Iconic heroes, continuity and aging

Fysh

Erik Larsen article here.

It should be noted that Larsen is a comicbook professional who has been writing and drawing his own title (Savage Dragon) for years. However, I have to say that I completely disagree with his views as expressed above.

I mean, basically what he's saying is that there are certain characters who are part of pop culture. And that, because they're part of pop culture, they should changelessly remain part of pop culture. So essentially, any story told about them should be forgettable enough that you can get current stories without having to know what's gone before.

Now, Larsen goes on to argue that attempts to keep continuity and create a second generation of heroes have failed, because people want the originals. I'd argue that there are different reasons these heroes failed:

a) lack of unique characterisation (ie they're too obviously a "new" version of an existing character)
b) lack of decent stories

The second point is the more important one as far as I'm concerned, because it directly goes against Larsen's argument that stories affecting characters should be forgettable and effectively things that have no long-term consequences. It is precisely those stories that do have long-term consequences that get people involved in a character. Spiderman had the death of his first love, Iron Man had his ongoing battle with alcohol and later a crippling neurological disease, and so forth (I freely admit I'm not well-versed enough in superheroes to know the critical history points for many mainstream characters).

The fact that, 40 years ago, Batman stories weren't mired in continuity is no good reason for stories not to have them now. There are strong business reasons for the Big 2 to be careful with using continuity to the point where they put themselves out of business, but frankly screw them - if their business plan involves using the same characters over increasing timespans, then they should either find a way of making it internally consistent, or find a way of explaining the constant continuity reboots to their fans. Saying "Oh, but at the end of the day it's superheroes, you can't expect realism in here" is just copping out and trying to use a stereotyped view of the genre as a way of escaping the corner they've written themselves into.

Thoughts? I'd quite like to hear what more superhero-oriented fans think in particular...

MorningStar

I see what he is saying but I don't think he is really saying that it must all be real time and have continuity.
I think he is just talking about the whole inherited problem. I know when I got older than Superman I was a little upset.
I think there is a bigger problem with trying to figure out what issue connects to what and the relate to other series. I only Dabble so never know what's going on around major characters or even follow it. I end up buying the compiled books

Fysh

Well, as I understand it he's very much against most superheroes being stuck in a rigid continuity that updates in realtime. Which, in and of itself, is fine. Where I have to disagree is his assertion that, basically, the notion of continuity itself is counterproductive for comics. The whole point of a continuity is that you grow and develop with the characters as you read their stories.

And yes, I can see how there's business pressure on the big 2 to keep their characters fresh and young so that they can still appeal - but if that means that every story is reversible then they'll only get stuck in the opposite end of the problem : young fans discover the character, get into the books for a while, then tire of the way nothing really changes. They outgrow the character, so a new audience is required. If they keep going for the "nothing big ever really happens" notion, then this kind of audience changeover would happen every few years rather than every couple of decades. And I don't see the kind of stories that we'd be getting then as beneficial to anyone. (That said, I already think that most of the "iconic" heroes have had more stories told about them than their characters can really hold up to - but that's just me. I suppose a decent writer can always prove me wrong.)

Frankly, I refuse to feel any kind of sympathy for the afflicted here, when the problem basically boils down to the big 2 being unable today to create characters with the kind of resonance their older characters have built up over decates. They consistently screwed over their employees and creators throughout most of their history (hell, Marvel even tried to screw Stan Lee out of the money he was owed as creator for some of the recent movie adaptations), and if that means they've put themselves in a corner then tough sh*t.

If they give their writers and artists decent working conditions and creative freedoms to play with, I'm sure they can get someone to create a new character today who will, in time, have the kind of resonance that Batman and Superman have now. But it's not going to happen overnight, and they shouldn't expect it to. More importantly, they shouldn't rely excessively on existing properties, because all that'll do is encourage them to flood the market with yet more "strong expected sales" books about the same characters, and fans will tire and stop buying the books. (Look at what happened with Wolverine after the first XMen movie, for example).

MorningStar

I think you could be over thinking the issue. Commercial interest is always a concern they are what fund the whole industry and keep the interest in the market. If there is no core audience you don't get the deviations in indie comics.

The media industry do this all the time. Comics and cartoons can get away with it. The music industry re-release CDs all the time of classic artists like Rolling Stones etc... Essentially they are still selling the classic while the original still exist.

I though comics rehash the comics every now and then like the Ultimate series of all the marvel characters. The differnt crisis situations were just about clearing up diffenerent stories and reviving important characters.

You may complain about originality but what can you do. Have every charcter live in their own world without interacting with each other? Have Superman die and stay dead? You can complain all you like but they still sell! It is the industry, it's a bit like complaining about pop-music when you like rock but they both make up th eindustry. Both require the same distribution chains and without the other you loose the viability of such chains. If you destroy one one you stop the other existing.

Sony were suied not Marvel over film rights AFIK. What some people don't understand is the comics would not be popular if they weren't promoted and avilable. Retention of rights to creators sounds lovely but they wouldn't make money without the publishing house at all. The publishers offer terms and conditions that make money. If you think the companies do this just to screw people over I think you miss the point. They do it to make money they aren't actually looking for people to get in their way.
If you think artististic freedom means you get better stuff I don't think I have seen proof. Prince destroyed his own carrear. How much free MP3s of self promoting bands do you listen to?

I am not quite sure what you are talking about when when you say "sympathetic" for anybody. I don't think they care or want your sympathy. They don't create new characters because they don't see the point. You have to see a point there too. Most super heroes have a limited selection of possible super powers or history without repeating what has already been said and done. Frank miller aged Bats and I think he did a good job and the else worlds etc... cover most things

Fysh

Well, I'm not sure I agree with any of that, actually.

Comics being re-hashed or updated is fine by me - take the Ultimates line or the All-star series that DC are hoping to expand, for example - but constantly doing changeless crap with the same character is not. I mean, many superhero stories end up being soap operas anyway; how much worse would they be if they turned into sitcoms where there isn't even any character progression to keep things interesting?

Re : originality. What they could do is develop new characters without giving them a ridiculously short time to prove themselves. Develop them in existing books and bring them to the forefront over time, rather than dropping them in all of a sudden and giving them a few months in which to suddenly get huge sales. When the new characters are faced with the task of replacing characters who have 30-odd years of history behind them, how can they expect a character with 6 issues to their name to generate the same amount of reader loyalty?

I don't buy the "other media" comparison, because the only one I can think of in which this happens would be the Simpsons. And even then they mock themselves for it, and grudgingly accepted some sort of continuity. The thing I find weird about this is that Larsen seems to be suggesting that we move away from a continuity and away from stories which have any meaningful impact on the characters they feature, just so that some corporate asset can be kept in circulation a bit longer. That's well and good in terms of the company owning the asset, but I don't see how that's beneficial to the industry as a whole - if anything it's damaging, because it will mean that mainstream comics attract the kind of person willing to read crap stories month in month out just because the central character is "cool". And frankly as a comic fan that's exactly what I don't want to happen. We've already got a split between the independent graphic novel community and the superhero fans - do we really need the Big Two retreating into yet more derivative rehashed superhero tripe to exacerbate this further?

Retention of rights to creators is working far better over at Image than most of the naysayers assume. Hell, it works at Apparat as well. It's just that it's not easily viable when the main distribution network (in fact the only distribution network, if you want to go international) is Diamond, which has been built up around the "guaranteed sales" (ie Direct Market) model favoured by the Big Two. The Direct Market (ie no refunds) doesn't benefit comic stores or comic fans, because it means that anything without a pre-established audience will cost the store money if it doesn't sell. This doesn't happen with "traditional" books - there's a returns policy, and part of choosing what to publish is working out how many books will get remaindered. This doesn't happen with comic books, meaning that stores get punished for carrying anything new or different that fans don't pick up. Meaning you end up with stores full of Goatman backissues and not much else. And narrowing down your audience to the hardcore superhero fans means reduced profits, sadly.

As for listening to self-promoting bands, I listen to several. Same as I try and read independent small-press comics. Yes, there's a lot of crap there. But, you know, if the big companies won't serve up stuff that I like, I'll look elsewhere. It's down to tastes, I expect - but I don't think that focusing more on changeless superhero books and less on variety and good storytelling will help companies sell comics.

On your last point I start to wonder if we're not getting each other here. Dark Knight Returns is one of the defining Batman stories, because it showed Batman/Wayne developing, and reaching a conflict point which couldn't be undone - the fight with Superman in which Batman proves he can take Superman down if he needs to. That's the kind of story that readers really respond to, as proven by the popularity of the story years on. My interpretation of Larsen's article is that we wouldn't get stories like "Dark Knight Returns" because it would prevent the company from telling more Batman stories twenty years down the line.

MorningStar

Look you seem to think in an ideal world good comics would get out if business wasn't involved. I don't think that is realistic.
You might know alot about the comic industry and sales, images etc... Comics need the money and the article is an over blown view. It's not going to happen. You don't like the way comic companies do business don't buy their product. They only do what appeals. You want to rifle throught the indie stuff to find gems I'll look through the comercial stuff and find gems too. I like the fluff too which I can't say the same for in the indie scene. The people who are killing your scene are creating one I like. Not everybody has time to be taken over by one form of media. But look at this way the "Smoke Get's In your Eyes" has been a big hit in every decade scince the 20s. Now that is rehashing.
I don't really have an argument for or against because it is not going to happen.

Fysh

I'm not thinking of an "ideal world", I'm just looking at the way the comic market has narrowed over the last 10 years to focus more and more on superheroes. I don't think this is a good thing, not because superheroes are inherently terrible or anything - but because there's more to comics than superheroes in the same way that there's more to movies than summer blockbusters. Variety should be encouraged, not stifled.

The thing about keeping the iconic heroes going is that from a business perspective there's a guaranteed return on investment. Which is fine as far as it goes. But building your whole business around that means that you essentially end up with a company where remaining static is seen as a way of securing financial success. Which, in turn, will garner you fans who want characters to remain static. And with the emerging popularity of graphic novel-type material, this would end up further dividing what should be one big group of people - comics fans.

You seem to be assuming that I despise superhero comics. I don't. They're just generally not my thing, though I dip in and out of them on occasion. I like variety in my comics, and the way the Big Two have set things up, coupled with the changes Diamond has recently made to its distribution system, what I'm likely to be offered by Marvel/DC is variety of superhero comics. Again, nothing wrong with this, but it's not what I'm after. This is why Image and Apparat and Speakeasy and Alias and Dark Horse and however many other companies are managing to make money out there - there's demand for more than superhero stuff. Look at Sin City, or Asterix, for example - not superhero material, but engaging nonetheless.

MorningStar

Fysh wrote:

You seem to be assuming that I despise superhero comics.

Not at all I think you dislike what is happening to the market and think you have a better way for it to be run.

The problem is I remember the market being nothing but superheros and kids stuff there being no comic shops here or choice. The market you liked before evolved from what was there and you don't like what has evolved to. I liked the English comics of my childhood what is left now from that time?

You also have to understand you are getting older so your enjoyment of comic may be changing too. I liked chart music but the charts changed and I don't like what is there now. It doesn't mean I don't music or I hate the industry. I don't like the cover songs either

Fysh

MorningStar wrote:

Not at all I think you dislike what is happening to the market and think you have a better way for it to be run.

Well, I wouldn't quite put it that way, although I know my previous posts have come across that way.

MorningStar wrote:

The problem is I remember the market being nothing but superheros and kids stuff there being no comic shops here or choice. The market you liked before evolved from what was there and you don't like what has evolved to. I liked the English comics of my childhood what is left now from that time?

What I was trying to get at is that, as far as I can tell, the Big Two leading the way to focus on established heroes rather than renewing them at all will dampen innovation in the superhero market, by driving away people who want to see characters that evolve. The approach suggested by Larsen, coupled with Diamond's recent changes, would mean encouraging people to read stories about changeless characters rather than evolving and developing personalities, which in the specific context of superheroes can work - but outside of the superhero context, only gag strips and commentary-type comics can really work in this way. Which would mean that stories like, say, Cerebus or Strangers In Paradise or even Sandman wouldn't get told as easily, or at least not through those channels.

Obviously publishers are in the business to make money and they're going to want to reduce the risk of books flopping - but some degree of innovation is always going to be required, and I'm not convinced that just junking continuity (in the way that regularly happens anyway with reboots) will resolve this : how many years of disposable superhero stories will it take before the sheen of the iconic characters fades thanks to the vacuum they exist in?

Where this gets confusing for me is that setting up the iconic heroes like this would effectively create a turnstile audience - you start reading for a while, then after a few months/years get bored because there's not much ongoing development, and move on to something else. This is a good thing if the conditions exist in which someone who's interested (though not fanatical) about comics can easily find new and more diverse material. (Which is where the Diamond changes come into it - if comic book stores are penalised for taking a chance on books that turn out not to find an immediate audience, then the natural result is that less mainstream books disappear from the stores.)

MorningStar wrote:

You also have to understand you are getting older so your enjoyment of comic may be changing too. I liked chart music but the charts changed and I don't like what is there now. It doesn't mean I don't music or I hate the industry. I don't like the cover songs either

I know what you mean about changing tastes, but this is why I'm concerned. The idea of having the iconic characters as a kind of entry portal into the world of comics is not inherently a bad thing, but if the market setup does not provide people with avenues through which to explore and discover other material that they may find more rewarding, the market will diminish and everyone loses out.

It's nice to see this kind of discussion on the board, I must admit Nothing like talking to someone with a different point of view to keep things interesting.

MorningStar

Fysh wrote:

It's nice to see this kind of discussion on the board, I must admit Nothing like talking to someone with a different point of view to keep things interesting.

You can always find a different view it's just you get it shouted at you.
I get what you are saying on only one view and not being exposed to other heros/characters. I just don't think it is going to happen. Looking at what they have done with the cartoons. JL Unlimited is basically a big ad for the the whole DC universe.
Essentially what is being suggested isn't going to happen and the mild way it is happening is really this new All Star series as far as I can see.
I don't think the article is a real call for change but more of a possible way to do things but more for discussion than endorsement.

][cEMAN**

Just to note on the idea that icons should be outside of continuity - I know myself that I would prefer to read old comics with the styles and characteristics of the characters I grew up with, than to read the new bastardised versions of them which have changed with the media.

Also i'd like to point out that icons such as the Simpsons who have not changed through the years, still remain as fresh and as loveable as they always did, with more episodes going out each year than standard comics produce - they simply have good story writers, and people who can keep it fresh.

I don't think that it's always the character that gets old and tired when it sticks with the same style, but rather the writer running out of things to get them to do. That's why when you read the older comics between the early 80s and the late 80s that kept the same style but changed writers, you find that they stay ever popular.

I just couldn't be bothered with all of the "New" and "Improved" versions of everything I grew up with. I don't want them to change - I change, I grow up, and I deal with my life. I don't want to be dealing with a comic book hero's mid life crisis!!

Moogle

' wrote:

[cEMAN**']Also i'd like to point out that icons such as the Simpsons who have not changed through the years, still remain as fresh and as loveable as they always did, with more episodes going out each year than standard comics produce - they simply have good story writers, and people who can keep it fresh.

I disagree in relation to the Simpsons analogy. I believe that the series has become tired and predictable. The characters are not as funny as they used to be they seem to be all one of the following:

1) Homer does something stupid/realises that he should change his life at the end. Doesn't.
2) Marge wishes she had done things differently then decides neverything is ok
3) Bart does something wrong...
4) Lisa is Springfield/the world's answer to a question nobody asked
5) Something happens to small bit player that doesn't change the status quo


I admit they are still capable of the odd gem but like superheroes they are getting old but not growing up. Maybe I've just outgrown them. Maybe thats the issue with everyone, they've just outgrown the superheroes and need something that's more mature. I think Frank Miller's Dark Knight, Moore's Watchmen and Ross/Waid's Kingdom come are some of the best superhero stories ever. Maybe its because the Heroes aged or maybe its because everything isn't black and white as you see in today's work, its a shade of gray (maybe that's why I like Ultimates).

][cEMAN**

Yeah but the thing with the simpsons in relation to my point, is that they have to be 1 off shows. There is no story line they can follow from 1 episode to another. Comics have that, and have half as many "episodes" coming out each year.

I agree that for some people it is tired and predictable, but then so is most TV these days. I was simply using it as an example of extended popularity even though nothing has really changed through the years.

Yes my love of comics is deeply rooted in the old X-Men stereotypes, but then that's just me - I love all of it. I still prefer Wolverine in his "Yellow Spandex" outfit, running around with his sidekicks I still prefer Cycliops in the revamped yellow and blue outfit. I still prefer rogue with her fighter pilot jacket, and I still prefer the old Beast.

In my opinion (and understand this is really just mine), when the characters "developed" they lost the essence that I liked them for. Their own unique styles and quirks. Once they changed, and writers started throwing in new characters in a bid to revive the series (from their own mess ups), even the iconic characters I grew up with blended into the scenery and became forgettable. They were no longer unique - they were just members of a super team.

It takes away from the shock people have when characters die. Unless it's their favourite, people don't care any more. There's no attachment to the characters.

It's really the reason I stopped reading most of them.

Fysh

And another Erik Larsen column here, which confuses hell out of me.

I thoroughly like to see someone in his position saying something like this - because I think he's right about how people respond to yet more ongoing stories about the same characters.

It's still bloody weird to reconcile the two stances, though.

Spideyman

I read the start of it but couldn't be bothered reading any further once he started name dropping Savage Dragon... again, so I just skim read it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it just one overly long bitch about writers and artist working on established characters?

Spider-Man, Superman, X-Men, Batman etc.; is he suggesting that once the original creators quit their titles should have been dropped?

Lets face it Stan Lee & co. were geniuses in the field but they had a blank slate with which to start. Anyone who tries to create a new character these days runs the risk of being crucified by fans for spinning off a clone of someone elses work, it's a simple case of: "Simpsons did it!!!"

The favourites are established and popular and have built up such great themes over the years and decades that it would be insanly suicidal for Marvel or DC not to attach their greatest talents to them and let them continue to grow.

And even still there are new creations out there with rapidly growing fanbases and cool new ideas, for example: Paul Jenkins' Sentry (a case for "Simpsons did it!!!" if I ever saw one) and Brian Michael Bendis' Alias/The Pulse and many more I'm sure (I'm a Marvel nut you might have gathered so I don't know many DC examples but I know they're out there in all fairness)

So that's 'my two cents', hope you agree, if not I'm sure you'll let me know and I'll get a tirade of abuse. Here's hoping...

Fysh

Just to clarify : the original article I was talking about is this one, and the follow-up is this one.

Anyway, back on the subject. Established characters may have built up themes and iconic stories and yadda yadda yadda. I personally don't feel that there are many stories that can be told with characters who have been around for more than twice my lifetime that will engage me. How many times do we reboot existing characters, or erase whole swathes of continuity, or "undo" unpopular or inconvenient plot developments? I mean, really...yes, there's a sentimental attachment to the characters, but there's only so much you can expect to happen to them. Either the stories they are part of actually mean something because there's a finite timeline associated with the character, or the stories devolve into being ultimately meaningless because they'll only last until the next reboot (which for Marvel has been, what, 10 years maybe?).

Now, I'm not trying to pick sides here but I actually have a bit more time for DC than Marvel - because DC seem to be trying to broaden their publishing range. They've got Vertigo, Wildstorm, CMX and the Paradox Press line going; until the summer they had the DC/Humanoids & DC/2000AD imprints going. They were publishing a wider range of material, including a significant amount of wholly new material, than Marvel. Now I'm not saying that makes DC the saviour of original comics - I'm well aware that the reason they are most likely doing this is precisely because it gives them an edge over Marvel that they sorely need, given that Marvel has had more recent succesful (at least in a financial sense) multimedia releases featuring their characters than DC have.

I do understand that a company the size of Marvel or DC isn't suddenly going to jettison a character or series that is seen as a guaranteed cash cow; but on the other hand, the last ten years have not been great for comics as a whole. After the whole early nineties collector craze ("limited edition! only 500,000 copies printed!" kind of nonsense), the market's not in a great state. What I'm getting at is that I don't think it's financially viable to try and grow the market by sticking to your core characters who are, ultimately, old. As Erik points out, there's nothing quite like being able to get in on the ground floor of a new character or series without having to spend months or years tracking down back issues to get "the full story".

To give you an example, I like Iron Man the most of the superheroes in Marvel's roster. The only time I will really get involved in reading Iron Man would be if a particular writer is starting a new run on it and I know that it's not part of continuity - I've tried to follow Iron Man continuity before (around the time of the Crucifixion saga) and frankly having to buy Iron Man, Force Works, Avengers, and on occasion Captain America books just to find out what's happening to the one character I'm interested in. Likewise, I don't particularly want to have to buy issues from ten years before I was born to find out the true roots (long since erased through a reboot, but kept onto because "fans like them") of Tony's alcohol problem, or whatever.

Ultimately, I would like what I'm reading to have a contempory sensibility to it. It's very difficult to achieve this with an existing character, especially if they are company-owned characters with limitations placed on them either by the existing continuity or by the owner of the character. New characters don't have those limits, and can be explored in more interesting ways. (That said, the argument about how many interesting stories can be told within the constraints of the superhero genre is another one that I don't want to get stuck into right now.) And I think what Larsen's latest column is saying is something along these lines - that if you really do want to be a creator, then settling for telling stories with someone else's characters, in someone else's world shouldn't be enough for you. If you really burn with a desire to tell great stories, then sooner or later that creative desire is going to feel the constraints of the corporate greats, and that's the point where people should be considering creator-owned work.

I hope that makes sense, I keep finding myself moving away from the central argument on this thread...

Moogle

I think Marvel are trying to go in new directions with the new Marvel Icon imprint.

I for one really enjoy Kabuki and Powers and look forward to some more creator controlled material.

Spideyman

Fysh wrote:

I hope that makes sense, I keep finding myself moving away from the central argument on this thread...

Yeah I know what you mean.

I suppose I've only been reading comics for a few years now and at first I only read the Ultimate Marvel ones. I just like a lot of the established characters (heroes and otherwise) and I get put off by the fact that, working in a comic shop, I have to put up with new half-arsed titles coming out every week with only the odd one that lasts and is any good. I mean if you look at a list of independantly published comics for a single week the amount of issue #1's is almost sickening.

Fysh

Well, I dunno. Too many half-arsed new things is bad, but I always like checking out first issues - trying to gauge whether the story will be something interesting or not, whether the artwork will hold your attention, and whether it's likely to last long enough to be worth buying. I'd have missed out on Mega City 909 and Bone Rest : A World's End if I ignored anything whose #1 issue hit the shelves after I started reading comics.

I think it's not down to independent or corporate owned comics being better or worse, so much as a lack of quality filters in general. I mean, as things stand now for marvel you could get away with publishing any old crap so long as Wolverine was in it and it would sell. DC has batman in a similar situation. Neither character, nor their fans, benefits from lazy stories being told about them. And it's not like you can really argue that every issue of every comic put out by the Big Two is fantastic - a lot of runs on those books are kept afloat because people are fanatic about the characters, not because the stories are inherently brilliant. So the flow of mediocre crap every month isn't just down to indie creators, although they do contribute to it.

The thing is, I don't know that much about the crap comics coming out because, truth be told, I mostly just don't read them. If it doesn't look interesting, I won't buy it or read it. I don't have the money or time to spend on comics that don't get my brain going. I imagine you get a different view of things, having to regularly stock stuff that may be crap but sells anyway in the store...

Spideyman

You would not believe how hard it is to gauge a comic's popularity, firstly they are ordered two months in advance and getting that amount right is down to trial and error based on the previous issues sales or on the popularity of the writer/artist/character.

So you get a rake of Army of Darkness sitting on the shelves because it's suddenly not half as popular as it was due to being delayed and you have the likes of Serenity selling out immediatly because no one could tell how popular it'd be.

Gladly that's not my job, I just tidy the shelves and bitch. :rolleyes:

Fysh

Heh, since I started reading comics again about two and a half years ago I took up following Warren Ellis's Bad Signal mailing list and occasionally chatting to folks in the shops where I buy my regular fixes, so I have some idea of how hideous the Direct Market system can be, especially with Diamond involved. Can't say I envy the job of choosing what to stock, and I don't think that encouraging preorders is a viable solution (although it is one way of finding out if people will buy a book). This is one problem I'll happily admit I have no idea how to fix, and it's led to me changing my opinion on Other Realms' stock problems completely (at first I thought it was just down to them being lazy about reordering etc, then I got talking to them about it and found out about the various problems they actually face with getting stock to actually arrive from Diamond).

Though the only thing that does spring to mind is Diamond's monopoly on direct distribution - some sort of challenge to that might actually give them the required kick up the ass to get things moving as they should be...