Post by baldingterror on Mar 22, 2008 19:36:55 GMT -5
Greetings Assemblers,
Some of you know me, and some of those who know me may even remember me. My name is Patrick M. Barry. I was once a member of the original AML and various successor organizations from September 1996 until sometime in 2000 or so I guess, with various time-outs along the way for bad behavior. I am actually shocked to do the math and realize I have been away twice as long as I ever was involved. Those few years certainly loom larger in my memory than the ones that followed! I am actually listed as some sort of a reserve, inactive Jarvis-Head on Van's website way down at the bottom in 4-point font, behind Jon "I Agree" Graby and Ben "I can't remember if he had a catchphrase" Rhodes. Let that be a lesson to all you kids out there, your legacy as a flame warrior will not long outlast you!
Anyway, it so happened that my old friend Michael McClelland pointed out your Assembled! book in that month's Westfield catalog and I dutifully ordered myself a copy. Once it arrived I even read the whole thing. So now I am going to provide an exhaustive review of the book as being the least I can do for my old friends and enemies.
Overview: The Power and the Glory by Van Allen Plexico
At the bottom of this first real page of the book I was immediately thrown for a loop when Van introduces the comparison between superhero comics and "the Western drama." My first thought was, jeez, times really have changed if Van is going to compare the Avengers to Chekhov and Ibsen, just what kind of book have I gotten my hands on here? Sure, there are similarities between the roles that the Incredible Hulk and Uncle Vanya play within their respective group dynamics, but just how pretentious do we need to get here? Boy, I sure did feel silly when Van helpfully refined his definition as "the Western or cowboy drama." Seriously, who calls Westerns "Western dramas?" These college professors are a menace to low-brow discourse. Despite the mocking mileage I am getting out of this topic, I think it is not a profitable diversion. After all, The Magnificent Seven (1960) is a remake of Seven Samurai (1954), which postdates All-Star Comics #3 (1940) by almost fifteen years. The Western is really just another form of the archetypal monster-slayer figure that dates back to Gilgamesh (the Sumerian hero, who has officially denied any connection to that Avenger with the bull helmet) and the varsity team of superheroes goes back to Jason and the Argonauts (the Greeks who sought the Golden Fleece and Hercules was there at the beginning, ironically playing the Incredible Hulk role, and now if Herc has not reclaimed that role he has at least taken Hulk's comic book. Truly history is cyclical my friends, don't let anyone convince you otherwise). But we don't need to rehash The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
But Van's main point is well made and well taken: the essence of the Avengers is change. Looking at the history of the book objectively we all have to recognize that fact, and yet I wonder how many of us actually embrace that? I believe most of us tend to think of one or two particular lineups as the "real" team and the others as schismatics. I recall the various discussions about the "Big Three" to which Van refers. I can't recall if anyone actually did a study to find out how many issues those Big 3 actually appeared in, and there really should have been such a statistical breakdown in this book. My own thesis has always been that the concept of the Big 3 is not rooted in the overall history of the book as much as it is a product of the selective memories of those who were first and foremost fans of the Shooter-Michelinie run. My own quick research shows less than 90 issues of the original run starring all three characters. And almost all of those are in the first 240 issues, or twenty-five years ago. Now a person might argue that the status of the Big 3 is not so much in their joint contemporaneous membership as in their individual prominence. I don't know the answer, but that is the kind of arcane discussion that this book would have been uniquely placed to provide. I am honor bound to report my disappointment that this tome does not reproduce that level of specific discourse that I recall as the hallmark of our discussions. Perhaps that is just the gap between the collaborative discourse of the mailing list and the individual discourses of the book. What is in here does a fine job of recalling the serious and contemplative spirit that we lavished upon those old funny books, and also the humor!
The Stan Lee-Jack Kirby Era by Mark Bousquet
Mark deserves full credit for starting the discussion on just the right foot when he aims to consider the original run on the book in light of a thesis about the book's overarching nature. Mark is actually rather kind when he aims to consider whether this was a successful run or not when he might be phrasing the discussion in terms of relevance. He makes good points about how this era introduces heroes and especially villains of great importance, but also about how little the style of storytelling has to do with the eras that followed. A little bit of comparison and contrast with the Justice League of America would have been very good right here. It seems to me that Stan figured out fairly early that the Marvel Universe could not really support the JLA mode where the heroes are mostly placeholders for the real business of fighting supervillains. I take that to be Mark's implicit meaning, but it could have been made explicit, assuming I interpret correctly. Anyway, I also give Mark credit for the way he recaps the plots of the issues as a part of his critical discourse, pointing out holes in the plotting and elements of characterization, whether it is how the Space Phantom has developed such a grudge against the Avengers after only one issue that he will travel for weeks "faster-than-light travel" because apparently light travels slower than reputations, or his highlighting of the dark side of Hank Pym's personality even from the very beginning. I have no great fondness for these issues, but I am impressed with the essay about them.
The "Kooky Quartet" Era by David Medinnus
Admirable brevity is displayed in this section, and not at the cost of wit. Really, upon reflection, I have to consider this era to be the first really “Marvel” approach to the team. Using former villains is ground-breaking even for Marvel, I suppose, but it is the tension within the group derived from the personalities that really expresses the Stan Lee approach to character. It is fitting, as Big Dave so aptly emphasizes, that the emphasis on teamwork for solving problems comes so much to the fore even as the inter-group character tensions are amped up. I seem to recall these as being Stan's edgiest character portrayals and interactions, even. Hawkeye really has a big ole chip on his shoulder and supreme arrogance, which is saying something when Quicksilver is your teammate. And speaking of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, the nature of their relationship skirts a fine transgressive line towards incestuous. I suppose Stan was just so overworked that he couldn't be bothered to rein in his edgiest impulses. I would only say that it is a shame that the piece closes by focusing on the tragic fates of the members of the quartet rather than positively on the legacy of the creative approach.
The Roy Thomas Era by Scott Harris
I am impressed by the critical approach of the first section as Scott dissects the fitful start of Thomas's iconic run. It seems that Roy didn't really feel comfortable actually writing the Avengers since so many of these issues focus on an outsider character such as Black Widow, Hercules, or Black Knight. I am curious as to the source of the notion that this approach was a commercial one dictates by management. This doesn't seem to me to be a necessary explanation, so if there was documentation for this assertion it would be nice to cite it. As Scott observes, Roy was experimenting with the storytelling by using “multi-part stories and long-term subplots,” showing that he was making progress even as he was flailing a bit.
I had not previously considered the impact of the new breed of artist on Roy's writing style. This is a thesis that I would have been interested in seeing more developed.
As regards the whole Vision/Ultron quagmire, I think Scott touches on the theory that I subscribe to: that Roy was amusing himself by referencing Avengers #9, which he must have particularly admired. Actually, if one were to apply Harold Bloom's theory of the Anxiety of Influence, then one would say that Roy was trying to rewrite Stan in an attempt to carve out his own creative space by overcoming the influence of his own idol, but you'd have to be a pretty pretentious fop to do so, or even to mention it. Anyway, taken as a part of the story, using Wonder Man's “brain engrams” as the basis for the Vision makes no sense to me. Why use the one guy's brain who you know did not want to betray the Avengers? These villains practically defeat themselves.
Not being at all knowledgeable about the JLA, I was intrigued to learn that they had the Assemblers as their own counterpart to the Squadron Supreme. I would like to see some analysis as to why the Squadron Supreme has proven such a fraught concept within the Marvel Universe while the Assemblers faded into obscurity.
My own feelings about the Kree-Skrull War are mixed. I have never been impressed by the Kree, which do not seem as imaginatively realized an alien race as the Skrulls, particularly in appearance, for one thing. Much praise is heaped on Roy's new approach to continuity. I suppose it is not too fair to blame Roy for the sins of his followers in over-use of continuity, but I think even for the day it was a little much to join all the threads of the cosmic mythology together. After all, what Roy has brought together what writer could tear apart? I would say that it is not strictly necessary for all aspects of the Marvel Universe to be so powerfully interrelated in order for the universe to be a coherent whole. Certainly in actual world history there are different levels of interrelation across time: what happened in Europe in the Middle Ages had great impact on the Middle East, certainly, but less on the Far East, and almost none on the Americas, at least at the same time. But the end result of this approach has to be reckoned Civil War or 52 or the related storylines whatever they may be called, where I can hardly enjoy a simple comic book without being confused up and down the block by these uber-storylines crafted by whole teams of little Roy clones. Whether these are good or not is not even the point, just that they tyrannize the form so much these days, which is an unfortunate legacy for what is basically an exciting space opera.
The Steve Englehart Era by Rob Clough
The beginning of this piece really expresses the beauty of the kind of varying opinions you find on the AML, as Rob praises Roy Thomas for writing “relatively quick storylines” and calls the Kree-Skrull War “interesting but somewhat disjointed!” I love that! After we just got done reading how the Kree-Skrull War was the biggest, most epic storyline ever and gave birth to everything good in comics since, up to and including Watchmen I presume. I give credit to Van for sharing at least one sentiment with Chairman Mao: “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend.”
As much as I admire Steve Englehart as a writer, I feel Rob is quite accurate in the balance he strikes between what Englehart accomplished and what he failed to do in his run. I think Steve was really struggling to bring his own sensibility for dialog and characterization to bear on his work in these early years, assuming that the Lee/Thomas style was what was appropriate but not having it in him to reproduce that melodramatic style. But I find his Avengers work to be much more successful than his work on Captain America at the time, where the dialog and characterization are just too strident and unnatural, although not as good as his work on Defenders, probably because Roy's shadow was not as large after only a few previous appearances. Rob does a good job of summarizing (at length!) the plots of Englehart's run while also noting the characterizations and the progression of themes and motifs.
The Jim Shooter-David Michelinie Era by Ian Watson
Mr. Watson is the first of these contributors who I do not recall off-hand from my time on the list, and hopefully we were not contemporaries that I simply have forgotten. His take on this period is really quite reasonable, which makes him a rare bird on this subject. My own memory may be faulty but I seem to recall pretty deep divides on this era, either loving or loathing it. I am particularly vituperous towards the David Michelinie run, where I feel he was always trying to stir up discord and strife amongst the readership by referencing political trends of the day, such as affirmative action or feminism, without actually doing the groundwork to make them fit logically within the milieu of the Avengers. Ian is also it seems to me is extremely generous towards the second Shooter run. When he says “The book wasn't bad. It was just... comfortable,” damning with faint praise indeed.
The discussion of the Carol Danvers mind-rape storyline is quite enlightening on the parts of both Watson and Scott Harris. Certainly it is difficult not to side with Chris Claremont over David Michelinie in a battle of rhetoric, not even Michelinie might have wanted to do so. Scott's examination of the non-feminist nature of the Avengers at fault in this story seems to hint that Michelinie might have been structuring the resolution of this plot in the least disruptive fashion that he could, sensing the transgressive nature of what happens to Carol and trying to minimize the inevitable fall-out once people actually starting thinking logically about its implications.
The Roger Stern Era by Danny Wall
The first issue of Avengers I ever had was #249, and Roger Stern's run has always been my favorite. I could not myself have written a better consideration on the period. In fact, if you search on Van's site you can see for yourself if you find the review I once wrote for the Under Siege trade paperback. In my defense, I knew it was a crappy review when I wrote it, but it was the best I could manage to do. It is hard to do justice to your favorite story. By no means do I intend to d**n Danny with false praise by comparing his piece to my own failed one. What I mean to say is that this is what I wish I had written, or the way I imagined doing so. Certainly I think Oz is quite objectively correct when he calls this era “the greatest run.”
A brief note on something that is missing from this book: a discussion of Walt Simonson's run. Now, I can see why it was left out: nobody really likes it very much. I confess that when I read these issues I actually found them to be quite dramatically engrossing as the team was torn apart leaving only Jarvis to cross-over with Inferno in the classic #298, only to come to a crashing debacle of a conclusion as the most ill-conceived team of Avengers ever to be conceived sashayed onto the scene. Now, looking back on it Walt's grasp of continuity left pretty much everything to be desired, and that is why the run should have been written up: to examine these mis-uses of continuity. Also, there is the creative question of just what exactly occurred in the making of these books which I have never had adequately explained. We know that Roger Stern was forced off the book because of the editorial desire to write Captain Marvel out, but just what was the great plan? I recall in the letters pages in the aftermath of #300 when angry and confused letters were pouring in, the editors made some comments that we should trust them as this was all going somewhere. But less than six months later John Byrne was on-board and most of what they had set-up was scrapped but quick. Somebody out there must know the answer to this mystery, although possibly I am the only one interested.
The Early Bob Harras Era by David Wright
Although the Roger Stern run is my favorite and Danny's discussion of it is the piece I most admire, I have to say that this piece was the one that I enjoyed the most. This run is my second favorite, but I found myself laughing and hurting at the same time as David skewers some of the silly aspects of the run. That is the mark of the skilled comedian: to make you laugh even as he is tearing your heart out. I confess I liked such gauche elements as BK's beard stubble (O how I wish I could grow manly stubble!) and those cool leather jackets (goes great with the stubble!). I don't recall ever even noticing all those headbands, that crack about a racquetball game being in danger of breaking out any moment is brilliant!
I find myself ruminating on the violent and unhappy tone of these stories. It really felt in tune with the zeitgeist of the time to me, but now I struggle to recall what we were all so ticked off about. I think we never knew how good we had it in the mid-90s compared to today, certainly. But back then I was glad to see the Black Knight attacking Captain America whereas today I mourn his death. And it's not like I am some sort of conservative who was identifying that Captain America with a Democratic America and this one with a Republican America. The powers that be that Cap has always stood for to me as the Aryan Master of the Status Quo had a lot less to answer for back then than they do now. I guess it was just that back then we were young and chafing at the bit for the chance to remake the world in our own image, to let the Black Knights start running things and the Captain Americas get out of the way, and now all these years later we have given up on the idea of ever having that much say in matters. In these days of Civil War and aftermath, in fact, we have seen the Avengers take the actual role of counter-revolutionary martinets for which we only excoriated them as straw men back in the day and Captain America is standing up to the powers that be. The only defense I can make of my own generation is that at least we are owning up to our failure to change anything for the better.
The Later Harras/Deodato Era by John Warren
As much as I admired the early Bob Harras run, I was quite underwhelmed by how it limped along after the Proctor and the Gatherers storyline terminated. Harras always had the Claremont-ian tendency to string subplots and even superplots over long periods of time, but in the latter half of his run he just lost his handle on them. I suspect there were political reasons why this happened, however. I recall a plotline involving Hercules and his girlfriend that seemed to be setting up that she had AIDS only to reveal she was actually a figment of Hera's imagination, for instance. Or the way that BK storylines involving Exodus or that mysterious door also seemed to do right turns from what was being set-up. John is almost certainly correct in my opinion to connect the downfall of the book to Bob becoming Editor-in-Chief. Given his success with the X-franchise it was a logical decision, but obviously he was not cut out for the job. Anyway, John does a yeoman's job of describing this most lackluster of periods, and mostly clearing up the continuity, as much as it will admit. By the way, the Suggested Reading Order for the Crossing is hilarious! It's like an Andy Kaufman joke: completely deadpan and testing your acceptance of absurdity. Of course, the true Suggested Reading Order for the Crossing would be: skip it.
The “Heroes Reborn” Era by Adrian Watts
Mr. Watts, who I also do not recall, deserves credit for being brave enough to defend this era, which was so loathed at the time by Avengers fans. I don't recall liking it very much myself, although I did defend the Captain America title. I thought the writing, by a then largely unknown Jeph Loeb, was pretty darn good. History has proven me correct about Loeb, although I haven't actually gone back and reread those issues since. Adrian makes some reasonable points and provides some reasonable explanations for some aspects of this run. However, the choice to do an issue by issue recap of this run is completely unjustified, especially considering nowhere else in the book is this approach taken. I suppose his points about the historical importance of these issues in terms of resurrecting Marvel Comics should be considered correct, although I recall at the time feeling like it was the end. That's why I wrote my crank letter to Bob Harras about the evil of renumbering and how it would destroy all reader loyalty. More fool I, apparently, as who needs reader loyalty anyway?
to be continued...
Some of you know me, and some of those who know me may even remember me. My name is Patrick M. Barry. I was once a member of the original AML and various successor organizations from September 1996 until sometime in 2000 or so I guess, with various time-outs along the way for bad behavior. I am actually shocked to do the math and realize I have been away twice as long as I ever was involved. Those few years certainly loom larger in my memory than the ones that followed! I am actually listed as some sort of a reserve, inactive Jarvis-Head on Van's website way down at the bottom in 4-point font, behind Jon "I Agree" Graby and Ben "I can't remember if he had a catchphrase" Rhodes. Let that be a lesson to all you kids out there, your legacy as a flame warrior will not long outlast you!
Anyway, it so happened that my old friend Michael McClelland pointed out your Assembled! book in that month's Westfield catalog and I dutifully ordered myself a copy. Once it arrived I even read the whole thing. So now I am going to provide an exhaustive review of the book as being the least I can do for my old friends and enemies.
Overview: The Power and the Glory by Van Allen Plexico
At the bottom of this first real page of the book I was immediately thrown for a loop when Van introduces the comparison between superhero comics and "the Western drama." My first thought was, jeez, times really have changed if Van is going to compare the Avengers to Chekhov and Ibsen, just what kind of book have I gotten my hands on here? Sure, there are similarities between the roles that the Incredible Hulk and Uncle Vanya play within their respective group dynamics, but just how pretentious do we need to get here? Boy, I sure did feel silly when Van helpfully refined his definition as "the Western or cowboy drama." Seriously, who calls Westerns "Western dramas?" These college professors are a menace to low-brow discourse. Despite the mocking mileage I am getting out of this topic, I think it is not a profitable diversion. After all, The Magnificent Seven (1960) is a remake of Seven Samurai (1954), which postdates All-Star Comics #3 (1940) by almost fifteen years. The Western is really just another form of the archetypal monster-slayer figure that dates back to Gilgamesh (the Sumerian hero, who has officially denied any connection to that Avenger with the bull helmet) and the varsity team of superheroes goes back to Jason and the Argonauts (the Greeks who sought the Golden Fleece and Hercules was there at the beginning, ironically playing the Incredible Hulk role, and now if Herc has not reclaimed that role he has at least taken Hulk's comic book. Truly history is cyclical my friends, don't let anyone convince you otherwise). But we don't need to rehash The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
But Van's main point is well made and well taken: the essence of the Avengers is change. Looking at the history of the book objectively we all have to recognize that fact, and yet I wonder how many of us actually embrace that? I believe most of us tend to think of one or two particular lineups as the "real" team and the others as schismatics. I recall the various discussions about the "Big Three" to which Van refers. I can't recall if anyone actually did a study to find out how many issues those Big 3 actually appeared in, and there really should have been such a statistical breakdown in this book. My own thesis has always been that the concept of the Big 3 is not rooted in the overall history of the book as much as it is a product of the selective memories of those who were first and foremost fans of the Shooter-Michelinie run. My own quick research shows less than 90 issues of the original run starring all three characters. And almost all of those are in the first 240 issues, or twenty-five years ago. Now a person might argue that the status of the Big 3 is not so much in their joint contemporaneous membership as in their individual prominence. I don't know the answer, but that is the kind of arcane discussion that this book would have been uniquely placed to provide. I am honor bound to report my disappointment that this tome does not reproduce that level of specific discourse that I recall as the hallmark of our discussions. Perhaps that is just the gap between the collaborative discourse of the mailing list and the individual discourses of the book. What is in here does a fine job of recalling the serious and contemplative spirit that we lavished upon those old funny books, and also the humor!
The Stan Lee-Jack Kirby Era by Mark Bousquet
Mark deserves full credit for starting the discussion on just the right foot when he aims to consider the original run on the book in light of a thesis about the book's overarching nature. Mark is actually rather kind when he aims to consider whether this was a successful run or not when he might be phrasing the discussion in terms of relevance. He makes good points about how this era introduces heroes and especially villains of great importance, but also about how little the style of storytelling has to do with the eras that followed. A little bit of comparison and contrast with the Justice League of America would have been very good right here. It seems to me that Stan figured out fairly early that the Marvel Universe could not really support the JLA mode where the heroes are mostly placeholders for the real business of fighting supervillains. I take that to be Mark's implicit meaning, but it could have been made explicit, assuming I interpret correctly. Anyway, I also give Mark credit for the way he recaps the plots of the issues as a part of his critical discourse, pointing out holes in the plotting and elements of characterization, whether it is how the Space Phantom has developed such a grudge against the Avengers after only one issue that he will travel for weeks "faster-than-light travel" because apparently light travels slower than reputations, or his highlighting of the dark side of Hank Pym's personality even from the very beginning. I have no great fondness for these issues, but I am impressed with the essay about them.
The "Kooky Quartet" Era by David Medinnus
Admirable brevity is displayed in this section, and not at the cost of wit. Really, upon reflection, I have to consider this era to be the first really “Marvel” approach to the team. Using former villains is ground-breaking even for Marvel, I suppose, but it is the tension within the group derived from the personalities that really expresses the Stan Lee approach to character. It is fitting, as Big Dave so aptly emphasizes, that the emphasis on teamwork for solving problems comes so much to the fore even as the inter-group character tensions are amped up. I seem to recall these as being Stan's edgiest character portrayals and interactions, even. Hawkeye really has a big ole chip on his shoulder and supreme arrogance, which is saying something when Quicksilver is your teammate. And speaking of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, the nature of their relationship skirts a fine transgressive line towards incestuous. I suppose Stan was just so overworked that he couldn't be bothered to rein in his edgiest impulses. I would only say that it is a shame that the piece closes by focusing on the tragic fates of the members of the quartet rather than positively on the legacy of the creative approach.
The Roy Thomas Era by Scott Harris
I am impressed by the critical approach of the first section as Scott dissects the fitful start of Thomas's iconic run. It seems that Roy didn't really feel comfortable actually writing the Avengers since so many of these issues focus on an outsider character such as Black Widow, Hercules, or Black Knight. I am curious as to the source of the notion that this approach was a commercial one dictates by management. This doesn't seem to me to be a necessary explanation, so if there was documentation for this assertion it would be nice to cite it. As Scott observes, Roy was experimenting with the storytelling by using “multi-part stories and long-term subplots,” showing that he was making progress even as he was flailing a bit.
I had not previously considered the impact of the new breed of artist on Roy's writing style. This is a thesis that I would have been interested in seeing more developed.
As regards the whole Vision/Ultron quagmire, I think Scott touches on the theory that I subscribe to: that Roy was amusing himself by referencing Avengers #9, which he must have particularly admired. Actually, if one were to apply Harold Bloom's theory of the Anxiety of Influence, then one would say that Roy was trying to rewrite Stan in an attempt to carve out his own creative space by overcoming the influence of his own idol, but you'd have to be a pretty pretentious fop to do so, or even to mention it. Anyway, taken as a part of the story, using Wonder Man's “brain engrams” as the basis for the Vision makes no sense to me. Why use the one guy's brain who you know did not want to betray the Avengers? These villains practically defeat themselves.
Not being at all knowledgeable about the JLA, I was intrigued to learn that they had the Assemblers as their own counterpart to the Squadron Supreme. I would like to see some analysis as to why the Squadron Supreme has proven such a fraught concept within the Marvel Universe while the Assemblers faded into obscurity.
My own feelings about the Kree-Skrull War are mixed. I have never been impressed by the Kree, which do not seem as imaginatively realized an alien race as the Skrulls, particularly in appearance, for one thing. Much praise is heaped on Roy's new approach to continuity. I suppose it is not too fair to blame Roy for the sins of his followers in over-use of continuity, but I think even for the day it was a little much to join all the threads of the cosmic mythology together. After all, what Roy has brought together what writer could tear apart? I would say that it is not strictly necessary for all aspects of the Marvel Universe to be so powerfully interrelated in order for the universe to be a coherent whole. Certainly in actual world history there are different levels of interrelation across time: what happened in Europe in the Middle Ages had great impact on the Middle East, certainly, but less on the Far East, and almost none on the Americas, at least at the same time. But the end result of this approach has to be reckoned Civil War or 52 or the related storylines whatever they may be called, where I can hardly enjoy a simple comic book without being confused up and down the block by these uber-storylines crafted by whole teams of little Roy clones. Whether these are good or not is not even the point, just that they tyrannize the form so much these days, which is an unfortunate legacy for what is basically an exciting space opera.
The Steve Englehart Era by Rob Clough
The beginning of this piece really expresses the beauty of the kind of varying opinions you find on the AML, as Rob praises Roy Thomas for writing “relatively quick storylines” and calls the Kree-Skrull War “interesting but somewhat disjointed!” I love that! After we just got done reading how the Kree-Skrull War was the biggest, most epic storyline ever and gave birth to everything good in comics since, up to and including Watchmen I presume. I give credit to Van for sharing at least one sentiment with Chairman Mao: “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend.”
As much as I admire Steve Englehart as a writer, I feel Rob is quite accurate in the balance he strikes between what Englehart accomplished and what he failed to do in his run. I think Steve was really struggling to bring his own sensibility for dialog and characterization to bear on his work in these early years, assuming that the Lee/Thomas style was what was appropriate but not having it in him to reproduce that melodramatic style. But I find his Avengers work to be much more successful than his work on Captain America at the time, where the dialog and characterization are just too strident and unnatural, although not as good as his work on Defenders, probably because Roy's shadow was not as large after only a few previous appearances. Rob does a good job of summarizing (at length!) the plots of Englehart's run while also noting the characterizations and the progression of themes and motifs.
The Jim Shooter-David Michelinie Era by Ian Watson
Mr. Watson is the first of these contributors who I do not recall off-hand from my time on the list, and hopefully we were not contemporaries that I simply have forgotten. His take on this period is really quite reasonable, which makes him a rare bird on this subject. My own memory may be faulty but I seem to recall pretty deep divides on this era, either loving or loathing it. I am particularly vituperous towards the David Michelinie run, where I feel he was always trying to stir up discord and strife amongst the readership by referencing political trends of the day, such as affirmative action or feminism, without actually doing the groundwork to make them fit logically within the milieu of the Avengers. Ian is also it seems to me is extremely generous towards the second Shooter run. When he says “The book wasn't bad. It was just... comfortable,” damning with faint praise indeed.
The discussion of the Carol Danvers mind-rape storyline is quite enlightening on the parts of both Watson and Scott Harris. Certainly it is difficult not to side with Chris Claremont over David Michelinie in a battle of rhetoric, not even Michelinie might have wanted to do so. Scott's examination of the non-feminist nature of the Avengers at fault in this story seems to hint that Michelinie might have been structuring the resolution of this plot in the least disruptive fashion that he could, sensing the transgressive nature of what happens to Carol and trying to minimize the inevitable fall-out once people actually starting thinking logically about its implications.
The Roger Stern Era by Danny Wall
The first issue of Avengers I ever had was #249, and Roger Stern's run has always been my favorite. I could not myself have written a better consideration on the period. In fact, if you search on Van's site you can see for yourself if you find the review I once wrote for the Under Siege trade paperback. In my defense, I knew it was a crappy review when I wrote it, but it was the best I could manage to do. It is hard to do justice to your favorite story. By no means do I intend to d**n Danny with false praise by comparing his piece to my own failed one. What I mean to say is that this is what I wish I had written, or the way I imagined doing so. Certainly I think Oz is quite objectively correct when he calls this era “the greatest run.”
A brief note on something that is missing from this book: a discussion of Walt Simonson's run. Now, I can see why it was left out: nobody really likes it very much. I confess that when I read these issues I actually found them to be quite dramatically engrossing as the team was torn apart leaving only Jarvis to cross-over with Inferno in the classic #298, only to come to a crashing debacle of a conclusion as the most ill-conceived team of Avengers ever to be conceived sashayed onto the scene. Now, looking back on it Walt's grasp of continuity left pretty much everything to be desired, and that is why the run should have been written up: to examine these mis-uses of continuity. Also, there is the creative question of just what exactly occurred in the making of these books which I have never had adequately explained. We know that Roger Stern was forced off the book because of the editorial desire to write Captain Marvel out, but just what was the great plan? I recall in the letters pages in the aftermath of #300 when angry and confused letters were pouring in, the editors made some comments that we should trust them as this was all going somewhere. But less than six months later John Byrne was on-board and most of what they had set-up was scrapped but quick. Somebody out there must know the answer to this mystery, although possibly I am the only one interested.
The Early Bob Harras Era by David Wright
Although the Roger Stern run is my favorite and Danny's discussion of it is the piece I most admire, I have to say that this piece was the one that I enjoyed the most. This run is my second favorite, but I found myself laughing and hurting at the same time as David skewers some of the silly aspects of the run. That is the mark of the skilled comedian: to make you laugh even as he is tearing your heart out. I confess I liked such gauche elements as BK's beard stubble (O how I wish I could grow manly stubble!) and those cool leather jackets (goes great with the stubble!). I don't recall ever even noticing all those headbands, that crack about a racquetball game being in danger of breaking out any moment is brilliant!
I find myself ruminating on the violent and unhappy tone of these stories. It really felt in tune with the zeitgeist of the time to me, but now I struggle to recall what we were all so ticked off about. I think we never knew how good we had it in the mid-90s compared to today, certainly. But back then I was glad to see the Black Knight attacking Captain America whereas today I mourn his death. And it's not like I am some sort of conservative who was identifying that Captain America with a Democratic America and this one with a Republican America. The powers that be that Cap has always stood for to me as the Aryan Master of the Status Quo had a lot less to answer for back then than they do now. I guess it was just that back then we were young and chafing at the bit for the chance to remake the world in our own image, to let the Black Knights start running things and the Captain Americas get out of the way, and now all these years later we have given up on the idea of ever having that much say in matters. In these days of Civil War and aftermath, in fact, we have seen the Avengers take the actual role of counter-revolutionary martinets for which we only excoriated them as straw men back in the day and Captain America is standing up to the powers that be. The only defense I can make of my own generation is that at least we are owning up to our failure to change anything for the better.
The Later Harras/Deodato Era by John Warren
As much as I admired the early Bob Harras run, I was quite underwhelmed by how it limped along after the Proctor and the Gatherers storyline terminated. Harras always had the Claremont-ian tendency to string subplots and even superplots over long periods of time, but in the latter half of his run he just lost his handle on them. I suspect there were political reasons why this happened, however. I recall a plotline involving Hercules and his girlfriend that seemed to be setting up that she had AIDS only to reveal she was actually a figment of Hera's imagination, for instance. Or the way that BK storylines involving Exodus or that mysterious door also seemed to do right turns from what was being set-up. John is almost certainly correct in my opinion to connect the downfall of the book to Bob becoming Editor-in-Chief. Given his success with the X-franchise it was a logical decision, but obviously he was not cut out for the job. Anyway, John does a yeoman's job of describing this most lackluster of periods, and mostly clearing up the continuity, as much as it will admit. By the way, the Suggested Reading Order for the Crossing is hilarious! It's like an Andy Kaufman joke: completely deadpan and testing your acceptance of absurdity. Of course, the true Suggested Reading Order for the Crossing would be: skip it.
The “Heroes Reborn” Era by Adrian Watts
Mr. Watts, who I also do not recall, deserves credit for being brave enough to defend this era, which was so loathed at the time by Avengers fans. I don't recall liking it very much myself, although I did defend the Captain America title. I thought the writing, by a then largely unknown Jeph Loeb, was pretty darn good. History has proven me correct about Loeb, although I haven't actually gone back and reread those issues since. Adrian makes some reasonable points and provides some reasonable explanations for some aspects of this run. However, the choice to do an issue by issue recap of this run is completely unjustified, especially considering nowhere else in the book is this approach taken. I suppose his points about the historical importance of these issues in terms of resurrecting Marvel Comics should be considered correct, although I recall at the time feeling like it was the end. That's why I wrote my crank letter to Bob Harras about the evil of renumbering and how it would destroy all reader loyalty. More fool I, apparently, as who needs reader loyalty anyway?
to be continued...