Here are some wonderful and informative web links this week, each about continuity—continuity with a CAPITAL C! Definitely all food for thought. And also a short rambling about stuff going on in the world of comic books (outside of the DC Bat-verse).
The DCnU 52: One Year Later by Kent G. Hare
Ask Chris: Continuity and You by Chris Sims
New 52 Continuity : It Ain't That Bad! @ Last of the Famous International Fanboys
I don't usually talk about anything other than Batman-related things on here, but let's take a stroll off the beaten path for a hot second, shall we? My favorite Marvel book (currently and for quite some time now) is Rick Remender's Uncanny X-Force. I highly recommend it—a book where every issue counts to the umpteenth degree and the stakes are always high. I never thought I'd be so over-the-moon about an X book again. It's been years since I've liked any X book. In my humble opinion, the entire concept of the X-characters and mutants in general is a highly flawed and, dare I say it, lame concept. The idea of a world of mutants in the Marvel U has been a lame idea for the past thirty years (in spite of some really great flashes of storytelling and art here and there). What do I mean exactly? Well, Aaron Diaz sums it up quite perfectly:
“Mutations [should] have a clear sci-fi foundation rather than just being random superpowers. Mutants being “the next stage in human evolution” was biologically dubious in the 60s, and now it’s just corny. Additionally, I think the X-Men premise only really makes sense in a setting without other superheroes.”
I agree wholeheartedly. Why have mutants when ostensibly Captain America, Spider-Man, and so many others are basically mutants too? I understand that mutants are born with powers whereas Cap and Spidey were not, but really other than that, how are they any different? Plus, there are plenty of characters in the Marvel U that were born with powers, and yet are not mutants, right?
I think one of the reasons Uncanny X-Force works so well is because its a genuine multiverse book. While it doesn't ignore the mutant dilemma or mutant history linked to overall Marvel continuity, it deals more with the fact that Wolverine, Deadpool, Fantomex (RIP!), Psylocke, AOA Nightcrawler, et al exist in the bountiful superhero world that is the great Marvel multiverse. This isn't your insular mutant X book that lives outside of the rest of the Marvel multiverse, as much of the X-verse has done for decades. Remender is really playing in the multiversial sandbox rather than limiting himself to the mutants-only sandbox. And the end result is an inspired, intense, touching, and unique X title the likes of which we haven't seen before.
X-Men works because it's about minority opression and marginalisation, from it's roots as a civil rights analogy to it's evolution under Chris Claremont and others as a metaphor for discrimination based on sexualtiy and age. It's not about the fact that Cyclops has laser eyes and knows Spider Man, it's about the fact that the government keeps building giant robots to kill people based on how they were born. Spider Man may have to deal with endless problems as a result of bad press, but that's considerably different than having to deal with hate groups simply because he has super powers.
ReplyDeleteAs for interacting with the wider Marvel universe, I never got why people seemed to want it. No one expects the Fantastic Four to get involved when Kang the Conqueror attacks Avengers Mansion, or the Avengers to get involved if Galactus shows up. Why then is it important to see X-Men fight the Red Skull, as Remender is having them do after AvX?
It takes a little X-Men bashing to get a response on here, hehe. Don't misunderstand me, I love the X-Men because I love comic books and the X-Men turned me on to comics when I was a kid, so without 'em I wouldn't be where I am now. So, I hope you don't think I was just out-and-out talking smack on the X-Men. If it came off that way, it wasn't meant to. I was merely making an observation, launching off of Diaz's commentary. I agree with you, Anonymous, when you say that X-Men "works" because it was a civil rights analogy morphed into a sexual/age discrimination metaphor. However, the reason it works is also the reason it fails for me. Let me explain by first asking a question: WHY does the government hate super-humans BORN with their powers AND NOT those who receive them later? For one reason: It motivates the story—or, in other words, it is a plot point. Granted, it is a plot point that worked wonders and had resonating meaning and depth as a metaphor or analogy in the 60s and even into the 90s. But NOW in 2012 I think the metaphor falls a little flat and doesn't work anymore. It's just my opinion and I might be in the minority, but IF the metaphor falls flat AND that metaphor is also the foundation of the story, then the story ultimately fails because of its fundamentally weak basis. Often, the wonderful narrative abilities of Lee, Claremont, Bendis, Lobdell, Carey, David, Parker, Milligan, et al on the myriad of X-books cannot be denied their greatness. These guys (and the artists, of course) have shaped the X-books into a line that has had some amazing runs and stories over the decades, many of which qualify as the best comics ever written! But these super-talented creators were good enough to write AROUND the restraints of a commodity/concept that only existed so that it could be a metaphor, or so that the metaphor could thrive. Stan Lee (and later Chris Claremont), in a sense, chose an issue he wanted to examine via comics first and then formed the concept into a mutant superhero team second. It was relevant when Lee wrote it and it was solid good writing. But you can never really reverse that order of construction. And if the writing is subpar, then all we have is a metaphor that doesn't make sense, and one that is more important than the actual story. That's my problem with the X-books—they rely too heavily on a concept that I just don't buy as legit anymore.
ReplyDeleteTake Spider-Man as your case study. I never understood WHY Spidey DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME hate groups attacking him as the X-folk have attacking them. The only difference between Spidey and Cyclops in the 1960s is that Lee called one a "mutant" deserving of mankind's ire in order to feed into his civil rights analogy. And the only difference between Spidey and Cyclops in the 80s and 90s is that Claremont (and others) continued writing the completely similar "mutant" as being hated for no reason in order to fuel a metaphor for sexual/age discrimination.
I'm also not advocating that the X-Men should constantly interact with the rest of the Marvel U. But historically they have been SO incredibly insular and distanced from the rest of the Marvel U that they might has well live in their own universe sometimes. But it kind of makes sense that Marvel would do what they do, or I feel my argument would be more plain to see. In fact, if the X-Men WEREN'T so insular for decades, then the metaphor they represent so strongly would more easily fall apart. It's easier to be a martyr if you are a pariah. The second the X-Men co-mingle with other heroes is the second we start to realize that they aren't really that different than other heroes.
As far as Remender goes, I honestly haven't read most of his stuff outside of "Uncanny X-Force" so I don't know what to expect with his upcoming run. X-Men versus Red Skull? I'm not for it or against it, but hopefully it's good because good comics always put a smile on my face.
(Sorry, it made me post twice—too long!!)
DeleteI just wanted to say that I really appreciate your response and hope to hear from others as well. I'm sure there is more to say, so maybe I'll hear back from you again! Thanks so much for frequenting the site!
Best,
Collin C
my issues with Damian and the new five year Bat-timeline from my column on BleedingCool: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/09/19/last-weeks-comics-in-twenty-two-panels/
ReplyDeleteGreat post Manolis! Ever since the New 52 began, everyone has been asking the question: How the hell can Damian be ten-years-old or eleven-years-old when he was seemingly conceived five years ago (or less)? DC has answered a lot of questions with their some good/some frustrating/some pointless zero issues, but they haven't answered any Damian Q's. There is the insider/internet rumbling that the answer lies in the fact that Damian actually has a biological year-aging birthday two or three times a year thanks to the high-tech gadgetry that he was cultivated in immediately after birth. If we choose to believe that bizarre concept and shelf our skepticism for a moment, then, and only then can this timeline work.
DeleteBut why doesn't DC throw us a bone? Well, maybe they fucked up, plain and simple. It wouldn't be the first time. However, this is so blatant and so huge that I'd like to think they have one final trick up their sleeves. Here's some speculation on my part (and mind you this is a pure guess), but maybe they don't want to reveal that Damian is a five-year-old in a ten-year-old's body yet because they are saving that "shocking" reveal for the Heretic aka Fatherless aka Damian's-adult-clone-probably—at whence time DC or Morrison or Tomasi or whoever will say, "Hey Damian's age has been screwy this whole time, but look, it has to do with cloning and hyper-aging and the League of Assassins science crew, etc... etc..." But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Thanks for reading, Manolis. I appreciate the support!
Best,
Collin C
PS. I mentioned some Damian age frustration on my website comments section that seems apropos to your comment here, so I'll cut n' paste below.
ANYTHING related to Damian’s age in the New 52 is fishy. Tomasi does a great job of hiding things and making things vague enough that you can read his B&R zero issue both ways—as if Damian is ACTUALLY ten-years-old OR as if Damian is only biologically ten and much younger.
DeleteIf we go with the latter so that it fits satisfactorily with a shorter timeline then we must make the following assumption: Every birthday, Damian fights his mom in combat in an attempt to earn the right to meet his dad, as seen via montage in B&R #0. (Damian finally wins and meets his dad on his tenth b-day in 2010). If we truly believe in shorter timeline, the "Batman & Robin Vol. 2 #0" montage of Damian’s b-days—featuring six b-days including the one where he bests Talia in 2010—then we must assume Talia and Damian have celebrated a few biological birthdays each year for everything to work correctly. Whether or not Damian’s growth "levels-out" or reduces itself back to normal rates after his tenth b-day remains to be seen.
I have done my best to make it all work and fit in in a nice way on my website. BUT it does seem SO SO MUCH as if Snyder and Daniel are operating on a much shorter timeline than Morrison and Tomasi. Of course, there is no way that this could ever be the case...right? Therefore, my hodgepodge mixing of their narratives must be the closest thing to correct—(I hope!)
Great project dear , I wuold like to congrats for your popular blog , Really good effort
ReplyDelete