How LEGIONNAIRES Gets Written
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
know Roger doesn't post here, I thought it would be interesting to pass
along.
- Elayne
-------------------------------------------
[ Article crossposted from rec.arts.comics.misc ]
[ Author was RogLStern ]
[ Posted on 1 Aug 1998 20:41:26 GMT ]
(Rayctate) wrote:
> Unpredictable in terms of plotting with twists aplenty and mining
>a fathom of depth from dialogue and character interaction, Roger
>Stern's and Tom McCraw's LEGIONNAIRES story is worthy of
>"Doctor Who." I can thing of no greater compliment so let's turn
>to the artwork.
> Moys--Jeff and Phillip--with W.C. Carani and Mr. McCraw
>combine talents to treat the eyes while Mr. Stern and Mr.
>McCraw appease the brain.
Thanks, but you should know that my lady wife Carmela Merlo did most of the
"heavy lifting" on that script ... as she has on most issues of LEGIONNAIRES
(with the exception of issue #61) for well over a year now.
Here's how it works: After a lot of phone calls back and forth, Tom McCraw
e-mails us a story outline. I maybe make a few suggestions and turn it over to
Carmela, who turns it into more of a formal plot. The two of us (Carmela and
myself) go over it, I tweak things a little here and there, and the plot goes
off (by way of DC Editorial) to Jeff Moy.
As we get photocopies of Jeff's pencils, Carmela writes a rough draft, from
which I produce the final draft ... though in recent months, that's amounted to
little more than adding a line here or there and catching a typo or two. (I
should add that Carmela's typos aren't usually as hilariously awful as my own.)
Anyway ... I've been trying to get DC to more formally acknowledge Carmela's
contribution. The best we've been able to get out of them so far is that
"Adult Legionnaire" Credit.
In a better, more just world, Carmela's name would be listed first on
LEGIONNAIRES, and I would be the "Adult Legionnaire."
That's my goal.
-- Roger Stern
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
Greg Paula
Carmela's contribution. The best we've been able to get out of them so far
is that "Adult Legionnaire" Credit.
In a better, more just world, Carmela's name would be listed first on
LEGIONNAIRES, and I would be the "Adult Legionnaire." >>
This was very interesting. Except for its parts of the recent Dark Circle
storyline, I've been very happy with LEGIONNAIRES and Carmela's work. I have
no problem having her contribution recognized more formally.
However, Roger Stern seems to be implying that DC is wrong not to have
acknowledged Carmela more. I think one thing Stern seems to be forgetting is
that he - not Carmela - was hired to do the book. If someone hired me to do
something, and I essentially passed it off to someone else who has far less
experience than I do, I'd be happy not to be fired. I guess the reason Stern
hasn't been fired is that Carmela does a great job. (I think so, at least.)
grat...@hotmail.com
Agreed, Greg. This could develop into a sticky legal situation if DC,
Roger, and Carmela aren't all very careful. So let's get the woman on payroll
and give her a credit. (I've got no problem with nepotism when the person
demonstrates that s/he can do the job. It probably shouldn't have been
allowed to happen this way in the first place, but now that it has, it would
be stupid to turn away good talent.)
Does anybody remember what was done in a similar situation involving Roy
and Dannette Thomas- seems to me I recall seeing her name listed relatively
long after she had been contributing. Was she paid for her work? I assume
the Beirbaums both were, from the beginning, since they came on as a team and
shared credit from the first byline, much like Karl and Barabara Kesel on
H&D.
Hearing how Carmela was brought in to the Legion this way reminds me of
some characters who were themselves inducted on the run (Shadow Lass, White
Witch, Invisible Kid II). Life imitates art, too. :) -- "...And in the end,
all they ask you are those crappy little questions."-Robert Penn Warren, ATKM
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mr. Reaus
>
> > This was very interesting. Except for its parts of the recent Dark Circle
> > storyline, I've been very happy with LEGIONNAIRES and Carmela's work. I have
> > no problem having her contribution recognized more formally.
Neither do I, but it's Roger's job! If he can't or won't do it to the
best of his abilities, then he needs to step aside and let someone who
is willing to give the Legion their all, take over.
It seems, to me at least, that this could very well be a big part of the
problem that we've seen in the stories lately. (That and the poor
editing)
> > However, Roger Stern seems to be implying that DC is wrong not to have
> > acknowledged Carmela more. I think one thing Stern seems to be forgetting is
> > that he - not Carmela - was hired to do the book. If someone hired me to do
> > something, and I essentially passed it off to someone else who has far less
> > experience than I do, I'd be happy not to be fired. I guess the reason Stern
> > hasn't been fired is that Carmela does a great job. (I think so, at least.)
If she's doing as much as is implied, I don't think I would go so far as
to say she does a great job!
> >
> >
>
> Agreed, Greg. This could develop into a sticky legal situation if DC,
> Roger, and Carmela aren't all very careful. So let's get the woman on payroll
> and give her a credit. (I've got no problem with nepotism when the person
> demonstrates that s/he can do the job. It probably shouldn't have been
> allowed to happen this way in the first place, but now that it has, it would
> be stupid to turn away good talent.)
>
The question I have, and I haven't seen it answered yet, is "how long
has Stern been letting Carmela do his Legion work for him?"
A wild guess on my part would put it at about the time the quality of
the book(s) started to deteriorate. =(
Course I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but it seems like an awfully
big co-inkydink to me!
--
Tim
aka Bl...@aol.com
The Unofficial Blok Website
http://members.aol.com/Blok/blok.html
----------====================
...When I learned the truth about the Legion, I joined their ranks,
seeking the truth about myself.
...Instead, it only grew further from my grasp.
...I am silicon trapped among carbon.
Blok - LSH V.3 #55
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
>I've got no problem with nepotism when the person
>demonstrates that s/he can do the job.
I really don't care who writes the Legion titles. I just want to
enjoy them. Unfortunately, enjoying a new Legion book has become an
extremely rare experience.
--
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. Tro...@indirect.com
"Dluow uoy ekil ot yub a lewov?"
-Zatanna Sajak
Favorite Comic of the Week: RANMA 1/2 pt 7 #6
Runner-up: AVENGERS #8
LLL!
Greg Paula
and Merlo worked together more closely rather than one or the other doing
it.
When I heard that Stern was coming aboard LEGIONNAIRES, I had mixed
feelings. I've always considered him a good writer. However, he's always
been much, much stronger on the plotting than he has on the
characterization. Granted, they're usually good plots, but I think strong
characterization should be the cornerstone of the Legion books, and that has
never been Stern's forte.
For this reason, Stern's work on LEGIONNAIRES surprised me. On the whole,
LEGIONNAIRES has had many, many wonderful character moments while he's been
on the book. Like many others, I didn't care for the Dark Circle story (or
the two-part Time Trapper story that preceded it), but in general,
LEGIONNAIRES has had very strong characterization - much stronger than
LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES. While half the team was in the 20th Century, for
example, I think most of the issues of LEGIONNAIRES that came out at that
time were gems.
Only recently did I learn the reason behind the apparent switch in Stern's
writing style: He wasn't really writing it, his wife was. I think Carmela
does a great job with characterization, and she's been consistently able to
deliver those great character moments that most Legion readers relish.
However, as evidenced by the Dark Circle story, perhaps plots - particularly
complex ones - aren't her strong suit.
Now, what if Stern and Merlo were both to write it? Depending on how they
work together, I suppose it's possible for the end result to be the worst
aspects of the two. However, if both were able to contribute to the areas
where they're strongest, I think we could see some of the best Legion issues
ever. (I think the same thing was happening with the Claremont/Byrne X-MEN,
where Claremont was strongest in characterization and Byrne was better with
the plotting - together, it's better than either could be singly.)
SDelMonte
Troy McNemar, Esq.) writes:
>I really don't care who writes the Legion titles. I just want to
>enjoy them. Unfortunately, enjoying a new Legion book has become an
>extremely rare experience.
Yes, but this news explains why L* doesn't fell like a Roger Stern comic
usually does. And since I normally enjoy his work but don't really like it
here, I have the bigger picture and can understand why.
Personally, I think Carmela should not be doing what she's doing as it's not
working. Sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Stern. I like Roger solo.
Simon DelMonte
"Somebody help me. I'm being spontaneous." - Truman Burbank
Marc Singer
Greg Paula <gpp...@nac.net> wrote:
>
>Only recently did I learn the reason behind the apparent switch in Stern's
>writing style: He wasn't really writing it, his wife was. I think Carmela
>does a great job with characterization, and she's been consistently able to
>deliver those great character moments that most Legion readers relish.
I'm not so sure about that. During the first issues after the 20th/30th
century split and the Mordru story, yes, there was great characterization
*and* a great plot. Lately we've seen several previously interesting
characters turn into space cases; we've seen drastic personality changes
happening by writer's fiat (and the all-too-convenient anomaly) and not
by actual growth; we've seen lots of touchy-feely goodness but little
actual drama. And it all comes out in these strange asides or thought
balloons that completely derail the story, while not sounding remotely
like the way people actually talk. If characterization is the strong suit
of this book, I'd hate to see its weak spot... oh, wait, I bought the
Dark Circle story.
Marc
Joe Edkin
because the messages I read (and I'm not going to cut and paste every
comment I read--I suspect you've all already read them) don't seem to give
either Roger or Carmela their due.
As someone who has pitched in a couple times on Legion projects and knows
how the system works, anyone who claims that Roger is not steering the ship
is wrong. While it is true that Carmela Merlo (*not* Mrs. Stern as someone
else called her--she chose to keep her own name when they got married) has
been doing more work on the book, Roger has a final go over everything and
has final say on what leaves the office.
How this evolved--
Carmela has always proofread everything that Roger writes, long before his
work on Legionnaires. She would help him with typos and sometimes remind
him of continuity or character points. When he become overwhelmed with the
Superman novel several years back, she began to write "Bizarro" dialog for
his Superman stories just to help everyone keep up with deadlines. The
"Bizarro" dialog was basically a template (written in a loose goofy style)
so that Roger could reminded what had been in the plots that had been
written months prior. She also indicated suggested balloon placement.
When Roger took on Legionnaires, she started by proofreading and making
suggestions. Again, as deadline crunches came up, she would make notes on
Tom McCraw's plot ideas in order to make sure timelines matched in LSH and
L*, might write *some* suggested dialog, but in the end, Roger went through
and made sure that everything fit together and was in his authorial voice
both in plot and in script. Throughout the entire process, the editor (KC
Carlson at the time) *was* aware of the work she was doing to help out.
Later on, as Carmela developed her talents and her confidence, she began to
do more and more work on Legionnaires, writing first drafts of plots
(working from the outlines worked out by Tom McCraw, Roger, KC--now Mike,
and Tom Peyer) and first drafts of dialog. Roger would then write the
finished drafts of both. (For the record, when I worked on L* Annual #3 and
L* #50, it was the same process--I did first drafts, then Roger went through
and made sure they were in line with his style.) It's not so much that he's
choosing to do less work, but Carmela's work has improved so he doesn't need
to do as much. Again, KC and Mike were aware of the work she was
doing--there were no secrets. No one is trying to hoodwink anyone and Roger
has been fighting to make sure Carmela received proper recognition for the
work she has been doing. In fact, KC was and Mike has been trying to set
Carmela up officially with page rate and proper credit, but for reasons
beyond the ken of mortal folk, there have been problems in house about that
(about which I don't feel it's my place to comment on in any further
detail).
The bottom line is that Carmela loves the Legion and its readers. She is
doing hard--and *good*--work. She deserves more credit than she receives,
but this is not to say that Roger is *not* involved. He would not allow his
name to be on the book if he didn't contribute to it in a substantial way.
Also, for the record, this was never a case of nepotism. Carmela never set
out to become a comics writer (she actually was teaching Chemistry at Ithaca
College before all this came about), nor did Roger set out to build her
career. It was a natural outgrowth of her helping out.
Joe Edkin
--
Who is this Joe Edkin guy anyway?
Find out at http://home.att.net/~jedkin/
If replying by E-mail, make sure to remove "nospam"
from my address.
grat...@hotmail.com
Joe, thanks very much for that well written, thoughtful and informative
post. Since I *think* I may have used the word "nepotism" rather
carelessly in an earlier post on this matter, I thought I should
clarify. First, of course this isn't truly a case of nepotism (and, to
be honest, it wouldn't bother me if it had been, since the bottom line
is whether or not Carmelo can do the work)- I apologize to both Carmelo,
Roger and anyone at DC who may have been offended or impugned by my
thoughtless use of such a loaded term. I should also clarify that I
never intended to imply, as some others may have, that Roger is in
any way shirking his responsibilites or taking advantage of Carmelo's
talent and generosity- I've never felt this to be the case.
Second, and more importantly, my point (and several others') all along
has been that if Carmelo is doing work for DC, she should be getting
both a byline and a check. Any other arrangement is simply
unprofessional, no matter how much Carmelo does or doesn't *mind*
not being paid. DC is a for-profit company and they simply shouldn't
accept that kind of work done on a volunteer basis, except in the most
unusal of circumstances, and certainly not a regular, monthly basis.
Since you indicate that there are problems about doing this, I can
only assume that everyone involved is acting in good faith and looking
for resolutions so that Carmelo can be both fully credited and fully
paid if and when she continues to do work for DC. While her contributions
may have started out as rather casual and admirable pitching in during
a crunch, they've obviously become more than that. I think that both
she and Roger are doing good work, if not always great work, on the
title and hope that their professional collaboration continues.
T. Troy McNemar
<jedkin@worldnet.(nospam)att.net> wrote:
>Again, KC and Mike were aware of the work she was
>doing--there were no secrets. No one is trying to hoodwink anyone and Roger
>has been fighting to make sure Carmela received proper recognition for the
>work she has been doing. In fact, KC was and Mike has been trying to set
>Carmela up officially with page rate and proper credit, but for reasons
>beyond the ken of mortal folk, there have been problems in house about that
>(about which I don't feel it's my place to comment on in any further
>detail).
With all due respect to Carmela, somebody is trying to hoodwink the
readers into thinking that Carmela is not involved in the writing.
Otherwise, Carmela would be receiving proper credit.
>The bottom line is that Carmela loves the Legion and its readers. She is
>doing hard--and *good*--work.
Let's be honest. None of the Legion writing team is doing good work
these days.
--
T. Troy McNemar Tro...@primenet.com
"Yort sah a wen liam-e sserdda. Ta tsael dneterp uoy erac."
-Zatanna
Favorite Comic of the Week: LEGIONNAIRES #65
Runner-up: ARSENAL #1
LLL!
ShutUpRob
Troy McNemar) writes:
>Let's be honest. None of the Legion writing team is doing good work
>these days.
IMO, their plotting is solid even though they're trying to cram a little
bit too much plot into each issue. In that respect I think that they're
doing a pretty good job. (I liked both the Team 20 and Dark Circle
storylines.) However, the narrative style is so declamatory and
forced that it's taken both series into over-the-top melodrama.
-- Rob Jensen
=========================================
"I'm Miracleman! I'm back!"
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
> IMO, their plotting is solid even though they're trying to cram a little
>bit too much plot into each issue. In that respect I think that they're
>doing a pretty good job. (I liked both the Team 20 and Dark Circle
>storylines.)
I can't agree. Among other things, solid plotters wouldn't let
Element Lad's condition drag out for almost a year and a half without
addressing it.
ShutUpRob
Troy McNemar) writes:
>I can't agree. Among other things, solid plotters wouldn't let
>Element Lad's condition drag out for almost a year and a half without
>addressing it.
I disagree. With a cast of a gazillion, I don't think it's necessary
to address every single conflict even once per *two* years, as long as
the execution of the story in which it's finally addressed is well
done. Unfortunately, the current writers of the L* have tin ears for
dialogue and narration. But OTOH, John Francis Moore's retcon fixes
of Fabian Nicieza's zillions of dangling plot threads in X-Force have
generally been intriguing, IMO -- particularly the recent retcon regarding
Reignfire. True he's fixing another writer's lack of work, but it illustrates
another reason I like plot and character threads that are allowed to
dangle for a long time: if the threads aren't addressed by the writer who
dangles them, they're generally picked up by the next writer on the
series, who invariably runs with 'em.
T. Troy McNemar
>>I can't agree. Among other things, solid plotters wouldn't let
>>Element Lad's condition drag out for almost a year and a half without
>>addressing it.
>
> I disagree. With a cast of a gazillion, I don't think it's necessary
>to address every single conflict even once per *two* years, as long as
>the execution of the story in which it's finally addressed is well
>done.
I disagree. If a story plot is commenced, it should be well paced and
concluded within a reasonable amount of time. Element Lad's plot line
is neither.
>True he's fixing another writer's lack of work, but it illustrates
>another reason I like plot and character threads that are allowed to
>dangle for a long time: if the threads aren't addressed by the writer who
>dangles them, they're generally picked up by the next writer on the
>series, who invariably runs with 'em.
And you would consider this "solid plotting"?
Jim Drew
>
> Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob)
> wrote:
> >In article <35fc0cc1....@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T.
> >Troy McNemar) writes:
>
> >>I can't agree. Among other things, solid plotters wouldn't let
> >>Element Lad's condition drag out for almost a year and a half without
> >>addressing it.
> >
> > I disagree. With a cast of a gazillion, I don't think it's necessary
> >to address every single conflict even once per *two* years, as long as
> >the execution of the story in which it's finally addressed is well
> >done.
>
> I disagree. If a story plot is commenced, it should be well paced and
> concluded within a reasonable amount of time. Element Lad's plot line
> is neither.
I agree with Troy. Good writing means a given idea has a beginning, middle,
and end (and maybe repurcussions). It also means being able to balance a
number of plots running at the same time.
While some plots may be earmarked to intentionally take longer to resolve than
others, good writing on these will still show steady progress along a track to
the finish (even if that finish is not visible from the outside). Unless you
want to argue that there is some "mystery" plot going on with Jan, and that we
will see in retrospect that the cues were there all along, I don't think that
we are seeing "good writing" in this case.
(Mind you, both dragged out lack of resolutions and murky writing are nothing
new to the Legion. Reread the Bierbaum stories.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Drew Secretary, IAGLCWDC ciao...@earthlink.net
B3(v)h+ t e cd s k g+(p) rv q p http://home.earthlink.net/~cfmdesigns
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So I picked up this guy who said he was into `SM sex'," Val told me,
"but when I got him home, he pulled out a plastic mask and a gold pen with a
big pink plastic jewel on the end, held them up, and said something about
`Moon prism power!'"
"`SM'? Sailor Moon sex?! God, that's sick!" I said. "What did you do?"
"By the moon, I *punished* him."
-- Marc Lynx, "For Art's Sake"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ShutUpRob
Troy McNemar) writes:
>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob)
>wrote:
>>In article <35fc0cc1....@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T.
>>Troy McNemar) writes:
>
>>>I can't agree. Among other things, solid plotters wouldn't let
>>>Element Lad's condition drag out for almost a year and a half without
>>>addressing it.
>>
>> I disagree. With a cast of a gazillion, I don't think it's necessary
>>to address every single conflict even once per *two* years, as long as
>>the execution of the story in which it's finally addressed is well
>>done.
>
>I disagree. If a story plot is commenced, it should be well paced and
>concluded within a reasonable amount of time. Element Lad's plot line
>is neither.
Define "reasonable."
>>True he's fixing another writer's lack of work, but it illustrates
>>another reason I like plot and character threads that are allowed to
>>dangle for a long time: if the threads aren't addressed by the writer who
>>dangles them, they're generally picked up by the next writer on the
>>series, who invariably runs with 'em.
>
>And you would consider this "solid plotting"?
Define "solid plotting."
ShutUpRob
writes:
>I agree with Troy. Good writing means a given idea has a beginning, middle,
>and end (and maybe repurcussions).
(rolls eyes)
If linearity were a de facto prerequisite for good writing, David Lynch
never would have been allowed to produce any of his work.
> It also means being able to balance a number of plots running
>at the same time.
Define "balance."
>While some plots may be earmarked to intentionally take longer to
>resolve than others, good writing on these will still show steady
>progress along a track to the finish (even if that finish is not visible
>from the outside). Unless you want to argue that there is some
>"mystery" plot going on with Jan, and that we will see in retrospect
>that the cues were there all along, I don't think that we are seeing
>"good writing" in this case.
I think that, since the story *is not finished yet,* it's presumptuous,
to say the least, to draw any conclusions about the storyline as a whole.
Having had to argue with and then collect apologies from far too many
friends over the years about the lengths of Claremont's X-Men storylines
and resolutions of his gazillions of plot-threads, I've acquired an intense
dislike of wholesale condemnation of storylines before they're finished.
>(Mind you, both dragged out lack of resolutions and murky writing are
>nothing new to the Legion. Reread the Bierbaum stories.)
You're talking to a fan of the TMK-era. Loved 'em.
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>In article <35e1d228....@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T.
>Troy McNemar) writes:
>>I disagree. If a story plot is commenced, it should be well paced and
>>concluded within a reasonable amount of time. Element Lad's plot line
>>is neither.
>
> Define "reasonable."
The amount of time that is reasonable to conclude a plot line depends
on context. That said, as a rule of thumb, the plot should be
concluded within six months of commencement.
>>>True he's fixing another writer's lack of work, but it illustrates
>>>another reason I like plot and character threads that are allowed to
>>>dangle for a long time: if the threads aren't addressed by the writer who
>>>dangles them, they're generally picked up by the next writer on the
>>>series, who invariably runs with 'em.
>>
>>And you would consider this "solid plotting"?
>
> Define "solid plotting."
That's what this discussion is about, isn't it? I'm responding to
your use of the term to describe the writing team's efforts. However,
one aspect I don't consider to be solid plotting is setting up a bunch
of story points, not addressing them, and leaving them for another
writer to clean up.
--
T. Troy McNemar Tro...@primenet.com
"Yort sah a wen liam-e sserdda. Ta tsael dneterp uoy erac."
-Zatanna
Favorite Comic of the Week: [pending]
Runner-up: [pending]
LLL!
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>Having had to argue with and then collect apologies from far too many
>friends over the years about the lengths of Claremont's X-Men storylines
>and resolutions of his gazillions of plot-threads, I've acquired an intense
>dislike of wholesale condemnation of storylines before they're finished.
The pacing of plot lines in Claremont's UXM run is a standard that I
would prefer be far exceeded by the Legion books.
ShutUpRob
McNemar) writes:
>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob)
>wrote:
>>In article <35e1d228....@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T.
>>Troy McNemar) writes:
>
>>>I disagree. If a story plot is commenced, it should be well paced and
>>>concluded within a reasonable amount of time. Element Lad's plot line
>>>is neither.
>>
>> Define "reasonable."
>
>The amount of time that is reasonable to conclude a plot line depends
>on context. That said, as a rule of thumb, the plot should be
>concluded within six months of commencement.
Why?
I find putting any kind of a time limit on the duration of any
character's storyline to be arbitrary and unreasonable. You
do realize that, using your rule of thumb, Watchmen, Cerebus,
Elfquest (original quest), the Dark Phoenix Saga, Starchild,
Starlin's original Adam Warlock saga, PAD's Hulk, MAUS,
and numerous other storylines, (not to mention most maxiseries)
wouldn't qualify? So many memorable storylines with distinct
character arcs have simply *lasted* for more than six months
(issues) that your disclaimer is just plain silly to me because
it points out to me that you realize that your rule-of-thumb is
an overly broad, and therefore, invalid generalization.
>>>>True he's fixing another writer's lack of work, but it illustrates
>>>>another reason I like plot and character threads that are allowed to
>>>>dangle for a long time: if the threads aren't addressed by the writer who
>
>>>>dangles them, they're generally picked up by the next writer on the
>>>>series, who invariably runs with 'em.
>>>
>>>And you would consider this "solid plotting"?
>>
>> Define "solid plotting."
>
>That's what this discussion is about, isn't it? I'm responding to
>your use of the term to describe the writing team's efforts. However,
>one aspect I don't consider to be solid plotting is setting up a bunch
>of story points, not addressing them, and leaving them for another
>writer to clean up.
I never said that *that* was solid plotting. It can only be identified
as bad plotting *in retrospect* -- ie: after the writer has left the series.
And when a writer isn't doing a good job (and to determine that, I weigh
only the quality of completed story arcs and a far more narrow range
of technical and artistic issues than you do on uncompleted arcs), I
therefore DID say that I'd rather leave their danglers for someone else
to clean up. You can also infer from what I've said that storyline duration
in and of itself is absolutely meaningless to me.
That said, I do think that the LSH/L* writers are coming up with
solid, workable plots (logical sequences of events) that fail in execution
because, IMO, they try to cram so much information in that their
narratives can't appear to be anything but cluttered, declamatory
and overly melodramatic. (The amount of exposition that's in an
average issue of LSH/L* lately is so dense that it undoubtedly turns
off the uninitiated, IMO.) In their efforts to make their plots last over
as few issues as possible, they sacrifice the clarity of their narrative
to exposition. Since the current Element Lad arc is not yet resolved,
I think that it is presumptuous to make sweeping judgments either
way about the merits (or lack thereof) of the character's current
storyline.
Oh, btw, for me, bad plotting has to be sequences of events that
violate, in a particularly egregious, haphazard manner (in no particular
order):
a) the internal logic of the chosen genre, (including but not limited
to its conventions)
b) the internal logic of the given series, (including information, events
and characterizations previously depicted)
c) cause-and-effect (although one could argue that this is covered
by both a) and b)
d) any combination of the above
Taken in and of themselves, I don't consider Element Lad's
dangling story arc to be bad plotting -- yet.
Bad execution, that's a different story.
ShutUpRob
McNemar) writes:
>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob)
>wrote:
>
>>Having had to argue with and then collect apologies from far too many
>>friends over the years about the lengths of Claremont's X-Men storylines
>>and resolutions of his gazillions of plot-threads, I've acquired an intense
>>dislike of wholesale condemnation of storylines before they're finished.
>
>The pacing of plot lines in Claremont's UXM run is a standard that I
>would prefer be far exceeded by the Legion books.
YMMV.
Jim Drew
>
> In article <35DDD8D8...@earthlink.net>, Jim Drew <ciao...@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>
> >I agree with Troy. Good writing means a given idea has a beginning, middle,
> >and end (and maybe repurcussions).
>
> (rolls eyes)
>
> If linearity were a de facto prerequisite for good writing, David Lynch
> never would have been allowed to produce any of his work.
"Shut up Rob" is right. I never said anything about linearity, just that any given
plot must be able to be mapped.
> > It also means being able to balance a number of plots running
> >at the same time.
>
> Define "balance."
I doubt there's any need to; you're just being argumentative. But for the
sake of
rhetoric, in terms of "good writing for soap opera-style superhero comics", it means
regularly visiting and progressing a given plot; giving it a fair share of the screen
time. If the writers are unable to give attention to a plotline, they should
wait to
introduce it until they can.
(cf. Thunder)
> >Unless you want to argue that there is some
> >"mystery" plot going on with Jan, and that we will see in retrospect
> >that the cues were there all along, I don't think that we are seeing
> >"good writing" in this case.
>
> I think that, since the story *is not finished yet,* it's presumptuous,
> to say the least, to draw any conclusions about the storyline as a whole.
Are you sure it isn't finished? The last we saw of "spacey Jan" was in L* #59,
I think. ("Spacey Zoe" has superceded him. B-) If they can't visit the plot
line in 7 frigging months, maybe he's cured. We should know come L* #67, I think,
almost a full *year* after the previous visit; he's on the cover of that one,
anyway.
> Having had to argue with and then collect apologies from far too many
> friends over the years about the lengths of Claremont's X-Men storylines
> and resolutions of his gazillions of plot-threads, I've acquired an intense
> dislike of wholesale condemnation of storylines before they're finished.
Of course, you are confusing condemnatiopn of stroyline with condemnation of the
*treatment* of the storyline by the creators. Significant difference, in my
book. I have no problem with "spacey Jan", so long as I have some reason to
believe that there actually *is* a plotline attached to the character change.
If ther character situation isn't visited regulalry enough, it appears to be
change-for-change's-sake, aka bad (or at least "non-good") writing.
(cf. "fat Nura")
(cf. Jeka the Snake)
As for Claremont, I think he was (at the time) generally a better writer than
the average of what we are seeing from the Legion crew today. I think he had the
aforementioned beginning/middle/end in mind for at leats most of his dangling
plotlines, but for whatever reason, editorial reins were not in place (or used)
sufficiently to make him clean up things before he moved on to new ones. (Or
perhaps the reverse: editorial prodding made him move on, leaving things without
resolution.) But the heyday of X-Men is a different matter, and there's little
value in comparing today's Legion to X-Men from 15 years ago.
> >(Mind you, both dragged out lack of resolutions and murky writing are
> >nothing new to the Legion. Reread the Bierbaum stories.)
>
> You're talking to a fan of the TMK-era. Loved 'em.
Then it's no wonder you think gagging a character and locking him in the closet
for a year at a time is a good idea.
Jim Drew
>
> >I disagree. If a story plot is commenced, it should be well paced and
> >concluded within a reasonable amount of time. Element Lad's plot line
> >is neither.
>
> Define "reasonable."
>
> >
> >And you would consider this "solid plotting"?
>
> Define "solid plotting."
Define "define".
> -- Rob Jensen
Or maybe we need to start a step earlier: Define "Rob Jensen".
Jim
Jim Drew
>
> And when a writer isn't doing a good job (and to determine that, I weigh
> only the quality of completed story arcs and a far more narrow range
> of technical and artistic issues than you do on uncompleted arcs), I
> therefore DID say that I'd rather leave their danglers for someone else
> to clean up.
Unusual preference, coming from a professed Claremont-hound. You do remember that
the X-books spent the year following Claremont's departure running riot through
Claremont's danglers and creations, dealing with them up by hack-n-slash rather
than "clean up". I'm reminded of the deaths of the Hellions...
> Since the current Element Lad arc is not yet resolved,
> I think that it is presumptuous to make sweeping judgments either
> way about the merits (or lack thereof) of the character's current
> storyline.
Do you have any faith that it ever *will* be resolved? And if it gets resolved
after, say, three years (it's already be 1.5 years), why do you get to determine
then than it took too long, but you weren't allowed to declare such at 2 years,
11 months? Can there ever come a point where you say "I don't care how damned
fabulous a resolution they have to this, I've stopped caring"?
T. Troy McNemar
>>>Troy McNemar) writes:
>>>>I disagree. If a story plot is commenced, it should be well paced and
>>>>concluded within a reasonable amount of time. Element Lad's plot line
>>>>is neither.
>>>
>>> Define "reasonable."
>>
>>The amount of time that is reasonable to conclude a plot line depends
>>on context. That said, as a rule of thumb, the plot should be
>>concluded within six months of commencement.
>
> Why?
>
> I find putting any kind of a time limit on the duration of any
>character's storyline to be arbitrary and unreasonable. You
>do realize that, using your rule of thumb, Watchmen, Cerebus,
>Elfquest (original quest), the Dark Phoenix Saga, Starchild,
>Starlin's original Adam Warlock saga, PAD's Hulk, MAUS,
>and numerous other storylines, (not to mention most maxiseries)
>wouldn't qualify? So many memorable storylines with distinct
>character arcs have simply *lasted* for more than six months
>(issues) that your disclaimer is just plain silly to me because
>it points out to me that you realize that your rule-of-thumb is
>an overly broad, and therefore, invalid generalization.
You're attacking the rule of thumb by identifying the exceptions. If
the current Legion books were as good as any of the examples you
provided, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
BTW, I intended that the rule of thumb be read within the context of
the current Legion books where 6 months is 12 issues. Some of your
examples make that cut off.
> That said, I do think that the LSH/L* writers are coming up with
>solid, workable plots (logical sequences of events) that fail in execution
>because, IMO, they try to cram so much information in that their
>narratives can't appear to be anything but cluttered, declamatory
>and overly melodramatic. (The amount of exposition that's in an
>average issue of LSH/L* lately is so dense that it undoubtedly turns
>off the uninitiated, IMO.) In their efforts to make their plots last over
>as few issues as possible, they sacrifice the clarity of their narrative
>to exposition.
Ironically, this is also a pacing problem. IOW, hold off on new plot
lines until finishing the old ones.
>Since the current Element Lad arc is not yet resolved,
>I think that it is presumptuous to make sweeping judgments either
>way about the merits (or lack thereof) of the character's current
>storyline.
To the extent that the storyline's merits are something different than
pacing, I'm not making any judgments about the merits at this time.
I'm merely evaluating the pacing. It may turn out that the writing
team may take another 18 to finish the story and that it will turn out
to be the best Legion story ever told. The story may turn out to be
so good that I'll forgive the creators, apologize to them in writing
and shower them with gifts. But that won't make the story well paced.
I've snipped your definition of bad plotting because a discussion
about what story elements are and are not included in the term
"plotting" doesn't interest me. While I consider your definition too
narrow, I'm willing to accept it for the purposes of this discussion.
--
T. Troy McNemar Tro...@primenet.com
"Yort sah a wen liam-e sserdda. Ta tsael dneterp uoy erac."
-Zatanna
Favorite Comic of the Week: MAISON IKKOKU pt. 8, #1
Runner-up: CHASE #9
LLL!
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <35fc0cc1....@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T.
: Troy McNemar) writes:
: >I can't agree. Among other things, solid plotters wouldn't let
: >Element Lad's condition drag out for almost a year and a half without
: >addressing it.
: I disagree. With a cast of a gazillion, I don't think it's necessary
: to address every single conflict even once per *two* years, as long as
: the execution of the story in which it's finally addressed is well
: done.
I don't think Troy's talking about addressing a conflict, but resolving a
plot dangler. A good rule of thumb is to try to resolve at least one
dangler for every new one introduced, and in the opinion of a LOT of
readers the Legion writers have not been that good at doing this. I'm
still not sure what's up with either E-Lad *or* Kinetix in terms of their
weird behavior, for which we've yet to be offered any substantial
explanation (beyond "Kinetix went into the anomaly").
- Elayne
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <35DDD8D8...@earthlink.net>, Jim Drew <ciao...@earthlink.net>
: writes:
: >I agree with Troy. Good writing means a given idea has a beginning, middle,
: >and end (and maybe repurcussions).
: (rolls eyes)
: If linearity were a de facto prerequisite for good writing, David Lynch
: never would have been allowed to produce any of his work.
If David Lynch were writing a mainstream comic book (fat chance in hell),
I would expect it to have a beginning, middle, and end. If he were doing
it in a serial format, I'd expect each "chapter" (issue) to have some sort
of mini-resolution of a plot point.
Even in the media wherein Lynch *has* worked, there are a number of people
quite unsatisfied with his storytelling skills, and far, far more that
wouldn't even go near something he did because of its relative
inaccessibility.
I assume y'all don't really want the Legion books to be MORE inaccessible
than they already are.
Marc Singer
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>ShutUpRob (shut...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <35DDD8D8...@earthlink.net>, Jim Drew <ciao...@earthlink.net>
>: writes:
>
>: >I agree with Troy. Good writing means a given idea has a beginning, middle,
>: >and end (and maybe repurcussions).
>
>: (rolls eyes)
>
>: If linearity were a de facto prerequisite for good writing, David Lynch
>: never would have been allowed to produce any of his work.
>
>If David Lynch were writing a mainstream comic book (fat chance in hell),
>I would expect it to have a beginning, middle, and end. If he were doing
>it in a serial format, I'd expect each "chapter" (issue) to have some sort
>of mini-resolution of a plot point.
...just as his films and TV episodes do.
But more to the point, perhaps, the current Legion books *aren't* David
Lynch. Lynch clearly knows the craft of storytelling, and when he breaks
it, it's for a reason. I see no evidence that the Legion writers are
trying to create some fragmented postmodernist tale -- they are in fact
writing very conventional stories and simply not living up to those
conventions. You need to know the rules before you can defend breaking
them.
Linearity isn't a de facto prerequisite for good writing. But just
because something isn't linear doesn't mean it's a Lynchesque experiment,
either.
Actually, linearity is entirely the wrong word here, as none of the LSH
stories right now are particularly nonlinear. They're more like line
segments, starting and stopping abruptly, often without any previous
set-up or any advancement in sight.
Marc
Jonathan L. Miller
In article <199808232330...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
> I find putting any kind of a time limit on the duration of any
> character's storyline to be arbitrary and unreasonable. You
> do realize that, using your rule of thumb, Watchmen, Cerebus,
> Elfquest (original quest), the Dark Phoenix Saga, Starchild,
> Starlin's original Adam Warlock saga, PAD's Hulk, MAUS,
> and numerous other storylines, (not to mention most maxiseries)
> wouldn't qualify? So many memorable storylines with distinct
> character arcs have simply *lasted* for more than six months
> (issues) that your disclaimer is just plain silly to me because
> it points out to me that you realize that your rule-of-thumb is
> an overly broad, and therefore, invalid generalization.
>
With the possible exception of Starlin's Warlock, you're totally off base
here. I should probably take these on a case-by-case basis, but....most of
the storylines you mentioned were contained works, meaning they were
written as "novels," with beginning, middles and ends. (Cerebus has been
specifically written in a *series* of novels.) Development was constant
within the context of the novel. In the case of PAD's Hulk, character
development was continuous and not haphazardly started and stopped. Sure,
things were only given a small amount of panel time, but they were still
referred to, and the stories *developed* and *moved.* (Levitz's Legion is
also a fine example of this storytelling technique.) The Dark Phoenix
storyline, which arguably starts all the way back in X-Men 101 (or at least
in 129), is one of the finest examples of a developing story. It went
slowly, but you could always tell *something* was happening. There was
always development. It accelerated 'round about 129-130, but there was
*always* some development. (The one exception, of course, is when the team
was forcibly seperated between--IIRC--Japan and the Savage Land.)
In the case of the Legion creators, the same thing the Beirbaums were doing
with pre-boot L* has happened again; they've thrown out a hideous number of
subplots and dangling character development and don't seem to be able to
handle them all. Plot development is one thing; danglers that last over a
year with almost no reference or development is something else entirely.
Poor pacing, yes. And, given the context of the LSH (twice monthly comics
with a continuing cast and a serial story), it's bad plotting too. If they
couldn't handle dealing with (for example) E-Lad, then they shouldn't have
thrown the idea in until they could. It's scattershot plotting. (And did
you notice that he seemed *just fine* at the climax of the Dark Circle
story? With no explanation? And giving us no idea what the heck he'd been
doing or thinking all this time?)
> I never said that *that* was solid plotting. It can only be identified
> as bad plotting *in retrospect* -- ie: after the writer has left the series.
> And when a writer isn't doing a good job (and to determine that, I weigh
> only the quality of completed story arcs and a far more narrow range
> of technical and artistic issues than you do on uncompleted arcs), I
> therefore DID say that I'd rather leave their danglers for someone else
> to clean up. You can also infer from what I've said that storyline duration
> in and of itself is absolutely meaningless to me.
>
Bad plotting is bad plotting. I really don't see how you can divorce bad
pacing from bad plotting. That being said, I totally agree with the
following:
> That said, I do think that the LSH/L* writers are coming up with
> solid, workable plots (logical sequences of events) that fail in execution
> because, IMO, they try to cram so much information in that their
> narratives can't appear to be anything but cluttered, declamatory
> and overly melodramatic. (The amount of exposition that's in an
> average issue of LSH/L* lately is so dense that it undoubtedly turns
> off the uninitiated, IMO.) In their efforts to make their plots last over
> as few issues as possible, they sacrifice the clarity of their narrative
> to exposition.
This part I only partially agree with.
> Since the current Element Lad arc is not yet resolved,
> I think that it is presumptuous to make sweeping judgments either
> way about the merits (or lack thereof) of the character's current
> storyline.
>
It might be the greatest story ever told (well, ok, one of them), but if
the pacing is screwed, people will not care. Pacing is a *huge* part of
serial plotting. By the time they get to Jan's story, an average reader
might as well say, "Who?"
> Oh, btw, for me, bad plotting has to be sequences of events that
> violate, in a particularly egregious, haphazard manner (in no particular
> order):
>
> a) the internal logic of the chosen genre, (including but not limited
> to its conventions)
> b) the internal logic of the given series, (including information, events
> and characterizations previously depicted)
> c) cause-and-effect (although one could argue that this is covered
> by both a) and b)
> d) any combination of the above
>
You *have* to add pacing in as c.5. It's simply integral.
jonathan.
ShutUpRob
McNemar) writes:
>You're attacking the rule of thumb by identifying the exceptions. If
>the current Legion books were as good as any of the examples you
>provided, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
If there are numerous exceptions, and I noted that there are
many, and you basically agreed with them, then your rule-of-thumb
is based on a thumb that's been amputated, IMO.
>BTW, I intended that the rule of thumb be read within the context of
>the current Legion books where 6 months is 12 issues. Some of your
>examples make that cut off.
I disagree with any time limit for the development of plot and
whether or not a plot ebbs and flows between the foreground
and the background in all serialized fiction. All I'm interested in
is how well it's done when the creators do it at the time and in the
manner that they choose to do it and how it affects the collective
work of the serialized fiction when the series is taken as a whole.
I think that applying a rule-of-thumb in this manner is completely
arbitrary and, moreover, tends to become a case of the tail
wagging the dog over time when applied. (And don't ask me
how long a time. <vbg.>)
-- Rob Jensen
ShutUpRob
writes:
>ShutUpRob wrote:
>>
>> And when a writer isn't doing a good job (and to determine that, I weigh
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> only the quality of completed story arcs and a far more narrow range
>> of technical and artistic issues than you do on uncompleted arcs), I
>> therefore DID say that I'd rather leave their danglers for someone else
>> to clean up.
>
>Unusual preference, coming from a professed Claremont-hound. You
>do remember that the X-books spent the year following Claremont's
>departure running riot through Claremont's danglers and creations,
>dealing with them up by hack-n-slash rather than "clean up". I'm
>reminded of the deaths of the Hellions...
Yeah, and, even though I think that Claremont passed his prime
with UXM #200, I still think he was doing a good job up to the time
he quit, which sort of negates your question based on the criteria
I named above. Given that, yes, I agree that the Image-era X-Books
hacked and slashed their ways through Claremont's zillions of
danglers, but, then again, I would have preferred that Lee & co.
hadn't done that.
Or, to get myself past what I'm trying to imply: liking danglers
to dangle when the writing is bad because I like to see the next
writers resolve the danglers doesn't preclude hating to see danglers
from a good writer resolved in a hack-and-slash manner by later
writers (or art teams) who are patently inferior.
BTW, my greatest fear for L*/LSH would be that any of the seven
Image founders (with the possible exception of Jim Valentino) were
chosen to overhaul it and resolve any danglers left from the current
team.
>> Since the current Element Lad arc is not yet resolved,
>> I think that it is presumptuous to make sweeping judgments either
>> way about the merits (or lack thereof) of the character's current
>> storyline.
>
>Do you have any faith that it ever *will* be resolved?
Yep.
>And if it gets resolved after, say, three years (it's already be
>1.5 years), why do you get to determine then than it took too
>long, but you weren't allowed to declare such at 2 years, 11
>months?
I like to make my evaluations when all the information is in.
If the story arc isn't finished, it's pointless to make the type
of condemnatory judgments that are typically made by fans,
especially on USENET.
Or do I have to go invoking the Batshadow of Michael
Keaton?
>Can there ever come a point where you say "I don't
>care how damned fabulous a resolution they have to this, I've
>stopped caring"?
I don't care how long it takes as long as the ride is fun. If
the ride isn't fun, even one second is torture. If I've stopped
caring, it isn't because of the duration of the ride, it's because
either the characterizations or the artwork or both suck.
ShutUpRob
writes:
>Or maybe we need to start a step earlier: Define "Rob Jensen".
Hell, *I* can't even do *that.*
ShutUpRob
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>I assume y'all don't really want the Legion books to be MORE
>inaccessible than they already are.
Well, it's not as if anyone but us diehards can afford to read
comics anyway, so what's accessibility got to do with it? }^>
-- Rob Jensen, adds, "The preceeding has been your friendly
neighborhood Cheap Shot Of the Day At the Comics Industry(TM)."
ShutUpRob
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>I don't think Troy's talking about addressing a conflict, but resolving a
>plot dangler. A good rule of thumb is to try to resolve at least one
>dangler for every new one introduced, and in the opinion of a LOT of
>readers the Legion writers have not been that good at doing this. I'm
>still not sure what's up with either E-Lad *or* Kinetix in terms of their
>weird behavior, for which we've yet to be offered any substantial
>explanation (beyond "Kinetix went into the anomaly").
Now *that* I can see and agree with. I don't think the writers
have been addressing it well, either, and, yes, because I think
that their explanations (when they've offered them) have been
vague. However, I think Troy & co. are setting themselves up
for more frustration than they have to by investing so much of
their regards for the series in whether or not any particular
dangler is addressed in any given length of time, -- which is
what seemed to me to be the heart of their argument.
-- Rob Jensen
ShutUpRob
writes:
>ShutUpRob wrote:
>>
>> In article <35DDD8D8...@earthlink.net>, Jim Drew
><ciao...@earthlink.net>
>> writes:
>>
>> >I agree with Troy. Good writing means a given idea has a beginning,
>> >middle, and end (and maybe repurcussions).
>>
>> (rolls eyes)
>>
>> If linearity were a de facto prerequisite for good writing, David Lynch
>> never would have been allowed to produce any of his work.
>
>"Shut up Rob" is right. I never said anything about linearity, just that any
>given plot must be able to be mapped.
Usually, when a person invokes the beginning-middle-end
argument, they're talking about linearity. Since you're talking
about a mappable arc (which, personally, I still consider to be
nearly synonymous with linearity), I still consider it absurd to
be condemning a plotline in a serialized work when it's still
ongoing and therefore the arc isn't entirely mappable yet.
It's kinda like condemning Disneyland 'cause no one's
told you where I-5 is and Triple-A hasn't printed the maps yet.
>> > It also means being able to balance a number of plots running
>> >at the same time.
>>
>> Define "balance."
>
>I doubt there's any need to; you're just being argumentative.
Nope. Just trying to find out what you really mean.
>But for the sake of rhetoric,
And that's all this is, anyway, is rhetoric.
>in terms of "good writing for soap opera-style superhero comics",
>it means regularly
Define "regularly."
>visiting and progressing a given plot; giving it a fair share
Define "fair share."
>of the screen time. If the writers are unable to give attention
Define "unable" in the context of "unable to give attention."
Y'see, you keep using these terms that are entirely subjective
-- completely dependent on the individual reader's tastes. The more
that you make it seem that you're fed up with the storyline is because
it's passed some arbitrary statue of limitations, the more impatient
you make yourself out to be. And to me, it's patently absurd to put
a time limit on how a storyline is going to unfold when the medium
is a serialized fiction.
>to a plotline, they should wait to introduce it until they can.
>
>(cf. Thunder)
Actually, IIRC, they couldn't use Thunder because they were
deferring to the PoS editorial office rather than because they
were trying to find what they considered a good time to bring her
in. If a writer/writing team is flexible enough, they can invent
a justification for bringing or not bringing a character in at any
given point in their narrative.
>> >Unless you want to argue that there is some "mystery"
>> >plot going on with Jan, and that we will see in retrospect
>> >that the cues were there all along, I don't think that we are
>> >seeing "good writing" in this case.
>>
>> I think that, since the story *is not finished yet,* it's
>>presumptuous, to say the least, to draw any conclusions
>>about the storyline as a whole.
>
>Are you sure it isn't finished? The last we saw of "spacey Jan"
>was in L* #59, I think. ("Spacey Zoe" has superceded him.
>B-) If they can't visit the plot line in 7 frigging months, maybe
>he's cured.
Maybe he's not. So what? Whichever way it goes and
*whenever* it goes is unimportant, IMO. What matters is
whether or not the story is good.
>We should know come L* #67, I think, almost a
>full *year* after the previous visit; he's on the cover of that one,
>anyway.
Why? What's your point? If Claremont, Cockrum and Byrne
had to have been held to that standard (and, for the sake of the
1 year time limit that imply is the limit of your patience, let's
say that 1 year = 24 issues and that UXM was bi-weekly, same
as L*/LSH), then by your arbitrary standards of pacing, the Dark
Phoenix Saga should have been resolved with #125, at the latest,
a full 24 issues after the character's first appearance in that
incarnation and 13 issues *earlier* than her arc was actually
resolved with her suicide. And the subplot of her gradual corruption
weaved in and out of the series, sometimes not even touched upon
for several issues! And it's *still* considered a high point of
Marvel's history (and not just by those sycophants at Wizard)
even though its context within the series has been completely
and totally fucked with since it was published!
What's the hang up with the arbitrary time limits, huh?
>> Having had to argue with and then collect apologies from far
>>>too many friends over the years about the lengths of Claremont's
>>>X-Men storylines and resolutions of his gazillions of plot-threads,
>>>I've acquired an intense dislike of wholesale condemnation of
>>>storylines before they're finished.
>
>Of course, you are confusing condemnatiopn of stroyline with
>condemnation of the *treatment* of the storyline by the creators.
>Significant difference, in my book. I have no problem with "spacey
>Jan", so long as I have some reason to believe that there actually
>*is* a plotline attached to the character change.
Then your problem is that *you* are confusing condemnation
of the storyline with the "treatment" of the storyline through pacing.
You did not say that you had no problem with "Spacey Jan" --
your argument hasn't been that coherent -- but with your tone
(and this is a collective "you" to include the other naysayers),
you've been condemning the story wholesale.
BTW, I think that, in a series with a cast as large as L*/LSH,
it's silly to get so attached to any one character as to become
impatient about when or even whether or not that character is
going to have his story arc addressed during any arbitrary length
of the reader's time. It's kind of like hating a toasted cheese
sandwich for having cheese in it.
>If ther character situation isn't visited regulalry enough, it appears
>to be change-for-change's-sake, aka bad (or at least "non-good")
>writing.
>
>(cf. "fat Nura")
>(cf. Jeka the Snake)
Bad, baaaaaaaaaad examples. I liked those twists.
>As for Claremont, I think he was (at the time) generally a better
>writer than the average of what we are seeing from the Legion
>crew today. I think he had the aforementioned beginning/
>middle/end in mind for at leats most of his dangling plotlines,
>but for whatever reason, editorial reins were not in place (or
>used) sufficiently to make him clean up things before he
>moved on to new ones. (Or perhaps the reverse: editorial
>prodding made him move on, leaving things without resolution.)
>But the heyday of X-Men is a different matter, and there's little
>value in comparing today's Legion to X-Men from 15 years ago.
I think that it's futile, not to mention a silly waste of energy to
try to justify using second-guessing whether or not the writers
of a serial fiction have their resolutions in mind when they started
them as the standard for whether or not you think they're doing a
good job with the story. Especially when the story's not finished yet.
>> >(Mind you, both dragged out lack of resolutions and murky
>> >writing are nothing new to the Legion. Reread the Bierbaum
>> >stories.)
>>
>> You're talking to a fan of the TMK-era. Loved 'em.
>
>Then it's no wonder you think gagging a character and locking
>him in the closet for a year at a time is a good idea.
I've been reading L*/LSH since 1980 (v2 #265). One of the finer
perks of being a longtime reader -- *especially* of this series and
the X-Books -- is learning how to appreciate serial fiction that
unfolds over longer periods of time.
BTW, I suggest that you don't ever try to follow a daytime soap
opera.
ShutUpRob
jlmille...@oz.net (Jonathan L. Miller) writes:
>Plot development is one thing; danglers that last over a
>year with almost no reference or development is something else
>entirely. Poor pacing, yes. And, given the context of the LSH (twice
>monthly comics with a continuing cast and a serial story), it's bad
>plotting too. If they couldn't handle dealing with (for example) E-Lad,
>then they shouldn't have thrown the idea in until they could. It's
>scattershot plotting. (And did you notice that he seemed *just fine*
>at the climax of the Dark Circle story? With no explanation? And
>giving us no idea what the heck he'd been doing or thinking all this time?)
It's bad plotting because when it was addressed, it was addressed
poorly, not because it took a year to get to it, IMO. I couldn't care
less whether or not any given creative team has the entire story plotted
out in advance. What matters to me is that the story, upon its
completion, is a well-told story. If it's poor pacing, it's because they
have no sense of pacing, not because this or that point has or hasn't
been addressed. If it's bad plotting, it's because somewhere along
the line, the writers dropped the ball regarding cause-and-effect. If
it's bad scripting, then the writers have a tin ear. That most people
have been bringing up E-Lad and saying, "He hasn't been addressed
in a year" is too vague to me and would in and of itself sound like the
sour grapes of E-Lad fans if I didn't think that the writers' tin ears
were getting tinnier.
>You *have* to add pacing in as c.5. It's simply integral.
I consider pacing to be a function of scripting rather than
of plotting, and therefore beyond the boundaries of my list
as I consider the pacing and rhythm to be set by the script
and the drawn pages, the actual word and image choices,
and how the script illuminates the plot rather than by the
plot, the sequence of the events, in and of themselves.
Dan McEwen
I don't know. Even when something that seemed pointless IS resolved,
I tend to find it unsatisfactory. The Legion was stuck in the 20th
century *just* so that when the anamoly appeared and the Alliance used
it, they would be unaffected? Sorry, but I think this could have been
done in 2 issues instead of 2 years. And what WAS the point of the
anamoly anyway? Anyone have any idea? At all?
Dan
fe...@lsh.org
Home Page - http://home.att.net/~djmcewen
Fanfic - http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/Integrated.html
Dan McEwen
>In article <6rs5u9$a...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
>Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>
>>I assume y'all don't really want the Legion books to be MORE
>>inaccessible than they already are.
>
> Well, it's not as if anyone but us diehards can afford to read
>comics anyway, so what's accessibility got to do with it? }^>
Well, for me, long story arcs have never equated to "inaccessible".
That said, I was lucky enough to start LSH right at the beginning of
"The Great Darkness Saga". Still, this wasn't always true. I started
Uncanny X-Men in the middle of the (original) Brood Saga. That said,
I don't expect to have plotlines linger/be ignored for years on end.
We've had that with Apparition and we STILL don't know the full story.
And can anyone say Element Lad? How about Kinetix? Zoe's story
certainly threatens to go on endlessly, with no apparent point or end
in sight.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <6rs5nc$a...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: >I don't think Troy's talking about addressing a conflict, but resolving a
: >plot dangler. A good rule of thumb is to try to resolve at least one
: >dangler for every new one introduced, and in the opinion of a LOT of
: >readers the Legion writers have not been that good at doing this. I'm
: >still not sure what's up with either E-Lad *or* Kinetix in terms of their
: >weird behavior, for which we've yet to be offered any substantial
: >explanation (beyond "Kinetix went into the anomaly").
: Now *that* I can see and agree with. I don't think the writers
: have been addressing it well, either, and, yes, because I think
: that their explanations (when they've offered them) have been
: vague.
Hey! Who are you and what have you done with Rob Jensen? :) :) :)
Thanks for clarifying that you're kind of in agreement here.
: However, I think Troy & co. are setting themselves up
: for more frustration than they have to by investing so much of
: their regards for the series in whether or not any particular
: dangler is addressed in any given length of time, -- which is
: what seemed to me to be the heart of their argument.
I'm not sure. I think we're pretty much all talking about the same thing,
only using different terms to do so. If that's the case, all's cool,
we're ALL in agreement that the books need better pacing and the stories
should have more of a sense of closure.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: On 26 Aug 1998 06:42:20 GMT, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
: >In article <6rs5u9$a...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: >Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: >
: >>I assume y'all don't really want the Legion books to be MORE
: >>inaccessible than they already are.
: >
: > Well, it's not as if anyone but us diehards can afford to read
: >comics anyway, so what's accessibility got to do with it? }^>
: Well, for me, long story arcs have never equated to "inaccessible".
Nor do they need to be. Unresolved storylines and inaccessibility are, to
my mind, two separate but related problems.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Usually, when a person invokes the beginning-middle-end
: argument, they're talking about linearity.
I disagree. Look at all the stories that begin in media res, then show
you how the current action "began" via flashback. There's a difference
between wanting closure and/or completeness and wanting linearity. I
think what many of the "deal with the danglers already!" fans want is some
indication of closure. Doesn't mean the arc has to be ENTIRELY
"mappable"-- even though it's my understanding (Joe, correct me if I'm
wrong) that both Carmela and Tom do keep maps-- just that parts of it
resolve before others begin.
: It's kinda like condemning Disneyland 'cause no one's
: told you where I-5 is and Triple-A hasn't printed the maps yet.
Weird analogy. I should think it would be more like condemning Disneyland
because they didn't put out *internal* maps. Or maybe, if you want to
stretch it, condemning them for 5-hour queues when you'd hoped the queues
would be more like 2 hours each.
: >of the screen time. If the writers are unable to give attention
: Define "unable" in the context of "unable to give attention."
I don't doubt the creative teams are *capable* of giving this kind of
closure to the plotlines they and their predecessors started before
beginning new ones, but in the past couple years they seem to have shown
little desire to do so.
: >Are you sure it isn't finished? The last we saw of "spacey Jan"
: >was in L* #59, I think. ("Spacey Zoe" has superceded him.
: >B-) If they can't visit the plot line in 7 frigging months, maybe
: >he's cured.
: Maybe he's not. So what? Whichever way it goes and
: *whenever* it goes is unimportant, IMO. What matters is
: whether or not the story is good.
In order to judge whether it's good, we pretty much have to have it TOLD
first, and it hasn't been. So I disagree about the "whenever." I think
the Legion books have suffered from uneven pacing, and plotlines that
drag, together with the books' relative inaccessibility, have undoubtedly
lost readers.
: What's the hang up with the arbitrary time limits, huh?
It's a matter of perceived value for money. If you keep plonking down
more and more money for less and less closure, you start to feel like
something of a sucker, even if the story arc doesn't necessarily bite. I
think this is one of the things Peter David ran up against with his
AQUAMAN run-- as fascinating as it was, there were a number of fans who
really didn't want to stick around for 25 issues to see the first story
arc completely resolved. Peter used an analogy of a car trip, with kids
whining "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" all the time, so I responded
with something like "You're not writing a short interstate jump; you're
writing the equivalent of a cross-country trip, with frequent stops for
gas and tolls (paying for the comics) and sleepovers at inadequate motels
(partial but not complete closure) and *yes*, as cool as the scenery may
be the kids in the back seat *are* going to get cranky after awhile and
just want to get to the destination already."
: I've been reading L*/LSH since 1980 (v2 #265). One of the finer
: perks of being a longtime reader -- *especially* of this series and
: the X-Books -- is learning how to appreciate serial fiction that
: unfolds over longer periods of time.
On the other hand, somehow the X books remain accessible to *newer*
readers while the Legion books don't. I'm not sure the Legion books can
still *afford* to be targeted only at (fewer and fewer) long-time readers.
: BTW, I suggest that you don't ever try to follow a daytime soap
: opera.
TV's free, Rob. That makes a HUGE difference. People are much more
willing to follow serial fiction if they don't have as much of a financial
stake in it.
Jonathan L. Miller
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
> In article <35E09A0C...@earthlink.net>, Jim Drew
<ciao...@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>
> >Are you sure it isn't finished? The last we saw of "spacey Jan"
> >was in L* #59, I think. ("Spacey Zoe" has superceded him.
> >B-) If they can't visit the plot line in 7 frigging months, maybe
> >he's cured.
>
> Maybe he's not. So what? Whichever way it goes and
> *whenever* it goes is unimportant, IMO. What matters is
> whether or not the story is good.
>
No, if it's "unimportant" whether he's "cured" or not (and we have little
idea what was really wrong with him, after all this time), then it is *bad*
writing. When you don't think showing the development of a character--or,
at the very least, *change* in a character--is important, than the attempt
a writer has made in getting you interested in said character has failed.
Of course, there's no evidence that the writers have made *any* attempt in
trying to get you interested in Jan....
> >We should know come L* #67, I think, almost a
> >full *year* after the previous visit; he's on the cover of that one,
> >anyway.
>
> Why? What's your point? If Claremont, Cockrum and Byrne
> had to have been held to that standard (and, for the sake of the
> 1 year time limit that imply is the limit of your patience, let's
> say that 1 year = 24 issues and that UXM was bi-weekly, same
> as L*/LSH), then by your arbitrary standards of pacing, the Dark
> Phoenix Saga should have been resolved with #125, at the latest,
> a full 24 issues after the character's first appearance in that
> incarnation and 13 issues *earlier* than her arc was actually
> resolved with her suicide. And the subplot of her gradual corruption
> weaved in and out of the series, sometimes not even touched upon
> for several issues! And it's *still* considered a high point of
> Marvel's history (and not just by those sycophants at Wizard)
> even though its context within the series has been completely
> and totally fucked with since it was published!
>
Again, you bring up a fallacy. Yes, Byrne and Claremont took a nice long
time to tell Phoenix's story. *But,* there was development shown in that
story over every issue. *As they were being published,* readers could tell
there was *something* going on, something continuously developing with
Jean's character (or the Phoenix's character, depending on when you gave up
on the books). With Jan, we've been given *almost nothing,* because (I like
to believe) there hasn't been enough time/room to tell his story. In other
words, as you've said, the book has been too crowded, with too many
subplots--all of which got pushed out for things like Dark Circle Rising.
It's a case of poor planning and pacing; they shouldn't have introduced six
subplots if they were planning on simply sweeping them under the carpet for
two years. And that's shoddy plotting, as opposed to Claremont/Byrne's run
on X-men (or Paul Levitz's run on LSH, for that matter), where subplots and
character development were continuously advanced.
> What's the hang up with the arbitrary time limits, huh?
>
It's less a matter of arbitrary time limits than it's the fact that story
points just shouldn't be dropped for 8 months at a time if you want your
readers to care about them. (The whole "Bounty/Sade" thing is another good
example. I remember seeing the cover of the issue--"The fight you've been
waiting for!" My response was, "I wasn't waiting for it--were you waiting
for it?")
> >Of course, you are confusing condemnatiopn of stroyline with
> >condemnation of the *treatment* of the storyline by the creators.
> >Significant difference, in my book. I have no problem with "spacey
> >Jan", so long as I have some reason to believe that there actually
> >*is* a plotline attached to the character change.
>
> Then your problem is that *you* are confusing condemnation
> of the storyline with the "treatment" of the storyline through pacing.
> You did not say that you had no problem with "Spacey Jan" --
> your argument hasn't been that coherent -- but with your tone
> (and this is a collective "you" to include the other naysayers),
> you've been condemning the story wholesale.
>
Um, "treatment" of a storyline is basically what plotting and scriptwriting
involves. And "storyline" assumes a story with some momentum, which Jan
doesn't have. I'd call it a "character devlopment line," if there was such
a thing. As far as I'm concerned, the storyline left Jan behind quite a
while ago.
> BTW, I think that, in a series with a cast as large as L*/LSH,
> it's silly to get so attached to any one character as to become
> impatient about when or even whether or not that character is
> going to have his story arc addressed during any arbitrary length
> of the reader's time. It's kind of like hating a toasted cheese
> sandwich for having cheese in it.
>
Although you have a point here, the obvious question would be why read a
mag with a cast as large as the LSH in the first place? Of course, I could
be mean and point out that Paul Levitz managed to feature every Legionnaire
(and there were more of them) every 3 issues or so--and managed to advance
subplots fairly continuously while still ably advancing the main plot. In
other words, it can be done.
> >If ther character situation isn't visited regulalry enough, it appears
> >to be change-for-change's-sake, aka bad (or at least "non-good")
> >writing.
> >
> >(cf. "fat Nura")
> >(cf. Jeka the Snake)
>
> Bad, baaaaaaaaaad examples. I liked those twists.
>
I had no problems with "fat Nura." Found it amusing. Completely against
character, but by then I didn't care so much. As for Jeka the Snake, I
don't mind it *except* for the fact that it probably negates a
Projectra/Val romance, one of my faves from Pre-Boot.
> I think that it's futile, not to mention a silly waste of energy to
> try to justify using second-guessing whether or not the writers
> of a serial fiction have their resolutions in mind when they started
> them as the standard for whether or not you think they're doing a
> good job with the story. Especially when the story's not finished yet.
>
So...a writer should throw out subplots willy-nilly, with no idea how
they're going to end and hope he/she can write him/herself out of it? Now
*that's* bad plotting. In fact, that's one of the *definitions* of bad
plotting. If you're gonna do that, you'd better be good enough that it
doesn't *look* like you're doing it.
Anyway, the story is finished. We saw Jan looking normal and acting less
spacy at the end of the DCR storyline. Now, if they can *justify* the
changes, well, we'll see. But you gotta face facts, Rob, the writers threw
the idea out, had no idea what to do with it, poked at it a couple times
and then let it lie fallow for a year, with no references to it. The Mordru
storyline could have given us a great story about Jan, a great chance for a
spotlight issue. Instead, a new reader who came in within the last year
would see him in DCR and say, "Who the heck is that?" They dropped the
ball--even if they manage to pull a rabbit out of their hats (as a
flashback or whatever) now, you gotta admit, they dropped the ball.
> >> >(Mind you, both dragged out lack of resolutions and murky
> >> >writing are nothing new to the Legion. Reread the Bierbaum
> >> >stories.)
> >>
> >> You're talking to a fan of the TMK-era. Loved 'em.
> >
> >Then it's no wonder you think gagging a character and locking
> >him in the closet for a year at a time is a good idea.
>
> I've been reading L*/LSH since 1980 (v2 #265). One of the finer
> perks of being a longtime reader -- *especially* of this series and
> the X-Books -- is learning how to appreciate serial fiction that
> unfolds over longer periods of time.
>
Then you *know* that Levitz handled subplots better than this, thus it
*can* be done.
> BTW, I suggest that you don't ever try to follow a daytime soap
> opera.
>
It's funny...I was involved in an argument awhile ago where someone held up
soaps as an example of when continuity is gone over again and again and
again, subplots mentioned again and again and again. So I guess some people
have had different experiences than you have. Of course, soaps *are* on
daily, so it's possible to advance every subplot at least incrimentally
every week.....making this argument a fallacy too....
And hey, I *like* the current writers! (Well, up until midway thru DCR,
that is...)
jonathan.
Jonathan L. Miller
> In article <jlmillerNOSPAM-ya023...@news.oz.net>,
> jlmille...@oz.net (Jonathan L. Miller) writes:
> >You *have* to add pacing in as c.5. It's simply integral.
>
> I consider pacing to be a function of scripting rather than
> of plotting, and therefore beyond the boundaries of my list
> as I consider the pacing and rhythm to be set by the script
> and the drawn pages, the actual word and image choices,
> and how the script illuminates the plot rather than by the
> plot, the sequence of the events, in and of themselves.
>
Ah, there's a difference between script pacing and plot pacing. It depends,
of course, on how a book is written. In the case of LSH and L*, we have 2
books with, essentially, one plotline. (Until November, at least.) You have
to pace the plot out between, not only individual issues (which is hard
enough), but 2 different books (with 2 different writing teams), keeping
the storytelling even between the 2. It's not easy to maintain the balance,
which is one of the reasons they split the books for the whole 20C
storyline, and a prime reason they're semi-splitting the books in the fall.
Plot pacing involves what the story is and how it develops.
Script pacing involves how dialogue and actions scan in an individual issue.
They're both important, and they've both been kind of falling down lately.
jonathan.
Tom Galloway
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>If David Lynch were writing a mainstream comic book (fat chance in hell),
>I would expect it to have a beginning, middle, and end. If he were doing
Actually, he has written a somewhat mainstream comic strip. And it was
the worst thing I've ever seen.
Ran in various weekly newspapers in the 80s, and was titled "The Angriest
Dog In The World". Here's what every strip was:
Panel 1: Caption about describing how the dog seen pulling at a chain
is the angriest dog in the world, and thus stiff, growling, and pulling
at said chain. In the background, you see a house with a window or two.
Panels 2-3: Graphically, completely identical to panel 1. From the
house, there are word balloons indicating a man and a woman talking
(this is tellable only by the occasional reference in the dialogue to
one or the other's gender).
Panel 4: Same panel, but with added ink to indicate it's now night.
Same word balloon placement. Dialogue was often a bad, old, joke or non
sequitur. No characterization of anyone or thing in the strip ever
occured.
Every week. For several years. It was either the worst comic strip in
history for which someone got paid, or it was a surefire way to determine
if someone's b.s. detector was completely non-existant (i.e. if they
thought this had any artistic or creative merit beyond being a meta-textual
joke, they would have to be incapable of detecting artistic b.s.).
tyg t...@netcom.com
T. Troy McNemar
>However, I think Troy & co. are setting themselves up
>for more frustration than they have to by investing so much of
>their regards for the series in whether or not any particular
>dangler is addressed in any given length of time, -- which is
>what seemed to me to be the heart of their argument.
Well, it's certainly true that if we're willing to disengage our brains and
overlook major flaws in the story that we're more likely to enjoy the series.
But that shouldn't be necessary.
T. Troy McNemar
>>You're attacking the rule of thumb by identifying the exceptions. If
>>the current Legion books were as good as any of the examples you
>>provided, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> If there are numerous exceptions, and I noted that there are
>many,
You gave 8. Do you consider 8 to be many?
>>BTW, I intended that the rule of thumb be read within the context of
>>the current Legion books where 6 months is 12 issues. Some of your
>>examples make that cut off.
>
> I disagree with any time limit for the development of plot and
>whether or not a plot ebbs and flows between the foreground
>and the background in all serialized fiction. All I'm interested in
>is how well it's done when the creators do it at the time and in the
>manner that they choose to do it and how it affects the collective
>work of the serialized fiction when the series is taken as a whole.
>I think that applying a rule-of-thumb in this manner is completely
>arbitrary and, moreover, tends to become a case of the tail
>wagging the dog over time when applied. (And don't ask me
>how long a time. <vbg.>)
I don't have any problem with that. The problem comes when creative teams
don't move the plot forward on a regular basis. And the Element Lad story
hasn't moved in any significant fashion since L* #51.
Jim Drew
>
> >> >I agree with Troy. Good writing means a given idea has a beginning,
> >> >middle, and end (and maybe repurcussions).
> >>
> >> never would have been allowed to produce any of his work.
> >
> >"Shut up Rob" is right. I never said anything about linearity, just that any
> >given plot must be able to be mapped.
>
> Usually, when a person invokes the beginning-middle-end
> argument, they're talking about linearity.
That's because most people have little knowledge of more than basic storytelling
techniques. (That said, I believe that you'll get better comics if the vast
majority -- but not necessarily all -- of your subplots are primarily linear. Get
too clever and you lose the audience, and thus your story fails. Let's also note
that straightforward storytelling doesn't have to be either simple or simplistic.)
> I still consider it absurd to
> be condemning a plotline in a serialized work when it's still
> ongoing and therefore the arc isn't entirely mappable yet.
Yes, we know you think that way. And thus one shall never ever be able to say
if the
Phoenix saga is good (or bad), since Marvel will surely never let it truly
conclude. B-)
> It's kinda like condemning Disneyland 'cause no one's
> told you where I-5 is and Triple-A hasn't printed the maps yet.
Huh? How about condemning Pirates of the Carribean because the line's too
long. I
have no problem saying "It's gonna take *hours* to get through that line. Doesn't
matter how good the ride is, it won't be good enough to warrant that long of a wait."
Your take would seem to be "Since we can't know until we've actualyl
experienced the
ride, we *must* stand in line. We have no choice."
> >But for the sake of rhetoric,
>
> And that's all this is, anyway, is rhetoric.
Actually, most of it is commonn sense. You're argumentative.
> >in terms of "good writing for soap opera-style superhero comics",
> >it means regularly
>
> Define "regularly."
With a frequency comparable to other apparantly equivalent subplots.
> >visiting and progressing a given plot; giving it a fair share
>
> Define "fair share."
With a frequency comparable to other apparantly equivalent subplots.
> >of the screen time. If the writers are unable to give attention
>
> Define "unable" in the context of "unable to give attention."
With a frequency significantly lower than other apparantly equivalent subplots.
(And "significantly lower" would be "by an order of magnitude". And if you need
that one defined, go take some college coursework.)
> Y'see, you keep using these terms that are entirely subjective
> -- completely dependent on the individual reader's tastes.
Not at all. No numbers were quoted, merely relativeness.
> And to me, it's patently absurd to put
> a time limit on how a storyline is going to unfold when the medium
> is a serialized fiction.
Even you must have some limitations on how long you will wait for resolution before
giving up. Everything has "value", including time and cash outlay. If it
"costs too
much" to get the resolution -- defined on an individual basis, of course --
then the
limit has been exceeded.
If the next Chat Report says that the don't intend to resolve Element Lad's status
until sometime in 2099, are you willing to say both that that is reasonable
and that
you intend to wait patiently for that year?
> >to a plotline, they should wait to introduce it until they can.
> >
> >(cf. Thunder)
>
> Actually, IIRC, they couldn't use Thunder because they were
> deferring to the PoS editorial office rather than because they
> were trying to find what they considered a good time to bring her in.
You misinterpret me. I have no problem with the reason for the delay between when
we were told she would be used and when she appears. I have a problem with them
not knowing that delay would occur and inserting her indication way too early.
Small yet significant difference: they did insufficient planning and jumped
the gun.
Shame on them.
> >If they can't visit the plot line in 7 frigging months, maybe he's cured.
>
> Maybe he's not. So what? Whichever way it goes and
> *whenever* it goes is unimportant, IMO. What matters is
> whether or not the story is good.
No, what matters is the "return on my investment". Each issue that passes is more
money spent (more overhead accrued), and thus less per-issue value in the eventual
payoff. (If the payoff is good, it may balance the overhead. If if fails to balance
the overhead, it is a non-good story, maybe a bad one. If the overhead gets too
big prior to the payoff, I may not believe that the payoff can balance it, and thus
may pre-decide that the story is a loser.)
Fortunately, Legion has more than a single subplot, so it's less overhead per suobplot.
But the basic stuff is the same.
> >We should know come L* #67, I think, almost a
> >full *year* after the previous visit; he's on the cover of that one,
> >anyway.
>
> Why? What's your point? [...] for the sake of the
> 1 year time limit that imply is the limit of your patience
I haven't said that all plots should be resolved in a year. I have said that the
should be *visitied* more often than once a year (in a monthly book).
Otherwise they
lose connection with the audience, and become uniteresting as a result.
> by your arbitrary standards of pacing, the Dark
> Phoenix Saga should have been resolved with #125, at the latest,
> a full 24 issues after the character's first appearance in that
> incarnation and 13 issues *earlier* than her arc was actually
> resolved with her suicide.
The Phoenix arc shows progression on a frequent -- every few issues -- over the
course of the three years it ran. X-Men was also better written than the Legion
books are today, but it also had to meet different needs 20 years ago.
> What's the hang up with the arbitrary time limits, huh?
You're the one who seems to have hangs ups about them, trying to force Troy's
and my
examples into concrete.
> BTW, I think that, in a series with a cast as large as L*/LSH,
> it's silly to get so attached to any one character as to become
> impatient about when or even whether or not that character is
> going to have his story arc addressed during any arbitrary length
> of the reader's time. It's kind of like hating a toasted cheese
> sandwich for having cheese in it.
You and your bizarre analogies. How about if I ordered a toasted cheese sandwich
and waited while eight other parties came in, ordered, were served 7-course meals,
paid their checks, left, and I stil hadn't received my food?
> >If ther character situation isn't visited regulalry enough, it appears
> >to be change-for-change's-sake, aka bad (or at least "non-good")
> >writing.
> >
> >(cf. "fat Nura")
> >(cf. Jeka the Snake)
>
> Bad, baaaaaaaaaad examples. I liked those twists.
No, gooooooood examples. I like both "twists", too, but they are both well
known as
controversial amongst fans, and both are pretty clear examples of change-for-change's-
sake, things done to stir the pot rather than growing organically from standard
storytelling and foreshadowing techniques.
> >> You're talking to a fan of the TMK-era. Loved 'em.
> >
> >Then it's no wonder you think gagging a character and locking
> >him in the closet for a year at a time is a good idea.
>
> I've been reading L*/LSH since 1980 (v2 #265).
Now you're scaring me, since that was my first issue, too.
> One of the finer
> perks of being a longtime reader -- *especially* of this series and
> the X-Books -- is learning how to appreciate serial fiction that
> unfolds over longer periods of time.
One of the perks of being a writer is recognizing the difference between the
unfolding of the greater story and that of single subplots. The big picture
vs. the small one, y'know?
> BTW, I suggest that you don't ever try to follow a daytime soap
> opera.
Did it. Never missed an episode of Days of Our Lives in 7 years at one point.
But they did a good job of regularly visiting their ongoing subplots, usually
at least once a week.
Chris M.
>However, I think Troy & co. are setting themselves up
>for more frustration than they have to by investing so much of
>their regards for the series in whether or not any particular
>dangler is addressed in any given length of time, -- which is
>what seemed to me to be the heart of their argument.
So let me see if I've got this. We have the writers on the Legion books who
do not "address" plot "danglers" (which, in pretty much any other form of
professional writing would be referred to as "finishing the story")for,
literally, years. There are some readers who are bothered by this, a
phenomenon that is clearly open to critical evaluation. And you think that
it's *their* fault they're not enjoying the series, not the writers' fault.
That's about it, right? Seems like kind of a silly argument to make, since
it basically comes down to "If you guys didn't think about what you read
you'd enjoy it more."
If you're writing a serial piece of fiction and you have a plot line that you
fail to resolve for so long that a portion of your readership starts to say,
"Hey, what's the deal with that plot line? Why's it taking so long to
address?" then, regardless of how good the pay off is when you finally get
around to resolving it, you are not managing your plot well. The quality of
the resolution of a given plot line and how that plot line is managed up
until its resolution are two completely separate issues.
--Chris M.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <6rs5u9$a...@panix3.panix.com>,
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >If David Lynch were writing a mainstream comic book (fat chance in hell),
: >I would expect it to have a beginning, middle, and end. If he were doing
: Actually, he has written a somewhat mainstream comic strip. And it was
: the worst thing I've ever seen.
: Ran in various weekly newspapers in the 80s, and was titled "The Angriest
: Dog In The World".
Oh, God, flashback. I remember that. Yeah, it was minimalist and
pointless, on purpose. It felt like Lynch snubbing his nose at people who
actually worked at crafting strips, as if it was beneath him or something.
(But I suspect this may be more a case of, as someone else on this thread
mentioned, knowing the rules and deliberately flaunting them.)
Carl Fink
> I disagree with any time limit for the development of plot and
>whether or not a plot ebbs and flows between the foreground
>and the background in all serialized fiction. All I'm interested in
>is how well it's done when the creators do it at the time and in the
>manner that they choose to do it and how it affects the collective
>work of the serialized fiction when the series is taken as a whole.
You are certainly entitled to feel this way. (Man, that's a pompous
thing to say, isn't it?)
However: you seem to be *alone* in feeling this way. Almost everyone
else on Earth apparently feels that in serial fiction, it's bad
plotting to start a subplot and then ignore it completely for a year
or more.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"Your brain is actually a fabulously complex computer, which means that
on Jan. 1, 2000, it will stop working and your body will flop around
like a recently caught perch." (Dave Barry, slightly paraphrased.)
SDelMonte
writes:
>However: you seem to be *alone* in feeling this way. Almost everyone
>else on Earth apparently feels that in serial fiction, it's bad
>plotting to start a subplot and then ignore it completely for a year
>or more.
Man, i wish someone had said this to Claremont when I was reading X-Men over a
decade back. I sometimes suspect they STILL haven't wrapped up some subplots
from 1986.
Simon DelMonte
Dan McEwen
>On 26 Aug 1998 06:42:13 GMT, ShutUpRob <shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I disagree with any time limit for the development of plot and
>>whether or not a plot ebbs and flows between the foreground
>>and the background in all serialized fiction. All I'm interested in
>>is how well it's done when the creators do it at the time and in the
>>manner that they choose to do it and how it affects the collective
>>work of the serialized fiction when the series is taken as a whole.
>
>You are certainly entitled to feel this way. (Man, that's a pompous
>thing to say, isn't it?)
>
>However: you seem to be *alone* in feeling this way. Almost everyone
>else on Earth apparently feels that in serial fiction, it's bad
>plotting to start a subplot and then ignore it completely for a year
>or more.
The problem I have is that there is no ebb and flow. There was the
start, then an ebb. Then another ebb. And another ebb. In fact, I'm
still waiting for the flow. This has happened with Element Lad,
Kinetix, and Apparition. True, Tinya got a little flow a while back,
but it's been ignored since then. My suggestion to writers would be
to not start something they can't finish in a timely manner.
Dan McEwen
>In article <6s2o9l$2mh$3...@carlf.dialup.access.net>, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink)
>writes:
>
>>However: you seem to be *alone* in feeling this way. Almost everyone
>>else on Earth apparently feels that in serial fiction, it's bad
>>plotting to start a subplot and then ignore it completely for a year
>>or more.
>
>Man, i wish someone had said this to Claremont when I was reading X-Men over a
>decade back. I sometimes suspect they STILL haven't wrapped up some subplots
>from 1986.
This is true. One of things with Claremont, though, was that he
tended to address his subplots with some frequency. Of course,
Claremont had constant characterization in his book, regardless of how
much or how little action occurred in the book.
Tom Galloway
SDelMonte <sdel...@aol.com> wrote:
>Man, i wish someone had said this to Claremont when I was reading X-Men over a
>decade back. I sometimes suspect they STILL haven't wrapped up some subplots
>from 1986.
At one point, the Canonical X-Dangler List as maintained in rac hit
triple digits.
Two-time maintainer of the X-Danglers
tyg t...@netcom.com
Dan McEwen
>In article <199808281028...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>SDelMonte <sdel...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Man, i wish someone had said this to Claremont when I was reading X-Men over a
>>decade back. I sometimes suspect they STILL haven't wrapped up some subplots
>>from 1986.
>
>At one point, the Canonical X-Dangler List as maintained in rac hit
>triple digits.
Unfortunately, dealing with those ancient danglers wasn't always for
the best. Typically, the stories were sub-par.
Jonathan L. Miller
sdel...@aol.com (SDelMonte) wrote:
> Man, i wish someone had said this to Claremont when I was reading X-Men over a
> decade back. I sometimes suspect they STILL haven't wrapped up some subplots
> from 1986.
>
Well, Claremont may not have *wrapped up* a whole lot of subplots (no one
can deny that), but he did *advance* them from issue to issue, reminding
readers that they were there. (How many times did Rachel angst about her
Earth and the "Days of Future Past" storyline? Of course, I stopped reading
around 1987, and I've been led to understand that that changed quite a
bit.)
jonathan.
JohannaLD
>what WAS the point of the anamoly anyway?
To bring a more science-fictionish feel to the universe?
Johanna
Dan McEwen
Um...OK. The spaceships and aliens were enough for me.
Clell A. Harmon
> BTW, my greatest fear for L*/LSH would be that any of the seven
>Image founders (with the possible exception of Jim Valentino) were
>chosen to overhaul it and resolve any danglers left from the current
>team.
Well sure... But would Valentino ever get past the roll call?
Sure that was the best running gag (IMHO) in the history of comics,
but would it really work in a series?
Clell A. Harmon
Miller) wrote:
>I had no problems with "fat Nura." Found it amusing. Completely against
>character, but by then I didn't care so much. As for Jeka the Snake, I
>don't mind it *except* for the fact that it probably negates a
>Projectra/Val romance, one of my faves from Pre-Boot.
Why do you think a romance between sentients is negated? The
legion has had romances between other species before, why would this
particular one be negated? This variant of Val doens't seem to be
particularly shallow (I mean we're not talking about Garth here),
there is no reason to assume that he would be repulsed by Jeka's
body.....
If you mean a mating rather than a romance... well says who?
Perhaps 30th century science can deal with a pairing of Reptilian and
Human DNA.....
Clell A. Harmon
>I don't know. Even when something that seemed pointless IS resolved,
>I tend to find it unsatisfactory. The Legion was stuck in the 20th
>century *just* so that when the anamoly appeared and the Alliance used
>it, they would be unaffected? Sorry, but I think this could have been
>done in 2 issues instead of 2 years. And what WAS the point of the
>anamoly anyway? Anyone have any idea? At all?
It was a feeble attempt to justify the 20th Century arc.
Ben Weiss
[re: Val & Jeka]
> If you mean a mating rather than a romance... well says who?
> Perhaps 30th century science can deal with a pairing of Reptilian and
> Human DNA.....
Well, the White Triangle way back when implied that "miscegenation" was
common, and even assuming that they were exaggerating, it could be
established enough to account for some of the weirder-looking aliens
around...
Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
Ben Weiss
>
A space anomaly to me isn't a sci-fi feel, it's a Star Trek cliche. And
a talking anomaly that transforms characters for no apparent reason
doesn't have much to do with sci-fi either. If that was its purpose, it
failed miserably.
Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
ShutUpRob
McEwen) writes:
>I don't know. Even when something that seemed pointless IS resolved,
>I tend to find it unsatisfactory. The Legion was stuck in the 20th
>century *just* so that when the anamoly appeared and the Alliance used
>it, they would be unaffected? Sorry, but I think this could have been
>done in 2 issues instead of 2 years.
But then the casual, non-diehard readers that LSH was aiming
for at the time wouldn't have had the jump-in point that the storyline
was intended to be. As I recall, the whole point of the story (editorially)
was to have them interact with 20th century heroes.
> And what WAS the point of the anamoly anyway? Anyone
>have any idea? At all?
It was one of Star Trek's Handy-Dandy Catch-All Time Warps
That Generate Much Destructive Force That the Villian Simply
Must Have For Himself(TM). I'm surprised I have to tell you
these things. If L*/LSH had been a movie, Malcom McDowell
would play Leland McCauley.
-- Rob Jensen
=========================================
"I'm the male Ally McBeal."
ShutUpRob
McEwen) writes:
>That said,
>I don't expect to have plotlines linger/be ignored for years on end.
The difference is, I *do.* I think it's a viable option inherent
in the serialized form.
>We've had that with Apparition and we STILL don't know the full story.
Hey, we didn't have the origin of Validus, one of the more
celebrated mysterious villians of the *pre-boot* LSH for *decades.*
What's the diff? And how about those Wanderers? What's the diff?
>And can anyone say Element Lad? How about Kinetix?
"Element Lad."
"Kinetix."
Sorry, couldn't resist.
>Zoe's story certainly threatens to go on endlessly, with no
>apparent point or end in sight.
Didja ever consider that you might be looking a little bit too
hard for the point? Seems to me that the point of the story
is to see how Zoe reacts to the changes she goes through
and the lessons she learns from them -- a simple range of
themes as opposed to some grand, overall theme that you're
apparently futilely wishing the stories were actually designed
for.
ShutUpRob
McEwen) writes:
>True, Tinya got a little flow a while back, but it's been ignored
>since then.
Errr . . .
Ah, no. I just *can't.*
-- Rob Jensen, adds, "Think Midol."
ShutUpRob
>However: you seem to be *alone* in feeling this way. Almost everyone
>else on Earth apparently feels that in serial fiction, it's bad
>plotting to start a subplot and then ignore it completely for a year
>or more.
Hmm . . . that explains the success of Claremont's X-Books. Not.
-- Rob Jensen
ShutUpRob
>The problem I have is that there is no ebb and flow. There was the
>start, then an ebb. Then another ebb. And another ebb. In fact, I'm
>still waiting for the flow. This has happened with Element Lad,
>Kinetix, and Apparition. True, Tinya got a little flow a while back,
>but it's been ignored since then. My suggestion to writers would be
>to not start something they can't finish in a timely manner.
To me, the awkward flow of the series has a *lot* more to do
with the mechanics of the writers' stilted, declamatory and
overwrought narrative than with the order in which they choose
to advance or not advance the different storylines. I think they've
got the rhythm, but the problem is that they're tone deaf.
ShutUpRob
writes:
>ShutUpRob wrote:
>>
>> >> >I agree with Troy. Good writing means a given idea has a beginning,
>> >> >middle, and end (and maybe repurcussions).
>> >>
>> >> If linearity were a de facto prerequisite for good writing, David
>> >>Lynch never would have been allowed to produce any of his work.
>> >
>> >"Shut up Rob" is right. I never said anything about linearity, just that
>> >any given plot must be able to be mapped.
>>
>> Usually, when a person invokes the beginning-middle-end
>> argument, they're talking about linearity.
>
>That's because most people have little knowledge of more than basic
>storytelling techniques. (That said, I believe that you'll get better comics
>if the vast majority -- but not necessarily all -- of your subplots are
primarily
>linear. Get too clever and you lose the audience, and thus your story fails.
>Let's also note that straightforward storytelling doesn't have to be either
>simple or simplistic.)
I happen to think that recent L*/LSH storylines have been linear
AND simplistic and think that you're all looking in the wrong direction
for why they're sooooo bad.
>> I still consider it absurd to
>> be condemning a plotline in a serialized work when it's still
>> ongoing and therefore the arc isn't entirely mappable yet.
>
>Yes, we know you think that way. And thus one shall never ever
>be able to say if the Phoenix saga is good (or bad), since Marvel
>will surely never let it truly conclude. B-)
Mere speculation. (Yeah, that's the ticket!)
And anyway, the Dark Phoenix Saga is, and always will be to
me, a completed arc. (That is, unless I start writing the book
and get my chance to retcon the stupid retcon of it.)
>> It's kinda like condemning Disneyland 'cause no one's
>> told you where I-5 is and Triple-A hasn't printed the maps yet.
>
>Huh? How about condemning Pirates of the Carribean because the
>line's too long.
That's *silly* and has nothing to do with my analogy or even your
complaints. Condemning the ride because the line's too long is like
condemning a library book because it gets checked out. *Every*
line for a ride at Disneyland is long. *Even* on rainy days, when
attendance is *down,* the lines for every line at Disneyland is too
damn long. (Waited in line for 45 minutes in the *rain* to get on the
Indiana Jones ride three years ago, btw, but this is an incredibly
strange digression.)
My point is that I think that you're making some fairly
sweeping generalizations about something that you really
don't know a whole heckuva lot about simply because it isn't
finished yet and you don't like that you don't know where it's
going. You don't like the ride 'cause the tunnel's too dark and
you don't know where it's going. I don't like the ride because
the colors on the cars are garish, rusty, and squeaky.
>I have no problem saying "It's gonna take *hours* to get
>through that line. Doesn't matter how good the ride is, it
>won't be good enough to warrant that long of a wait."
>
>Your take would seem to be "Since we can't know
>until we've actualyl experienced the ride, we *must*
>stand in line. We have no choice."
Nooope. Seee . . . I don't make judgments about how
good the ride itself is until I've been on the ride. If the line's
long, I see how long the lines for other rides are and try to
guess if I'm more likely to get on one or more of them in
the same or less time I'd be waiting in line for the first
ride. That's roughly analogous to "How many copies
of the books are available on the stand and how fast
do I think they're going to sell out?" I judge the books
on the merits -- not on preconceived notions. EVEN IF
THE PRECONCEPTIONS WOULD TURN OUT TO BE
ACCURATE.
>> >But for the sake of rhetoric,
>>
>> And that's all this is, anyway, is rhetoric.
>
>Actually, most of it is commonn sense. You're argumentative.
Hi, Pot. Last name Kettle?
>> >in terms of "good writing for soap opera-style superhero comics",
>> >it means regularly
>>
>> Define "regularly."
>
>With a frequency comparable to other apparantly equivalent subplots.
Circular and vague. Define "apparently equivalent subplots" and
their relations to "frequency."
>> >visiting and progressing a given plot; giving it a fair share
>>
>> Define "fair share."
>
>With a frequency comparable to other apparantly equivalent subplots.
Vaguely Circular. Define "apparently equivalent subplots" and
their relations to "frequency."
>> >of the screen time. If the writers are unable to give attention
>>
>> Define "unable" in the context of "unable to give attention."
>
>With a frequency significantly lower than other apparantly equivalent
>subplots.
Vague and circular. Define "significantly lower," "apparently equivalent
subplots" and their relations to "frequency."
>(And "significantly lower" would be "by an order of magnitude". And
>if you need that one defined, go take some college coursework.)
Taking college coursework. Unless you provide examples,
you'd be getting an incomplete on your assignment, regardless
of my demands that you provide concrete examples.
>> Y'see, you keep using these terms that are entirely subjective
>> -- completely dependent on the individual reader's tastes.
>
>Not at all. No numbers were quoted, merely relativeness.
IOW, you're being vague because you give no concrete
reference point other than you don't like what Legion is doing
and then expect me to believe that it all boils down to an
arbitrary time-limit for the resolution of plotlines. Which
sounds like a nitpick and a dodge around what you actually
dislike about it.
>> And to me, it's patently absurd to put a time limit on how
>>a storyline is going to unfold when the medium is a serialized fiction.
>
>Even you must have some limitations on how long you will wait for
>resolution before giving up. Everything has "value", including time
>and cash outlay. If it "costs too much" to get the resolution -- defined
>on an individual basis, of course -- then the limit has been exceeded.
Cost has nothing to do with time in this context. Cost has
everything to do with entertainment value (YMMV on the definition
of that one) of the product as published and my belief as to whether
or not that product is sufficiently entertaining to maintain my
interest in the creative team's work . Waiting for a resolution has
nothing to do with it. I don't wait for a resolution if it sucks enough
that it motivates me to break my habit of buying it. Duration of
resolution of the storylines has *never* in and of itself been a
reason for me to choose or not to choose to read a book.
>If the next Chat Report says that the don't intend to resolve Element
>Lad's status until sometime in 2099, are you willing to say both that
>that is reasonable and that you intend to wait patiently for that year?
Yes. I read Cerebus. I'm used to long-term storylines.
>> >to a plotline, they should wait to introduce it until they can.
>> >
>> >(cf. Thunder)
>>
>> Actually, IIRC, they couldn't use Thunder because they were
>> deferring to the PoS editorial office rather than because they
>> were trying to find what they considered a good time to bring her in.
>
>You misinterpret me. I have no problem with the reason for the delay
>between when we were told she would be used and when she appears.
>I have a problem with them not knowing that delay would occur and
>inserting her indication way too early.
You're holding a grudge against them because they included her
on a *poster* too soon for your liking? Man! You're cold, impatient
and petulant.
>Small yet significant difference: they did insufficient planning and jumped
>the gun. Shame on them.
Shame on you for sweating really, really small shit.
>> >If they can't visit the plot line in 7 frigging months, maybe he's cured.
>>
>> Maybe he's not. So what? Whichever way it goes and
>> *whenever* it goes is unimportant, IMO. What matters is
>> whether or not the story is good.
>
>No, what matters is the "return on my investment". Each issue that
>passes is more money spent (more overhead accrued), and thus less
>per-issue value in the eventual payoff. (If the payoff is good, it may
>balance the overhead. If if fails to balance the overhead, it is a
>non-good story, maybe a bad one. If the overhead gets too
>big prior to the payoff, I may not believe that the payoff can
>balance it, and thus may pre-decide that the story is a loser.)
Pre-decide = prejudge = presume = assume.
Don't read Stephen King, then. You don't have the patience
for "It," "The Stand" or "The Dark Tower" series.
>Fortunately, Legion has more than a single subplot, so it's less
>overhead per suobplot. But the basic stuff is the same.
>> >We should know come L* #67, I think, almost a
>> >full *year* after the previous visit; he's on the cover of that one,
>> >anyway.
>>
>> Why? What's your point? [...] for the sake of the
>> 1 year time limit that imply is the limit of your patience
>
>I haven't said that all plots should be resolved in a year. I have
>said that the should be *visitied* more often than once a year
>(in a monthly book).
IOW, 1 year is the limit of your patience, whether it's resolution
of the plot or merely "visitation" of it.
> Otherwise they lose connection with the audience, and become
>uniteresting as a result.
This is an overly broad generalization. For one, this means
that Jaka never should have been reintroduced to Cerebus because
her plotline hadn't been revisited for the several years of publication
time between the end of "Jaka's Story" and the beginning of "Rick's
Story." For another, this must mean that you think that Thunderbolt
Ross is automatically an uninteresting character just because he
hadn't appeared in the pages of Incredible Hulk for over a decade.
Oh, or how about Mimic in recent issues of X-Force and Excalibur,
after being MIA for decades. Oh, and that Steve Rogers guy,
y'know, the guy with the shield? GONE FOR ALMOST A DECADE
before the fish guy found him in a block of ice. Uninteresting,
useless character. Feh.
>> by your arbitrary standards of pacing, the Dark
>> Phoenix Saga should have been resolved with #125, at the latest,
>> a full 24 issues after the character's first appearance in that
>> incarnation and 13 issues *earlier* than her arc was actually
>> resolved with her suicide.
>
>The Phoenix arc shows progression on a frequent -- every few issues
>-- over the course of the three years it ran. X-Men was also better
>written than the Legion books are today, but it also had to meet
>different needs 20 years ago.
>
>> What's the hang up with the arbitrary time limits, huh?
>
>You're the one who seems to have hangs ups about them, trying
>to force Troy's and my examples into concrete.
Nope. Only backing you two into admitting that they *aren't*
concrete even though the tone that you've been using has projected
the contrary.
>> BTW, I think that, in a series with a cast as large as L*/LSH,
>> it's silly to get so attached to any one character as to become
>> impatient about when or even whether or not that character is
>> going to have his story arc addressed during any arbitrary length
>> of the reader's time. It's kind of like hating a toasted cheese
>> sandwich for having cheese in it.
>
>You and your bizarre analogies. How about if I ordered a
>toasted cheese sandwich and waited while eight other parties
>came in, ordered, were served 7-course meals, paid their checks,
>left, and I stil hadn't received my food?
But you didn't. The other parties came in first and you don't
want to admit it.
>> >If ther character situation isn't visited regulalry enough, it appears
>> >to be change-for-change's-sake, aka bad (or at least "non-good")
>> >writing.
>> >
>> >(cf. "fat Nura")
>> >(cf. Jeka the Snake)
>>
>> Bad, baaaaaaaaaad examples. I liked those twists.
>
>No, gooooooood examples. I like both "twists", too, but they are
>both well known as controversial amongst fans, and both are pretty
>clear examples of change-for-change's-sake, things done to stir
>the pot rather than growing organically from standard
>storytelling and foreshadowing techniques.
I couldn't care less.
>> >> You're talking to a fan of the TMK-era. Loved 'em.
>> >
>> >Then it's no wonder you think gagging a character and locking
>> >him in the closet for a year at a time is a good idea.
>>
>> I've been reading L*/LSH since 1980 (v2 #265).
>
>Now you're scaring me, since that was my first issue, too.
Booga booga booga.
>> One of the finer
>> perks of being a longtime reader -- *especially* of this series and
>> the X-Books -- is learning how to appreciate serial fiction that
>> unfolds over longer periods of time.
>
>One of the perks of being a writer is recognizing the difference
>between the unfolding of the greater story and that of single
>subplots. The big picture vs. the small one, y'know?
And you're really focusing all of your ire on one insignificant
detail of one particular subplot. Stop grasping that small picture
so tightly, okay? You're trying to tell us it's poorly cropped when
it's out of focus and the camera needed a red filter.
>> BTW, I suggest that you don't ever try to follow a daytime soap
>> opera.
>
>Did it. Never missed an episode of Days of Our Lives in 7 years at one
>point.
Lemmee guess? When Euguene & Calliope and Shane
& Kimberly (& Patch, kindasortamaybe) were together?
>But they did a good job of regularly visiting their ongoing
>subplots, usually at least once a week.
I didn't care how often they visited their subplots -- I just thought
that the majority of the characters and stories that they did visit
were engaging.
ShutUpRob
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>ShutUpRob (shut...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Usually, when a person invokes the beginning-middle-end
>: argument, they're talking about linearity.
>
>I disagree. Look at all the stories that begin in media res, then show
>you how the current action "began" via flashback. There's a difference
>between wanting closure and/or completeness and wanting linearity. I
>think what many of the "deal with the danglers already!" fans want is some
>indication of closure. Doesn't mean the arc has to be ENTIRELY
>"mappable"-- even though it's my understanding (Joe, correct me if I'm
>wrong) that both Carmela and Tom do keep maps-- just that parts of it
>resolve before others begin.
I wasn't arguing against nonlinearity. I was pointing out that
usually, when they invoke the b-m-e argument, they're talking
about linearity. It was a passive-agressive way of provoking
them to confirm my suspicion that they *didn't* mean b-m-e.
>: It's kinda like condemning Disneyland 'cause no one's
>: told you where I-5 is and Triple-A hasn't printed the maps yet.
>
>Weird analogy.
Only if you were thinking of the jaunt through Disneyland as
the Legion storyline rather than Disneyland being the plot
resolution. It's roughly the same analogy that you use below,
but with different objectives.
>I should think it would be more like condemning Disneyland
>because they didn't put out *internal* maps. Or maybe, if you
>want to stretch it, condemning them for 5-hour queues when
>you'd hoped the queues would be more like 2 hours each.
That makes sense. Jim would like to blame the ride itself
for the queue length rather than the company.
>: >of the screen time. If the writers are unable to give attention
>
>: Define "unable" in the context of "unable to give attention."
>
>I don't doubt the creative teams are *capable* of giving this kind of
>closure to the plotlines they and their predecessors started before
>beginning new ones, but in the past couple years they seem to
>have shown little desire to do so.
I think you're giving them too much credit for conscious thought
about it. I suspect that they don't want to admit that they can't tell
whether or not they've been drifting. (Yep, you heard that right.)
>: >Are you sure it isn't finished? The last we saw of "spacey Jan"
>: >was in L* #59, I think. ("Spacey Zoe" has superceded him.
>: >B-) If they can't visit the plot line in 7 frigging months, maybe
>: >he's cured.
>
>: Maybe he's not. So what? Whichever way it goes and
>: *whenever* it goes is unimportant, IMO. What matters is
>: whether or not the story is good.
>
>In order to judge whether it's good, we pretty much have to have it TOLD
>first, and it hasn't been. So I disagree about the "whenever."
Clarifier: in context: "What matters is whether or not the
story is good *when it's finished." Sorry.
> I think the Legion books have suffered from uneven pacing,
>and plotlines that drag, together with the books' relative
>inaccessibility, have undoubtedly lost readers.
I disagree. I think it's suffered from stilted, overly melodramatic
dialogue that has been so repugnant that it's driven away newer
readers and kept potential readers away. KC Carlson's relatively
crisp scripting of LSH #108 sticks out like a sore thumb because,
unlike the past year or two of scripts of both L* and LSH, it
read as being downright plausible (in context) to me.
>: What's the hang up with the arbitrary time limits, huh?
>
>It's a matter of perceived value for money. If you keep plonking down
>more and more money for less and less closure, you start to feel like
>something of a sucker, even if the story arc doesn't necessarily bite. I
>think this is one of the things Peter David ran up against with his
>AQUAMAN run-- as fascinating as it was, there were a number of fans who
>really didn't want to stick around for 25 issues to see the first story
>arc completely resolved. Peter used an analogy of a car trip, with kids
>whining "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" all the time, so I responded
>with something like "You're not writing a short interstate jump; you're
>writing the equivalent of a cross-country trip, with frequent stops for
>gas and tolls (paying for the comics) and sleepovers at inadequate motels
>(partial but not complete closure) and *yes*, as cool as the scenery may
>be the kids in the back seat *are* going to get cranky after awhile and
>just want to get to the destination already."
"If you'd stop asking if we're there yet, I could think more clearly,
drive faster, and get there faster. And, by the way, I told you kids
to bring your Nintendos, but did you listen to me, NoooOOOooo.
And so we just had mine, and you don't like to play Castle
Wolfenstein and Dr. Mario, do you?"
>: I've been reading L*/LSH since 1980 (v2 #265). One of the finer
>: perks of being a longtime reader -- *especially* of this series and
>: the X-Books -- is learning how to appreciate serial fiction that
>: unfolds over longer periods of time.
>
>On the other hand, somehow the X books remain accessible to *newer*
>readers while the Legion books don't. I'm not sure the Legion books can
>still *afford* to be targeted only at (fewer and fewer) long-time readers.
'Cept that the X-Books really aren't accessible to newer readers, as
they're suffering the same kind of losses that the rest of the industry
is. The X-Books just started out with a larger fan base and are going
to take longer to get down to L*/LSH's levels simply because it
had more readers. I don't think accessibility has as much to do with
it as the price of the books. They're just too expensive.
>: BTW, I suggest that you don't ever try to follow a daytime soap
>: opera.
>
>TV's free, Rob. That makes a HUGE difference. People are much more
>willing to follow serial fiction if they don't have as much of a financial
>stake in it.
I agree.
ShutUpRob
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>I'm not sure. I think we're pretty much all talking about the same thing,
>only using different terms to do so. If that's the case, all's cool,
>we're ALL in agreement that the books need better pacing and the stories
>should have more of a sense of closure.
Well, I agree that I think that the pacing has been bad and
I'm always *for* story-closure and I agree with the more flexible
rule-of-thumb that you provided regarding rate of dangler-closures
over their more arbitrarily stringent ROT's, but I disagree that those
have been the main reason why the books have been so bad
recently. IMO, the problem is far more obvious: forget the plotting
(such that it is): their scripting sucks.
ShutUpRob
McNemar) writes:
>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>>In article <35e0b037...@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T.
>Troy
>>McNemar) writes:
>
>>>You're attacking the rule of thumb by identifying the exceptions. If
>>>the current Legion books were as good as any of the examples you
>>>provided, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
>>
>> If there are numerous exceptions, and I noted that there are
>>many,
>
>You gave 8. Do you consider 8 to be many?
2 and 3 are a couple. 3, 4 and 5 are a few. 5, 6 and 7 are several. 7
and 8 and above are many. (One Million , btw, is a shitload. }^> )
Umm. Yeah, I do.
>>>BTW, I intended that the rule of thumb be read within the context of
>>>the current Legion books where 6 months is 12 issues. Some of your
>>>examples make that cut off.
>>
>> I disagree with any time limit for the development of plot and
>>whether or not a plot ebbs and flows between the foreground
>>and the background in all serialized fiction. All I'm interested in
>>is how well it's done when the creators do it at the time and in the
>>manner that they choose to do it and how it affects the collective
>>work of the serialized fiction when the series is taken as a whole.
>>I think that applying a rule-of-thumb in this manner is completely
>>arbitrary and, moreover, tends to become a case of the tail
>>wagging the dog over time when applied. (And don't ask me
>>how long a time. <vbg.>)
>
>I don't have any problem with that. The problem comes when
>creative teams don't move the plot forward on a regular basis.
>And the Element Lad story hasn't moved in any significant
>fashion since L* #51.
<sigh> I don't see what the problem is regarding when any
particular story is addressed just as long as when it is addressed,
it's done well.
ShutUpRob
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>Unresolved storylines and inaccessibility are, to
>my mind, two separate but related problems.
Inaccessibility has more to do with how much information needs
to be provided to the casual reader of past events to provide
enough context within the given issue of the story to allow that
reader to follow it. IMO, unresolved storylines contribute to inaccessibility
only when they're either a) overly complicated and/or complex
storylines or b) too many unresolved storylines reaching critical
mass at once. Either case generally causes the story to be too
exposition-heavy for the lay reader.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <6s1nlq$k...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: >: Define "unable" in the context of "unable to give attention."
: >
: >I don't doubt the creative teams are *capable* of giving this kind of
: >closure to the plotlines they and their predecessors started before
: >beginning new ones, but in the past couple years they seem to
: >have shown little desire to do so.
: I think you're giving them too much credit for conscious thought
: about it.
That's because it's their JOB to give this conscious thought. And yes, I
generally give people credit for doing their job until they show that they
can't or haven't been.
: > I think the Legion books have suffered from uneven pacing,
: >and plotlines that drag, together with the books' relative
: >inaccessibility, have undoubtedly lost readers.
: I disagree. I think it's suffered from stilted, overly melodramatic
: dialogue that has been so repugnant that it's driven away newer
: readers and kept potential readers away.
I don't think Peyer's dialogue is that melodramatic, but I have noticed
that in a number of Merlo scripts, yes.
: KC Carlson's relatively crisp scripting of LSH #108...
LOL! Sorry, I didn't see the scripting as all that crisp.
: "If you'd stop asking if we're there yet, I could think more clearly,
: drive faster, and get there faster.
Unfortunately, that's not what the Legion creators seem to have been
saying. If I were to analogize the way some fans feel about the dragged
out plotlines, it'd be more like "Shut up and enjoy the ride, or you can
get out of the car and walk." :)
T. Troy McNemar
>In article <35e59633...@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T. Troy
>McNemar) writes:
>>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>>>In article <35e0b037...@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T.
>>Troy
>>>McNemar) writes:
>>>>You're attacking the rule of thumb by identifying the exceptions. If
>>>>the current Legion books were as good as any of the examples you
>>>>provided, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.
>>>
>>> If there are numerous exceptions, and I noted that there are
>>>many,
>>
>>You gave 8. Do you consider 8 to be many?
>
> 2 and 3 are a couple. 3, 4 and 5 are a few. 5, 6 and 7 are several. 7
>and 8 and above are many. (One Million , btw, is a shitload. }^> )
>
> Umm. Yeah, I do.
Well, I consider 8 to be 8. In the context of all comic storylines, it's
not many.
>>>>BTW, I intended that the rule of thumb be read within the context of
>>>>the current Legion books where 6 months is 12 issues. Some of your
>>>>examples make that cut off.
>>>
>>> I disagree with any time limit for the development of plot and
>>>whether or not a plot ebbs and flows between the foreground
>>>and the background in all serialized fiction. All I'm interested in
>>>is how well it's done when the creators do it at the time and in the
>>>manner that they choose to do it and how it affects the collective
>>>work of the serialized fiction when the series is taken as a whole.
>>>I think that applying a rule-of-thumb in this manner is completely
>>>arbitrary and, moreover, tends to become a case of the tail
>>>wagging the dog over time when applied. (And don't ask me
>>>how long a time. <vbg.>)
>>
>>I don't have any problem with that. The problem comes when
>>creative teams don't move the plot forward on a regular basis.
>>And the Element Lad story hasn't moved in any significant
>>fashion since L* #51.
>
> <sigh> I don't see what the problem is regarding when any
>particular story is addressed just as long as when it is addressed,
>it's done well.
Pacing is a component of storytelling. If pacing is poor, the overall
storytelling suffers. But, frankly, I think you know this and are just
too obstinate to admit it.
--
T. Troy McNemar Tro...@primenet.com
"Yort sah a wen liam-e sserdda. Ta tsael dneterp uoy erac."
-Zatanna
Favorite Comic of the Week: JLA: THE NAIL #3
Runner-up: RANMA 1/2 pt 7 #7
LLL!
T. Troy McNemar
>McEwen) writes:
>>That said,
>>I don't expect to have plotlines linger/be ignored for years on end.
>
> The difference is, I *do.* I think it's a viable option inherent
>in the serialized form.
You've set your standards too low.
T. Troy McNemar
>IOW, you're being vague because you give no concrete
>reference point other than you don't like what Legion is doing
>and then expect me to believe that it all boils down to an
>arbitrary time-limit for the resolution of plotlines.
Has anyone in this thread argued that poor pacing is the only thing wrong
with the writing on the Legion books? If so, I missed it and would
appreciate your providing examples.
ShutUpRob
jlmille...@oz.net (Jonathan L. Miller) writes:
>So...a writer should throw out subplots willy-nilly, with no idea how
>they're going to end and hope he/she can write him/herself out of it?
If the ideas that the writer comes up with are good, yes.
>Now *that's* bad plotting. In fact, that's one of the *definitions* of
>bad plotting.
No, it's not automatically bad plotting. No, it's not one of the
definitions of bad plotting. It's certainly *improvisational*
plotting and I consider improvisational plotting to be a legitimate
writing technique (otherwise, we'd have to condemn everything Stan
Lee ever wrote because, by your definition, his improvisational
style is bad plotting.)
>If you're gonna do that, you'd better be good enough that it
>doesn't *look* like you're doing it.
>
>Anyway, the story is finished. We saw Jan looking normal and acting less
>spacy at the end of the DCR storyline. Now, if they can *justify* the
>changes, well, we'll see.
I think they already presented their justification for them. Jan was
engrossed in figuring out this new application of his powers and lost
touch with reality for quite some time. You're just upset that they
didn't spell it out for you.
>But you gotta face facts, Rob, the writers threw the idea out, had
>no idea what to do with it, poked at it a couple times and then let
>it lie fallow for a year, with no references to it.
So what? IMO, it didn't need any references. It just needed
a better ear for dialogue.
>The Mordru
>storyline could have given us a great story about Jan, a great chance for a
>spotlight issue. Instead, a new reader who came in within the last year
>would see him in DCR and say, "Who the heck is that?" They dropped the
>ball--even if they manage to pull a rabbit out of their hats (as a
>flashback or whatever) now, you gotta admit, they dropped the ball.
I think they dropped the ball for other reasons.
>> >> >(Mind you, both dragged out lack of resolutions and murky
>> >> >writing are nothing new to the Legion. Reread the Bierbaum
>> >> >stories.)
>> >>
>> >> You're talking to a fan of the TMK-era. Loved 'em.
>> >
>> >Then it's no wonder you think gagging a character and locking
>> >him in the closet for a year at a time is a good idea.
>>
>> I've been reading L*/LSH since 1980 (v2 #265). One of the finer
>> perks of being a longtime reader -- *especially* of this series and
>> the X-Books -- is learning how to appreciate serial fiction that
>> unfolds over longer periods of time.
>>
>Then you *know* that Levitz handled subplots better than this, thus it
>*can* be done.
I agree that the current writing teams are no substitute for Paul
Levitz, but I think that their plotting has been fine. I think their
dialoguing sucks.
>> BTW, I suggest that you don't ever try to follow a daytime soap
>> opera.
>>
>It's funny...I was involved in an argument awhile ago where someone
>held up soaps as an example of when continuity is gone over again
>and again and again, subplots mentioned again and again and again.
>So I guess some people have had different experiences than you
>have. Of course, soaps *are* on daily, so it's possible to advance
>every subplot at least incrimentally every week.....making this
>argument a fallacy too....
They're better at handling exposition than the Legion writers. That
doesn't mean that the plots in and of themselves are handled any
differently. Characters *do* fall into the background for extended
lengths of time, putting their development on hold. There have
been a couple of cases of child characters not being mentioned
for a year and coming back five years older with no explanation
other than the producers want to use an older actor.
>And hey, I *like* the current writers! (Well, up until midway thru DCR,
>that is...)
They've been getting on my nerves since LSH #100 and much
earlier on Legionnaires.
ShutUpRob
(ShutUpRob) writes:
>I don't like the ride because the colors on the cars are garish,
>rusty, and squeaky.
Oy. That should be "I don't like the ride because the colors
on the cars are garish and rusty -- and the car is too squeaky."
ShutUpRob
>Plot pacing involves what the story is and how it develops.
>Script pacing involves how dialogue and actions scan in an individual issue.
>They're both important, and they've both been kind of falling down lately.
I'll agree to that. Let's call it a night and go get hammered.
-- Rob Jensen
PS: This is my last post on the subject even though the newsreaders
will probably propagate earlier posts later. ;)
ShutUpRob
>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>
>>However, I think Troy & co. are setting themselves up
>>for more frustration than they have to by investing so much of
>>their regards for the series in whether or not any particular
>>dangler is addressed in any given length of time, -- which is
>>what seemed to me to be the heart of their argument.
>
>So let me see if I've got this. We have the writers on the Legion books who
>do not "address" plot "danglers" (which, in pretty much any other form of
>professional writing would be referred to as "finishing the story")for,
>literally, years. There are some readers who are bothered by this, a
>phenomenon that is clearly open to critical evaluation. And you think that
>it's *their* fault they're not enjoying the series, not the writers' fault.
>That's about it, right?
Nope.
I think that, given the chosen form of the work (serialized fiction),
they're creating in themselves some strange biases against
practices that are inherent in the form, hyperfocusing on them
as the be-all and end-all of the books' troubles when there are,
IMO far more obvious and fundamental problems plaguing the
writers and therefore, I don't think that they are able to look
at the work objectively.
>Seems like kind of a silly argument to make, since it
>basically comes down to "If you guys didn't think about what
>you read you'd enjoy it more."
Nope. "If you guys would take a step back and stop being
outraged by the scratches, you'd be disheartened by the
huge cracks."
-- Rob Jensen
T. Troy McNemar
>I think that, given the chosen form of the work (serialized fiction),
>they're creating in themselves some strange biases against
>practices that are inherent in the form, hyperfocusing on them
>as the be-all and end-all of the books' troubles when there are,
Interesting psychoanalysis, but fundamentally flawed. The discussion to
date has concerned whether the Legion stories, or any aspect of them, are
poorly paced. Participation in the discussion doesn't mean that the
participants have adopted "strange biases" or that they're "hyperfocusing"
on the pacing. It merely means that we recognize one of the problems and
weren't discussing any of the others.
>IMO far more obvious and fundamental problems plaguing the
>writers and therefore, I don't think that they are able to look
>at the work objectively.
I'm sure that I'll be sorry I asked, but what is your basis for
determining that we are unable to look at the work objectively?
And you've apparently concluded that because discussion to date has
focused on plot pacing that we're unable to recognize other problems in
the storytelling. Upon what do you base that conclusion?
Dan McEwen
>In article <35e436de...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fe...@lsh.org (Dan
>McEwen) writes:
>
>>That said,
>>I don't expect to have plotlines linger/be ignored for years on end.
>
> The difference is, I *do.* I think it's a viable option inherent
>in the serialized form.
I expect some degree of lingering plotline. I don't expect *anything*
to be ignored. And I don't expect things like the anamoly to be
created and thrown out without any explanation (or any apparent intent
to explain).
>>We've had that with Apparition and we STILL don't know the full story.
>
> Hey, we didn't have the origin of Validus, one of the more
>celebrated mysterious villians of the *pre-boot* LSH for *decades.*
>What's the diff? And how about those Wanderers? What's the diff?
The Wanderers are history, so there's nothing to be done. As for
Validus, well, it's not like his background was dangled in front of
our faces and then forgotten. Also, more importantly, he wasn't a
cast member.
>>Zoe's story certainly threatens to go on endlessly, with no
>>apparent point or end in sight.
>
> Didja ever consider that you might be looking a little bit too
>hard for the point? Seems to me that the point of the story
>is to see how Zoe reacts to the changes she goes through
>and the lessons she learns from them -- a simple range of
>themes as opposed to some grand, overall theme that you're
>apparently futilely wishing the stories were actually designed
>for.
How Zoe reacts to the changes? She's not reacting. At all.
Dan McEwen
>In article <35e6d48...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fe...@lsh.org (Dan
>McEwen) writes:
>
>>The problem I have is that there is no ebb and flow. There was the
>>start, then an ebb. Then another ebb. And another ebb. In fact, I'm
>>still waiting for the flow. This has happened with Element Lad,
>>Kinetix, and Apparition. True, Tinya got a little flow a while back,
>>but it's been ignored since then. My suggestion to writers would be
>>to not start something they can't finish in a timely manner.
>
> To me, the awkward flow of the series has a *lot* more to do
>with the mechanics of the writers' stilted, declamatory and
>overwrought narrative than with the order in which they choose
>to advance or not advance the different storylines. I think they've
>got the rhythm, but the problem is that they're tone deaf.
As others have pointed out, Levitz was able to do all these things on
his own. He didn't ignore subplots and he managed to touch base with
everyone over the course of a few issues. Even with two comics, the
current writers seem incapable of any of this.
Dan McEwen
McNemar) wrote:
>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>
>>IOW, you're being vague because you give no concrete
>>reference point other than you don't like what Legion is doing
>>and then expect me to believe that it all boils down to an
>>arbitrary time-limit for the resolution of plotlines.
>
>Has anyone in this thread argued that poor pacing is the only thing wrong
>with the writing on the Legion books? If so, I missed it and would
>appreciate your providing examples.
Nope. I also think the simplistic storytelling and the use of
plotlines that go nowhere (such as the anamoly) contribute.
Dan McEwen
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>ShutUpRob (shut...@aol.com) wrote:
>: "If you'd stop asking if we're there yet, I could think more clearly,
>: drive faster, and get there faster.
>
>Unfortunately, that's not what the Legion creators seem to have been
>saying. If I were to analogize the way some fans feel about the dragged
>out plotlines, it'd be more like "Shut up and enjoy the ride, or you can
>get out of the car and walk." :)
I think that sounds about right. Unfortunately, it's the plotline
that's walking while the rest of us are speeding away in the car.
Dan McEwen
McNemar) wrote:
>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>>In article <35e436de...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fe...@lsh.org (Dan
>>McEwen) writes:
>
>>>That said,
>>>I don't expect to have plotlines linger/be ignored for years on end.
>>
>> The difference is, I *do.* I think it's a viable option inherent
>>in the serialized form.
>
>You've set your standards too low.
Agreed. Sure, in a serial, there should probably always be a subplot
or two running. However, there should also be *resolution* happening.
IMO, the same subplots should not be running for years on end with
nothing to even suggest to us that a resolution has been thought
about, much less that it might be forthcoming anytime soon.
Jonathan L. Miller
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>
> Hey, we didn't have the origin of Validus, one of the more
> celebrated mysterious villians of the *pre-boot* LSH for *decades.*
> What's the diff? And how about those Wanderers? What's the diff?
>
Ok, you have a point here. But there's a couple of big differences:
1. Validus wasn't a member of the core cast; he only showed up occasionally
2. Validus' origins weren't intended to be a subplot deliberately
introduced by the writer (in this case, Jim Shooter). The fact that no one
knew where he came from wasn't meant to be a continuing plot point--it was
just color. What the heck is going on with Element Lad was *deliberately*
set up as a sub-plot.
> Didja ever consider that you might be looking a little bit too
> hard for the point? Seems to me that the point of the story
> is to see how Zoe reacts to the changes she goes through
> and the lessons she learns from them -- a simple range of
> themes as opposed to some grand, overall theme that you're
> apparently futilely wishing the stories were actually designed
> for.
>
The thing is, we haven't seen Zoe react to any of the changes she goes
through. We've just seen her sit there. Still and all, at least we've seen
her. They just introduced Jan's problem--and then dropped it like a hot
potato. Again, sub-plots (if they're intended to be such and not meant to
be 1 issue "red herrings" like Validus) *have* to be advanced, somehow.
Even if it's just a character mentioning something, even if it's just a
panel every other issue or so. Have you ever heard the phrase "out of
sight, out of mind?" Or perhaps "inaccessible to new readers?"
jonathan.
Jonathan L. Miller
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
> In article <6s2o9l$2mh$3...@carlf.dialup.access.net>, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink)
> writes:
>
> >However: you seem to be *alone* in feeling this way. Almost everyone
> >else on Earth apparently feels that in serial fiction, it's bad
> >plotting to start a subplot and then ignore it completely for a year
> >or more.
>
> Hmm . . . that explains the success of Claremont's X-Books. Not.
>
Again, Claremont didn't ignore subplots. He made sure that they were
mentioned at least once every couple of months, even if they weren't the
focus of the book. (Scott and Madelyne Prior's meeting--after Scott's
resignation--, shipwreck and turning up on Magneto's island is a good
example.) Claremont did *not* ignore sub-plots. He just didn't wrap them
up. Still, he kept them fresh in reader's minds and didn't drop them
entirely from the book for seven months.
Rob, you just gotta drop this one. It's stacked against you.
jonathan.
Ben Weiss
> In article <35e59633...@news.primenet.com>, Tro...@primenet.com (T. Troy
> McNemar) writes:
> >I don't have any problem with that. The problem comes when
> >creative teams don't move the plot forward on a regular basis.
> >And the Element Lad story hasn't moved in any significant
> >fashion since L* #51.
>
> <sigh> I don't see what the problem is regarding when any
> particular story is addressed just as long as when it is addressed,
> it's done well.
The problem is that in the meantime, those of us who remember and want,
say, a competent Element Lad, are stuck with Mr. Spacy for No Apparent
Reason for the foreseeable future.
Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
Jonathan L. Miller
> reference point other than you don't like what Legion is doing
> and then expect me to believe that it all boils down to an
> arbitrary time-limit for the resolution of plotlines. Which
> sounds like a nitpick and a dodge around what you actually
> dislike about it.
>
Ok Rob, I think I see the problem here. We're arguing apples and oranges. I
agree that it's not how long a sub-plot takes to be resolved. My problem is
the quality of the continuance of the sub-plot. As far as I'm concerned,
there *are* no sub-plots in the Legion at this point, only danglers. The
difference being, a "sub-plot" is something that moves toward (eventually)
a resolution. For that, it must have momentum, i.e., be a story that is
shown to advance in a timely manner--with no limit on how long that time
might be. (You are right about that.) Still, it must be *shown,* especially
given the visual nature of the medium, to advance. A "dangler," on the
other hand, is simply a bit thrown out by the writers who either never
expect to revisit it again, or have no plans to do so in either the
immediate or foreseeable future (which could amount to their tenure on the
book). A new writer can, of course, go back and revisit these "danglers,"
possibly even turning them into "sub-plots."
Note that I didn't say that a writer has to resolve a specific sub-plot,
merely show that it continues to be an advancing story of some kind. (Of
course, when a writer drops a sub-plot into someone else's lap, you get the
Pulsar Stargrave mess. I've always wanted to ask Shooter just who the hell
Stargrave was originally supposed to be....)
The Jan sub-plot could easily have gone on for this long, if it had
actually been one. However, there's been no "plot" to "sub;" there's been
no attempt to show or advance the character's story for nearly a year, and
precious little before that. Zoe, the jury's still out on--at least people
around her are still reacting to her changes. Now if someone stops reacting
and starts acting, we might get to something interesting...before no one
cares about the character anymore.
As for Jaka and Cerebus, Jaka has been a continually developing character,
and she--not being the main focus of the book, as the Legionnaires are of
theirs--has appeared at dramatically appropriate momments. That being said,
the comparison is fallacious anyway, as Cerebus is a series of novels
rather than an unending serial. It's like comparing the plotting of Mary
Worth to that of "Great Expectations."
jonathan.
Jonathan L. Miller
> Well, I agree that I think that the pacing has been bad and
> I'm always *for* story-closure and I agree with the more flexible
> rule-of-thumb that you provided regarding rate of dangler-closures
> over their more arbitrarily stringent ROT's, but I disagree that those
> have been the main reason why the books have been so bad
> recently. IMO, the problem is far more obvious: forget the plotting
> (such that it is): their scripting sucks.
Actually, I haven't minded the scripting at all. It's pretty much par for
the re-boot to me. My problem has been the pacing, period. In fact, I
agreed with you about it a while earlier--issues are jam-packed with stuff
that makes the whole thing an incredibly uneven read.
And I disagree about KC's scripting as well--I didn't think it was so hot.
Pretty good, considering the man has not written many comic scripts, but
weak as far as professional standards go.
jonathan, who just read his run of Captain Jack, and thinks Mike Kazaleh
could be one of the best scripters out there--well, he was in 1991,
anyway.....
Jim Drew
>
> >I should think it would be more like condemning Disneyland
> >because they didn't put out *internal* maps. Or maybe, if you
> >want to stretch it, condemning them for 5-hour queues when
> >you'd hoped the queues would be more like 2 hours each.
>
> That makes sense. Jim would like to blame the ride itself
> for the queue length rather than the company.
I don't think it matters whether I blame DC for unvisited dangling plotlines
or just the Legion editorial/creative team. (I know which one I'm more likely
to balme, though.) Doesn't change the fact that I'm dissatisfied, nor that if
my cumulative dissatisfaction gets high enough, I'll bail.
> >I don't doubt the creative teams are *capable* of giving this kind of
> >closure to the plotlines they and their predecessors started before
> >beginning new ones, but in the past couple years they seem to
> >have shown little desire to do so.
>
> I think you're giving them too much credit for conscious thought
> about it. I suspect that they don't want to admit that they can't tell
> whether or not they've been drifting. (Yep, you heard that right.)
I would buy this, in part. They certainly know we watch the plots and notice
when ones
just vanish or otherwise cease to be; the certainly don't want to admit to
doing those
sorts of things. In some cases, though, want to bet that they don't even
realize it
has occured, either because they forgot or because they had backstory in mind which
didn't successfully get into the comic and thus to the fans, and then they're puzzled
that the fans are dissatisfied.
> >: >Are you sure it isn't finished? The last we saw of "spacey Jan"
> >: >was in L* #59, I think. ("Spacey Zoe" has superceded him.
> >: >B-) If they can't visit the plot line in 7 frigging months, maybe
> >: >he's cured.
> >
> >: Maybe he's not. So what? Whichever way it goes and
> >: *whenever* it goes is unimportant, IMO. What matters is
> >: whether or not the story is good.
> >
> >In order to judge whether it's good, we pretty much have to have it TOLD
> >first, and it hasn't been. So I disagree about the "whenever."
>
> Clarifier: in context: "What matters is whether or not the
> story is good *when it's finished." Sorry.
If they never address the plot again, is it finished?
> > I think the Legion books have suffered from uneven pacing,
> >and plotlines that drag, together with the books' relative
> >inaccessibility, have undoubtedly lost readers.
>
> I disagree. I think it's suffered from stilted, overly melodramatic
> dialogue that has been so repugnant that it's driven away newer
> readers and kept potential readers away.
The Legion books are no worse in that regard than any other superhero titles out
on the market. Look at how unclear Morrison's work has been on JLA, or the rather
over-the-top attitudes show in Busike's Avengers, and these guys are the top the
artform has to offer, apparently.
> KC Carlson's relatively crisp scripting of LSH #108 [...]
Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing.
Not that the issue was bad, but it wasn't stellar, and it went through the rewrite
hands of several people, or so we've been told.
>
> >: What's the hang up with the arbitrary time limits, huh?
> >
> >It's a matter of perceived value for money. If you keep plonking down
> >more and more money for less and less closure, you start to feel like
> >something of a sucker, even if the story arc doesn't necessarily bite. [...]
>
> "If you'd stop asking if we're there yet, I could think more clearly,
> drive faster, and get there faster. And, by the way, I told you kids
> to bring your Nintendos, but did you listen to me, NoooOOOooo.
> And so we just had mine, and you don't like to play Castle
> Wolfenstein and Dr. Mario, do you?"
"What are you complaining about the resolutionnof the Element Lad plot for? Don't
you ahve something else to pay attention to until we get to it? Go read Alpha Flight
or something."
Alternately, with the exception of Papa Smurf, the driver of the car can
usually tell
me how long the trip will take, give or take a few minutes. If the Legion
crew want
to tell us "eight more months" (or whatever number), it's a much "nicer"
response than
singing songs from West Side Story. ("Someday... ")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Drew Secretary, IAGLCWDC ciao...@earthlink.net
B3(v)h+ t e cd s k g+(p) rv q p http://home.earthlink.net/~cfmdesigns
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So I picked up this guy who said he was into `SM sex'," Val told me,
"but when I got him home, he pulled out a plastic mask and a gold pen with a
big pink plastic jewel on the end, held them up, and said something about
`Moon prism power!'"
"`SM'? Sailor Moon sex?! God, that's sick!" I said. "What did you do?"
"By the moon, I *punished* him."
-- Marc Lynx, "For Art's Sake"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Drew
>
> In article <199808300743...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>
> > In article <6s2o9l$2mh$3...@carlf.dialup.access.net>, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink)
> > writes:
> >
> > >However: you seem to be *alone* in feeling this way. Almost everyone
> > >else on Earth apparently feels that in serial fiction, it's bad
> > >plotting to start a subplot and then ignore it completely for a year
> > >or more.
> >
> > Hmm . . . that explains the success of Claremont's X-Books. Not.
> >
> Again, Claremont didn't ignore subplots. He made sure that they were
> mentioned at least once every couple of months, even if they weren't the
> focus of the book.
And as well, Claremont's problem with Danglers didn't really exist until the
mid-80's or so; there are a few from the pre-Death of Phoenix era, but lots
more later on. The danglers came after the success, possibly as a result, but
certainly not as a cause.
Jim
Jim Drew
>
> In article <35E491A3...@earthlink.net>, Jim Drew <ciao...@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>
> I happen to think that recent L*/LSH storylines have been linear
> AND simplistic and think that you're all looking in the wrong direction
> for why they're sooooo bad.
I've said it before in other threads: if the books are so bad, why do you
bother to
keep buying them? Spend your money on something you like.
> >> It's kinda like condemning Disneyland 'cause no one's
> >> told you where I-5 is and Triple-A hasn't printed the maps yet.
> >
> >Huh? How about condemning Pirates of the Carribean because the
> >line's too long.
>
> That's *silly* and has nothing to do with my analogy or even your
> complaints. Condemning the ride because the line's too long is like
> condemning a library book because it gets checked out.
In both cases, "condemning" is a rather strong word. "Opting out" might be a better
phrase to use. If the line for the ride is too long, I'll skip it. If the
book is
checked out, I'll read something else. If enough plotlines seem to not progress,
I'll read a comic in which the plots do progress.
> My point is that I think that you're making some fairly
> sweeping generalizations about something that you really
> don't know a whole heckuva lot about simply because it isn't
> finished yet and you don't like that you don't know where it's going.
It isn't just that I don't know where the story is going, it's that I don't
know that it *is* going. To use your ride example, you've gone into the dark
tunnel and you're rolling through the tunnel and gee, it sure is dark in here,
but I'm sure something will happen soon or maybe we'll get out of the tunnel
and into another part of the ride and you know, I'm not sure whether this car
is moving at all, since there haven't been any noises or bounces for several
minutes now but heck, it's a ride so it will probably be good but maybe it
won't but I won't know until it ends but I sure wish something would happen to
pass the time until the end gets here, whenever that might be, not that I'm
complaining, since that would be expressing an opinion about the value of this
ride which I can't do until it's over no matter how long that takes and how
bored I might get because there might just be a big enough payoff at the end to
make it all worthwhile...
> >(And "significantly lower" would be "by an order of magnitude". And
> >if you need that one defined, go take some college coursework.)
>
> Taking college coursework. Unless you provide examples,
> you'd be getting an incomplete on your assignment, regardless
> of my demands that you provide concrete examples.
You demand that concrete examples be provided, yet you dismissed Troy's concrete
examples because they were arbitrary and thus merely example. Ane he speaks
of circularity!
> >> Y'see, you keep using these terms that are entirely subjective
> >> -- completely dependent on the individual reader's tastes.
> >
> >Not at all. No numbers were quoted, merely relativeness.
>
> IOW, you're being vague because you give no concrete
> reference point other than you don't like what Legion is doing
> and then expect me to believe that it all boils down to an
> arbitrary time-limit for the resolution of plotlines. Which
> sounds like a nitpick and a dodge around what you actually
> dislike about it.
Any individual will have his or her own limits, and these will surely fit within
the realm of a standard distribution. Some few will have no patience -- all
subplots must be resolved in the issue they are introduced in -- and will thus
be at the left end of the distribution, several standard deviations out from the
center. By experienece and data gathering, we can determine a range where the
center of the distribution lies; Troy's "six months" may be low or high (but my
experience added to his says it's not a bad number). Your eternal patience,
allowing an arc to take forever, if neeeded, clearly puts you on the far right
end of the graph, also far deviated from the norm.
(Not that I expect you to accept that. People rarely want to be marginalized onto
the fringes. It's always someone else who has to be out there instead.)
> >> And to me, it's patently absurd to put a time limit on how
> >>a storyline is going to unfold when the medium is a serialized fiction.
> >
> >Even you must have some limitations on how long you will wait for
> >resolution before giving up. Everything has "value", including time
> >and cash outlay. If it "costs too much" to get the resolution -- defined
> >on an individual basis, of course -- then the limit has been exceeded.
>
> Cost has nothing to do with time in this context.
Cost and time are directly related. Cost for the consumer climbs as time passes,
with monthly publication frequency.
Comics publishing is a business, so it is fully reasonable to set guidelines and
restrictions on the creative endeavors to ensure that sufficient money is earned.
You simply cannot divorce the Legion from its business connection.
> >If the next Chat Report says that the don't intend to resolve Element
> >Lad's status until sometime in 2099, are you willing to say both that
> >that is reasonable and that you intend to wait patiently for that year?
>
> Yes. I read Cerebus. I'm used to long-term storylines.
More you the fool, then. They're obviously stringing you along, planning on getting
your money for the next 100 years.
Cerebus, mind you, is structured as a series of novels, each arc having (horrors!)
a beginning, middle, and end. The main plot lasts 300 issues; whether Cerebus leaves
the bar does not.
> >> >to a plotline, they should wait to introduce it until they can.
> >> >
> >> >(cf. Thunder)
>
> You're holding a grudge against them because they included her
> on a *poster* too soon for your liking? Man! You're cold, impatient
> and petulant.
And you're overbearing and accusative. There is no "grudge" involved; that implies
revenge to occur.
> >Small yet significant difference: they did insufficient planning and jumped
> >the gun. Shame on them.
>
> Shame on you for sweating really, really small shit.
I promise to stop sweating you, Rob. (Sorry, cheap shot.)
This thread started with complaints about the "Spacey Jan" subplot. Isn't
that "really,
realy small shit"? Yet you continue the thread.
Heck, overall, isn't the Legion itself "realy, really small shit"? (Or is the just
a relative thing, and thus inapplicable unless I can provide concrete examples of
other sizes of shit? B-)
> Don't read Stephen King, then. You don't have the patience
> for "It," "The Stand" or "The Dark Tower" series.
Don't worry.
> >I haven't said that all plots should be resolved in a year. I have
> >said that the should be *visited* more often than once a year
> >(in a monthly book).
>
> IOW, 1 year is the limit of your patience, whether it's resolution
> of the plot or merely "visitation" of it.
Rather different matters that you're trying to collapse into one thing, since
visit and resolve are distinctly not the same thing. And if that's the limit of
my patience, does that mean that I have lost my patience? If so, what has
occured? (Answer: nothing. There's also a difference you are apparently unable/
unwilling to see between "should" and "must".)
> > Otherwise they lose connection with the audience, and become
> >uniteresting as a result.
>
> This is an overly broad generalization. For one, this means
> that Jaka never should have been reintroduced to Cerebus because
> her plotline hadn't been revisited for the several years of publication
> time between the end of "Jaka's Story" and the beginning of "Rick's
> Story."
Ah, but Jaka's Story completed an "arc", which you have indicated can be judged
separately from the totality of all character occurences. I bow to you in this
regard: one Jaka subplot concluded and became judgeable, and another has started.
Sim did not leave things dangling with the narrative indication of resuming them
at any turn of the page.
Now, whether he capped Jaka's Story adequately or reintroed her well in the current
stuff, that's another matter which may also have audience effects, but
parallel ones
rather than the same that cumulative dissatisfaction may produce.
> For another, this must mean that you think that Thunderbolt
> Ross is automatically an uninteresting character just because he
> hadn't appeared in the pages of Incredible Hulk for over a decade.
I think he's just an uninteresting character, period. I dropped Hulk about three
years ago, anyway. Cumuluative dissatisfaction with the writer's tendency to undercut
his stories in service of his jokes. Aquaman and Soulsearchers were dropped
at more
or less the same time.
> Oh, or how about Mimic in recent issues of X-Force and Excalibur,
> after being MIA for decades. Oh, and that Steve Rogers guy,
> y'know, the guy with the shield? GONE FOR ALMOST A DECADE
> before the fish guy found him in a block of ice. Uninteresting,
> useless character. Feh.
This has nothing to do with unvisited ongoning plotlines, the ostensible
subject of
this thread. Dismissed.
> >You and your bizarre analogies. How about if I ordered a
> >toasted cheese sandwich and waited while eight other parties
> >came in, ordered, were served 7-course meals, paid their checks,
> >left, and I stil hadn't received my food?
>
> But you didn't. The other parties came in first and you don't
> want to admit it.
Sorry, no they didn't. The Associated Planets, the Anomaly, the return of
Team 20,
LeVIathan, and numerous other plots clearly postdate "Spacey Jan". That they have
been serviced both first and to the exclusion of the Jan plot indicates a poor fairness
algorithm.
(Oh, damn. Now he wants me to define "fair".)
> >> >If ther character situation isn't visited regulalry enough, it appears
> >> >to be change-for-change's-sake, aka bad (or at least "non-good")
> >> >writing.
> >> >
> >> >(cf. "fat Nura")
> >> >(cf. Jeka the Snake)
> >>
> >> Bad, baaaaaaaaaad examples. I liked those twists.
> >
> >No, gooooooood examples. I like both "twists", too, but they are
> >both well known as controversial amongst fans, and both are pretty
> >clear examples of change-for-change's-sake, things done to stir
> >the pot rather than growing organically from standard
> >storytelling and foreshadowing techniques.
>
> I couldn't care less.
Oh, now *there's* a witty response. You'll do your stance better to ignore (delete)
such sections, Rob. B-)
> >> One of the finer
> >> perks of being a longtime reader -- *especially* of this series and
> >> the X-Books -- is learning how to appreciate serial fiction that
> >> unfolds over longer periods of time.
> >
> >One of the perks of being a writer is recognizing the difference
> >between the unfolding of the greater story and that of single
> >subplots. The big picture vs. the small one, y'know?
>
> And you're really focusing all of your ire on one insignificant
> detail of one particular subplot. Stop grasping that small picture
> so tightly, okay? You're trying to tell us it's poorly cropped when
> it's out of focus and the camera needed a red filter.
You're apparently unable to tell the difference between using "Spacey Jan" as a
resprentative symptom rather than the entire problem. More's the pity.
> >> BTW, I suggest that you don't ever try to follow a daytime soap
> >> opera.
> >
> >Did it. Never missed an episode of Days of Our Lives in 7 years at one
> >point.
>
> Lemmee guess? When Euguene & Calliope and Shane
> & Kimberly (& Patch, kindasortamaybe) were together?
From Bo and Hope's wedding through when they swapped both Jack and Jennifer.
So, yes.
> >But they did a good job of regularly visiting their ongoing
> >subplots, usually at least once a week.
>
> I didn't care how often they visited their subplots -- I just thought
> that the majority of the characters and stories that they did visit
> were engaging.
That's because they visited the subplots, although you might not realize that.
If the
characters never appear, it's *real* hard for them to be engaging.
Jim Drew
>
> > <sigh> I don't see what the problem is regarding when any
> > particular story is addressed just as long as when it is addressed,
> > it's done well.
>
> The problem is that in the meantime, those of us who remember and want,
> say, a competent Element Lad, are stuck with Mr. Spacy for No Apparent
> Reason for the foreseeable future.
But you're not, Ben. That's the point: we're not seeing Element Lad. At all.
We don't know if he's still spacey. If and when he shows up again, if it's
for enough "screen time", maybe then we'll get enough info to know if we're
still stuck with "Mr. Spacy for No Apparent Reason". Or maybe we won't.
Jim
Jonathan L. Miller
> The problem is that in the meantime, those of us who remember and want,
> say, a competent Element Lad, are stuck with Mr. Spacy for No Apparent
> Reason for the foreseeable future.
No, actually the problem is that we haven't been getting any Element Lad at
all. Don't have the issue numbers handy, but he's barely been mentioned,
let alone appeared for months until DCR. During which he looked fine and
dandy.
jonathan.
Ben Weiss
I guess I see that as just another aspect of the same problem. We
usually don't see Jan, and when we do, he's spacy. ("Don't be sad,
Brainy, Durlans get sparkly when they die!") It makes me fear that the
writers never intended it to be a subplot, but rather that it's their
permanent plan for his character.
Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
Jim Drew
>
> >So...a writer should throw out subplots willy-nilly, with no idea how
> >they're going to end and hope he/she can write him/herself out of it?
>
> If the ideas that the writer comes up with are good, yes.
>
> >Now *that's* bad plotting. In fact, that's one of the *definitions* of
> >bad plotting.
>
> No, it's not automatically bad plotting.
Yes, it *is* bad plotting. It is a bad way to do the action of plotting,
although it may sometimes produce enjoyable plots.
> It's certainly *improvisational*
> plotting and I consider improvisational plotting to be a legitimate
> writing technique (otherwise, we'd have to condemn everything Stan
> Lee ever wrote because, by your definition, his improvisational
> style is bad plotting.)
Of course, if you buy the line that says Stan merely scripted to Ditko and
Kirby's work...
> I agree that the current writing teams are no substitute for Paul
> Levitz, but I think that their plotting has been fine. I think their
> dialoguing sucks.
Well of course you think their plotting is fine. They never finish a plot,
so you never have to/get to judge them. Ergo, they are just fine.
[Soaps]
> They're better at handling exposition than the Legion writers. That
> doesn't mean that the plots in and of themselves are handled any
> differently. Characters *do* fall into the background for extended
> lengths of time, putting their development on hold. There have
> been a couple of cases of child characters not being mentioned
> for a year and coming back five years older with no explanation
> other than the producers want to use an older actor.
But that doesn't happen when the child was in the hospital, dying of leukemia
the last time we saw him or her. Such characters typically get written out at
the conclusion of their at-hand story arc, not midway through.
Jim