Post by baldingterror on Mar 22, 2008 19:38:27 GMT -5
continued from previous thread
The Kurt Busiek Era by Sean McQuaid
Oh boy, twenty-eight pages by my arch-nemesis in fandom circles about my arch-nemesis in professional circles! Seriously, though, I'm all over that. I didn't even get gut-clenching rage a single time while reading this whole piece. I am actually glad to see that Sean is still being Sean, what with the extravagant generalizations and radical opinions thrown in off-hand, almost parenthetically (for instance, I enjoyed Chuck Austen's “most critically reviled” run!). That stuff used to annoy the stuffing out of me, but now I find it endearing. I am also cheered to see that Sean provides a personal narrative of his history as an Avengers fan. I wish all the other writers were as comfortable with their egotism to feel free enough to do that.
I confess I never particularly enjoyed Kurt Busiek's run on the book. I actually stopped reading it after a year or so. I am sure in retrospect that my personal feelings towards Kurt were inhibiting my ability to appreciate the book. I thought the book suffered grievously from a cover-your-ass approach designed to protect the author from the second-guesses of knowledgeable fans like Sean and other august personages represented in this book. So you could say the psychologically I was projecting my resentment that Kurt didn't like me as much as he did other people on the list, not that I gave him a lot of reason to, passive aggressive wise ass that I was. What is ironic was that as much as I criticized the book for taking a too cerebral approach to continuity, I very much enjoyed Avengers Forever, which was even more continuity laden. But then that was a collaboration with Roger Stern, my idol, so perhaps I was predisposed to like it. As much as I myself can be a continuity stickler, albeit a considerably less knowledgeable one than most of this assemblage, I feel that in order to really go for the gusto a writer has to be prepared to go for the emotional impact at the expense of continuity. For my dollar, Bob Harras was better able to deliver that experience, despite his looser grasp of continuity and weaker skills in plotting and characterization than Busiek, while Roger Stern and Steve Englehart were better across the board. I think Busiek took essentially the same approach to Conan, which I did not enjoy significantly more than Avengers, although I did stick with it the whole way. Not to say that I don't think he is an excellent writer, as I continue to enjoy Astro City and thought Superman: Secret Identity was top-notch indeed.
The Brian Michael Bendis Era by Mark Beaulieu and Trace Shelton
I have never been much of a fan of BMB, and yet I was surprised to find myself enjoying this storyline, at least at the beginning. Sure, it didn't make a lick of sense, but I was willing to assume that this was as a result of my general ignorance of contemporary continuity. Until the Avengers Dissambled came to its conclusion when I was shocked to see that Bendis was essentially reprising John Byrne's Dark Wanda storyline, one of the most reviled of all-time (although at the time I liked it, not knowing much continuity at that point). An article discussing Bryne's run on West Coast Avengers is sorely missed in this volume, especially considering how important it would later become to the very core of the Marvel Universe, even though I did not like any of those later storylines particularly. It seems to me, though, that BMB has somehow risen to the very apogee of the profession by reprising the very material that got Byrne so lambasted twenty years ago. I can't tell for sure, but it seems his work is not as popular amongst the Avengers cognoscenti as it is among the general comic public, so perhaps the world has moved on since those days and left us behind. Certainly I speak for myself in that regard.
I think Trace and Mark are admirably even-handed in their discussion of this run, citing elements that they enjoyed and elements that they did not. Reading between the lines a little bit, there does seem to be a perception gap between how they think the book should be written in terms of handling continuity and story-telling and how cavalier Bendis apparently is with the matter. It certainly strikes me as odd that Earth's Mightiest Heroes should be side-kicks in their own book. I wonder how one might deconstruct such an approach? Does this represent an attempt by the writer to overcome his own anxieties about finding lebensraum for his own creativity within the confines of the colossal Marvel Universe? Maybe, certainly I impress myself with my own pseudo-profundity.
The Ultimates by Mark Bousquet
I never read this series, although based on this intriguing article I wish that I had. I probably still won't, though.
The Steve Englehart West Coast Avengers by George Kopec
I think this is a very underrated series, although plainly not in the opinion of George here. I think Steve was a more mature and confident writer when he wrote this series and never steps wrong, although the art by Al Milgrom really holds the book back from being great, especially when the main book was being drawn at the same time by John Buscema. I remember some interesting discussions about this book on the old list, including one where I made various logical arguments, quite irrefutable, against the very existence of such a book as West Coast Avengers. Of course, conceptual logic is pretty irrelevant. When you've got Steve Englehart writing the book it isn't going to dilute the franchise, but all those years after he left demonstrated that it certainly did. Although it seems like a piddling objection considering the level of dilution currently practiced upon the franchise.
I also recall our compelling discussions of the Phantom Rider storyline, as the more womanist (not saying a lot, granted) assemblers took the side of Mockingbird against the more moralist assemblers who took the side of Hawkeye. It is a shame to see that fraught topic only glazed over here. I would at least like to be able to tell what George thinks about the issue. I am very much in the Mockingbird camp, and I think the way Roy and Dann Thomas ultimately resolved this subplot years late was a real travesty.
Props to Joe Crowe for a funny and insightful condensed history of the left coasters, too.
The Thunderbolts by John Warren
I read the first few issues of this series as did pretty much everybody, there not being much alternative in the market at the time, but I did not like them. The storyline did not particularly grab me, and, as such, left me time to consider how unhappy I was with the continuity changes being offered. Certainly hypocritical of me to second-guess Kurt Busiek on matters of continuity, but ain't none of us perfect.
Civil War: Wagging the Dog by David Medinnus
I did not read any of these issues, except where it crossed over to a book I was already reading like Captain America and Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man, but Michael McClelland did the grunt work of trying to summarize what was going on for me. Dave does an excellent job of summarizing various logical flaws within the whole concept. It fails the idiot test, obviously. If all the super-heroes with secret identities simply stayed at home, then wouldn't they be in compliance and hence no story? Sure, super-villains would be in violation, but they are already breaking the law. I would think the US Constitution prohibition on ex post facto laws would prevent the government from punishing people who had already had super-powers and failed to register as long as they ceased to be active. But then I guess we've established BMB's disregard for logical consistency fairly well at this point.
Why They Are Avengers by Ian Watson
This is certainly an impressive bit of scholarship and I am daunted by the task of trying to comment on it, so I won't! I find that I agree with most of it, even if my own personal preference would not be necessarily to see all these particular characters on the team as such. I think the book does not in fact need any characters (well, it needs at least one character, obviously, or who would do the Avengering?), although it is difficult in the long-run for some characters to carve out a space for themselves outside of the team, such as The Vision. Even my favorite, The Black Knight, has had little luck in other team books, and would not work in a solo book as far as I can imagine. If I were somehow tasked with writing Avengers (such as if I suddenly inherited the rights to Marvel Comics and gave the job to myself), then I would probably take an approach similar to what they did in the Justice League Unlimited cartoon series that I loved so much in order that all these characters who need to be Avengers could have their time in the sun.
The Avengers in Cartoons by Joe Crowe
I have never actually seen an Avengers cartoon, nor do I have any greater desire to do so after reading this chapter. The only thing I have to say is in response to the reference to the 1966 series Marvel Superheroes looking like they cut up comics and then wiggled them back and forth for animation. Well, if you look it up on Wikipedia you will find that that is pretty much exactly what they did, with a few small exceptions. I read the same thing back in CBG interview with Don Heck many years ago, and what is more I believe they did not pay the artists whose work they copied.
Death and Captain America by David Medinnus
I was shocked, shocked to find out how many times Winghead has bought the big one. I certainly had no memory of any of these other occurrences. I think we can perhaps assume that the residents of the Marvel Universe would probably take about the same attitude towards remembering continuity as I do. That is to say, they can't remember none of it neither! Sure, there are probably a few Medinnus's at bars here and there making snarky comments about how this is the seventh time this guy has died so why have another funeral when they could be spending tax payer dollars on solving some thorny piece of continuity and then getting beaten up and hung up by their ears above the jukebox with an American flag stapled to their chests. The rest of us are just enjoying Ed Brubaker's tour de force!
What Makes an Avengers Villain? by Ian Watson
When I think back on superhero stories that I have loved, I do not think so much of the villains themselves as I do of the reactions of the heroes to the villains. This is why I have usually been dissatisfied with stories that center the resolution of the plot on the supervillain, such as the Korvac saga. The point is to see the heroes we care about overcome adversity, that is why we judge a hero by the quality of his enemies I don't know if Ian would agree with this line of reasoning, but I think it ties in well to his argument that contests with villains that depend on the equation of comparable force are in the long-run unsuitable and unsatisfactory. The powers of a hero or a villain are not what make us care about the character, but their inner life and personality. That's what keeps bringing us back to the Avengers. Certainly a team book is more problematic in that regard than a solo title because we can't identify with all the various members equally and we all have our favorites and disfavorites. But all those characters, even the annoying ones, and all those villains, even the lame ones, and all that continuity, even the stoopid parts, add up to a sum greater than the parts in a team book as they don't in a solo book because there is more woof to the weave to support the load. And that is what makes the Avengers the best.
In my opinion.
Thanks for writing this book and keeping the faith and for reading this rambling review, assuming you didn't just skip to the end...
Pat
The Bald-ing Terror
The Kurt Busiek Era by Sean McQuaid
Oh boy, twenty-eight pages by my arch-nemesis in fandom circles about my arch-nemesis in professional circles! Seriously, though, I'm all over that. I didn't even get gut-clenching rage a single time while reading this whole piece. I am actually glad to see that Sean is still being Sean, what with the extravagant generalizations and radical opinions thrown in off-hand, almost parenthetically (for instance, I enjoyed Chuck Austen's “most critically reviled” run!). That stuff used to annoy the stuffing out of me, but now I find it endearing. I am also cheered to see that Sean provides a personal narrative of his history as an Avengers fan. I wish all the other writers were as comfortable with their egotism to feel free enough to do that.
I confess I never particularly enjoyed Kurt Busiek's run on the book. I actually stopped reading it after a year or so. I am sure in retrospect that my personal feelings towards Kurt were inhibiting my ability to appreciate the book. I thought the book suffered grievously from a cover-your-ass approach designed to protect the author from the second-guesses of knowledgeable fans like Sean and other august personages represented in this book. So you could say the psychologically I was projecting my resentment that Kurt didn't like me as much as he did other people on the list, not that I gave him a lot of reason to, passive aggressive wise ass that I was. What is ironic was that as much as I criticized the book for taking a too cerebral approach to continuity, I very much enjoyed Avengers Forever, which was even more continuity laden. But then that was a collaboration with Roger Stern, my idol, so perhaps I was predisposed to like it. As much as I myself can be a continuity stickler, albeit a considerably less knowledgeable one than most of this assemblage, I feel that in order to really go for the gusto a writer has to be prepared to go for the emotional impact at the expense of continuity. For my dollar, Bob Harras was better able to deliver that experience, despite his looser grasp of continuity and weaker skills in plotting and characterization than Busiek, while Roger Stern and Steve Englehart were better across the board. I think Busiek took essentially the same approach to Conan, which I did not enjoy significantly more than Avengers, although I did stick with it the whole way. Not to say that I don't think he is an excellent writer, as I continue to enjoy Astro City and thought Superman: Secret Identity was top-notch indeed.
The Brian Michael Bendis Era by Mark Beaulieu and Trace Shelton
I have never been much of a fan of BMB, and yet I was surprised to find myself enjoying this storyline, at least at the beginning. Sure, it didn't make a lick of sense, but I was willing to assume that this was as a result of my general ignorance of contemporary continuity. Until the Avengers Dissambled came to its conclusion when I was shocked to see that Bendis was essentially reprising John Byrne's Dark Wanda storyline, one of the most reviled of all-time (although at the time I liked it, not knowing much continuity at that point). An article discussing Bryne's run on West Coast Avengers is sorely missed in this volume, especially considering how important it would later become to the very core of the Marvel Universe, even though I did not like any of those later storylines particularly. It seems to me, though, that BMB has somehow risen to the very apogee of the profession by reprising the very material that got Byrne so lambasted twenty years ago. I can't tell for sure, but it seems his work is not as popular amongst the Avengers cognoscenti as it is among the general comic public, so perhaps the world has moved on since those days and left us behind. Certainly I speak for myself in that regard.
I think Trace and Mark are admirably even-handed in their discussion of this run, citing elements that they enjoyed and elements that they did not. Reading between the lines a little bit, there does seem to be a perception gap between how they think the book should be written in terms of handling continuity and story-telling and how cavalier Bendis apparently is with the matter. It certainly strikes me as odd that Earth's Mightiest Heroes should be side-kicks in their own book. I wonder how one might deconstruct such an approach? Does this represent an attempt by the writer to overcome his own anxieties about finding lebensraum for his own creativity within the confines of the colossal Marvel Universe? Maybe, certainly I impress myself with my own pseudo-profundity.
The Ultimates by Mark Bousquet
I never read this series, although based on this intriguing article I wish that I had. I probably still won't, though.
The Steve Englehart West Coast Avengers by George Kopec
I think this is a very underrated series, although plainly not in the opinion of George here. I think Steve was a more mature and confident writer when he wrote this series and never steps wrong, although the art by Al Milgrom really holds the book back from being great, especially when the main book was being drawn at the same time by John Buscema. I remember some interesting discussions about this book on the old list, including one where I made various logical arguments, quite irrefutable, against the very existence of such a book as West Coast Avengers. Of course, conceptual logic is pretty irrelevant. When you've got Steve Englehart writing the book it isn't going to dilute the franchise, but all those years after he left demonstrated that it certainly did. Although it seems like a piddling objection considering the level of dilution currently practiced upon the franchise.
I also recall our compelling discussions of the Phantom Rider storyline, as the more womanist (not saying a lot, granted) assemblers took the side of Mockingbird against the more moralist assemblers who took the side of Hawkeye. It is a shame to see that fraught topic only glazed over here. I would at least like to be able to tell what George thinks about the issue. I am very much in the Mockingbird camp, and I think the way Roy and Dann Thomas ultimately resolved this subplot years late was a real travesty.
Props to Joe Crowe for a funny and insightful condensed history of the left coasters, too.
The Thunderbolts by John Warren
I read the first few issues of this series as did pretty much everybody, there not being much alternative in the market at the time, but I did not like them. The storyline did not particularly grab me, and, as such, left me time to consider how unhappy I was with the continuity changes being offered. Certainly hypocritical of me to second-guess Kurt Busiek on matters of continuity, but ain't none of us perfect.
Civil War: Wagging the Dog by David Medinnus
I did not read any of these issues, except where it crossed over to a book I was already reading like Captain America and Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man, but Michael McClelland did the grunt work of trying to summarize what was going on for me. Dave does an excellent job of summarizing various logical flaws within the whole concept. It fails the idiot test, obviously. If all the super-heroes with secret identities simply stayed at home, then wouldn't they be in compliance and hence no story? Sure, super-villains would be in violation, but they are already breaking the law. I would think the US Constitution prohibition on ex post facto laws would prevent the government from punishing people who had already had super-powers and failed to register as long as they ceased to be active. But then I guess we've established BMB's disregard for logical consistency fairly well at this point.
Why They Are Avengers by Ian Watson
This is certainly an impressive bit of scholarship and I am daunted by the task of trying to comment on it, so I won't! I find that I agree with most of it, even if my own personal preference would not be necessarily to see all these particular characters on the team as such. I think the book does not in fact need any characters (well, it needs at least one character, obviously, or who would do the Avengering?), although it is difficult in the long-run for some characters to carve out a space for themselves outside of the team, such as The Vision. Even my favorite, The Black Knight, has had little luck in other team books, and would not work in a solo book as far as I can imagine. If I were somehow tasked with writing Avengers (such as if I suddenly inherited the rights to Marvel Comics and gave the job to myself), then I would probably take an approach similar to what they did in the Justice League Unlimited cartoon series that I loved so much in order that all these characters who need to be Avengers could have their time in the sun.
The Avengers in Cartoons by Joe Crowe
I have never actually seen an Avengers cartoon, nor do I have any greater desire to do so after reading this chapter. The only thing I have to say is in response to the reference to the 1966 series Marvel Superheroes looking like they cut up comics and then wiggled them back and forth for animation. Well, if you look it up on Wikipedia you will find that that is pretty much exactly what they did, with a few small exceptions. I read the same thing back in CBG interview with Don Heck many years ago, and what is more I believe they did not pay the artists whose work they copied.
Death and Captain America by David Medinnus
I was shocked, shocked to find out how many times Winghead has bought the big one. I certainly had no memory of any of these other occurrences. I think we can perhaps assume that the residents of the Marvel Universe would probably take about the same attitude towards remembering continuity as I do. That is to say, they can't remember none of it neither! Sure, there are probably a few Medinnus's at bars here and there making snarky comments about how this is the seventh time this guy has died so why have another funeral when they could be spending tax payer dollars on solving some thorny piece of continuity and then getting beaten up and hung up by their ears above the jukebox with an American flag stapled to their chests. The rest of us are just enjoying Ed Brubaker's tour de force!
What Makes an Avengers Villain? by Ian Watson
When I think back on superhero stories that I have loved, I do not think so much of the villains themselves as I do of the reactions of the heroes to the villains. This is why I have usually been dissatisfied with stories that center the resolution of the plot on the supervillain, such as the Korvac saga. The point is to see the heroes we care about overcome adversity, that is why we judge a hero by the quality of his enemies I don't know if Ian would agree with this line of reasoning, but I think it ties in well to his argument that contests with villains that depend on the equation of comparable force are in the long-run unsuitable and unsatisfactory. The powers of a hero or a villain are not what make us care about the character, but their inner life and personality. That's what keeps bringing us back to the Avengers. Certainly a team book is more problematic in that regard than a solo title because we can't identify with all the various members equally and we all have our favorites and disfavorites. But all those characters, even the annoying ones, and all those villains, even the lame ones, and all that continuity, even the stoopid parts, add up to a sum greater than the parts in a team book as they don't in a solo book because there is more woof to the weave to support the load. And that is what makes the Avengers the best.
In my opinion.
Thanks for writing this book and keeping the faith and for reading this rambling review, assuming you didn't just skip to the end...
Pat
The Bald-ing Terror