Comics as a Flawed Medium

I love comics.  Right now I straddle the line between huge comic geek who gets every reference and casual reader who relies heavily on the comic wikis, but I consider myself to be a fan of the medium.  But I don't think it's perfect. 

Comics are sold in serial

One of the most enduring novels in English history, Charles Dickens' Great Expectations, was originally released in serial format rather than as an entire novel, so that Dickens has not yet completed the novel when parts of it had become available to the public.  One imagines, however, that he had a plan for the plot and direction of the novel.  Comics are similarly released in serial, with parts of stories appearing before other parts have been written, but for the most part they have no predetermined end point.  An ongoing comic will keep going until it is no longer selling enough.  This is a problem already, as longer plots have to be sensational enough in their individual issues to sell well, but planned enough to be full stories over time.  The average comic must try to find a balance between being entertaining both in single doses and over long stories.  This has been done with great success on TV, with shows such as Mad Men, True Blood, Dexter and Game of Thrones, which deliver entertaining bites of a season-spanning story in one-hour sessions each week.  The feeling that the stories are going somewhere is very important.  However, from those examples it is pretty clear what is missing in comics: as three of those example are based on novels, they have a ready-made overarching plot to stick to.  For comics to be able to do the same, they must either also be adaptations, or be planned out well in advance, which is extremely difficult because...

Superheroes share a universe

Superman and Batman are pals who dress up in costumes to fight crime.  A lot of the time, they work together. Why, then, has Batman not asked Superman to deal with some of his more powerful opponents, like Bane?  And surely Batman, with his detective mastery, is more suited to exposing Lex Luthor's corruption?  But they don't do that.  Superman fights Lex Luthor and Batman fights Bane.

Should have called Superman

Therefore when something massive happens in one series, it should have an effect on all other series in the same universe.  Marvel's Civil War dragged superheroes from all different types of comic into the one event, and basically had them pick sides.  And because it was a war, they had to have a certain number on each side, so characters were pushed one way or the other when they may not otherwise have been.  How can a series with a complex plot spanning many issues plan to get involved in such massive events?  How can this involvement be true to the original plot?  The level of coordination needed across a huge number of writers and plotters would be far to great.  Therefore the writers deal with the events as best they can, an generally keep plots shorter rather than longer.  It only makes sense, when a universe-changing event can come along at any time and mess up whatever plans they had for their characters.  Oh, and when it does, readers have to prepare themselves to be confused, because...

People can't buy and read every series

When something happening over in Avengers has an affect on Moon Knight, is the Moon Knight fan supposed to buy the relevant copy of the Avengers?  What if he or she only buys Moon Knight for its unique story telling?  I know that I feel like I'm missing out whenever I've been following a series for a while only to have the status quo suddenly changed from beyond the book.  This happens most often when a character from another book is introduced, but little or no information is given about who they are or how they are connected to this series' protagonist.  If you buy Batman or Detective Comics for its dark and gritty tone, you shouldn't have to buy Justice League as well to follow and understand any of the cameos in the lead books.  By the same token, as long as these characters exist in the same universe they should, in story terms, affect each other.  The only way to get a full view of the universe is to read all the books set in it, and this is of course impractical.  What I liked about Marvel's Ultimate universe, besides easy jumping-on points for new readers such as myself, was the fact that I could keep track of what was happening.  Even that grew up, though, and now seems to be almost as big and confusing as the mainstream universe.

Does this mean we should all just stick to graphic novels, then, and reference the online encyclopedias when something that we don't recognise appears?  Some of my favourite stories have been graphic novels like The Long Halloween, but by the same token I like the feeling of connectedness that comes with a series set alongside the rest of the universe.  Maybe we as readers just have to let go of some of the control, and accept that we aren't going to understand everything that happens in the comics we like.  If there is a solution to the problems above, I don't know what it is, so until someone figures it out I guess I'll just keep on reading. 

Steve.

Who is this Green Arrow guy anyway?

Until recently, this was the only contact I had had with DC's Green Arrow:

Green Arrow: Year One, art by Jock

And it was good.  In Green Arrow: Year One, a spoilt rich boy finds himself shipwrecked on an island of slaves run by an evil drug lord, and he takes a stand.  With a bow.  And a green hood.  And it's awesome.  There is good and evil, the classic hero's journey, and a hefty dose of badassery.  It is not this:

Green Arrow #1, art by Dan Jurgens and George Perez

Now as I said, I know barely anything about Green Arrow, and this version may well be a more accurate representation of the character, so I'm going to say this right now: this is one person's opinion only.  That said, it was the most disappointing of DC's New 52 that I've read so far, and the reason for that is it was one I was most looking forward to.  For some reason I have a soft spot for the B grade heroes, the ones who may have powers or villains of their own, but never really make a difference to the overall world.  They are the ones most likely to die and be brought back, or to have several people fill the same tights at different times (I'm looking at you Flash).

What I wanted from Green Arrow #1, then, was a story about a character.  He's not as well known as other DC properties like Batman, Superman or Green Lantern, so I figured a new number 1 issue would be a great place to introduce the character and his motivations, because in this fantasy world where every second person has superpowers, to get dress up in green spandex and take them on with a bow and a bunch of trick arrows takes some serious mental issues.

What I got was an already well known superhero and business tycoon who beats up three superpowered villains that I was apparently supposed to know.  Oh, and he had allies who were also apparently well known to readers (please correct me if I'm wrong, I really don't know).  It was the kind of comic book you think of when people talk about comic books being for kids.  And this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I would have liked a better jumping on point, given that that seems to be the whole purpose behind this relaunch, and any depth to the character seems to be lacking entirely, notwithstanding that he talks about people he failed to save.

Luckily, this by-the-numbers book seems to be the exception to the general high standard of the New 52, so DC have more than earnt the interest they've generated.

Steve.

PS.  No superhero should ever address civilians as "Party People".  Not only is this extremely lame, it's bound to create at least a few new villains.

Animated Superman, DC's New 52, and the Casual Observer

By now DC's New 52 has well and truly launched and caused the intended market surge, as well as a mostly positive response from fans.  As a comic reader who never really got into DC (besides some Batman trades), the relaunch was great news, and now that we've seen the products I can say for sure that I will be back for some Issue #2s.  But this is not what I want to talk about now.

What I want to talk about now is Superman.  Oh Superman, you ever-present but never-really-there omnipotent immortal, I've wanted to love you.  As a comics enthusiast, if not devotee, I've always wanted to get to know Superman, the King of Superheroes, but I never really felt like I managed to scratch the surface.  Maybe the problem is with me; after all, I started both Birthright and All-Star Superman, two widely respected comic arcs, but I never managed to finish them.  On the other hand, I've made it over a hundred issues into certain other comics.  After reading DC's new Action Comics #1 I fully intend to get #2 and Superman #1, but they are not my most anticipated titles (for some reason Aquaman is right up there, but we'll leave that for a therapy session).  So I like Superman, but I've never really been a Superman fan.  I guess I've never felt like he's been done right (which I know is unfair as I've never been involved enough to say for sure what "right" is, but there you go).

Until last night, that is, when I started watching Superman: The Animated Series from the 90s.  Suddenly Superman, who had until then merely appeared, fired lasers from his eyes and punched holes in things, then left, had seemed to me to be a person rather than some avatar of pure power.  I have been a huge fan of Batman: The Animated Series as well, and for me that has been the definitive version of the Bat, but until now I hadn't realised the writing wizardry extended beyond the one character.  Oh how it does.  In Superman, none of the characters feel like bland archetypes and none of the scenarios, while absurd, feel contrived or unreasonable for this world.  The deeper storytelling format, with 20 minutes or so of setting, dialogue and action, to me serves the stories better than comics, where the dialogue must be squashed between backstory and action.

Maybe it's just Paul Dini, who appears to be the mastermind behind these gems of superhero storytelling.  I seem to remember Dini being involved in Batman: Arkham Asylum, probably the only game based on non-original material that I've ever enjoyed, at that was largely (but not entirely) due to the story.  Hell, I think that's one of my favourite games of all time!

So while I will be following the New 52, I think I'll be spending the majority of my free time watching animated versions of the source material and allowing my imagination to be punched and heat-rayed to new heights.  Oh, and I'll be searching for everything Paul Dini has ever written.

Steve.