tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post8439670037907367577..comments2024-03-06T01:12:50.627-08:00Comments on Dick Hyacinth's One-stop Hyphen Shop: PruningDick Hyacinth's Ghosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11199236541341734429noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-58310954589308754862007-11-18T16:08:00.000-08:002007-11-18T16:08:00.000-08:00Yes, but works like Invisibles are often connectin...Yes, but works like Invisibles are often connecting with an audience of 15,000 in a field that used to be able to sell a single copy of a single book to a million plus. In a sense, as wonderful as it is a book like that barely exists.<BR/><BR/>I used the wrong word when I typed "acclaimed"--what I meant, and what would have made my point coherent, was genuinely famous--the kind of writer who breaks through into the popular consciousness. JK Rowling has certainly done that, but she's a colossal exception to a strong trend away from what used to be fairly common when the (recognized, official) popular culture was more homogenous. Being "the biggest band in the world" or writer, or anything, is getting smaller every day. Then again, it can be hard to know what new idea is going to take hold; it took Wolverine more than 10 years to become "Wolverine", the marquee lead character capable of supporting multiple books, selling bath foam and finally, blockbuster movies.<BR/><BR/>I wanted to disagree with Dick's assessment of early FF and Spidey, but after thinking about it for just two minutes, I found I could not. I'd even throw in Thor once Kirby really got going on it. Those books succeeded perfectly (and then some) at what they set out to be.Cole Moore Odellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09041638617925724048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-88937246131470855992007-11-18T15:32:00.000-08:002007-11-18T15:32:00.000-08:00While the means of distribution have been dominate...While the means of distribution have been dominated by companies more interested in preserving their trademarks and their extant money-makers, there are still works that connect directly with an audience. Bone, The Invisibles (well, that's more of a personal favorite than a more universally loved series), Mouse Guard, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (And Tom Strong/Top 10, but those two, especially the latter, are particularly mired in the storytelling standards of yore), etc. There are plenty of incredibly popular, new types of properties out on the market, but it's true that very few of these properties will follow up sequential success with underoos and dolls. It's just a smidgen harder to unite all the people loving disparate genres in a medium under a single banner now that camps have been clearly defined.<BR/><BR/>I'm kinda curious who was the last universally acclaimed novelist, Cole Moore Odell. Nabokov? He was only really read and enjoyed by the public with Lolita, though. Very few of his other works connected with the not-well read people. Joyce? Although that's again an author after the hearts of critics and not philistines. Cervantes, maybe?<BR/><BR/>I agree that most authors and audiences reading in a medium after a defining work chase to reclaim the qualities of the influential trail-blazer, and that franchises and corporations encourage this attitude. Although the circumstances surrounding the first Marvel comics somewhat hinder my enjoyment of them, I’m of a certain mind to agree that Lee/Kirby’s and Lee/Ditko’s Fantastic Four and Spider-man are the best comics published by Marvel or DC because of how strikingly they recreate romance, adventure, big monster, and other genres within a unique entity, the Marvel Superhero comic, but it’s unfortunate how the comics have been enshrined by future writers and artists, robbing the works of their striking originality at the time of publication. They really can’t be read without that ballast, that baggage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-4058930291655974202007-11-17T19:42:00.000-08:002007-11-17T19:42:00.000-08:00I think we don't see those situations anymore beca...I think we don't see those situations anymore because the economics of that part of the industry preclude them:<BR/><BR/>1) The remaining audience only wants to see the old stuff brought back;<BR/><BR/>2) The companies are happier in the existing trademark maintenance/movie grooming business, and;<BR/><BR/>3) Any creator with a good new idea is probably smart enough not to donate it to Time-Warner, cut an ownership deal, or didn't grow up dreaming of contributing to an epic mythos where their original character could rub elbows with Detective Chimp. <BR/><BR/>Characters can still break big, though. Scott Pilgrim is certainly prominent, as is Naruto, Hellboy, to a lesser degree Madman and some others.<BR/><BR/>Then there are the characters like James Robinson's Starman or Gaiman's Sandman, inserted into existing continuity, achieving a measure of prominence, and at least partially owned by the creator--often meaning that when the creator walks, the character goes into mothballs, as did Jack Knight.<BR/><BR/>While anything is possible, I doubt we'll ever see an important, culturally significant, summer-tentpole-movie-starring new superhero from the big two. Just like we'll never see another truly huge rock band. Or universally acclaimed novelist. Etc.Cole Moore Odellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09041638617925724048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-24217282467998310942007-11-16T14:09:00.000-08:002007-11-16T14:09:00.000-08:00Howard the Duck is a weird case, because it's so t...Howard the Duck is a weird case, because it's so tied into the issue of creator rights. Marvel probably didn't do itself any favors by using the character so sparingly; it basically reinforced the idea that Howard the Duck is Steve Gerber's character. And so every use of the character reminds us of the issue of creator rights. Which isn't a bad thing, of course.<BR/><BR/>I've never read any of Gerber's Howard the Duck, so I can't say for sure how I'd react to the situation you describe. But it seems like a pretty messy reaction, having as much to do with one's attachment to Gerber as the character.<BR/><BR/>And I should have said earlier that I think it's entirely appropriate for the creator of a character to get annoyed by said character's portrayal by other writers/artists. But as a reader of comics, my inclination is to ignore bad comics using such characters, or speak out against them in such a way that emphasizes concern for the creator over concern for the character. It's kind of funny that we don't see many situations like that anymore--how many prominent characters have been created since the founding of Image?Dick Hyacinth's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11199236541341734429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-37211506587220202062007-11-16T13:34:00.000-08:002007-11-16T13:34:00.000-08:00I think it's understandable to become attached to ...I think it's understandable to become attached to a character if it's a character who primarily recalls a particular creator, and is usually portrayed by that creator. For example, I think it makes sense to get attached to Howard the Duck in his context as a Steve Gerber creation, and then get slightly annoyed when Marvel hands the character over to lesser creators who inevitably churn out bad stories about him (or to be pleasantly surprised if the story feels "right" and is a good read). Basing your entire discourse about comics in such a light is a little... well, obsessive, but the industry encourages that, too. And if someone gets attached to a particular creator's approach to a given major character who's obviously going to be handled differently by lots of other creators in the future... it's kind of a recipe for misery.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12225400317060690503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-7027064682334601392007-11-16T10:17:00.000-08:002007-11-16T10:17:00.000-08:00Dick why are you saying that Image could have solv...Dick why are you saying that Image could have solved all the problems of the industry THAT IS CRAZY TALK<BR/><BR/>...sorry.Jones, one of the Jones boyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149754038216055892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-28749461421231061102007-11-16T08:41:00.000-08:002007-11-16T08:41:00.000-08:00re: fan attachment to IP: yeah. It's a systematic ...re: fan attachment to IP: <A HREF="http://picturepoetry.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/left-to-my-own-devices-i-ramble/" REL="nofollow">yeah</A>. It's a systematic feature of the industry, unfortunately, and I suspect it's the root of a lot of ills (as you imply) -- including a lot of the irritating fandom elements that you mention above. Unfortunately, the IP-focused mentality which is so advantageous for the IP owners has been thoroughly accepted by editors, retailers and readers. Often I feel that we publishers, editors, retailers, and readers who don't have this mentality are living in a separate universe.Leigh Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964802750317393614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-64037305501196245382007-11-16T08:26:00.000-08:002007-11-16T08:26:00.000-08:00Oh, I disagree. When I wrote that, I was specific...Oh, I disagree. When I wrote that, I was specifically wondering if I should qualify the statement to make room for Watchmen. Upon further reflection, I decided that no, I didn't need to do that. And if I don't think Watchmen is as good as FF/Spider-Man, I certainly don't think the other things you named are (especially Sandman, which, given my fleeting attempts at reading it, isn't even in the same ballpark). Morrison and Moore help swing the aggregate balance more towards even, but I just don't think those works measure up to the original FF and Spider-Man runs. <BR/><BR/>Of course, as I've said many times, I tend to privilege art (over writing, and there's really no comparison there. Especially if you consider art in the broadest terms, to include storytelling and character design.<BR/><BR/>I might also add that I have a hard time divorcing historical value from absolute value. But I'm kind of trained to think that way.Dick Hyacinth's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11199236541341734429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7715773315155138002.post-37283257071673158732007-11-16T05:42:00.000-08:002007-11-16T05:42:00.000-08:00Excellent, but you drop the ball badly in that las...Excellent, but you drop the ball badly in that last sentence. You're wrong, it's just that you _like_ those runs more. And you're jury-rigging the definition of "quality" to it. Using different criteria it's piss easy to argue Animal Man, Doom Patrol, and Seven Soldiers all beat those runs without breaking a sweat, and that's picking some pretty obscure examples. Then there's Gaiman's Sandman, Moore's Swamp Thing, heck almost anything Vertigo easily beats you favourite runs by the measure of "less obviously retarded".<BR/>That's not to say those aren't great comics, but they're only "best" for a very, very narrow definition of the term. Outside of that, their quality is mostly historic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com