What's the best way to eat interesting food on vacation without running the risk of spending half your trip in a hotel bathroom? How does the credit rating system work these days? Why do cats chase laser pointers?
Once a week Erik tackles a question asked to him and tries to answer it in a method that handles the topic with the respect and attention it deserves. Failing that, he'll at least try to make it funny so you don't regret reading it.
To Erik: Out of all the things that drive you nuts about comic books, what makes you the most crazy?
Oh, man. This is such an open-ended question, the fact that I have to limit my decisions to a single choice makes it extremely difficult. First off, I want people to remember that I like comic books, and enjoy reading them just as much as I enjoy reading novels, watching movies or television, or listening to the radio. I think they're a truly unique art form that is still learning what it's capable of.
But it is messed up in so many ways these days.
I mean, I could discuss the fact that comic books seem to no longer be designed to be read by children, and instead simply focus on the "18-40 adult male" demographic, which I think frankly leaves them severely limited by the kinds of stories they can tell.
Don't believe me? Head into a comic book shop and find a mainstream DC or Marvel comic that you think a ten year-old child could read. If they don't have people being murdered in grisly fashions, rampant sex, or face grisly social issues, then they somehow get worse.
Batman? His son was recently killed. Oh, and this happened after a storyline where the Joker stole back his face that had been peeled off his body and tried to hold it back on with staples. But that's okay, a character coming called "Joker's Daughter" will show up soon wearing her "father's" face over hers.
That's some Silent Hill level sick stuff there.
Spider-Man? Well, Peter Parker's apparently dead with Doctor Octopus inhabiting his body, which seems rather sad considering his life is where it currently is now because he sold his marriage to Satan.
Superman? Well, heck, in the mid-2000s he got to fight a super villain with powers much like his own who joined a white supremacist group and raped multiple women to death. In the "New 52" we see that instead of arriving on the scene full of hope he's willing to fight the military, threaten people with no powers, and introduces himself to other superheroes by apparently trying to murder them.
.jpg)
However, that brings me to something else I hate, and that's how comic books feel they need to be "edgy." You can't just have a good guy punch a bad guy and have him fall down anymore. You need someone to rip another guy in half, or impale him on a meat hook, or burn them to death, or involve rape for the sake of being "shocking."
I get that you want the villains to be detestable and you want to root for the good guys, but if you're just using the same shock tactics again and again simply to use them, then you're really a) cheapening the effect, and b) showing a complete and total disrespect for the consequences of the act and the effect it has on people.
There was one title that I genuinely thought was going to be great for young readers, and that was the relaunch of Amethyst, the story of the "Princess of Gemworld" who looks like she should really be a wholesome, happy character that's great for young people to get into comics with. They even made a cartoon of her as part of the single episode deals that DC is putting on TV now.
This was her before:
This was her relaunch:
Looks good, right? Well, it is until you read it and realize it starts out with a girl trying to save another girl from being gang-raped behind the bleachers at school while John Constantine, a newly established member of a Justice League team, is nearby just watching it all happen and doing nothing about it.
Ugh.
However, I think most of the stuff that just makes me feel bothered by comic books is one of the things that can never be changed about comic books because it's so inherent to its nature.
A slight tangent that loops back to my point: Every now and again I'll flip to the comics section on a Sunday to see what zany adventure Prince Valiant is up to now. He's been around the world at least twice by now, fought the same sorcerers and witches and monsters who knows how many times, met people from Africa, Asia, and for all I know has seen a penguin up close and personal, but he never ages and the stories will probably never end because people read it.
That's the same thing with American comic books: they'll never change because they can't. Any time a major change has come to a character's life, it's eventually been erased by either something in the story itself (Spider-Man's marriage) or in a massive cosmic event (New 52). This leads to major issues for writers and editors because everyone wants to contribute something to a character's story, but when you try it you just might get it reversed later which means what any writer is creating for any major superhero is completely pointless in the long run.
Let's look at Batman, for example. He's never not going to be Bruce Wayne. We all know that because the moment DC decides "no, seriously, let's have someone else take over or just get rid of the character entirely" they're shooting themselves in the foot. Bruce Wayne is such an integral part of Batman (the alley, dead parents, a child's vow to stop all crime forever) that it's become a fixture of the character. Hollywood isn't going to want to make a Batman movie without being able to tell such a great origin in it, children aren't going to understand why it's not the same guy as every other piece of media portrays him to be, and DC isn't going to let one of their biggest cash mines simply be closed up like that.
So what happens? Well, you start with one Robin, but then he has to get a bit older, so maybe he gets retired. Oh, there's also a Batgirl. Okay, so we bring in a new Robin- oh, people hate him, so we'll have a poll to see if they want him dead. Okay, he's dead, and man that's a huge thing to impact Batman. Oh, we should also cripple Batgirl, nobody used her in a while. Now we get a third robin, oh wait we'll introduce a fourth temporarily but have her lose the job and get killed so the third one can come back. Oh, wait, the fourth one didn't actually die, so that reverses that impact on Batman...and hey, how about the second one comes back to life as well, thus rendering that whole storyline moot. Okay, now we need a fifth Robin who can be Batman's son an-
...wait, is Batman still just in his mid-30s?
The same thing happens all the time across comic books. Every writer wants to be the guy who introduces the next Spider-Man, the next Batman, the next Invincible, so every writer introduces a new character to, say, the Teen Titans, or the next group of Avengers trainees, or the next sidekick to a big name. Or they introduce someone who should eventually replace the original guy, such as your Wally Wests, Bart Allens, Bucky Barnes, Eric Mastersons, Ben Reilleys, Kyle Rayners...
But the original heroes will never go away, so you wind up with this bloat that floats around the main character and simply acts as someone who can be killed off later for the NEXT great character creation.
This is also the reason that major characters who "die" will always come back, even if it means destroying one of the greatest deaths (if not THE greatest deaths) in the history of comics and cheapening a character who becomes great afterward by having that character return.
No, I won't say who, that'll have to be a future "Ask Erik" once someone asks it.
Look at the X-Men, they've tried any number of times to introduce a "new class" of mutants, each hoping to create the next Wolverine or Storm. Joss Whedon's had some success with a character named Armor, but a whole bunch of characters that were introduced when the story line veered back towards them running a school wound up later crucified on the school grounds or killed in some bus explosions.
Heck, I'm not sure Wally West ever actually existed in the "New 52" of DC, which makes me wonder how the Teen Titans ever came about originally.
Remember above I mentioned that Doctor Octopus was now inhabiting Peter Parker's body and Marvel editorial is stating that Peter is "definitely dead?" With new movies coming out, do you really think it's going to stay that way? Will Marvel want kids who get excited by the movie to come into a comic book shop and find out that their new favorite character actually died and is replaced by a villain in his costume?
This same "never change" principle affects other major story arcs. Spider-Man's marriage was erased because editorial thought that having a wife "aged" the character, because nobody young ever gets married, I guess. Superman's no longer married to Lois. The writers of Batwoman recently quit because they weren't able to have their main character get married to her significant other, an event they had been building up to through the whole story line so far.
Okay, I need to interrupt myself here. DC does a terrible job responding to firestorms that sweep across the Internet. Telling people "you guys didn't get the joke" after people get really upset about your art contest happening near Suicide Prevention Week featuring Harley Quinn naked and trying to kill herself in a bathtub (plus, emphasizing "naked in a tub") is a pretty crappy apology.
However, I don't quite agree with the idea that DC is homophobic simply because they wouldn't let the writers tell a story of a woman marrying another woman. I think their editorial mandate was based more around the idea that "marriage ages a character," not that their well-established lesbian character who runs around dressed like a flying rodent would suddenly become "too gay" by getting married.
Marvel let well-established gay character Northstar get married in a large event recently, but I expect that to change the moment a writer comes along and wants to do something new with the character.
Now, to be fair, DC had some limited success with Batman Beyond back in the day, but a key difference there was it took place "in the future," not "now." You can tell stories in the future about when a character gets old, but you'll never see that actually happen
Comic books are based on the idea that it's the "never ending struggle" and that the heroes will "never give up the fight" which is why we're twenty-five years away from Superman having his 100th anniversary, but without a clear-cut beginning, middle, and end to a story, all you have are gradually diminishing returns on the impact of a story. It's the same issue I have with a lot of American television, where instead of telling a concise, tight story, most programs will simply try to stretch out to as many seasons as they can get, whereas programs from the BBC have a clear-cut beginning, middle, and end. Even their longest-established television character (Doctor Who) has clear beginnings, middles, and ends to his story, and then he gets replaced.
This article rambled somewhat, but it's somehow both fascinating and completely irritating that comics seem to be in a perpetual state of trying to keep their big characters relevant without allowing them any real opportunity to grow. If an editor at Marvel or DC ever actually did have the stones to say "okay, we're going to completely retire character X, give them a final ending to their story and either let them fade off into the sunset or die in a truly heroic fashion and then put into the official company charter that nobody is EVER allowed to bring the character back," I'd be pretty disbelieving, but I'd at least respect them for being willing to try. Right now, I just can't even really bother following most major stories anymore because I know that if I leave for ten years and come back, I won't have missed a single thing.
To Erik: Out of all the things that drive you nuts about comic books, what makes you the most crazy?
Oh, man. This is such an open-ended question, the fact that I have to limit my decisions to a single choice makes it extremely difficult. First off, I want people to remember that I like comic books, and enjoy reading them just as much as I enjoy reading novels, watching movies or television, or listening to the radio. I think they're a truly unique art form that is still learning what it's capable of.
But it is messed up in so many ways these days.
I mean, I could discuss the fact that comic books seem to no longer be designed to be read by children, and instead simply focus on the "18-40 adult male" demographic, which I think frankly leaves them severely limited by the kinds of stories they can tell.
Don't believe me? Head into a comic book shop and find a mainstream DC or Marvel comic that you think a ten year-old child could read. If they don't have people being murdered in grisly fashions, rampant sex, or face grisly social issues, then they somehow get worse.
Batman? His son was recently killed. Oh, and this happened after a storyline where the Joker stole back his face that had been peeled off his body and tried to hold it back on with staples. But that's okay, a character coming called "Joker's Daughter" will show up soon wearing her "father's" face over hers.
That's some Silent Hill level sick stuff there.
Spider-Man? Well, Peter Parker's apparently dead with Doctor Octopus inhabiting his body, which seems rather sad considering his life is where it currently is now because he sold his marriage to Satan.
Superman? Well, heck, in the mid-2000s he got to fight a super villain with powers much like his own who joined a white supremacist group and raped multiple women to death. In the "New 52" we see that instead of arriving on the scene full of hope he's willing to fight the military, threaten people with no powers, and introduces himself to other superheroes by apparently trying to murder them.
.jpg)
However, that brings me to something else I hate, and that's how comic books feel they need to be "edgy." You can't just have a good guy punch a bad guy and have him fall down anymore. You need someone to rip another guy in half, or impale him on a meat hook, or burn them to death, or involve rape for the sake of being "shocking."
I get that you want the villains to be detestable and you want to root for the good guys, but if you're just using the same shock tactics again and again simply to use them, then you're really a) cheapening the effect, and b) showing a complete and total disrespect for the consequences of the act and the effect it has on people.
There was one title that I genuinely thought was going to be great for young readers, and that was the relaunch of Amethyst, the story of the "Princess of Gemworld" who looks like she should really be a wholesome, happy character that's great for young people to get into comics with. They even made a cartoon of her as part of the single episode deals that DC is putting on TV now.
This was her before:
This was her relaunch:
Looks good, right? Well, it is until you read it and realize it starts out with a girl trying to save another girl from being gang-raped behind the bleachers at school while John Constantine, a newly established member of a Justice League team, is nearby just watching it all happen and doing nothing about it.
Ugh.
However, I think most of the stuff that just makes me feel bothered by comic books is one of the things that can never be changed about comic books because it's so inherent to its nature.
A slight tangent that loops back to my point: Every now and again I'll flip to the comics section on a Sunday to see what zany adventure Prince Valiant is up to now. He's been around the world at least twice by now, fought the same sorcerers and witches and monsters who knows how many times, met people from Africa, Asia, and for all I know has seen a penguin up close and personal, but he never ages and the stories will probably never end because people read it.
That's the same thing with American comic books: they'll never change because they can't. Any time a major change has come to a character's life, it's eventually been erased by either something in the story itself (Spider-Man's marriage) or in a massive cosmic event (New 52). This leads to major issues for writers and editors because everyone wants to contribute something to a character's story, but when you try it you just might get it reversed later which means what any writer is creating for any major superhero is completely pointless in the long run.
Let's look at Batman, for example. He's never not going to be Bruce Wayne. We all know that because the moment DC decides "no, seriously, let's have someone else take over or just get rid of the character entirely" they're shooting themselves in the foot. Bruce Wayne is such an integral part of Batman (the alley, dead parents, a child's vow to stop all crime forever) that it's become a fixture of the character. Hollywood isn't going to want to make a Batman movie without being able to tell such a great origin in it, children aren't going to understand why it's not the same guy as every other piece of media portrays him to be, and DC isn't going to let one of their biggest cash mines simply be closed up like that.
So what happens? Well, you start with one Robin, but then he has to get a bit older, so maybe he gets retired. Oh, there's also a Batgirl. Okay, so we bring in a new Robin- oh, people hate him, so we'll have a poll to see if they want him dead. Okay, he's dead, and man that's a huge thing to impact Batman. Oh, we should also cripple Batgirl, nobody used her in a while. Now we get a third robin, oh wait we'll introduce a fourth temporarily but have her lose the job and get killed so the third one can come back. Oh, wait, the fourth one didn't actually die, so that reverses that impact on Batman...and hey, how about the second one comes back to life as well, thus rendering that whole storyline moot. Okay, now we need a fifth Robin who can be Batman's son an-
...wait, is Batman still just in his mid-30s?
The same thing happens all the time across comic books. Every writer wants to be the guy who introduces the next Spider-Man, the next Batman, the next Invincible, so every writer introduces a new character to, say, the Teen Titans, or the next group of Avengers trainees, or the next sidekick to a big name. Or they introduce someone who should eventually replace the original guy, such as your Wally Wests, Bart Allens, Bucky Barnes, Eric Mastersons, Ben Reilleys, Kyle Rayners...
But the original heroes will never go away, so you wind up with this bloat that floats around the main character and simply acts as someone who can be killed off later for the NEXT great character creation.
This is also the reason that major characters who "die" will always come back, even if it means destroying one of the greatest deaths (if not THE greatest deaths) in the history of comics and cheapening a character who becomes great afterward by having that character return.
No, I won't say who, that'll have to be a future "Ask Erik" once someone asks it.
Look at the X-Men, they've tried any number of times to introduce a "new class" of mutants, each hoping to create the next Wolverine or Storm. Joss Whedon's had some success with a character named Armor, but a whole bunch of characters that were introduced when the story line veered back towards them running a school wound up later crucified on the school grounds or killed in some bus explosions.
Heck, I'm not sure Wally West ever actually existed in the "New 52" of DC, which makes me wonder how the Teen Titans ever came about originally.
Remember above I mentioned that Doctor Octopus was now inhabiting Peter Parker's body and Marvel editorial is stating that Peter is "definitely dead?" With new movies coming out, do you really think it's going to stay that way? Will Marvel want kids who get excited by the movie to come into a comic book shop and find out that their new favorite character actually died and is replaced by a villain in his costume?
This same "never change" principle affects other major story arcs. Spider-Man's marriage was erased because editorial thought that having a wife "aged" the character, because nobody young ever gets married, I guess. Superman's no longer married to Lois. The writers of Batwoman recently quit because they weren't able to have their main character get married to her significant other, an event they had been building up to through the whole story line so far.
Okay, I need to interrupt myself here. DC does a terrible job responding to firestorms that sweep across the Internet. Telling people "you guys didn't get the joke" after people get really upset about your art contest happening near Suicide Prevention Week featuring Harley Quinn naked and trying to kill herself in a bathtub (plus, emphasizing "naked in a tub") is a pretty crappy apology.
However, I don't quite agree with the idea that DC is homophobic simply because they wouldn't let the writers tell a story of a woman marrying another woman. I think their editorial mandate was based more around the idea that "marriage ages a character," not that their well-established lesbian character who runs around dressed like a flying rodent would suddenly become "too gay" by getting married.
Marvel let well-established gay character Northstar get married in a large event recently, but I expect that to change the moment a writer comes along and wants to do something new with the character.
Now, to be fair, DC had some limited success with Batman Beyond back in the day, but a key difference there was it took place "in the future," not "now." You can tell stories in the future about when a character gets old, but you'll never see that actually happen
Comic books are based on the idea that it's the "never ending struggle" and that the heroes will "never give up the fight" which is why we're twenty-five years away from Superman having his 100th anniversary, but without a clear-cut beginning, middle, and end to a story, all you have are gradually diminishing returns on the impact of a story. It's the same issue I have with a lot of American television, where instead of telling a concise, tight story, most programs will simply try to stretch out to as many seasons as they can get, whereas programs from the BBC have a clear-cut beginning, middle, and end. Even their longest-established television character (Doctor Who) has clear beginnings, middles, and ends to his story, and then he gets replaced.
This article rambled somewhat, but it's somehow both fascinating and completely irritating that comics seem to be in a perpetual state of trying to keep their big characters relevant without allowing them any real opportunity to grow. If an editor at Marvel or DC ever actually did have the stones to say "okay, we're going to completely retire character X, give them a final ending to their story and either let them fade off into the sunset or die in a truly heroic fashion and then put into the official company charter that nobody is EVER allowed to bring the character back," I'd be pretty disbelieving, but I'd at least respect them for being willing to try. Right now, I just can't even really bother following most major stories anymore because I know that if I leave for ten years and come back, I won't have missed a single thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment