Comic Book Quarterly - Looking for an Anti-Moderns Article

[the blob]

I don't think rehashing old characters is so bad so long as the rehashing is interesting. The rehashing half the time is essentially a "new character".

[codfish]

That's the problem all previous forms of literature have: the constant search for something new. Once you get to a certain point, all stories start containing many of the same elements and this simply demonstrates how literature speaks to elements of the human condition.

 

WTF, I'm talking about how Marvel constantly re-uses, revamps and retcons EXISTING SA/BA characters, due to the almost-entirely "adult nerd" readership, who *want* to see "the characters they grew up with".

 

It has nothing to do with stories, or a bizarre debate on Aristotle's Poetics.

 

Even Marvel has *attempted* to inject a few new characters. But without that necessary "link to the GA/SA/BA past", they have all failed to catch on. The blame falls squarely on the "me no like change" adult readers and Marvel/DC following their lead into oblivion.

 

And? Again your point is lost on me. Do you think that if Marvel or DC dreamed up a whole new line of characters that they would have more young readers? Then you blather on about the new characters requiring a link to the past to catch on? WTF?

 

There are a few books I am reading and they are the best ones Marvel is putting out and the majority of the characters are from the 1990's or later. With a few SA characters thrown in. They are also very much not rehashes of old story arcs.

 

BTW adults have always run the comic industry. Their customers were not always adults but 20+ years ago the editors realized that their base was largely 16-30 year olds so they zeroed in on that demographic. There have been several attempts to try and get kids back into it but they have been mostly unsuccessful. Marvel and DC have books targeting younger people but ... the numbers are low. Archie Comics have books still coming out and they still have good broad age readership but ... mostly in Canada. They almost got rid of their digest line but the sales were still very strong up here so they kept it around.

 

Nobody ever debates why few older collectors bother with moderns. They often have the money. Their favorite characters are still around. Oh wait that's right. They're the ones that don't like how comics have changed so they don't buy them any more. Instead they wax poetic about the good old days when the art was better and there was more text than art and the story were so happy-go-lucky.

 

So there you go. How do you think they can get young readers and keep older ones? What can companies do to get kids that they haven't already tried? How do they keep the old fuddy-duddy "me no likie change" collectors? All this in an age where there is a TON of media out there to keep people entertained.

[Gatsby77]

Exactly: You're setting up a false argument, that the quality of mainstream (ie, from Marvel & DC only) books over the last 20 years can only be judged by new popular character introductions. First, not at all. And second--a quick glance of the most popular titles on the Modern board are almost all indies.

 

I posted this back in December, but here's my defense of Marvel/DC of the last decade (ahem--550 words):

 

"This was by far the best decade for reading. The main difference is this is the first time we've had actual published authors now writing a broad spectrum of comics across the board, rather than mere "comic book writers." Collectively, they put the comics writing of 1962-1999 to shame.

 

Examples: Bendis on Daredevil. Issues 17-20 alone. He took a minor villain who had only appeared in (Silver Age) Daredevil # 25 and used it as an excuse to explore autism, child abuse, and the mental barriers we build when reality is too harsh to handle.

 

The Daredevil vol. 2 run (post-Kevin Smith) is better than both of Miller's. And it got _better_ with Brubaker. Collectively, they turned a 2nd-3rd tier book into a crime masterpiece. Revealing Daredevil's identity was done _really_ well. And I'll take Miller's best (say, "Angel Dust" or "Born Again") and humbly ask you to read "The Devil Inside and Out" (82-87) by Brubaker. It's better.

 

Ditto Brubaker's Captain America. Like Superman, he's kind of a hard character to write well. The entire current volume (what is it? 4? 5?) has been _rock_ solid. And again--a 2nd-3rd tier book.

 

Hand's down, my favorite story of the decade was "Severance Package" by Brian Vaughan. It's basically a 10-page Kingpin solo story published as a back-up in some third-tier Spiderman spin-off. And it's brilliant--was reprinted in "Mighty Marvel Must-Haves"--basically they're "Best Of" 2001-2004.

 

Ult. Spiderman and FF. Made these books fun again, and readily accessible to a new young generation (And yeah--these were specifically geared towards younger readers--today's middle schoolers and the like). Ultimates 1 and 2. What could have been a second-rate Avengers Elseworlds story instead turned into a better and more iconic treatment than they've gotten since the Adams/Thomas run.

 

Astonishing X-Men. Josh Whedon's run seriously compares to the Byrne Claremont run. Granted, he had an easy job since the X-Men had gotten so wretched in the years since, but it's _really_ well done and really fun for old-school fans. As has been said, read Astonishing # 4 alone for the reuniting of Kitty and Piotr.

 

Civil War was a good read as well as an apt allegory for our post-9/11 times re. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Easily my favorite company-wide crossover since the Infinity Gauntlet.

 

That's just Marvel, and mainstream superheroes. If we expanded it beyond Marvel, we have 4-5 Vertigo titles compared to the Swamp Thing/Sandman/Hellblazer trio of the 80s. Fables, Y: The Last Man, 100 Bullets, DMZ.

 

Straczynski's deconstruction of the Superman (and other superhero) myth in Supreme Power holds up next to Alan Moore, as does Busiek's Astro City.

 

For DC, Geoff Johns has been remarkable on Flash, JSA, and more.

 

And what would you hold up for the best writing of the Silver or Bronze Age? For Bronze, I'd go Tomb of Dracula, Denny O'Neil Batman and Green Lantern, Claremont on X-Men, early Conan and...what? For Silver, I'd say Our Army at War, and umm...nothing else. Early Stan Lee Marvel was fun, but all of those characters have gotten better treatments by better authors in the decades since.

 

The Dark Horse Conan is a pleasure; the Jim Lee/Jeph Loeb "Hush" storyline is one of the best Batman stories ever--art and writing-wise. For me, only the Denny O'Neill/Neil Adams books come close."

 

[mschmidt]

Exactly: You're setting up a false argument, that the quality of mainstream (ie, from Marvel & DC only) books over the last 20 years can only be judged by new popular character introductions. First, not at all. And second--a quick glance of the most popular titles on the Modern board are almost all indies.

 

I posted this back in December, but here's my defense of Marvel/DC of the last decade (ahem--550 words):

 

"This was by far the best decade for reading. The main difference is this is the first time we've had actual published authors now writing a broad spectrum of comics across the board, rather than mere "comic book writers." Collectively, they put the comics writing of 1962-1999 to shame.

 

Examples: Bendis on Daredevil. Issues 17-20 alone. He took a minor villain who had only appeared in (Silver Age) Daredevil # 25 and used it as an excuse to explore autism, child abuse, and the mental barriers we build when reality is too harsh to handle.

 

The Daredevil vol. 2 run (post-Kevin Smith) is better than both of Miller's. And it got _better_ with Brubaker. Collectively, they turned a 2nd-3rd tier book into a crime masterpiece. Revealing Daredevil's identity was done _really_ well. And I'll take Miller's best (say, "Angel Dust" or "Born Again") and humbly ask you to read "The Devil Inside and Out" (82-87) by Brubaker. It's better.

 

Ditto Brubaker's Captain America. Like Superman, he's kind of a hard character to write well. The entire current volume (what is it? 4? 5?) has been _rock_ solid. And again--a 2nd-3rd tier book.

 

Hand's down, my favorite story of the decade was "Severance Package" by Brian Vaughan. It's basically a 10-page Kingpin solo story published as a back-up in some third-tier Spiderman spin-off. And it's brilliant--was reprinted in "Mighty Marvel Must-Haves"--basically they're "Best Of" 2001-2004.

 

Ult. Spiderman and FF. Made these books fun again, and readily accessible to a new young generation (And yeah--these were specifically geared towards younger readers--today's middle schoolers and the like). Ultimates 1 and 2. What could have been a second-rate Avengers Elseworlds story instead turned into a better and more iconic treatment than they've gotten since the Adams/Thomas run.

 

Astonishing X-Men. Josh Whedon's run seriously compares to the Byrne Claremont run. Granted, he had an easy job since the X-Men had gotten so wretched in the years since, but it's _really_ well done and really fun for old-school fans. As has been said, read Astonishing # 4 alone for the reuniting of Kitty and Piotr.

 

Civil War was a good read as well as an apt allegory for our post-9/11 times re. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Easily my favorite company-wide crossover since the Infinity Gauntlet.

 

That's just Marvel, and mainstream superheroes. If we expanded it beyond Marvel, we have 4-5 Vertigo titles compared to the Swamp Thing/Sandman/Hellblazer trio of the 80s. Fables, Y: The Last Man, 100 Bullets, DMZ.

 

Straczynski's deconstruction of the Superman (and other superhero) myth in Supreme Power holds up next to Alan Moore, as does Busiek's Astro City.

 

For DC, Geoff Johns has been remarkable on Flash, JSA, and more.

 

And what would you hold up for the best writing of the Silver or Bronze Age? For Bronze, I'd go Tomb of Dracula, Denny O'Neil Batman and Green Lantern, Claremont on X-Men, early Conan and...what? For Silver, I'd say Our Army at War, and umm...nothing else. Early Stan Lee Marvel was fun, but all of those characters have gotten better treatments by better authors in the decades since.

 

The Dark Horse Conan is a pleasure; the Jim Lee/Jeph Loeb "Hush" storyline is one of the best Batman stories ever--art and writing-wise. For me, only the Denny O'Neill/Neil Adams books come close."

 

What a great (and very informative) post (thumbs u

[jools&jim]

 

I posted this back in December, but here's my defense of Marvel/DC of the last decade (ahem--550 words):

 

"This was by far the best decade for reading. The main difference is this is the first time we've had actual published authors now writing a broad spectrum of comics across the board, rather than mere "comic book writers." Collectively, they put the comics writing of 1962-1999 to shame.

 

Examples: Bendis on Daredevil. Issues 17-20 alone. He took a minor villain who had only appeared in (Silver Age) Daredevil # 25 and used it as an excuse to explore autism, child abuse, and the mental barriers we build when reality is too harsh to handle.

 

The Daredevil vol. 2 run (post-Kevin Smith) is better than both of Miller's. And it got _better_ with Brubaker. Collectively, they turned a 2nd-3rd tier book into a crime masterpiece. Revealing Daredevil's identity was done _really_ well. And I'll take Miller's best (say, "Angel Dust" or "Born Again") and humbly ask you to read "The Devil Inside and Out" (82-87) by Brubaker. It's better.

 

Ditto Brubaker's Captain America. Like Superman, he's kind of a hard character to write well. The entire current volume (what is it? 4? 5?) has been _rock_ solid. And again--a 2nd-3rd tier book.

 

Hand's down, my favorite story of the decade was "Severance Package" by Brian Vaughan. It's basically a 10-page Kingpin solo story published as a back-up in some third-tier Spiderman spin-off. And it's brilliant--was reprinted in "Mighty Marvel Must-Haves"--basically they're "Best Of" 2001-2004.

 

Ult. Spiderman and FF. Made these books fun again, and readily accessible to a new young generation (And yeah--these were specifically geared towards younger readers--today's middle schoolers and the like). Ultimates 1 and 2. What could have been a second-rate Avengers Elseworlds story instead turned into a better and more iconic treatment than they've gotten since the Adams/Thomas run.

 

Astonishing X-Men. Josh Whedon's run seriously compares to the Byrne Claremont run. Granted, he had an easy job since the X-Men had gotten so wretched in the years since, but it's _really_ well done and really fun for old-school fans. As has been said, read Astonishing # 4 alone for the reuniting of Kitty and Piotr.

 

Civil War was a good read as well as an apt allegory for our post-9/11 times re. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Easily my favorite company-wide crossover since the Infinity Gauntlet.

 

That's just Marvel, and mainstream superheroes. If we expanded it beyond Marvel, we have 4-5 Vertigo titles compared to the Swamp Thing/Sandman/Hellblazer trio of the 80s. Fables, Y: The Last Man, 100 Bullets, DMZ.

 

Straczynski's deconstruction of the Superman (and other superhero) myth in Supreme Power holds up next to Alan Moore, as does Busiek's Astro City.

 

For DC, Geoff Johns has been remarkable on Flash, JSA, and more.

 

And what would you hold up for the best writing of the Silver or Bronze Age? For Bronze, I'd go Tomb of Dracula, Denny O'Neil Batman and Green Lantern, Claremont on X-Men, early Conan and...what? For Silver, I'd say Our Army at War, and umm...nothing else. Early Stan Lee Marvel was fun, but all of those characters have gotten better treatments by better authors in the decades since.

 

The Dark Horse Conan is a pleasure; the Jim Lee/Jeph Loeb "Hush" storyline is one of the best Batman stories ever--art and writing-wise. For me, only the Denny O'Neill/Neil Adams books come close."

 

Many of the modern writers, titles, and storylines you cite here are among the reasons why I stopped buying and reading new comic books completely several years ago (after 35+ years of buying them off the stands and through the direct market). What wasn't turgid (at best) or confusing and unreadable (at worst) was either too bleak, too self-consciously "literary", too ponderous, too self-referential, too ironic, too overly serious, too avante-garde, or too joyless--and almost always too expensive!--to be classified as anything even remotely recognizable to me as cheap, disposable, mass-produced popular entertainment.

 

Of course we can argue that comics are now--and in fact should be--more than that. But that doesn't change the fact that I was driven away from the market by modern books, and that what they do very well in your estimation made them (mostly) unbearable in mine.

 

What I finally came to realize as a consumer what that new comics simply weren't all that much fun for me anymore. The superhero stuff was manifestly NOT what I wanted from those sorts of books, and reading the indies was like being forced to re-live the myriad "arty-farty" nightmares of my college creative writing seminars all over again. So I finally voted with my checkbook, as they say, and never looked back.

[codfish]

Exactly: You're setting up a false argument, that the quality of mainstream (ie, from Marvel & DC only) books over the last 20 years can only be judged by new popular character introductions. First, not at all. And second--a quick glance of the most popular titles on the Modern board are almost all indies.

 

I posted this back in December, but here's my defense of Marvel/DC of the last decade (ahem--550 words):

 

"This was by far the best decade for reading. The main difference is this is the first time we've had actual published authors now writing a broad spectrum of comics across the board, rather than mere "comic book writers." Collectively, they put the comics writing of 1962-1999 to shame.

 

Examples: Bendis on Daredevil. Issues 17-20 alone. He took a minor villain who had only appeared in (Silver Age) Daredevil # 25 and used it as an excuse to explore autism, child abuse, and the mental barriers we build when reality is too harsh to handle.

 

The Daredevil vol. 2 run (post-Kevin Smith) is better than both of Miller's. And it got _better_ with Brubaker. Collectively, they turned a 2nd-3rd tier book into a crime masterpiece. Revealing Daredevil's identity was done _really_ well. And I'll take Miller's best (say, "Angel Dust" or "Born Again") and humbly ask you to read "The Devil Inside and Out" (82-87) by Brubaker. It's better.

 

Ditto Brubaker's Captain America. Like Superman, he's kind of a hard character to write well. The entire current volume (what is it? 4? 5?) has been _rock_ solid. And again--a 2nd-3rd tier book.

 

Hand's down, my favorite story of the decade was "Severance Package" by Brian Vaughan. It's basically a 10-page Kingpin solo story published as a back-up in some third-tier Spiderman spin-off. And it's brilliant--was reprinted in "Mighty Marvel Must-Haves"--basically they're "Best Of" 2001-2004.

 

Ult. Spiderman and FF. Made these books fun again, and readily accessible to a new young generation (And yeah--these were specifically geared towards younger readers--today's middle schoolers and the like). Ultimates 1 and 2. What could have been a second-rate Avengers Elseworlds story instead turned into a better and more iconic treatment than they've gotten since the Adams/Thomas run.

 

Astonishing X-Men. Josh Whedon's run seriously compares to the Byrne Claremont run. Granted, he had an easy job since the X-Men had gotten so wretched in the years since, but it's _really_ well done and really fun for old-school fans. As has been said, read Astonishing # 4 alone for the reuniting of Kitty and Piotr.

 

Civil War was a good read as well as an apt allegory for our post-9/11 times re. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Easily my favorite company-wide crossover since the Infinity Gauntlet.

 

That's just Marvel, and mainstream superheroes. If we expanded it beyond Marvel, we have 4-5 Vertigo titles compared to the Swamp Thing/Sandman/Hellblazer trio of the 80s. Fables, Y: The Last Man, 100 Bullets, DMZ.

 

Straczynski's deconstruction of the Superman (and other superhero) myth in Supreme Power holds up next to Alan Moore, as does Busiek's Astro City.

 

For DC, Geoff Johns has been remarkable on Flash, JSA, and more.

 

And what would you hold up for the best writing of the Silver or Bronze Age? For Bronze, I'd go Tomb of Dracula, Denny O'Neil Batman and Green Lantern, Claremont on X-Men, early Conan and...what? For Silver, I'd say Our Army at War, and umm...nothing else. Early Stan Lee Marvel was fun, but all of those characters have gotten better treatments by better authors in the decades since.

 

The Dark Horse Conan is a pleasure; the Jim Lee/Jeph Loeb "Hush" storyline is one of the best Batman stories ever--art and writing-wise. For me, only the Denny O'Neill/Neil Adams books come close."

 

And let's not forget the wealth of small press books and a vastly improved line of Image comics available that wasn't available 10 years ago.

[Bruce1971]

Maybe you should do an article on comics in Japan vs North America, since Japanese comics/cartoons are slowly taking over here it seems. Cost and acceptance would be two good topics to cover.

 

Bruce

[dupont2005]

The only thing SA and GA has going for it is nostalgia. I don't see how anybody can be against the variety of genres, subjects, target age groups and demographics, and creator owned and controlled stuff available today, unless all they read are big two super hero comics.

 

I'm not sure you comprehend the subject at hand - the state of MAINSTREAM comics, you know, the ones that sell a lot and are indicative of the current market?

 

Just for a primer, here are the Top 20 comics for Feb 2010:

 

BLACKEST NIGHT #7 $3.99 DC

SIEGE #2 $3.99 MAR

GREEN LANTERN #51 $2.99 DC

BATMAN AND ROBIN #8 $2.99 DC

BATMAN AND ROBIN #9 $2.99 DC

DARK AVENGERS #14 $3.99 MAR

NEW AVENGERS #62 $3.99 MAR

GREEN LANTERN CORPS #45 $2.99 DC

FLASH REBIRTH #6 $2.99 DC

UNCANNY X-MEN #521 $2.99 MAR

THOR #607 $2.99 MAR

BLACKEST NIGHT THE FLASH #3 $2.99 DC

CAPTAIN AMERICA #603 $3.99 MAR

BATMAN #696 $2.99 DC

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #620 $2.99 MAR

ULTIMATE COMICS X #1 $3.99 MAR

BLACKEST NIGHT WONDER WOMAN #3 $2.99 DC

JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA #42 $3.99 DC

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #621 $2.99 MAR

BLACKEST NIGHT JSA #3 $2.99 DC

 

I think Buffy is the first non-superhero book at #28, and that's hardly high literature , and after that, I think you need to hit the 70's to find another similar title.

According to Diamond monthly floppies. Comics are found in bookstores and on Amazon today. I'm pretty sure Maus has sold more and will continue to sell more copies than Blackest Night Wonder Woman #3.

[Scrooge]

What wasn't turgid (at best) or confusing and unreadable (at worst) was either too bleak, too self-consciously "literary", too ponderous, too self-referential, too ironic, too overly serious, too avante-garde, or too joyless--and almost always too expensive!

 

Seems to me that you were really trying for one reason or another (that's a long list of dislikes you have up there) not to like any of them at that point

 

It seems that you don't like "serious" stories from your post. There are still light-hearted comics out there. Namely, Usagi Yojimbo, the Marvel Oz books, Fables, the Spirit, and an assortment of minis ... they are not many but they exist. Also, I'd consider Scalped and Northlanders to be none of your points except maybe bleak ... but it's bleak with a purpose / reason.

[jools&jim]

 

Seems to me that you were really trying for one reason or another (that's a long list of dislikes you have up there) not to like any of them at that point

 

Probably. But I think it was more a case of a critical mass having been reached, after which I said the hell with all of them. I also didn't have the time or patience to weed through hundreds (thousands?) of Previews solicitations, review sites, etc., etc., to find titles that I might be more in tune with aesthetically...

[Gatsby77]

Yeah--likewise, you want fun and superheroey? Opposite of turgid? Try 1) Invincible; 2) Fear Agent; 3) World War Hulk--the set-up may be absurd/ponderous, but once he comes back, it's just issue after issue of him beating the ever-loving out of the rest of the Marvel Universe. Hulk SMASH!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Maybe JC needs a regular editorial column. You know, Andy Rooney style.

 

It has my vote. Although, we'd need to balance with a column that is all sweetness and light.

 

I'll do it.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's the problem all previous forms of literature have: the constant search for something new. Once you get to a certain point, all stories start containing many of the same elements and this simply demonstrates how literature speaks to elements of the human condition.

 

WTF, I'm talking about how Marvel constantly re-uses, revamps and retcons EXISTING SA/BA characters, due to the almost-entirely "adult nerd" readership, who *want* to see "the characters they grew up with".

 

It has nothing to do with stories, or a bizarre debate on Aristotle's Poetics.

 

Even Marvel has *attempted* to inject a few new characters. But without that necessary "link to the GA/SA/BA past", they have all failed to catch on. The blame falls squarely on the "me no like change" adult readers and Marvel/DC following their lead into oblivion.

 

And? Again your point is lost on me. Do you think that if Marvel or DC dreamed up a whole new line of characters that they would have more young readers? Then you blather on about the new characters requiring a link to the past to catch on? WTF?

 

Read it again.

 

That's not what he said.

 

You've misread it.

[goldust40]

Seems to me that you were really trying for one reason or another (that's a long list of dislikes you have up there) not to like any of them at that point

 

Probably. But I think it was more a case of a critical mass having been reached, after which I said the hell with all of them. I also didn't have the time or patience to weed through hundreds (thousands?) of Previews solicitations, review sites, etc., etc., to find titles that I might be more in tune with aesthetically...

 

You must've read and enjoyed Tom Strong, which wasn't that long ago. I agree that the verite aesthetic that you mention has made comics more bleak and detached from the reader. Having higher aspirations in this medium (especially in the super-hero genre) isn't necessarily a good thing, as comics have to (in my book) place storytelling and characterization first.

 

I'd cite Captain America and Daredevil as those sort of modernist books that are too stylized, even though I think both titles are worth reading. Another problem is that the production values of most mainstream output has meant that most comics look the same, regardless of artist. The look is too standardized, and that does affect characterization.

 

I do still read some books, but compared to the 80s (when I was buying and reading enough new titles to keep abreast of anything significant) it's hardly any...in the end, there are only so many permutations of the same premises. Plus who has the time, patience and money for those cynical annual event series and all the tie-ins? Hex, Conan, Thor, Cap, Hellblazer and a couple of indies are about my average per month, and I did enjoy Y and 100 Bullets. I'd like to see more work from Dan Clowes, and for The Twelve to finish.

[Gatsby77]

Umm...it's exactly what he said: JC's paragraphs one and three, taken together, argue that:

 

"Moderns suck (and young readers aren't reading) because neither Marvel nor DC have successfully introduced popular new characters in the past 10-20 years but have only reused/ret-conned tired old ones in an attempt to appease the 30 year-old adult nerds."

 

So Codfish's response is perfectly on point.

 

Fallacy 1: that young readers would read if comics were "more fun" and geared toward kids again (they wouldn't--the internet and video games have killed the appeal of comic books for that demographic)

 

Fallacy 2: that the success of comic books must be measured on new character introductions.

 

Fallacy 3: That those new character introductions must be from Marvel/DC and somehow, indies don't count.

[joe_collector]

I'm thinking you missed my point JC because I was actually validating your argument. Sheesh.

 

Nope, you're saying they "ran out of new ideas", while I'm stating that there are plenty of new ideas/characters/concepts to be tried, only that the "adult fanboy" audience doesn't want to read them.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Umm...it's exactly what he said: JC's paragraphs one and three, taken together, argue that:

 

"Moderns suck (and young readers aren't reading) because neither Marvel nor DC have successfully introduced popular new characters in the past 10-20 years but have only reused/ret-conned tired old ones in an attempt to appease the 30 year-old adult nerds."

 

So Codfish's response is perfectly on point.

 

Fallacy 1: that young readers would read if comics were "more fun" and geared toward kids again (they wouldn't--the internet and video games have killed the appeal of comic books for that demographic)

 

Fallacy 2: that the success of comic books must be measured on new character introductions.

 

Fallacy 3: That those new character introductions must be from Marvel/DC and somehow, indies don't count.

 

Let me be absolutely clear:

 

Even Marvel has *attempted* to inject a few new characters. But without that necessary "link to the GA/SA/BA past", they have all failed to catch on. The blame falls squarely on the "me no like change" adult readers and Marvel/DC following their lead into oblivion.

 

Codfish misread THIS SPECIFIC paragraph, and responded incorrectly because he misread it.

[codfish]

Seems to me that you were really trying for one reason or another (that's a long list of dislikes you have up there) not to like any of them at that point

 

Probably. But I think it was more a case of a critical mass having been reached, after which I said the hell with all of them. I also didn't have the time or patience to weed through hundreds (thousands?) of Previews solicitations, review sites, etc., etc., to find titles that I might be more in tune with aesthetically...

 

You must've read and enjoyed Tom Strong, which wasn't that long ago. I agree that the verite aesthetic that you mention has made comics more bleak and detached from the reader. Having higher aspirations in this medium (especially in the super-hero genre) isn't necessarily a good thing, as comics have to (in my book) place storytelling and characterization first.

 

I'd cite Captain America and Daredevil as those sort of modernist books that are too stylized, even though I think both titles are worth reading. Another problem is that the production values of most mainstream output has meant that most comics look the same, regardless of artist. The look is too standardized, and that does affect characterization.

 

I do still read some books, but compared to the 80s (when I was buying and reading enough new titles to keep abreast of anything significant) it's hardly any...in the end, there are only so many permutations of the same premises. Plus who has the time, patience and money for those cynical annual event series and all the tie-ins? Hex, Conan, Thor, Cap, Hellblazer and a couple of indies are about my average per month, and I did enjoy Y and 100 Bullets. I'd like to see more work from Dan Clowes, and for The Twelve to finish.

 

I can accept this but it goes back to a point already discussed, sort of. It is something not exclusive to comics. Read enough books or watch enough movies and you will find lots of reworking of the old. It is also well known that in many forms of media people tend to gravitate "the familiar" so it makes it hard for the truly unique to come to the forefront and establish itself. Marvel and DC can not afford to go wholesale unique, if they even could, because it is notoriously harder to get the numbers you need for a title to be profitable. Look at how many small press companies that have come and gone despite having unique material.

 

That being said there is lots of small press stuff out there that should fit changing interests or those who are bored of the standard super-hero or Big Two stuff (ie Vertigo/Max). Keep in mind though the more well read you are the harder you will be to please because even the smallest parts of familiar could taint your opinion. This isn't so much a publisher's fault the reader has to take some of the "blame".

[seank]

Umm...it's exactly what he said: JC's paragraphs one and three, taken together, argue that:

 

"Moderns suck (and young readers aren't reading) because neither Marvel nor DC have successfully introduced popular new characters in the past 10-20 years but have only reused/ret-conned tired old ones in an attempt to appease the 30 year-old adult nerds."

 

So Codfish's response is perfectly on point.

 

Fallacy 1: that young readers would read if comics were "more fun" and geared toward kids again (they wouldn't--the internet and video games have killed the appeal of comic books for that demographic)

 

Fallacy 2: that the success of comic books must be measured on new character introductions.

 

Fallacy 3: That those new character introductions must be from Marvel/DC and somehow, indies don't count.

 

The significant part of JC's argument, and one he's 100% correct on, is "attempt to appease the 30-year-old adult nerds." I don't think it matters whether or not the characters are new or old. What matters is that many superhero comics are aimed at readers who are vested in lengthy continuity. The fan boys aren't necessarily interested in orginality or new characters. And this mindset from the fan boys and the publishers isn't going to bring in any new readers.

 

And for the record, the Batman "Hush" story is a big pile of *spoon* gilded by Jim Lee's art.

[joe_collector]

BTW adults have always run the comic industry.

 

How old are you, 12?

 

In the 30', 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and into the 80's, the average comic book reader/buyer was predominantly much younger than an adult. That's not even up for debate, and if you actually think that adults made up the majority of new comic readers in 1945, good luck with proving that.

 

My argument is quite simple, comic used to be written for smart kids, now they're written for dumb adults.