The Comics Form, Superheroes Part II

I wasn't planning on writing another post right away on the comics form and superheroes, but then I realized I forgot something. The first part of my theory can be read here. The basic gist is that the reason that superheroes became the dominant subject in the comics world is that it takes full advantage of the comics form, that superheroes are intrinsicly able to make use of the comics form.

Unfortunately, I spent the entire post talking about printing techniques and the historical part of formalism (layers upon layers people!). There is also the idea to consider that, in the infancy of both the modern comics form and of the superhero story, the superhero story uses the sequential form of comics to great ability. The most basic superhero story, beating someone/thing up is simply a series of moments.

You could argue that everything is a series a moments. Not so. The most basic of stories, from point A to point B, involves no backtracks, no pauses to consider things, no flashbacks. Granted, superhero stories use them, and often use them to great effect, but the simplest of superhero stories by definition is a point A to point B deal. As opposed to say a simple detective story, which takes a certain amount of denoument, and explanation at the end.

The Comics Form, The Basics 1

comic1

In continuing to talk about the comics form, let's start with the basics, I mean the really basic basics. As you can (hopefully) see here, we have a comics page consisting of a 2x2 grid. No, I don't consider a single page splash to be the simplest form of comics, I find that the splash page has a great deal of complications involved (if the single splash page can be defined as a comic on its own, or merely part of a larger work). The ideas I am discussing here can be be expanded on 3x3 grids, 4x4, or even the 9x9 grids of the formalistic beauty and madness that is Morrison and Quietly's WE3.

Because we (that is to say, I) are English speakers (and readers!), we read the written word left to right, top to bottom. As such, the basic design is create a comics page that mimics this process. The typical comics page is as pictured, we read panel 1 first, panel 2 second, etc. Of course the human eye and mind is a wily thing, and we might let our vision skip around as we read (but that's another show). Keep in mind that this form works for English speakers, most manga reads from right to left, top to bottom, unless it has been flipped by well meaning but confused publishing companies for the American consumption. I would imagine that Israeli comics (printed in Hebrew or Yiddish) would probably do the same, but I have not had the chance to read any Israeli comics. Most comics pages, even those with incredibly complicated design, are created to be read left to right, top to bottom.

We have four panels. Here, the word "panel" refers to a space where a single moment of time is captured by the art, usually depicting an action, and perhaps with some dialogue, caption, or thought bubbles. A panel is usually demarcated with a border (though not necessarily), which here would be the box around the numbers. And then, there is the gutter. The gutter is the space between panels.

The gutter is one of the most important parts of the comics form (as anyone who reads Understanding Comics should know. One of the major limitations in comics is that it is difficult to draw the passage of time. The gutter, the space between panels, is where time passes between those moments depicted in the panel. It is the unspoken in the comics form, the part where the reader needs to read between the lines, such as it were.

The size of the gutter matters, even if it does not exist. Eventually I will get to that. Keep in mind that all these definitions I have thrown out are not set in stone. A panel does not need a border, it does not even need to be rectangular. A comics page does not need to be read left to right, top to bottom. But, hey, this is the basics.

Also keep in mind, that all this is moot, as the most basic comic is a two panel number, as Scott McCloud would remind us. But since I am working (mostly) with the idea of a comic book in mind, I am going to start with a 2x2 grid.

Thoughts are welcome.

The Comics Form and Superheroes

I said that I wanted to talk about the comics form (or formalism, which I believe can be correctly used here). And if you are going to talk about comics, you cannot avoid talking about superheroes. And why not? Superheroes are fun, there have been many interesting stories about them, and there is a wealth of interesting writing about those stories (which can be seen at various blogs as soon as I setup the sidebar). Superheroes are the dominant subject for comics, a state that Warren Ellis once described as akin to walking into a bookstore and seeing nine tenths of the shelves filled with nurse novels.

Why is that? Why is the superhero form the dominant subject of comics? How is it that they became so entrenched that when most people (particularly non-comic readers) think of comics they think of superheroes? I have not read all the books on comics and comics history in the world, but I have read many. And most of them end up taking a socio-historical tack. They talk about the effect of the Great Depression on the American public, and the superhero as the embodiment of Roosevelt's New Deal. Superman as liberal ideal, rooting out corruption, both as reporter and as a flying ideal of humanity. Other books take an economic approach, talking about the fact that the Great Depression decimated many forms of entertainment. Children did not have a great deal of money, and could spend their dime on comics. And superheroes, with their bright colors and great adventures, appealed to children more than many of the other subject matter. There are also explanations as well.

And all of them are to some extent correct. Having one be correct does not necessarily make another less correct, and I tend to agree with many of these views. But one view that I have not seen before is a formalistic view. I would propose that the superhero form was uniquely suited to use comic form, at least the comic form of the 1930's.

I want to take a side note to clarify certain things. I tend to use the defintion of comics per Scott McCloud as "sequential art" (but not always!). I am aware that comics existed before the 1930's, even in the current forms as "pamphlets." And that comics in general have existed basically since before human writing (once again, depending on how lenient you want to go with your definition of "comics"). I know that comic books don't exist solely as a medium for superheroes. I know all these things, and I acknowledge them. But in terms of popular comics and comics as most readers are familiar, Action 1 seems a good place to start, but certainly not to finish. I would eventually like to go back to certain things, especially McKay, Katzenjammer Kids, Yellow Kid, etc.

Once again, I propose that one of the major reasons that superheroes succeeded, is because the subject matter works so well within the comics form of the 1930's. The printing techniques, color separation, and paper quality of the 1930's tended to be much poorer than they were today. One could not get the clear and crisp printing and art that one gets nowadays (generally that is).

Because of the limitations of comic printing, one needed art that could compensate. A pulp story where every character is a man wearing a black trenchcoat can lead to art that is not only muddled, but characters that all look alike. To counteract this, there was a need for characters that had a distinctive look. Superhero (and supervillain) costumes is the solution to this problem. It did not matter that Superman's face might have looked like five or six other male characters in his book, but goddamn he was wearing a blue and red suit with a giant S on the front (yellow or black usually). The early Joker is one of the most disturbing images in comicsdom for me, and probably one of my favorite depictions of my favorite villain (save perhaps Brian Bolland's), in my opinion much better than Jim Lee's stretched out monster from Hush. Put something as striking as the Joker on the cover of a comic, and not only do you have something that grabs the eye, but something that is recognizable, even if the form changes in the details. Spitcurl or no, Superman is Superman, even if the S on the chest changes slightly.

Superhero art was uniquely suited to deal with the limitations of early comics printing. The use of both bright colors and iconic costumes allowed them to combat the fact that early printing (for mass market consumption) would often destroy the more delicate areas of art. No cross-hatching here!

Of course, when printing techniques became more developed, there was no such limitations. But by this point, superheroes had become entrenched as an integral part of the comics medium.

Of course, that is my theory, and I don't hold it to the exclusion of some of those other theories I mentioned. But if anyone wants to pick my theory apart, please go ahead!

Tracers!

One last thing, whoever is the new inker on Ultimate Spider-Man is mangling the art. I have never been an art guy, always a word guy. And let's just say I have never had a full appreciation of inkers, but since this new guy came on board, I have a new found appreciation. The inks are entirely too heavy for the art, leaving it all feel leaden.

Visual Language

I've been thinking a lot about visual language, specifically the visual language of comic books. Now, the modern bible on this is Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. Add to that Eisner's Comics and Sequential Arts and Graphic Storytelling. I would comment on the latter two, but as I have not read them yet (oh but I will), I can only talk about Understanding Comics. Now, I like Understanding Comics, I like it a lot, but I always felt it was lacking a bit. It talks about a bunch of the basic theory, but not the upper theory and mechanics. Perhaps that is why Emaki, which I most likely got from the most excellent blog Mae Mai. Emaki makes a promise that there will be more discussion, and as soon as I order and get the book, we will find out.

Well, as I was saying, I have been thinking a lot about visual language. I hope that over the next while, I can start to analyze visual language and how different people read it. Because I do not think that being able to read a comic book is as natural as many people (and by people I mean comic book readers) think it is. Among the various bars of entry to comic books (among them cost, perception, and a dearth of subject matter) is that people simply don't know how to read comic books. Not that people are stupid, or that they cannot figure it out, but that as comics become more and more detailed, the nuances of the comics form becomes lost on many people.

A lot of this may not make sense until I get to it though. In other news, I read something like ten million books thanks to the magic of RSS, and I decided I need to winnow down the number.

Because I am a tool...

I am a bad blogger.

I posted this at the most excellent Howling Curmudgeons, but since I am not sure if anyone is still reading the thread, I am crossposting it here too. Not that anyone reads this. The subject was on dream teams, and dream stories in comics. Mine was Batman:

don't know if anyone is still reading this thread, but what the hell.

I am a huge Batman fan. Probably not a fanboy because I cannot quote every ish, and most of that 50's nuttiness kills me.

I want to write an extended Batman arc where Batman goes on vacation. Hell, call it "Batman on Vacation." Bruce is out fighting crime, sees something so horrible (let's say another variation on the parent's being killed before kid's own eyes), and gets really depressed about it. There are the obvious parallels to his creation, and Batman starts wondering if he is doing all he can. Batman starts to wonder if he can do more as Bruce Wayne changing the social conditions of crime (the broken window theory of crime). So rather than pull into himself even further (as seems to be the norm these days), he decides to take a vacation, and get some advice.

Bruce appoints Dick to play Batman for a while, because Gotham cannot be without Batman (a la "Prodigal"). He asks Dick's advice, Alfred's advice, then he goes and visits people. He starts with going to Barbara Gordon, dressed as Batman, and she berates him to take off the mask and talk to her. He then has one of those nice shadowy rooftop talks with James Gordon (as Batman obviously), where he has to ask all of his questions in a roundabout way to avoid spelling out the fact that he is Bruce Wayne (I work under the assumption that it is an unspoken fact that Gordon knows that Bruce is Batman, and that Batman knows that Gordon knows, but that for Gordon, Batman is the true identity, much in like with DKR Joker's thinking).

Then Batman goes on a roadtrip. He spends sometime talking with Superman, in Metropolis, as Bruce, on Superman's own terms. The highlight scene would be Bruce touring the Daily Planet (I assume he still owns it). Unable to talk to Clark directly without attracting suspicion Bruce uses some hypersonic thingamjig (can't remember where I saw that used) to tell Clark to meet him at this place at so-and-so time (but mostly so he has a chance to try out a new toy). Superman rushes over at the time in full costume, only to find Bruce relaxing with Superman floating over imperiously. Bruce tells Clark that he can change if he wants, which he does. Basically the two talk out the issue, with some Loeb-like captions having each describe the other (Batman on Superman: He is the most powerful being on the planet and also the most disciplined. He has to hold back to the merest fraction of his strengh just to shake my hand). We could also have a visit with J'onn and Diana for the hell of it.

Bruce should also get a chance to play with tech toys. You know, experiment with a utility belt that uses JLA teleporter tech to transport whatever tool he needs (much like Morrison's boom tube gauntlet in JLA: Classified 1) and the like. Also, I really want a scene where Bruce is getting Gotham updates from Dick and decides to visit him in the field. Bruce just puts on a plain mask and costume, and then goes bouncing around Gotham, actually happy with not having to bear the mantle of Batman. It surprises the hell out of Dick.

Meanwhile, in the middle of each ish, Dick should be patrolling, and it should be leading up to some huge catastrophe. I would prefer the creation of some new villains due to some minor thing that Dick misses (but that he just knows Bruce would have caught in time). Thus a big new threat goes down, and Bruce is forced to return as Batman. Meanwhile, he puts more funding into the GCPD, more into Arkham for rehabilition and security (because that place really needs it).

There's probably more to it, but I am embarassed that I wrote that much. Basically, the Batman/Gotham crimefighting scenes would all have the limited pallete that I loved on Rucka's Tec, while the Bruce on Vacation stuff would be wildly in color (particularly the Metropolis stuff, and maybe if he went to Oa or something ridiculous like that).

Crap, two more things.

Batman is with the JLA and they are caught in some sort trap. Batman communicates with Superman by having Superman listen to his heartbeat, and then transmitting a message to Superman in morse code, using the beats of his heart! That is just the sort of crazy shit I want to see right now. Batman could change the beating of his heart either chemically, or preferably through some Buddhist technique.

Also, I want a long series of Batman where the entire story is told through the common people/not superheroes. Sort of like the talking heads babble of DK2, but not so fragmented. Have an issue devoted to one, maybe two, characters telling the story. Perhaps at the last issue (say the twelfth) have it go back to Batman's head, and there is some strange reveal that changes the entire notion of the story being told.

Maybe I am a fanboy...

Yes, I am a tool. I plan to actually start blogging soon because I will have time, and because I have done more research (read more comics and other things).

What an idea!

I was reading X-Men, Emerson, and Gnosticism, suggested by the most excellent blog Peiratikos (which you are of course reading if you are for some reason, reading this blog). I am of course, not educated enough to get all the nuances of the essay. In fact, I don't want to write at all about the essay, because I don't know if I know enough to do so. However, the essay talks a bit about Millar's Professor X in Ultimate X-Men. The Professor X in Ultimate X-Men differs from his 616 version in a number of ways. Ultimate Xavier has very little trouble in using his telepathic powers in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Erasing memories, attacking enemies, changing personalities, and hints of controlling his own students. Ultimate Xavier is no wimp, at least in X-Men terms (there is still a fair bit of angst and navel gazing, though Millar usually waits until after something like Xavier's son's death to do it).

And the ultimate reveal of Millar's run is not that Xavier and the X-Men are being integrated into the government-military complex led by General Fury. No, the final reveal on the last pages, is that Xavier's cat's name is Mystique. MYSTIQUE!

Now, this of course brings up my earlier point. This reveal only works for those that have prior knowledge of X-Men, the characters, and the history/continuity. Or, I guess, have seen the movies. This is exactly the problem that I was talking about before. Now, I understand that you can still enjoy (if it is your kind of story) and get most of the story. But if you are coming into the X-Men with no prior knowledge (something the Ultimate line is made for, in my estimation) will miss this final reveal, something that does lend itself to some interesting details.

If Xavier's cat is really Mystique, shape-changing mutant extraordinare, there are two separate scenarios, both of which I think would be interesting, I honestly cannot say which one that I like more. One, Mystique is a covert spy of Xavier's (much like he own 616 series, which is quite good but not living up to what it could be), doing missions for him, and also spying on the students (which is probably not necessary, given Xavier's powers, and his already displayed confidence in using them). This one could be entirely possible, Ultimate Xavier certainly has some different methods than 616 Xavier, the Ultimate X-Men exist as a paramilitary force, much more so than their 616 counterparts. The notion of covert operatives is not too far out. The other is that Mystique existed as a mutant terrorist, member of the brotherhood, what-have-you until Xavier captured her, erased her mind, and is using his powers to keep her in the form of a cat, which for me certainly qualifies as slavery. This is also plausible in my mind, as Ultimate Xavier has shown no problem is using radical methods that would be unthinkable for the 616 Xavier, such as brainwiping Magneto and turning him into an ordinary human for a good deal of issues.

Of course, there is also a third sort of scenario, where Mystique is Xavier's secret lover, for some reason staying in the form of a cat. Ultimate Xavier was once a lover to both Moira MacTaggert and Emma Frost.

Starman

One of the things I am currently reading the second volume of Starman, written by James Robinson and drawn for the most part by Tony Harris (current artist of the most excellent Ex Machina). Now, I am only about halfway through the series right now, but I am, for the most part, liking it a great deal. I will attempt to write a bit about it though I am at work, without anything to reference.

The art on the book, both by Tony Harris and others, tends to be quite good. I would not call it simple, but it lacks the cross-hatching, unecessary shadows, and other things that seem to take over today's comic art. It is not quite as stylized as the art on say Rucka's Tec run (the artist's name escapes me right now), or as say Mike Mignola's. The coloring on the book is what leads to a great deal of the style. As to the classification, I would have to go with Art Deco. Indeed, Opal City, where most of the book is set, is itself incredibly stylish, a mix of Victorian and Art Deco. Opal City functions much the way Gotham does in Batman, a motivation for the characters, and a distincive location that lends itself to adventures.

The book is about (thus far) Jack Knight taking the mantle of Starman after his brother, the previous Starman was killed (quite ignobly). His father, Ted Knight, was the original Starman. Ted and Jack don't get along very well, and Jack does not have a great deal of respect for his father's costumed days. But he begrudgingly becomes the new Starman, and grows to accept and even relish it.

That is the simple story. The more important part of Starman, and probably why so many people rave about the book is the nature of the stories. Starman is about legacy. Jack has to learn to deal with his father and his legacy. Jack experiences a great deal of other DCU superheroic legacies as well. Starman does a great deal of meta-work in its talk about the nature of superheroics, and the pull of such a life (sometimes in a subtle manner, sometimes not). It also explores various corners of the DCU, and works to tie together many parts, and correct some inconsistencies. In many ways, Starman seems to only exist to act as glue for the DCU.

I honestly wish I could write more on Starman now, but without the books in front of me so that I can reference certain things, I cannot. I will ammend this post later. In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone could suggest other such books, either for DC or Marvel, that are not major books, but that tie together the universe (of that comic company). On the Marvel side, the most recent She-Hulk spring to mind (and if you are not reading that book, shame on you). On the DC side, I have heard that Chase, Chronos, and Anarky are all such books (though I have not read any of these as of yet). So, in part of a shameless way to see if people are reading, please suggest some books.

Jackie Chan, the Family Man

I am working the Desk right now, and watching Rumble in the Bronx (mostly because it is the only one of my DVD's that seems to work in the crappy player). It has been a while since I have seen this, or watched any of the younger Jackie Chan flicks. What a difference it is.

Chan is older now, and I can appreciate that he cannot do all the moves he could once do. I can appreciate that is trying more to be an actor, not merely an action star (though there is nothing wrong in that). In the movies I have seen him in, Chan lacks the serenity and a bit of the subtlety of Chow Yun Fat, or the raw intensity of Jet Li. But he seems to have a better sense of comic timing, and his gift for physical comedy does allow him a great deal expression. That is not to say that Chan doesn't have serenity or intensity, but that these are not his strong points.

Most people have seen Chan in later movies like Shanghai Noon, or the Rush Hours. These movies are all well and good, but for truly astounding stunts, watch earlier Jackie Chan movies, like Supercop or Legend of the Drunken Master. Here Chan's gifts shine. It is not that he can do amazing moves, or have a lot of wire work. But he makes those moves, even the wire work, look realistic. There is a rawness, when he gets hit, and you can feel the pain when he gets smacked with a liquor bottle.

Continuing Failures of the Ultimate Line

I've already talked a bit about the Ultimate line, and what I saw as its purpose, as well as its inability to fulfil that purpose. But there is more. Recently, a new Ultimate title cropped up, Ultimate Elektra. This itself is a spinoff of the Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra miniseries. Now, I understand that both of these exist more as movie tie-ins than anything else. Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra came out to coincide with the Daredevil movie, and Ultimate Elektra is coming out to work up to the Jennifer Garner Elektra movie.

Of course, I wonder why. To start, the DD and Elektra miniseries had nothing to do plotwise with the DD movie. If you want the mini to exist with the movie, at least make the plot have something to do with the movie. The story itself was basically just a retelling of Miller's Daredevil - Man Without Fear mini, though more from Elektra's point of view.

The Ultimate Elektra series, written by Mike Carey (whose work I enjoy a great deal), has had a rather inauspicious start. For me, it is boring as hell. The story continues from Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra. It follows the basic decompressed mold of telling little in one issue, and confusing pressure and noir with dull and repititious. Like I said, I adore a great deal of Mike Carey's work, such as My Faith in Frankie, but this is nothing.

What annoys me more is that Elektra is nowhere near to being a core Marvel character, and thus, not well suited to Ultimatization (that is a helluva word). Daredevil himself is arguably such a character. Most people reading comics today (myself included) would think that Daredevil is a linch-pin in the Marvel 616 Universe after hearing so many of his stories, but most forget that he was an unaccomplished, dull, Spider-Man clone until Frank Miller did his wonderful work in the 80's. After Miller, Daredevil got bad again, and he didn't get better until he was cancelled and relaunched under Marvel Knights (and not under Smith, he didn't get good until Bendis got ahold of him, but that is another story). Hell, Ant-Man seems to be a more important character!

Anyway, I don't necessasrily believe that Daredevil is that important of a character to start burdening the Ultimate continuity with. And there we come to the important word, continuity. The Ultimate Universe was also supposed to be relatively free of all the continuity and baggage of the 616 Universe. Sure, when you have an Uncle Ben character, you know he is going to die soon, but otherwise, the Ultimate Universe is supposed to be free of the last forty years of events that have made the Marvel Universe a bit of a mess. There is no need for an Ultimate analogue of every 616 character. In my opinion, the only Ultimate characters needed are Spider-Man, X-Men (take your pick of characters), Avengers (likewise, so long as it has Captain America), and the Fantastic Four.

The Ultimate Universe is barely five years old, and already they have continuity problems. Elektra just got her own series, but she already showed up in Ultimate Spider-Man. Is Ultimate Elektra set somewhere in the nebulous past of the Ultimate Universe? We can only assume so. And then there is Ultimate Team-Up. Written by Bendis as a bunch of mostly one-shots, some are in continuity, some are not. The Fantastic Four issue especially causes trouble, because no one knows when they exist. Personally, I could do withot all of the Ultimate Team-Ups. Sure, some of them were good, but not all of them. And do we really need an Ultimate Punisher or Doc Strange? Or even worse, an Ultimate Blade?

Now, I understand, every character is someone's favorite. But the Ultimate Universe was supposed to be clean, and written with at least something of a plan to avoid the screwups that have already occurred. It should be relatively free of super-characters, so that there is still a sense of wonder and change that happens with these characters. As it is, the Ultimate Universe is just as populated as the 616 Universe. And if all these characters need to be introduced (and I surely don't think they do), then do it slowly, and with forethought.

A Confession

As a start to this new blog (no matter how hard I try, that word still sends slivers of pain into my spine), I guess I should start with something embarassing.

I read comic books.

Now, to those that know me, this is no surprise. Some think that it is the only thing I do, some think that I am obssessed. Of course, this causes many people to make asshole comments. Everything from the basic, "you should know that" stuff, to that "Bif Bam Zort!" crap. God I hate Adam West.

The truth is that I never really read comics until about three years ago. Sure, I knew some stuff, owned a couple that I got for free. Most of my knowledge came from the 90's crop of superhero toons, from Spider-Man (which was okay), the poorly animated X-Men (which I inexplicably liked), to the amazing Batman: The Animated Series (which I love to this day). I probably had an above-average knowledge of comics, but that came more from being a general nerd than a comics nerd.

But then something hit me on comics three years ago. It started out as one of my research binges, where I just jump headlong into a topic for a while. I started researching comics on the web (comics have a huge presence thanks to the fact that most comic fans are also fairly computer literate). The wealth of comic stories, the long list of history, all of it smacked me around for a bit, before I decided to go whole hog. I homed in on what seemed to be the three most well regarded comics in the "comics mainstream," Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, and Sandman. So, having some Hanukah money to burn, I bought the Watchmen, DKR trades, and the first trade of Sandman. And from there I was hooked.

Worldcon and Other Sundries

I spent the weekend in Boston at Noreascon, which also happened to be the Worldcon (62 or 63). This was my first con, but here is a quick report.

After a breath-taking, and near stroke-inducing trip to the airport, I made my flight. I spent an hour compressing my shoulders (which are twice as wide as the seats in cattle class). I got to the airport, and exhausted, and a bit nauseous (though not from flying), I spent the next hour and a half trying to track down my Aunt Priscilla. Since she was one of the organizers of this thing, I was led on a merry chase, but I eventually found her.

I spent most of the weekened taking as much as I could in. I went to a bunch of panels, from Fermi's Paradox, to the Lie's Movies Tell Us, to Fantasy Noire (whatever that is supposed to mean, the panelists were unsure of the definition too). I walked through the dealer's room a lot, saw some movies, some people in costumes that should not have been wearing them (though some were good).

The highlights (and the main reason I went), was to see Neil Gaiman. My Aunt, using her powers of organizer tried to set up a quick meeting, but that was not in the cards. I did get to hear him read the first two chapters (and change) of his new (and unfinished book) Anansi Boys, a sequel of sorts to the excellent American Gods. It was quite funny, and I enjoyed it a great deal, though I felt that just a couple of metaphors were belabored (of course, I am not a professional writer, and I might just be snarky).

After the reading, I got a bit mixed up getting out of the room, so I did not see him at the autographing. I went to see Gaiman at a later panel on Monsters in the Maze, which of course had nothing to do with the title or the description but was a laugh riot anyway. Afterwards, I went back to my room for a couple minutes of quietude. I went to head back down for more madness, and Neil Gaiman was standing there in the elevator lobby of the twentieth floor. I was quite happy (after the moment of recognition), and complimenting him on a funny panel. Now, I have never been one to understand celebrity, or all that goes with it, but it definitely made my day to shake his hand. We shared an elevator until he was squished into a corner. He went to the Huge banquet, while I went and walked around the floor some more until the Hugos. The highlight of the Hugo's was probably Robert Silverberg's recounting of the history of the Hugos (which may or may not have a silent H, it was not entirely clear to me).

The next day was more panels, more walking around, and then a trip home. I was sad to go, and for some reason, I had more energy on Sunday than Friday and Saturday combined. I was practically manic. I'll have to get back to write more later.

The Failure of Marvel's Ultimate Line

Well, now so much the failure of the Ultimate line as its gradual change to everything else.

I got into comics late. When I decided I wanted to start reading comics, I did some research, and I talked to the owner of a shop near me. One of the lines he suggested was Ultimate, which was as he put it, an updating of some Marvel concepts. I picked up a rerelease of the first Ultimate Spider-Man (Bendis), and the Ultimate X-Men (Millar) and enjoyed them immensely. I have fairly steadily kept on with all the Ultimate line (save the shitty Ultimate Adventures) for the most part. But what I started to notice is that the Ultimate line is not doing what it should be doing.

As I said, I did some research. Now, for the life of me, I cannot find the quote, but someone from Marvel (possibly Jemas) described the Ultimate line as a retelling of Marvel's core concepts stripped to the bare essentials without all the ponderous history of the last 30 years or so. The Ultimate line was to tell the core concept for the modern age. Note the word concept, rather than story.

In my mind, the Ultimate line shouldn't concern itself with retelling the stories of Marvel comics past. It shouldn't retell the Phoenix saga, the Clone Saga, the Twelve, the Kree/Skrull War, no matter how seminal or high selling these stories were. If Marvel really wants to do that, they already have their Essential reprints, and the Marvel Age line. But instead, they should tell the concepts.

But what are the concepts? Well, let's look at Spider-Man. To me, the core concept is that Spider-Man is about a nerd and a loser, who gains superpowers that end up making his life more difficult than before. He realizes that with these powers, he gains a responsibility to use them for good ("with great power comes great responsibility"). Note that nowhere did I mention that these were Spider powers, though with a name like Spider-Man, that is implied. Hell, I don't mention that the powers come from a radioactive spider. That right there is about as bare bones as you can get. And it is pretty bloody timeless. Now, if you want to have go a little wider on the essentials, you should realize that superpowers is a metaphor for puberty and growing up. You should realize that the radioactive spider of the 60's encapsulates the nuclear fear of that time. These concepts, especially nuclear fear, are not quite so timeless. So, how does one update these? Well, in Bendis's case, he substituted "nuclear" with "genetically engineered," and threw in a dose of government-industrial conspiracy. Indeed, I feel that is a pretty acurate update of those concepts.

But these concepts could be used to describe almost any character that starts as a dweeb and gets powers. What makes Spider-Man Spider-Man? Well, the great power/great responsibility side is part of it. As is the fact that Peter Parker's beloved father figure dies due to his inaction, causing Peter to feel great guilt.

But still, I mentioned nothing really of characters. As seminal as he is, Green Goblin is not central to the Spider-Man concept. Not as Norman Osborn, father of Peter's best friend and somewhat father figure, not as Green Goblin, the cackling demon of Peter's nightmares. Nor is characters such as Doc Ock, or the rest central. Sure, they are great characters (some of them at least), sure they can be interesting, but they have nothing to do with the idea of a dweeb with powers. And for the Ultimate line, not only are they unnecessary, maybe they shouldn't be included at all.

As I see it, there are certain levels of essentials (I know, that sort of goes against the definition). They are, as follows:

1. The bare bones of the character. For Spider-Man, this would be that "Spider-Man is about a nerd and a loser, who gains superpowers that end up making his life more difficult than before."

2. The character motivations and details. This would include all the great power/responsibility arguments, the spider-powers themselves, and the loss of a father figure due to inaction. I would also include in this the superpowers as puberty comparison.

3. Surrounding characters and relations. This would include your Aunt May's, Gwen Stacy's, MJ's, and major villains. But that does not mean some minor characters that an author pulls up for those who can spot it.

4. The Seminal Stories. This would include things like the Death of Gwen Stacy. I would disclude the way Peter gets his powers, or the death of Uncle Ben, as these go towards number two, character motivation and details.

That's it, really. Now let's look at X-Men for a moment, using the same system.

1. A group are feared and hated, but despite this they try to gain acceptance and protect themselves and the world at large.

2. This group is made up of mutants, homo superior, possibly the next step in evolution. Usually at the time of puberty, powers manifest, marking the children as mutants, and not human. They seek to protect the world and the mutants.

2A. Now, I also want to add that the group is a school, led by a teacher figure (Xavier). I didn't include this directly in two, because I feel that it is not the same level of concept, but it does not fit in the other characters.

3. The mutant hating public. Magneto and the Brotherhood, an anti-organization that also seeks to protect mutants, but at the expense of humans.

4. Phoenix Saga, Inferno, basically anything Chris Claremont wrote (though I personally find most of it dull and poorly done, save God Saves, Man Kills).

Now, I personally believe that the Ultimate line should focus almost solely on numbers one and two. That is the core that Ultimate should seek to preserve, update, and retell. Number four is right out, unnecessary to the core. But number three is problematic. Is Aunt May core to Spider-Man (I say yes). Is Gwen Stacy (no, and certainly not the way she was used previously, in which Mary Jane took Gwen Stacy's position, and Gwen Mary's)? Is Charles Xavier core (yes)? Is the fact that he has psychic powers important (not necessarily)? And the same goes for Magneto. What about Norman Osborn, Doc Ock, JJJ, Toad, Blob, Scarlet Witch, Cyclops, Logan, Jean Grey, etc. None of these characters are important. They are great characters when used well, to be sure, but they are not necessary. Any of the original mutants could just as easily be different mutants (and Ultimate X-Men did have a different starting line up than the book that inspired it). It is not important that Cyclops exists, any other mutant could fill the uptight leader position, or even a different charismatic leader position. Peter Parker could work in a law office, a bank, or as a stevedore rather than as a photographer (or in Ultimate, web designer). This is why I do not feel that these characters go to the core of the story.

More troubling, and for the entire Ultimate line, is that these characters, however new, bring a certain history. If Ultimate Wolverine was written as a happy-go-lucky guy who had to stop his career as a circus clown because his claws kept popping his balloon animals, people would wonder what the hell was going on. And from the first time Gwen Stacy, who didn't wonder when and how she was going to get killed off (spoiler, sorry). Because Wolverine exists as the mysterious loner, and Gwen Stacy is immortalized as the one that Spider-Man could not save. Never mind that Gwen Stacy's death was so huge in the 616 Universe because she was Peter Parker's love, and readers had gotten close to her over many years, rather than just a bit of time as the sister-figure she became in the Ultimate Universe. Her Ultimate death meant nothing to me, because she did not hold the same high position that she did before.

Other writers are noticing this too. Brian K Vaughn's run so far on Ultimate X-Men has worked more on the idea that readers have knowledge of these characters from their 616 origins (which is the exact opposite of what should be happenin). The Mr. Sinister as a stuttering gangster and Apocalypse as a doll made up of household items is only funny (as it is intended to be) if you know what these characters are like in 616. This nullifies the point of the Ultimate Universe.

While I liked Millar's handling of the Phoenix saga (something I have never been fond of), or Bendis's Kraven (as a hilarious Stever Irwin reality TV character), none of these are important in Ultimate.

That is not to say that writer's cannot use these stories, I just wish they didn't. Ultimate storylines should be new, and not be related to old storylines from 616. Try new characters that have never been seen before (not Geldoff though, that was a poor attempt), rather than just reusing old characters.

More on this later.