguy
--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
kapop
...snip...
Oh, wretch, gag, puke. I couldn't care less about the fantasticar. This
title was a bad idea from the get go and just proceeded to get worse,
which is why I quit with #8 and feel I wasted money far too long as it
was. Think about it: Parker WAS a teen when bitten by the infamous
spider. The X-Men WERE teens when recruited by Xavier. That's why the
Ultimate revamps work with them. But the FF were adults when they became
the FF. They were never intended to be teen heroes (Johnny
notwithstanding) and the so-called "Ultimate" attempt to revamp them
into such is just plain LAME. Could it have worked if a different
creative team undertook it to begin with? Perhaps. I dunno. But any
subsequent creative ensemble is just going to be trying to make a silk
purse out of a sow's ear. It ain't gonna work.
Karl
Ken from Chicago
johann...@comicsworthreading.com says...
> [ Originally posted at Cognitive Dissonance,
> http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html ]
>
> Amazing Fantasy #3 is beginning to resemble Buffy the Vampire Slayer
> more than any kind of Spider-book. There's the short, spunky lead, the
> brooding tough guy in black trench, the geeky friend, the old stuffy guy
> who doesn't like the plan, the attractive woman who takes digs wherever
> she can... has this replaced Leader Guy, Tough Guy, Funny Geek Guy, and
> Girl as the new team formula? Still no powers, still no costume, thus
> still no cover that reflects the contents.
>
> ----
>
> Mystique #18 is a disappointment. People say obvious things, and events
> happen because the writer needs them to. It's meant to be a suspenseful
> thriller full of double- and triple-crosses (mostly played on the
> reader), but it falls flat, in part because the dialogue is so
> pedestrian. I feel sorry for Sean McKeever, having to follow in Brian K.
> Vaughan's shoes.
>
> ----
>
> Many people are quite justifiably complaining about the hoops the reader
> is expected to jump through to make the current Amazing Spider-Man
> storyline work believably. #511 lost me with one silly point: who the
> frack wears a headband under a skin-tight hood? And anyone with said
> hood on doesn't have perfect little lookalike bangs once it's taken off
> her.
You're just mad cuz your mom made you wear a ski mask in winter over
your headband and bangs. Admit it! Confess!
And you're criticizing AMAZING SPIDER-MAN??? (I mean, you know,
criticizing *badly*, after all you're a critic, but not badly like its a
poorly done critique, but a more negative review. Wait, what was my
point . . . . )
> ----
>
> When the original Doom Patrol went out with a bang, they gave their
> lives to save an entire town. In X-Statix #26, that team gives their
> lives... for what? As the writer says, the details of the mission aren't
> important, so the reader isn't even sure who they're fighting. What's
> clear is that they're just doing it for the dough. Ah, how times ... and
> "heroes"... have changed.
>
> Instead of losing characters because sometimes a great sacrifice is
> demanded, one is left with the impression that these characters are dead
> simply to put a period on the series' end. I envision the editors
> thinking "see, we really do mean it... for now."
>
>
Oh yeah, that's it. ASM rules, UFF drools!
-- Ken from Chicago (master of the rhetorical,well, retort, who knows
Johanna's quaking in her boots in fear of my verbal wit)
starblood
message news:2bj602-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk...
> Many people are quite justifiably complaining about the hoops the reader
> is expected to jump through to make the current Amazing Spider-Man
> storyline work believably. #511 lost me with one silly point: who the
> frack wears a headband under a skin-tight hood? And anyone with said
> hood on doesn't have perfect little lookalike bangs once it's taken off
> her.
Bending logic for fashion's sake is "jumping through hoops"? Geez, loosen
up and enjoy.
> Sue is the best improvement of all. Teenage girls are often more mature
> than the boys that surround them
On what planet is this?
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > Sue is the best improvement of all. Teenage girls are often more mature
: > than the boys that surround them
:
: On what planet is this?
Earth. Enjoy your stay here.
Brian Doyle
> "Johanna Draper Carlson" <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote
> in message news:2bj602-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk...
>> Teenage girls are often more mature than the boys that surround them
>
> On what planet is this?
Ummm, if you didn't notice it going on all around you when you were going
through your own puberty, that sort of proves the point.
Ken from Chicago
@hotmail.com says...
Venus.
-- Ken from Mars
Ken from Chicago
says...
That's just what women WANT you to think.
It's all part of their plan to *maintain* world domination.
-- Ken from Chicago
Brian Doyle
If it works, it's not a "plan", it's an "ongoing agenda item"! :)
R. Tang
Not that it seems to take much to be more mature than teenage
boys...
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Ken from Chicago
says...
Ssssh, don't reveal you know their words like keesh or komitmint or
phydelletee.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
gwan...@u.washington.edu says...
> In article <cgtcia$cl5$5...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Brian Doyle <No_...@freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >Ken from Chicago wrote:
> >> In article <cgt740$2o9$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, No_...@freeserve.co.uk
> >> says...
> >>> starblood wrote:
> >>>> "Johanna Draper Carlson" <johann...@comicsworthreading.com>
> >>>> wrote in message news:2bj602-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk...
> >>>
> >>>>> Teenage girls are often more mature than the boys that surround
> >>>>> them
> >>>>
> >>>> On what planet is this?
> >>>
> >>> Ummm, if you didn't notice it going on all around you when you were
> >>> going through your own puberty, that sort of proves the point.
> >>
> >> That's just what women WANT you to think.
> >>
> >> It's all part of their plan to *maintain* world domination.
> >
> >If it works, it's not a "plan", it's an "ongoing agenda item"! :)
>
> Not that it seems to take much to be more mature than teenage
> boys...
>
>
Cuz us mature men got it going on!
-- Ken from Chicago
Stephen Bayer
"Marc-Oliver Frisch" <Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2pejdvF...@uni-berlin.de...
> starblood wrote:
>
> : > Sue is the best improvement of all. Teenage girls are often more
mature
> : > than the boys that surround them
> :
> : On what planet is this?
>
> Earth. Enjoy your stay here.
>
>
Girls may physically mature quicker than boys do, but not necessarily
psychologically, if that's what Joanna was referring to.
The woman who wrote the book on the phenomenon of "mean girls" (which the
movie that came out earlier this year was based on...full title was
something like "Queen Bees" and something or other) argued that 'tween and
adolescent girls can act just as cruel and immature as their male
counterparts, they just do so in different ways, mostly through gossip and
social exclusion, whereas boys are more likely to deal with people they
don't like through their fists. Hard to say which way is acting more or
less maturely.
-Stephen
Ken from Chicago
>
> "Marc-Oliver Frisch" <Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2pejdvF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > starblood wrote:
> >
> > : > Sue is the best improvement of all. Teenage girls are often more
> mature
> > : > than the boys that surround them
> > :
> > : On what planet is this?
> >
> > Earth. Enjoy your stay here.
> >
> >
>
> Girls may physically mature quicker than boys do, but not necessarily
> psychologically, if that's what Joanna was referring to.
Sssh, don't let them hear you SAY that ALOUD.
> The woman who wrote the book on the phenomenon of "mean girls" (which the
> movie that came out earlier this year was based on...full title was
> something like "Queen Bees" and something or other) argued that 'tween and
> adolescent girls can act just as cruel and immature as their male
> counterparts, they just do so in different ways, mostly through gossip and
> social exclusion, whereas boys are more likely to deal with people they
> don't like through their fists. Hard to say which way is acting more or
> less maturely.
>
> -Stephen
>
>
>
Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you.
Considering how girls are socialized to be more "sensitive" mere names
hurt them while boys are socialized traditionallly the above quip, that
it doesn't count unless ... "you take it outside".
-- Ken from Chicago
Shawn H
: ----
: Mystique #18 is a disappointment. People say obvious things, and events
: happen because the writer needs them to. It's meant to be a suspenseful
: thriller full of double- and triple-crosses (mostly played on the
: reader), but it falls flat, in part because the dialogue is so
: pedestrian. I feel sorry for Sean McKeever, having to follow in Brian K.
: Vaughan's shoes.
While I'm still finding the series enjoyable (and not minding the return
of Mystique's harder edge), I do think it's more formulaic than when
Vaughan was writing.
: When the original Doom Patrol went out with a bang, they gave their
: lives to save an entire town. In X-Statix #26, that team gives their
: lives... for what? As the writer says, the details of the mission aren't
: important, so the reader isn't even sure who they're fighting. What's
: clear is that they're just doing it for the dough. Ah, how times ... and
: "heroes"... have changed.
: Instead of losing characters because sometimes a great sacrifice is
: demanded, one is left with the impression that these characters are dead
: simply to put a period on the series' end. I envision the editors
: thinking "see, we really do mean it... for now."
I'm torn over how I feel about this issue, mostly because I think the
team were all great characters and would have enjoyed seeing them played
straight in subsequent X-stories. Anarchist alone is a one of a kind hero
who would make a really great Wolverine guest-star, for one.
But, it certainly doesn't violate the point of the series, which has
always been that they're only in it for the money. It may not be the
cleverest answer to Cap's challenge in the Avengers arc, but it is the
obvious one.
Shawn
Brian Doyle
> Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you.
Which goes to show that even the composers of old proverbs couldn't tell
their arse from their elbow sometimes.
Robert Carnegie
Carlson <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> writes
>
>Many people are quite justifiably complaining about the hoops the reader
>is expected to jump through to make the current Amazing Spider-Man
>storyline work believably. #511 lost me with one silly point: who the
>frack wears a headband under a skin-tight hood? And anyone with said
>hood on doesn't have perfect little lookalike bangs once it's taken off
>her.
It's probably done with unstable molecule material, which can do
anything. The whole scene was set up for Peter to unmask the
ninja girl and find basically Gwen Stacy underneath.
I find it rather pleasing that the bad kids are operating on false
information, although as response to pre-adolescent parental
estrangement, their attitude doesn't make sense. Neither, of
course, does having adult children around, but Peter actually
acknowledges this is not normal. However, there are various
established ways around that in the comics. Time travel would
work perfectly, for instance.
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.
Hal Shipman
<johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>[ Originally posted at Cognitive Dissonance,
>http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html ]
>Many people are quite justifiably complaining about the hoops the reader
>is expected to jump through to make the current Amazing Spider-Man
>storyline work believably. #511 lost me with one silly point: who the
>frack wears a headband under a skin-tight hood? And anyone with said
>hood on doesn't have perfect little lookalike bangs once it's taken off
>her.
True, true, but totally obvious point here: It's also iconic of Gwen
that she have the headband. Without it, she'd be unrecognizable -
just another blonde girl.
Hal.
I don't wear no Stetson
But I'm willing to bet, son
That I'm as big a Texan as you are
- Robert Earl Keen, "Amarillo Highway"
Johanna Draper Carlson
> <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
> >#511 lost me with one silly point: who the frack wears a headband
> >under a skin-tight hood? And anyone with said hood on doesn't have
> >perfect little lookalike bangs once it's taken off her.
>
> True, true, but totally obvious point here: It's also iconic of Gwen
> that she have the headband. Without it, she'd be unrecognizable -
> just another blonde girl.
Yeah, I know, but since I don't read superhero comics for nostalgic
reasons, I also don't care. :)
Mark J. Reed
> Hal Shipman <_h...@bizarrosquiddies.org> wrote:
>> <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>>
>> >#511 lost me with one silly point: who the frack wears a headband
>> >under a skin-tight hood? And anyone with said hood on doesn't have
>> >perfect little lookalike bangs once it's taken off her.
>>
>> True, true, but totally obvious point here: It's also iconic of Gwen
>> that she have the headband. Without it, she'd be unrecognizable -
>> just another blonde girl.
>Yeah, I know, but since I don't read superhero comics for nostalgic
>reasons, I also don't care. :)
A couple observations -
1. the CWR review of ASM #511 is pretty darn dismissive. If this was what
got JMS annoyed, then I don't blame him (although there's no excuse for the
nature of his reaction). It doesn't do any analysis, merely waving the
issue away with one pretty darn petty little complaint about the bit of
unrealism with the mask. It's not much of a review, from which I infer that
you don't think it's much of a comic, but there's not really anything there
to indicate why you feel that way. Perhaps you covered your genuine
objections in prior reviews? Although isn't one of the recommendations for
reviewers on your site to make each review stand alone?
The complaint itself is pretty silly; characters from Batman to Captain
America and on down have often taken off skintight masks to reveal perfectly
coiffed hair; it's a standard comics trope. But I assume you know that, and
take the smiley to be an acknowldgement of that fact, and an indication that
this was not really your problem with the issue. Still, I'd like to know
what your real objections are, what hoops the reader is supposedly having to
jump through. In all seriousness, the story seems pretty straightforward to
me. Really weird things are happening, sure, but that's pretty normal for
Peter's life, isn't it?
2. The use of elements from a character's past in a present story is one of the
benefits of continuity. It's not necessarily pandering to nostalgia, and I
certainly don't feel that the current arc in ASM is such nostalgic
pandering. JMS's run so far has been full of new elements (Ezekiel and the
spider-totem thing, dealing with Aunt May's knowledge of Peter's secret,
Mary Jane finding herself, etc.) None of that was nostalgically motivated,
and I don't think this story is, either. Sure, having Peter just react
appropriately to Gwen's face would have had the desired effect, but actually
drawing a head that looked like Gwen did was a nice little nod to readers who
remembered what she looked like. I still don't see it as nostalgia.
-Mark
Johanna Draper Carlson
> 1. the CWR review of ASM #511 is pretty darn dismissive.
Oh, I agree -- that's why I called my own comment "silly". I know
talking about hairstyles is pretty minor, in the scheme of things, but
that was the only part of the issue I reacted to.
That's also why I moved many of my comments to my blog, so I can make
comments as shallow or as in depth as I want, depending on how I feel
about any given issue. I also labeled it a "comment" when I posted it
here, and I don't label the posting on the blog anything at all.
> Still, I'd like to know what your real objections are, what hoops
> the reader is supposedly having to jump through.
I feel like others here have already covered that in depth, so I didn't
want to be redundant.
> None of that was nostalgically
> motivated, and I don't think this story is, either.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then, since I classify a
storyline playing off of Peter's emotions towards his old dead
girlfriend as nostalgic.
NedLeedsjr
>> None of that was nostalgically
>> motivated, and I don't think this story is, either.
>
>We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then, since I classify a
>storyline playing off of Peter's emotions towards his old dead
>girlfriend as nostalgic.
No more nostalgic than, say..... the unending guilt of a long dead uncle that
motivates Peter to put on the costume and go out to fight the bad guys
regularly? ;)
Dan McEwen
news:cgvghu$sm4$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu:
> In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Johanna Draper Carlson
> <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
>: Mystique #18 is a disappointment. People say obvious things, and
>: events happen because the writer needs them to. It's meant to be a
>: suspenseful thriller full of double- and triple-crosses (mostly
>: played on the reader), but it falls flat, in part because the
>: dialogue is so pedestrian. I feel sorry for Sean McKeever, having to
>: follow in Brian K. Vaughan's shoes.
>
> While I'm still finding the series enjoyable (and not minding the
> return of Mystique's harder edge), I do think it's more formulaic than
> when Vaughan was writing.
I actually like the harder edge. Right from the start I was expecting
Mystique to eventually go rogue. So she becomes a fugitive again.
That's hardly anything new for her. Besides, if Xavier was really a
threat to her he would have turned her in years ago.
> I'm torn over how I feel about this issue, mostly because I think the
> team were all great characters and would have enjoyed seeing them
> played straight in subsequent X-stories. Anarchist alone is a one of a
> kind hero who would make a really great Wolverine guest-star, for one.
>
> But, it certainly doesn't violate the point of the series, which has
> always been that they're only in it for the money. It may not be the
> cleverest answer to Cap's challenge in the Avengers arc, but it is the
> obvious one.
Actually, some of the "deaths" were vague. We don't actually know that
Venus, Anarchist, or Mister Sensitive are dead. I know they're supposed
to be, but any writer could easily use them if they wanted. Even the
ones shown to be dead could have simply been unconscious. For my part,
I wouldn't mind seeing Guy Smith reappear at some point.
Shawn H
: Actually, some of the "deaths" were vague. We don't actually know that
: Venus, Anarchist, or Mister Sensitive are dead. I know they're supposed
: to be, but any writer could easily use them if they wanted. Even the
: ones shown to be dead could have simply been unconscious. For my part,
: I wouldn't mind seeing Guy Smith reappear at some point.
Ditto. He seems to have been sort of a special project of Xavier's, at
any rate, just as Venus was.
Shawn
Aaron Malchow
"We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then, since I classify a storyline
playing off of Peter's emotions towards his old dead girlfriend as
nostalgic."
I don't see how that statement really makes a meaningful distinction. I
think you would be hard put to find any detailed story that doesn't make use
of a character's background, whether it is a imagined background (i.e. made
up for the story itself) or an archived background (i.e. one that draws upon
events from a previous story). And the Death of Gwen Stacy is a notable,
historic story to refer back to. Taking JMS to task for referencing such a
noteworthy story is like calling The Da Vinci Code "nostalgic" for
referencing Da Vinci's artwork.
Beyond that, I think using the term "nostalgic" in comics without any
context or support tends to harm the industry, as it allows critics to
casually dismiss prior stories and creators without articulating insightful
reasons. Given both Marvel and DC's approach to reprinting material in
high-priced collections, it's reasonable to assume that both companies see
the older material appealing only to certain audiences, which limits
exposure to masters of the field.
I can't immediately think of another art form where copies of an
acknowledged master's work isn't currently and inexpensively and easily
available. Want to buy the complete works of Shakespeare, then you can do so
in paperback. Want to have a copy of a Vincent Van Gogh painting, you can
buy a print. Want a copy of Bogart's movies, you can find them on DVD. And
in each case, these examples are all less expensive than the latest Marvel
Masterworks edition of Jack Kirby's work. In fact, neither Marvel or DC
offers all of Kirby's work in print. And when they do, the most affordable
offerings are only in black and white, which is not how Kirby imagined they
be printed. As a young boy in the 1970s, I was able to but most of Kirby's
work in reprint for the same cost as contemporary comics. That isn't
possible now. And if it isn't possible for Kirby, imagine all the others who
are being ignored.
Given that comic books, in comparison to most other artistic mediums, have a
relatively short history as an art form, I'm not sure what is gained by
being dismissive of prior works in an effort to promote the material that
doesn't look back. And I can't think of an art form that flourishes when it
dismisses past work. While new ground should be covered without obligatory
references to prior material, older works and references to them shouldn't
be dismissed out of hand. Note how Roger Ebert has time to critique modern
movies while still promoting older movies with his Great Movies reviews, as
well.
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Ken from Chicago
says...
They were obviously male. Mere words mean nuthing if not backed up by
fists.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
johann...@comicsworthreading.com says...
> Mark J. Reed <mr...@thereeds.org> wrote:
>
> > 1. the CWR review of ASM #511 is pretty darn dismissive.
>
> Oh, I agree -- that's why I called my own comment "silly". I know
> talking about hairstyles is pretty minor, in the scheme of things, but
> that was the only part of the issue I reacted to.
>
> That's also why I moved many of my comments to my blog, so I can make
> comments as shallow or as in depth as I want, depending on how I feel
> about any given issue. I also labeled it a "comment" when I posted it
> here, and I don't label the posting on the blog anything at all.
>
> > Still, I'd like to know what your real objections are, what hoops
> > the reader is supposedly having to jump through.
>
> I feel like others here have already covered that in depth, so I didn't
> want to be redundant.
>
> > None of that was nostalgically
> > motivated, and I don't think this story is, either.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then, since I classify a
> storyline playing off of Peter's emotions towards his old dead
> girlfriend as nostalgic.
>
>
How DARE you have DIFFERING opinions?!!
-- Ken from Chicago
Johanna Draper Carlson
> How DARE you have DIFFERING opinions?!!
Quick, alert the hivemind! I need reprogramming!
Johanna Draper Carlson
> And the Death of Gwen Stacy is a notable,
> historic story to refer back to. Taking JMS to task for referencing such a
> noteworthy story is like calling The Da Vinci Code "nostalgic" for
> referencing Da Vinci's artwork.
You're misinterpreting. I'm not taking him to task for it. I think,
given the current makeup of the market for corporate superhero comics,
doing stories aimed at long-time readers makes a lot of sense.
However, I'm also saying that I think it's nostalgic, and since I'm not
a long-time Spider-Man reader, I'm not interested.
Some people here seem to think that my saying "I'm not interested in
this" is code for "no one should read it, it's crap". That's not the
case.
But hey, the only Spider-Man book I really like is the Marvel Age one,
so what do I know?
> I can't think of an art form that flourishes when it dismisses past work.
I agree with you, there should be a lot more available in reprint.
Shawn H
: Given that comic books, in comparison to most other artistic mediums, have a
: relatively short history as an art form, I'm not sure what is gained by
: being dismissive of prior works in an effort to promote the material that
: doesn't look back. And I can't think of an art form that flourishes when it
: dismisses past work. While new ground should be covered without obligatory
: references to prior material, older works and references to them shouldn't
: be dismissed out of hand. Note how Roger Ebert has time to critique modern
: movies while still promoting older movies with his Great Movies reviews, as
: well.
Well said. Telling new stories with old continuity intact is one of the
principal joys for me in reading comics. There's a way to move forward
without destroying the past.
Shawn
Ken from Chicago
johann...@comicsworthreading.com says...
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker...@amertech.net> wrote:
>
> > How DARE you have DIFFERING opinions?!!
>
> Quick, alert the hivemind! I need reprogramming!
>
>
Yes, to Room 101 with you.
-- Big Ken from Oceania
P.S. Be seein' ya.
P.P.S. Yeah, that's right, You WILL deal with us. You will be pushed,
filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed AND numbered! Your life ...
is not your own. And don't think we won't sic the big bouncing bubble
ball on ya, CUZ WE WILL!
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 01/09/04 01:03 GMT Daylight Time
I am not an issue number! I am a free comic book reader! (Well, I also read
ones that aren't free, but lets not get into *that* again).
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
In life, as in breakfast cereal, it is always best to read the instructions on
the box.
-Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett
starblood
news:cgt740$2o9$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> starblood wrote:
> > "Johanna Draper Carlson" <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote
> > in message news:2bj602-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk...
>
> >> Teenage girls are often more mature than the boys that surround them
> >
> > On what planet is this?
>
> Ummm, if you didn't notice it going on all around you when you were going
> through your own puberty, that sort of proves the point.
How so?
I noticed girls being no more mature than anyone else, decidedly immature in
fact...what's more, women in their thirties still act like they're in high
school.
Ken from Chicago
daibhidc...@aol.com says...
> From: Ken from Chicago kwicker...@amertech.net
> Date: 01/09/04 01:03 GMT Daylight Time
>
> >In article <johannaNOSPAM-00F...@individual.net>,
> >johann...@comicsworthreading.com says...
> >> Ken from Chicago <kwicker...@amertech.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > How DARE you have DIFFERING opinions?!!
> >>
> >> Quick, alert the hivemind! I need reprogramming!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes, to Room 101 with you.
> >
> >-- Big Ken from Oceania
> >
> >P.S. Be seein' ya.
> >
> >P.P.S. Yeah, that's right, You WILL deal with us. You will be pushed,
> >filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed AND numbered! Your life ...
> >is not your own. And don't think we won't sic the big bouncing bubble
> >ball on ya, CUZ WE WILL!
>
> I am not an issue number! I am a free comic book reader! (Well, I also read
> ones that aren't free, but lets not get into *that* again).
>
>
You WILL buy EVERY issue in the series. You WILL buy every issue in the
crossover. You WILL buy every cover variant and "director's cut"
edition! You WILL buy the tradepaperback collection of the individual
issues you bought!
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "Big Publisher is watching you!"
Robert Carnegie
<sba...@bigplanet.com> writes
>
>"Marc-Oliver Frisch" <Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2pejdvF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> starblood wrote:
>>
>> : > Sue is the best improvement of all. Teenage girls are often more
>mature
>> : > than the boys that surround them
>> :
>> : On what planet is this?
>>
>> Earth. Enjoy your stay here.
>>
>>
>
>Girls may physically mature quicker than boys do, but not necessarily
>psychologically, if that's what Joanna was referring to.
Usually, though.
According to some Dave Barry which I have here, girls have the
advantage over boys of starting out as human. "I spent a lot of
time envying parents of girls. I'd take my son and his friends to a
Burger King, and I'd see a table of little girls, and they'd be eating
and talking, just like miniature humans. Whereas my son and his
friends seemed to have some kind of nervous-system linkage
between their mouths and their hands, so that they could not
chew without punching. Eating with them was as relaxing as
amateur eyeball surgery. I'd look over at the table of little girls,
who'd be chatting and thoughtfully passing each other the
napkins, and I would wonder how we ever permitted my gender to
get control of, for example, the government."
David Doty
$+NjEAa+...@redjac.demon.co.uk:
> Usually, though.
>
> According to some Dave Barry which I have here, girls have the
> advantage over boys of starting out as human.
I love the way you cite this as if it were a serious scholarly citation on
sociological development. Very funny! I hope it was meant to be.
Dave Doty
~consul
>>According to some Dave Barry which I have here, girls have the
>>advantage over boys of starting out as human.
> I love the way you cite this as if it were a serious scholarly citation on
> sociological development. Very funny! I hope it was meant to be.
Tell me you haven't gone into any of a numerous fast food joint and seen the teenage boys
table and the teenage girls table. He's right that boys and girls are traditionally raised
differently, (regardless of biological source or not). The young girls are chatting away
like the end of the world, and the guys eat and mainly avoid eye-contact unless they have to.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
Ken from Chicago
says...
> David Doty wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in news:a
> >>Usually, though.
> >>According to some Dave Barry which I have here, girls have the
> >>advantage over boys of starting out as human.
> > I love the way you cite this as if it were a serious scholarly citation on
> > sociological development. Very funny! I hope it was meant to be.
>
> Tell me you haven't gone into any of a numerous fast food joint and seen the teenage boys
> table and the teenage girls table. He's right that boys and girls are traditionally raised
> differently, (regardless of biological source or not). The young girls are chatting away
> like the end of the world, and the guys eat and mainly avoid eye-contact unless they have to.
>
Typically girls are raised to be more sensitive to the feelings of
others, to be more "proper", more "ladylike".
-- Ken from Chicago
Aaron Malchow
"You're misinterpreting. I'm not taking him to task for it. I think, given
the current makeup of the market for corporate superhero comics, doing
stories aimed at long-time readers makes a lot of sense."
I'm not sure that this storyline is so inaccessible for newer readers. I
pass out my copies to friends who have never read Spider-Man, except for the
JMS issues, and who are not really diehard comic book fans, and they seem to
be as interested in the story as I am. They keep asking me when the next
issue will be out.
And if I misinterpret, which is not my intent, it is because of the use of
word "nostalgic," which often carries a negative connotation rather than a
positive one.
Johanna:
"However, I'm also saying that I think it's nostalgic, and since I'm not a
long-time Spider-Man reader, I'm not interested."
Fair enough. It's funny because although I am a long-time (off-and-on)
Spider-Man reader, and my introduction to the character comes from the Garry
Conway stories -- which include the Death of Gwen Stacy storyline that JMS
is building his story on -- as an adult, I have come to dislike those Conway
stories, including the Death of Gwen Stacy, which I find contrived, although
I recognize its historic contribution to the Spider-Man series and to comic
books in general.
I read JMS's current storyline as a commentary on some of the contrivances
of the Conway story. Given some of the plot points to date, I expect it to
address why Harry Osborn relapsed into taking LSD, why Norman Osborn showed
such hatred towards Gwen and MJ in that story before he transformed back
into the Goblin, both of which JMS cleanly referenced in a flashback that
was set in-between scenes of the original story.
Johanna again:
"Some people here seem to think that my saying 'I'm not interested in this'
is code for 'no one should read it, it's crap'. That's not the case."
I can see both sides of this, how you can mean what you claim and how other
people can misunderstand you on that point. Have you ever considered trying
to reconcile the two? (I mean besides this post...)
Johanna asked:
"But hey, the only Spider-Man book I really like is the Marvel Age one, so
what do I know?"
Johanna, I didn't realize you were going to quiz me... Do I have to answer
in essay format, or can I take multiple choice?
Is the answer: "The larch"? "42"? "Rosebud"?
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I'm not sure that this storyline is so inaccessible for newer readers.
I didn't say it was. The point here is not whether new readers
understand what's going on, it's whether they care (or, in other words,
whether they find it enjoyable).
Since you read the blog, I'm sure you've seen my recent comments on
this.
> I can see both sides of this, how you can mean what you claim and how other
> people can misunderstand you on that point. Have you ever considered trying
> to reconcile the two?
In my experience, a good proportion of the people who claim they
misunderstand will never understand, because they don't really want to.
They just want to attack people who disagree with them. (See also:
windbag's Usenet career.) Some also have problems with women who state
opinions without copious disclaimers ("in my opinion" every other
sentence and such).
I'm comfortable with my style at this point (over 10 years of online
reviewing), so other people will just have to live with it. On that, at
least, JMS and I agree.
Robert Carnegie
starblood <moonh...@hotmail.com> writes
>"Brian Doyle" <No_...@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cgt740$2o9$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> starblood wrote:
>> > in message news:2bj602-...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk...
>>
>> >> Teenage girls are often more mature than the boys that
>> >> surround them
>> >
>> > On what planet is this?
>>
>> Ummm, if you didn't notice it going on all around you when you
>> were going through your own puberty, that sort of proves the
>> point.
Well, you wouldn't notice at the time.
>How so?
>
>I noticed girls being no more mature than anyone else, decidedly
>immature in fact...what's more, women in their thirties still act
>like they're in high school.
I'm guessing this man isn't married.
And he watches "Friends" a whole lot, maybe.
Aaron Malchow
"The point here is not whether new readers understand what's going on, it's
whether they care (or, in other words, whether they find it enjoyable)."
I agree with the need to make a distinction between the two topics, although
I see them as being strongly interrelated. And I'm not sure you can really
meaningfully talk about one without having to address the other.
A reader is extremely less likely to enjoy a story they don't understand, or
poorly understand. Likewise, a reader is less inclined to want to make an
effort to understand a story if they don't expect to enjoy the experience.
Along these lines, I reflect back on the Completely Futile review of
Morrison's X-Men you linked to on September 1st in your blog. In that
review, Adam Stephanides mentions that he didn't read certain parts of a
story closely due to a lack of interest.
As an aside, while that experience supports his point, it also undermines
his overall critique, as a reviewer should be careful to understand what he
is reading, even if it forces him to become disengaged (part of the danger
of reviewing). After all, we never know what exactly spurs Stephanides to
become disinterested -- is it a dislike for the Shi'ar Empire, or dislike
for Morrison's presentation of it, or dislike for interstellar empires, or
some other unmentioned factor? (And I write this as someone who did not care
for Morrison's take on X-Men, so I should be a sympathetic audience for
Stephanides' argument.) If Stephanides knows other readers who had the same
experience he did, then that can strengthen his argument.
Johanna wrote:
"In my experience, a good proportion of the people who claim they
misunderstand will never understand, because they don't really want to. They
just want to attack people who disagree with them. (See also: windbag's
Usenet career.) Some also have problems with women who state opinions
without copious disclaimers ('in my opinion' every other sentence and
such)."
Given there are cases where posters talk over each other without showing any
real gave and take in the exchange of ideas, I grant you that there are
people who are not interested in understanding an opposing viewpoint. This
goes both ways, since for every person who can claim that they misunderstand
in order to start an attack or create confusion, there can be another person
who claims that another person misinterprets them in order to undermine that
poster's credibility or to attack him.
I also believe that there are honest misunderstandings that are not the
fault of one person or another, but are often interpreted as being attacks.
I find it's easier to depersonalize the confusion, and speak of a
communication break down or talking at cross-purposes, rather than claim one
side is at fault or the other. Otherwise claiming that someone doesn't
understand you (thus implying blame) might well alienate a poster who
sincerely did not understand the point that was being made, for whatever
reason.
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Aaron Malchow
"Telling new stories with old continuity intact is one of the principal joys
for me in reading comics. There's a way to move forward without destroying
the past."
Yeah. I look forward when comic book discussions move past old fans vs. new
readers, which is the context where the pros and cons of continuity is
usually argued in. This dichotomy between readers apparently wasn't a
problem for most of the comic book industry's history, so I suspect there
are other factors at work that have kept the industry from building a new
long-term readership in the last 15+ years.
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Ken from Chicago
johann...@comicsworthreading.com says...
> "Aaron Malchow" <aema...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure that this storyline is so inaccessible for newer readers.
>
> I didn't say it was. The point here is not whether new readers
> understand what's going on, it's whether they care (or, in other words,
> whether they find it enjoyable).
>
> Since you read the blog, I'm sure you've seen my recent comments on
> this.
>
> > I can see both sides of this, how you can mean what you claim and how other
> > people can misunderstand you on that point. Have you ever considered trying
> > to reconcile the two?
>
> In my experience, a good proportion of the people who claim they
> misunderstand will never understand, because they don't really want to.
> They just want to attack people who disagree with them. (See also:
> windbag's Usenet career.) Some also have problems with women who state
> opinions without copious disclaimers ("in my opinion" every other
> sentence and such).
There's nothing wrong with that--as long as you're posting this from a
computer in the kitchen while without footware and got heavy with child,
then you can say whatever's in your pretty widdle head.
> I'm comfortable with my style at this point (over 10 years of online
> reviewing), so other people will just have to live with it. On that, at
> least, JMS and I agree.
>
>
-- Ken from the 19th Century
P.S. And if you're wearing something HOT even better. (g, d, r!)
P.P.S. Seriously, Johanna, your biggest problem is your critiques are
entertaining even when I disagree with them (and stop picking on JMS and
PAD, they are fragile, sensitive creatures). How can you stir up the
requisite buzz as a critic if even people who disagree are entertai-er
(hmm, [looks around the usenet], oh wait, others appear to react
differently). Um, nevermind.
P.P.P.S. Oh yeah, at least we agree on ASTONISHING X-MEN, the writing
(BUFFY creator Joss Whedon) and the illustrations (John Cassaday, up
there on my list with INCREDIBLE HULK's Gary Frank, BLOOD SYNDICATE's
ChrisCross, LEGION OF SUPER HEROES' Stuart Immommen, KURT BUSIEK's ASTRO
CITY's Brent Anderson, newest member to the list, FALLEN ANGEL's David
Lopez, and of course, uber-illustrator, MARVELS' Alex Ross, who can draw
people just talking and make it look so wicked cool) are just a mind-
blowing combination. [Yeah, they've done other works but those were
where I first noticed them.]
P.P.P.P.S. Oh wait you've got this FALLEN ANGEL promotion, so nix that
kinda makes up for picking on JMS, kinda.
Ken from Chicago
aema...@earthlink.net says...
The problem is the difference between, for lack of a better phrase,
constructive continuity and destructive continuity.
--The latter is what many people think of where knowledge of the past is
REQUIRED to enjoy the storyline of the present or where knowledge of the
past CONFLICTS with the storyline of the present.
--This differs from the former where the present storyline BUILDS on
what has gone before and tho knowledge of the past is not required to
enjoy the present storyline, knowledge of the past adds a bonus, and
thus loyalty is REWARDED.
The reasons against constructive continuity and for destructive
continuity are typically a) lack of knowledge of what's gone before b)
lack of interest of what's gone before c) TPTB's unwillingness to
actually change, to grow from what's gone before, to prefer simply to
play it safe and repeat what's gone before--while ignoring the simple
fact that part of the appeal of previous storylines were that they were
NEW.
Of course that goes back to whether something new conflicts with
previous continuity--and is a FALSE choice because the difference
between the past, the present and the future is GROWTH aka TRANSISTION.
If the past is contradicted then simply EXPLAIN the change, SHOW the
transistion.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "All of life can be broken down into moments of transistion and
moments of revelation."--BABYLON 5.