|
|
Post by fanboystranger on May 9, 2014 10:57:35 GMT -5
I think the reason that the superhero genre gets put upon isn't because of the content of the genre, but its utter dominance in the N American market. The problem is volume rather than form. Since there are so many superhero books, there are also so many mediocre superhero books that are generic and formulaic from a craft standpoint. I think we all know a good superhero comic when we see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 9, 2014 11:10:23 GMT -5
I think the problem with some superheroes is that they are definitely too mired in their own history. Think about the 'events' of the last 10 years, the ones that focus of the past (Age of Ultron, Flashpont, etc) all were critically panned, while ones that broke new ground (Annihilation, Infinity) people like alot.
I think Marvel and DC have to better find a balance between respecting and cherishing their rich histories but still moving forward with new ideas.
Letting characters die (and stay dead) would be a good start. As would different editorial offices talking to each other. For instance, in the last volume of X-Factor, PAD did a huge story with the different embodiments of Satan in the MU, which ended in Strong Guy being the Overlord of Hell. How cool would a Strong Guy, Lord of Hell mini series be? Or at least have it mentioned the next type Hela or Mephisto pop up. Never happens.
Never mind how horribly they botched Hope Summers.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebeastofyuccaflats on May 9, 2014 11:25:20 GMT -5
Superhero comics are never really going to die-- nor really should they-- but the way The Big Two want this whole arrangement to work most likely will, somewhere down the road. Put like this: people clearly love, say, Spider-Man. In a big, 'mainstream' way, too. Can't really get enough of him. But that love is simply never going to extend to a neverending Spider-Man which has been running every month since the Kennedy Administration where the characters essentially live in a universe suspended in aspic, that the majority of people are never ever-- by time or inclination-- going to read in toto; unlike how they can with Watchmen, Walking Dead, V, Sandman, or Bone. Them's the breaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 11:27:31 GMT -5
I think the reason that the superhero genre gets put upon isn't because of the content of the genre, but its utter dominance in the N American market. The problem is volume rather than form. Since there are so many superhero books, there are also so many mediocre superhero books that are generic and formulaic from a craft standpoint. I think we all know a good superhero comic when we see it. That's certainly a reason I've come across pretty often, but it's never really made sense to me as a valid critique. Would I like fewer mediocre or just plain bad books to be put out in favor of a wider variety of books put out each week? Absolutely, I mean what kind of question is that? Who wouldn't want that? But the fact of the matter is that it isn't nearly as easy that, especially when one has to weigh costs versus benefits. But really that's beside the point because the argument, " As a genre superhero stories are bad because x-amount of titles are bad/mediocre and only y are good." is beyond weak as it only boils down to numbers and not actual individual critical merits and that just isn't an educated way of evaluating anything. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on May 9, 2014 12:42:18 GMT -5
I think the reason that the superhero genre gets put upon isn't because of the content of the genre, but its utter dominance in the N American market. The problem is volume rather than form. Since there are so many superhero books, there are also so many mediocre superhero books that are generic and formulaic from a craft standpoint. I think we all know a good superhero comic when we see it. That's certainly a reason I've come across pretty often, but it's never really made sense to me as a valid critique. Would I like fewer mediocre or just plain bad books to be put out in favor of a wider variety of books put out each week? Absolutely, I mean what kind of question is that? Who wouldn't want that? But the fact of the matter is that it isn't nearly as easy that, especially when one has to weigh costs versus benefits. But really that's beside the point because the argument, " As a genre superhero stories are bad because x-amount of titles are bad/mediocre and only y are good." is beyond weak as it only boils down to numbers and not actual individual critical merits and that just isn't an educated way of evaluating anything. I would disagree in the sense in that once you develop a critical standard for an superhero story, you can do a quanitative analysis of how many comics achieve this standard and how many don't. If a particular genre is performing below a certain critical standard, we can point to that genre and say that is underperfoming from a qualitative standpoint. It's essentially the argument against terrestial radio these days, which can be further extrapolated to the majority of stations being owned by a handful of conglomerates who enforce rigid playlists.
It's developing that critical standard that is difficult as taste is always a factor in evaluation. However, you can develop a consensus from informed critics and work from there. For example, I am far more likely to take the advice of someone posting on this board where the breadth of knowledge and experience with comics is quite expansive rather than someone who only reads a particular franchise's books and expresses his/herself with statements like, "Wolverine rooools!!!!!"
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 13:11:59 GMT -5
That's certainly a reason I've come across pretty often, but it's never really made sense to me as a valid critique. Would I like fewer mediocre or just plain bad books to be put out in favor of a wider variety of books put out each week? Absolutely, I mean what kind of question is that? Who wouldn't want that? But the fact of the matter is that it isn't nearly as easy that, especially when one has to weigh costs versus benefits. But really that's beside the point because the argument, " As a genre superhero stories are bad because x-amount of titles are bad/mediocre and only y are good." is beyond weak as it only boils down to numbers and not actual individual critical merits and that just isn't an educated way of evaluating anything. I would disagree in the sense in that once you develop a critical standard for an superhero story, you can do a quanitative analysis of how many comics achieve this standard and how many don't. If a particular genre is performing below a certain critical standard, we can point to that genre and say that is underperfoming from a qualitative standpoint. It's essentially the argument against terrestial radio these days, which can be further extrapolated to the majority of stations being owned by a handful of conglomerates who enforce rigid playlists.
It's developing that critical standard that is difficult as taste is always a factor in evaluation. However, you can develop a consensus from informed critics and work from there. For example, I am far more likely to take the advice of someone posting on this board where the breadth of knowledge and experience with comics is quite expansive rather than someone who only reads a particular franchise's books and expresses his/herself with statements like, "Wolverine rooools!!!!!"
While it's theoretically possible to do just that I've yet to see it done and until perhaps the time comes where the interest in superhero comics has waned to the point where the market can only sustain a few dozen books of that genre I don't expect such an argument to be artfully made. And even then, I would still insist that it was the individual books that were poor and that in no way truly reflected on the genre itself or its viability to continue to be entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 14:00:38 GMT -5
I think the reason that the superhero genre gets put upon isn't because of the content of the genre, but its utter dominance in the N American market. The problem is volume rather than form. Since there are so many superhero books, there are also so many mediocre superhero books that are generic and formulaic from a craft standpoint. I think we all know a good superhero comic when we see it. That's certainly a reason I've come across pretty often, but it's never really made sense to me as a valid critique. Would I like fewer mediocre or just plain bad books to be put out in favor of a wider variety of books put out each week? Absolutely, I mean what kind of question is that? Who wouldn't want that? But the fact of the matter is that it isn't nearly as easy that, especially when one has to weigh costs versus benefits. But really that's beside the point because the argument, " As a genre superhero stories are bad because x-amount of titles are bad/mediocre and only y are good." is beyond weak as it only boils down to numbers and not actual individual critical merits and that just isn't an educated way of evaluating anything. The easy way to get rid of bad superhero comics is not buy them. And this is one of my biggest criticisms. People will not stop buying them. Character loyalty, brand loyalty, completionists, speculators. This is the driving force of keeping super hero comics in print. Not good stories. Other genres of comics have to actually be good or they end up getting cancelled. And even then, the good ones often get cancelled too. The variant cover crossover event club makes all the money. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 9, 2014 14:02:46 GMT -5
DEFENSE #3-- We're Not as Fascist as You Think We Are
This defense, again not limited to superheroes, appears in Bradford Wright's excellent book COMIC BOOK NATION. In his opening chapters Wright makes clear that he doesn't intend to critique comics from an 'aesthetic' stance, but in terms of the political positions suggested in commercial comics. Wright is much less overblown than many "culture-readers" and keeps it clear that he knows that early comics were done quickly to appeal to a mass audience that wanted quick thrills. Still, he maintains that, contra Wertham and Legman, there are a lot of liberal sentiments expressed in comics of the Golden Age, which Wright analyzes with far more acuity than most "cultural studies" approaches.
Still, as important as it is for Wright to point out the mix of political persuasions in the Golden Age, this is still too limited a defense for pop culture generally and superheroes specificially. People who hate superheroes will always see Green Lantern as nothing but a "cosmic cop" and ignore any other sociological ramifications, so one can't stick with political defintions alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 14:05:26 GMT -5
I would disagree in the sense in that once you develop a critical standard for an superhero story, you can do a quanitative analysis of how many comics achieve this standard and how many don't. If a particular genre is performing below a certain critical standard, we can point to that genre and say that is underperfoming from a qualitative standpoint. It's essentially the argument against terrestial radio these days, which can be further extrapolated to the majority of stations being owned by a handful of conglomerates who enforce rigid playlists.
It's developing that critical standard that is difficult as taste is always a factor in evaluation. However, you can develop a consensus from informed critics and work from there. For example, I am far more likely to take the advice of someone posting on this board where the breadth of knowledge and experience with comics is quite expansive rather than someone who only reads a particular franchise's books and expresses his/herself with statements like, "Wolverine rooools!!!!!"
While it's theoretically possible to do just that I've yet to see it done and until perhaps the time comes where the interest in superhero comics has waned to the point where the market can only sustain a few dozen books of that genre I don't expect such an argument to be artfully made. And even then, I would still insist that it was the individual books that were poor and that in no way truly reflected on the genre itself or its viability to continue to be entertaining. When you're talking about publishers with insane overbearing editorial mandates dictating what can and cannot be done in a comic, what must and must not be done, and when the crossovers, cameos, teamups, deaths, resurrections, and so on are going to happen. The freedom to actually tell a story at Marvel or DC is pretty limited, when compared to creator owned comics. And then the revolving door studio talent creates another problem. This had been mentioned in other threads, but an artist who may be slightly underpaid has to consider his OA market when he illustrates. This could mean more splash pages, because they sell more. It tends to almost universally mean lots of T&A fanservice shots, because those sell for more. In one instance I heard of online, an illustrator of a comic was adding dinosaurs to as many pages as he could, even though they weren't in the scrips. DINOSAURS! And then with the strict deadlines comes an epidemic of swiping, with some artists usually straight out of porn, and this is definitely a reflection of the quality of the genre as it is. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 14:05:54 GMT -5
a critic of any entire genre is usually the most shallow of people. "the things i like are awesome. the things you like are rubbish. my consumption of other people's art defines me as a person of taste and learning and a person to be listened to." to define yourself by what you consume rather than your own actions and thoughts is a very shallow definition of yourself. superhero books don't need any defense from these people because the attack is more a indictment on the people making them than the genre itself. While I agree that painting an entire genre with the same broad brush stroke is usually a sign of an uninformed critic, I disagree with your very personal reasoning on why that is. There's noting wrong with being a critic, that's a position that has gone hand in hand with literature and art probably since there has been literature and art; when the first cave man took up a reed and drew the first picture on the cave wall there was almost assuredly another cave man standing behind him saying, "Your proportions are all off my good man." When the critique is done well it adds nearly as much to the artistic fields as the art itself as it causes us, the consumer, to stop and truly evaluate what we are consuming which gives you a greater appreciation of the field as a whole. Then there are those that add nothing to the field and scathing reviews of entire genres are such reviews as they seldom go into any great depth in their discussions and offer little real insight, which when you boil it down is pretty much just complaining and that is very different than offering a critique. And while offering up that kind of critique can be annoying it is not an invitation to throw out personal barbs against either that critic or the genre of literary critique as a whole because when you see the big picture that's all literary critique is a genre of writing in the same way that superhero fiction is and if it's wrong to paint all superhero fiction with the same brush it is then like wise wrong to paint all critiques in the same manner. i'd say there is a very major difference between criticising a specific work within a genre and the genre itself. the caveman example - he is giving a critic of that specific painters work, not cave painting itself. for a cultural critic to label a whole genre as flawed / bad / or negative - ultimately its "what i consume is morally/intellectually/culturally superior to what you consume" - to put a value judgement on the pleasure another person gets from the art they consume and then to classify that value judgement as inferior says a lot more about the person saying that than it does the art itself for a politically active person or organisation - to label a whole genre as flawed - the ultimate end game has to be to censor / dominate / eliminate that genre/ or at the most extreme level imprisonment-torture-execution of artists. In those cases you are looking at clashes of ideology - any debate or defence of the genre with them is ultimately going to be an ideological debate rather than a debate about the genre itself. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 14:26:59 GMT -5
That's certainly a reason I've come across pretty often, but it's never really made sense to me as a valid critique. Would I like fewer mediocre or just plain bad books to be put out in favor of a wider variety of books put out each week? Absolutely, I mean what kind of question is that? Who wouldn't want that? But the fact of the matter is that it isn't nearly as easy that, especially when one has to weigh costs versus benefits. But really that's beside the point because the argument, " As a genre superhero stories are bad because x-amount of titles are bad/mediocre and only y are good." is beyond weak as it only boils down to numbers and not actual individual critical merits and that just isn't an educated way of evaluating anything. The easy way to get rid of bad superhero comics is not buy them. And this is one of my biggest criticisms. People will not stop buying them. Character loyalty, brand loyalty, completionists, speculators. This is the driving force of keeping super hero comics in print. Not good stories. Other genres of comics have to actually be good or they end up getting cancelled. And even then, the good ones often get cancelled too. The variant cover crossover event club makes all the money. People do just that, sales often fluctuate based on quality. Now, I'm not going to say that people who buy out of blind loyalty to a brand or character don't exist, they do and they do so in all genres and mediums it seems to be a weird human trait, but to argue that they are the main driving force that keeps super hero comics in print? I think you're going to need some more solid evidence of that other than your own personal disdain of the genre. All you have currently is your own personal view, which isn't a valid source of argumentation. The same goes for your distinction between other genres and superheroes and good stories, that's purely your own view and not backed by any real evidence. However on a more critical front I could point to several titles that illustrate that if the super hero stories aren't good then they get canceled as well. About the only exceptions to that rule are books like Batman, Superman, Detective Comics, Action Comics and other "flag ship" titles and even these aren't really immune as if the stories are bad and the sales drop then there are whole sale firings of the groups of people responsible for these books which effectively cancels the book as it was formally known. When this happens you get a new editor, new writer, new artist and all new interpretations and tones, in a very real sense it's a new book in just about every technical way other than the title and the character. The distinction becomes then that because characters like Batman, Superman and Spider-Man are owned by large corporations with time and funds that can be invested in them they can be given new life after bad stories have made them poor sellers where as independent writers do not have the funds to say, "Hey, the concept is good I just executed it poorly,if I try again and pay creators x,y and z to come on board I know it can work." and so these characters tend to vanish more quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 9, 2014 14:27:30 GMT -5
DEFENSE #4-- Superheroes Can Be as Elitist as Anything Else
Geoff Klock's 2002 HOW TO READ SUPERHERO COMICS AND WHY departs from any and all critiques that start with analyzing superheroes in their Golden and Silver Age manifestations. In contrast to the other books mentioned, Klock really does focus only on the genre of superheroes, because he's interested in the "third movement" of superhero comic books, exemplified by DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and WATCHMEN. To many fans these works represent the period in which almost nothing but the superhero genre sold well in the Direct Market, but to Klock they symbolize "the birth of self-consciousness in the superhero narrative."
Klock is only interested in reading superhero comics if they demonstrate a level of complex thought approximate to that of canonical literature; that's why he fairly salivates when he sees a character like the Joker-- whom Klock calls a "reservoir of reflexivity"-- say something that makes him sound aware of his own status as a comics character.
While Klock definitely speaks to a segement of comics-readership that likes self-aware superheroes, he really doesn't end up saying anything pertinent about the genre as a whole. But at least he clearly sets himself apart from other methodologies in his introduction, even if his summation of those methodologies can be criticized-- as I'll show in my next post.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 14:36:09 GMT -5
While I agree that painting an entire genre with the same broad brush stroke is usually a sign of an uninformed critic, I disagree with your very personal reasoning on why that is. There's noting wrong with being a critic, that's a position that has gone hand in hand with literature and art probably since there has been literature and art; when the first cave man took up a reed and drew the first picture on the cave wall there was almost assuredly another cave man standing behind him saying, "Your proportions are all off my good man." When the critique is done well it adds nearly as much to the artistic fields as the art itself as it causes us, the consumer, to stop and truly evaluate what we are consuming which gives you a greater appreciation of the field as a whole. Then there are those that add nothing to the field and scathing reviews of entire genres are such reviews as they seldom go into any great depth in their discussions and offer little real insight, which when you boil it down is pretty much just complaining and that is very different than offering a critique. And while offering up that kind of critique can be annoying it is not an invitation to throw out personal barbs against either that critic or the genre of literary critique as a whole because when you see the big picture that's all literary critique is a genre of writing in the same way that superhero fiction is and if it's wrong to paint all superhero fiction with the same brush it is then like wise wrong to paint all critiques in the same manner. i'd say there is a very major difference between criticising a specific work within a genre and the genre itself. the caveman example - he is giving a critic of that specific painters work, not cave painting itself. for a cultural critic to label a whole genre as flawed / bad / or negative - ultimately its "what i consume is morally/intellectually/culturally superior to what you consume" - to put a value judgement on the pleasure another person gets from the art they consume and then to classify that value judgement as inferior says a lot more about the person saying that than it does the art itself for a politically active person or organisation - to label a whole genre as flawed - the ultimate end game has to be to censor / dominate / eliminate that genre/ or at the most extreme level imprisonment-torture-execution of artists. In those cases you are looking at clashes of ideology - any debate or defence of the genre with them is ultimately going to be an ideological debate rather than a debate about the genre itself. None of which gives one the invitation to call such people shallow or make other such personal generalizations. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 9, 2014 14:51:39 GMT -5
DEFENSE #5-- THE SOUPCON OF CAMPBELL'S APPROACH
In Geoff Klock's introduction he sums up some of the archetypal arguments used by Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell in their (very rare) comments on popular culture, and quotes the book most associated with archetypal critiques of superhero comics: Richard Reynolds' 1994 SUPERHERO COMICS: A MODERN MYTHOLOGY.
I haven't reread Reynolds' book in some time, but I seem to remember that he may indeed be, as Klock claims, overly invested in championing superheroes purely because they fit some of the patterns Campbell identified, such as the narrative patterns of the hero discussed in THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES. I call this a "Campbell's soupcon" approach because IMO it takes only a superficial look at Campbell's archetypal approach. To be fair to Reynolds, Campbell was not as deep or as disciplined a thinker as Jung. But it's possible to archetypally critique superhero comics without reducing them to a set of fixed patterns. I may be one of the few advocates of Campbell who believes that HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES is one of his least worthwhile works.
I myself advocate a myth-critical approach grounded partly in Jung and Campbell, but I'm not interested in simply describing set patterns and then saying, "see, this is good because it follows the right pattern." Wright is correct in saying that a character like Superman encodes some important political elements, but he dismisses the fantasy-aspects of the character as less relevant, so that he validates only the Superman in his "New Deal" beginnings, and invalidates the Superman of the Silver Age because it lacks the political engagement he values. He and Klock are both chasing after aspects of the superhero that suggest respectability, in contradistinction to Feiffer, who values "junk" of all genres because it serves the "pleasure principle."
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 9, 2014 14:58:36 GMT -5
I just think the superhero concept is horribly outdated. In the 1930s, it made sense to fantasize about vigilantes working outside the law that could stop things like organized crime. It was a real problem most people understood and feared. The concept has lost its relevance since then. Really, even Batman stopping muggers -- with the advent of ATM cards and pin numbers, it just doesn't pay to mug people in the way that it used to and it's easier to track electronically. The problems we face these days -- whether political, economic, or environmental, just don't make for exciting storytelling. I think that's part of why superheroes had to make the move towards greater introspection in recent decades. What they do on the outside holds no meaning for us beyond cliches. I still like the idea of colorful costumes, empowerment fantasies, and long-standing mythology, but the conflicts themselves have lost all relevance unless it's an issue of self-preservation and, if a hero is constantly working only to save themselves or those they love, are they truly serving any purpose as a superhero in the first place? Well, people do still get mugged, but I agree that it's more rare to find superheroes these days defending citizens in the workaday world. I think both readers and writers have become so involved in the soap-operatic and philosophical aspects that the older crime-fighting justifications have lost their cultural value-- with a few exceptions rooted in the idea of fighting organized crime, like the Punisher. |
|
