ONE-SHOTS #5: WE ARE VICIOUS LITTLE CANNIBALS

[raul grau]

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/oneshots1.jpg" hspace=10 align=left border=0 alt="One-Shots logo">By Duncan, santaroga.barrier@gmail.com

We Are Vicious Little Cannibals

It all seems to depend on how we view ourselves in what appears to be a timeless debate. Do we wish to improve, or are we looking for a stagnant situation, surrounded by people with whom we agree and who share our views?

What are we as a comic book-reading community looking for?

Every member of a community needs to understand that there is more outside the boundaries of the designated group. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and by acknowledging the world outside our borders we learn to place certain topics and problems in perspective. In order to evolve and survive in a dynamic environment we will have to adopt new patterns and ideas. If we refuse to do this, if we refuse to let ourselves be inspired by new influences, we are bound to become extinct, weakened from within.

Let me be blunt here, for a second or two.

The various comic book-based communities out there, trapped in the infinitely shapeless world wide web, are on the verge of extinction. Falling apart, eating away their own flesh in a cannibalistic frenzy as they fail to let new influences rejuvenate them and keep them sharp. As an overall community we're rotting away from the inside out, because we seem unable to turn outwards to actively seek out and discover elements that have been foreign to us.

The larger community has fallen apart in various smaller communities, and dissent is undesired, in some cases even shunned. Fractured, we've created multiple, near single-minded hives, where people may still discuss freely and the individual members may disagree with each other, but the freedom we enjoy is a dangerous illusion. We've long since sacrificed our freedom in order to create our various little bands.

Diversity is closely monitored by the individual, it's regulated by personal choice and a sense of cowardice. We avoid conflict born out of diversity.

If you like a certain group of writers, you will visit a particular brand of message board, or forum, because there you'll find like-minded people, who share the same ideals. But if you venture outside and visit new grounds, you might find yourself an outcast. You are still able to voice your views, but you're a minority and feel out of place. There is no connection between you and those who don't share your train of thought, and so you return to the place where you feel you belong.

If you're a fan of Millar, you'll drift towards Millarworld, which was devised around his work and his person. If you enjoy the company of Chris Claremont, you'll find yourself at home on Comixfan where he's a frequent poster. Millarworld attracts a certain group, people who like a newer, different brand of writer, who subscribe to a different artistic style than the people who visit Comixfan. The same goes for Newsrama, and even ComicBookResources. The differences in attitude and tone are frighteningly visible, and there seems to exist a certain animosity between the different groups.

Moving from CBR or Comixfan to Newsrama or Millarworld, one might find oneself in a particularly nasty ordeal when one expresses his love or hatred for a particular writer. Where you can be a fan of Claremont at Comixfan and find people who are equally big fans of his work, some even greater fans, you'll find yourself standing virtually alone once you move to either Millarworld or Newsrama, where his work, and his person, is more often than not the centre of vicious ridicule.

So we end up moving back to the forums where we are surrounded by the people who share our interests and our preferences for certain styles and movements. At comiXtreme we feel intimidated and harassed by the people who are so set against what we enjoy, and at the other end of the spectrum, we feel that at Comixfan the general population consists of sycophants endorsing a mindset that we abhor.

As visitors, potential members of the group, or as already established members, we begin to generalize the places we visit. We create categories for the different groups so we can identify them with greater ease, and by doing so we can see which of the communities fits our identity best. Once we've catalogued the groups, we decide where to move, where to try and settle in for the long haul.

But this movement, this reluctance to have our views questioned and challenged, leads to a shrinking community. We're losing our diversity, we're sacrificing a dynamic environment from which we can grow and evolve, in order to create a safe haven for us to voice our opinion and agree with others.

A very human reaction, we always search for safety, even on the internet. And safety means surrounding yourself with people you feel comfortable with and such people are those who agree with you, people you see as allies and not as your mortal enemies.

Once we've integrated into a group, made ourselves a part of it, we display the same behaviour we fled from in the past. We become what we despise the most, we become our own enemy.

Groups are frequently confronted with new members who are merely testing the waters. If the group discovers that the new member shares its viewpoints, the member will be accepted. However, if the member is a dissenter, in that he actively goes against the overall opinion of the group, the member will be branded an outcast and treated as such by the group. The member now has a few options available, he either adapts and succumbs to the group, he refuses to bend and chooses to remain an outcast, or he leaves in search of kindred spirits.

The system we've created as a group now threatens to mute true discussion.

Hatred and love seem very defining factors in bringing people together. Especially in our field, our love for comics unites us, but our hatred for the details does too. And hatred is ever so much more destructive than love.

While we operate in our little groups we tend to confirm and strengthen our shared views. This endorses and perpetuates the negativity we encounter in numerous discussions.

I despise that particular story and all the people connected to it, it's everything I dreaded it would be, and now that I've ventured onto the internet, visiting message boards, I expect to find the people who agree with me, and want them to band with me.

Pessimism is much stronger than optimism, and while we grow more disillusioned with the state the industry is in, we're blissfully unaware that we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by clinging to the systems of our groups. Perhaps we're not aware of our actions, and is it something deep within us that wants to see the misery continue. Perhaps it's something that thrives on finding the flaws.

So what is undermining the industry? The fractured communities that are vaguely united under the industry they undermine. The united communities which are now cannibalising diversity, and perpetuating negativity, choosing to remain in a downward spiral. As members of those communities we are choosing to side ourselves with yes-men who only agree with how dire our current shared situation is. The community which can't stop complaining about how bleak and without vision or hope the future is, because we revel and group together in our hatred for the outsider, be it writer, artist, or simply a different point of view. We love to hate as a group.

A side effect of this is that new readers, truly new members, might be scared off when they encounter an overwhelmingly negative community. A collective that is quite content on being so negative, and one that actively endorses the pessimistic mood, that the young pup might wonder what on earth it is that made them even remotely interested in expanding and continuing their own hobby.

If as a new reader, a potential fan, you stumble across the forum that you have the least connection with, you might end up scarred for life by the experience, because people are attacking you for your preferences, sometimes on a personal level, almost telling you what you can and can not enjoy...

Every community seems to be so black and white, and every new member is still a bit grey, still largely undefined in his preferences, unspoiled by the same discussions held for the twentieth time, but already tainted and corrupted, burned, by our need to be surrounded by people who either hate or love the same things we do. We don't want that new member if he doesn't agree with us.

So go out, and confront others, get a new perspective, a new point of view and challenge others to do the same. Try to approach the product and the creator from a positive mindset, and never be afraid to compromise or admit that you might be wrong.

Because knowing your mistakes will enable you to escape repetition.

We need to realize that there's more out there, and we need to become more tolerant of diversity. We need to tell people to stop being afraid of being different from the group.

Because even though as groups we'll never admit to doing it, and as forums we'll always claim to allow all to voice their opinion regardless of content, we all know that it's simply not true. We've fallen apart into several groups, and every group has a specific attitude. All that remains is a sickening illusion of tolerance and freedom.

It appears that our hobby no longer unites us, but also divides us.

<center><hr width=75%></center>

Duncan is a dapper young man, who really hates children.

<center><hr width=75%></center>

One-Shots is an ongoing, revolving column, ready and willing for your contributions. Please read over our <a href="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=32883" target="_blank">guidelines</a> first, and then send your submissions to Raul Grau at columns@comixfan.cjb.net.

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of Comixfan or its other staff in general.

[Thaddeus Hettle]

I strongly agree.... speaking as a great fan of the Morrison issues of X-Men, I've been very dissapointed with the lack of discussion of them in the X-Men forum. And when they are brought up, it always seems to only be for the purpose of bashing them. It's very frustrating.

[bravelybravesirrobin]

and this article says what exactly?


like-minded people band together on message boards, well considering the massive pro-claremont vs he's past it arguments on this board alone (not to mention the strong passions Austen can provoke) I would say that that's bollocks. What is comixfan then? traditionalists? maybe, that explains the x-men fixation but then what about Jordan T. Maxwell and his acolytes, we of the vertigo generation, we have a significant posting presence to.


I post here, superdickery, newsarama and occasionally CBR, all those boards have different tones and different defining characteristics and viewpoints and I have never been excluded from any of them.

More to the point what does that have to do with the comic industry? People have differing views and seek out differing comics, that's how X-force which received tons of negative reviews can still make a substantial amount of dosh.


Also what is the purpose of review sites? to give an idea of how good a comic is before you buy it. Well a review is entirely biased so if you want a review that speaks to your own taste you have to find a site with your own bias. Of course in the forums differing viewpoints can and inevitably will be expressed but there's no point in me going to a leifeild fan board for a review of X-force because I know they'll praise anything he does whereas on a board like comix-fan the likelihood is that the reviewer has a similar tate in comics to me and will give me a review of what i would think of it, i.e. it's crap.



Cannibalising the industry by not trying new things. True, but what does that have to do with online forums?

[Justice Daye]

Cannibalising the industry by not trying new things. True, but what does that have to do with online forums?

I think he means that this search for yes men further cannabalizes the comic industry by making readers fear what's different and crave only what they know. The message board division furthers the comic division.

[Ken Boehm]

I think the reason comics fans seem pessimistic now is because most of the damn books are just crap now. Either they take forever to come out, because we're led to believe its worth the wait (more often times not), or the writing just goes around in circles, much like the constant resurrection of characters. Just like you'd be angry if you saw the same Seinfeld or Simpsons episode over and over. At first, its ok, you catch what you missed the first time, but by the fourth or fifth time your mind just shuts down.

[John Chmielewski]

I feel the many people post more often to a forum in which their viewpoints are respected, encouraged, and challenged. I admit that I infrequently post, however I travel a wide variety of sites for information and differing viewpoints. I do however, find myself drawn more closely to this site because I find the feedback to be more open and respectful than on most other boards.

I do not feel that the clicquish behavior of comic fans is hurting the industry in the long run. If you take the music industry as an example, segregation based on preference of a particular style of music or artist is very common, and I don't believe that anyone would say that it is hurting the record companies in any way.

Before the internet, the only people to discuss our comics with were the people in the local comic store. At least now we can find like minded individuals who share our obsession, and we are able to encourage each other to try new titles and genres after we share our thoughts and develop tenuous relationships.

[Ann Nichols]

Wow, except for the mention of the internet (which wasn't generally available at the time), this piece reminds me of one I read in a nursing journal years ago. I think the title was, "Are We Devouring Our Young"?

I don't visit the other sites often because I have dial-up and many take too long to load. However, when a link here directs me to another site, I am often taken aback by how rude and nasty and insulting many posts are. I'm GLAD that Comixfan.com requires people to behave in a civilized fashion.

Piedmon Sama, quite a few of Mr. Morrison's fans who have come here have insulted Mr. Claremont and his work and implied that his fans are fools. If you make sure to avoid such rudeness, you will probably find fans who are willing to discuss Mr. Morrison's "New X-Men" v.1.

Me? I bludgeon people with documentation. ;)

[twiggy]

I think many other boards seem to be pretty divided, if I go to Newsarama or JinxWorld or even MillarWorld I can talk about Marvel, Vertigo other various indies and people have very differing opinions.

Here on ComiX-fan and CBR I find the posters seem to heavily favour X-books, where on other forums I can get in great debates about MTU and other comics, it seems here only Mainstream marvel or X-books gets discussed. It's definitly not the fault of the staff here, who are excellent on the reporting and reviewing of more indy books.

[tormented_spawn]

Piedmon Sama, quite a few of Mr. Morrison's fans who have come here have insulted Mr. Claremont and his work and implied that his fans are fools. If you make sure to avoid such rudeness, you will probably find fans who are willing to discuss Mr. Morrison's "New X-Men" v.1.
What is this, "I hate Claremont's work therefore, I'm a Morrison fan." Do they declare they are a Morrison fan or their sigs hint that? Maybe, those guys you mentioned, are just, pardon my french, just jerks, hating what everyone else loves.

Great thing about being a loner here in CXF, I just post my opinions and comments not wanting to band with a group of people who agrees with me and besides it's also fun to have little chats with people who disagrees with you, well, as long as it's civilized.

Jordan T. Maxwell and his acolytes, we of the vertigo generation, we have a significant posting presence to.

Jordan and his acolytes? Jordan is a nice guy, but who declared him leader? ;)

But compare to the X-Men thread, the Vertigo, as well as, WS, Image, etc. threads are few, which really bugs me... :mad:

Hmm, after reading this column, maybe I should start to post on other forums than just CXF. I'm not looking for a posse to form, just wandering the desert...

[Dylan McKay]

Interesting read. I'm generally opposed to these groupings too. Breeds myopic and extremist views.

The flipside is, having peoples who's opinions you trust enables you to seek out new things. I never would have given the 5 year gap Legion of Superheroes a go if it wasn't reccomended by reliable sources. Nor would I have tried Rex Mundi, Walking Dead, 100 Bullets, Negation and countless others. It is by following recomendations that I gained the courage to seek out new things as well. If buying Rex Mundi Vol. 1 and Walking Dead Vol. 1 wasn't such a success, I never would have tried Small Gods. And trying Small Gods openned the door to progressively more and more risk taking.

So in conclussion, there are good communities where respect for opinions is developped and members are able to utilize the communities to expand their horizons. And bad communities where members focus on a myopic few titles and insult and bash everything else until everyone only buys the same few titles.

I think the reason comics fans seem pessimistic now is because most of the damn books are just crap now. Either they take forever to come out, because we're led to believe its worth the wait (more often times not), or the writing just goes around in circles, much like the constant resurrection of characters. Just like you'd be angry if you saw the same Seinfeld or Simpsons episode over and over. At first, its ok, you catch what you missed the first time, but by the fourth or fifth time your mind just shuts down.

Bah, if ya ask me, comics are as good now as they've ever been. The problem is that no one reads the good stuff. There's so much quality available to anyone willing to find it. If you are unwilling to take chances and find the greatness that is available, then you should not complain, for you have truely earned mediocrity.

[James Groves]

but then what about Jordan T. Maxwell and his acolytes, we of the vertigo generation, we have a significant posting presence to.

Does this make Jordan Comixfan's "Magneto", then? ;)

He'll love this. We'll never hear the end of it now. :( :P

Bah, if ya ask me, comics are as good now as they've ever been. The problem is that no one reads the good stuff. There's so much quality available to anyone willing to find it. If you are unwilling to take chances and find the greatness that is available, then you should not complain, for you have truely earned mediocrity.

I'd agree with that--to a point. The mainstream stuff today is just really medicore and lacklustre and lacking in new ideas at the moment. I think my point is that the alternative reading scene is still as good as it's ever been, but the mainstream stuff has peaks and troughs in quality. There's still the indie/small press books that are as good now as they've ever been (imo), Vertigo is still going strong (perhaps not as strong as it once was...within the context of breaking new ground within the industry, i mean), Wildstorm is doing some great stuff now with Ex Machina, etc, and Marvel and DC do have a few titles that are very good at the moment, too, to be honest. E.g. Supreme Power, Ultimates, Gotham Central, etc.

I don't think we've seen anything recently that breaks new ground within the industry, though. That's an area i'd like to see some improvement on.

So go out, and confront others, get a new perspective, a new point of view and challenge others to do the same. Try to approach the product and the creator from a positive mindset, and never be afraid to compromise or admit that you might be wrong.

Because knowing your mistakes will enable you to escape repetition.

We need to realize that there's more out there, and we need to become more tolerant of diversity. We need to tell people to stop being afraid of being different from the group.

Just out of interest... but does this column have any links to your opinion of The FourthRails's reviews of Claremont's Uncanny X-Men? ;)

Excellent column, Duncan. :)

[Patriot]

Personally, I think this has been one of the best articles published here. I freely admit I don't post often, but thats not because of any hatred or dissent I feel towards this board,I just don't feel the need or desire to. On the other hand on another board, Ultimate Central (www.ultimatecentral.com), I post frequently. This isn't anything to do with the tastes there,I just felt like I'd fit in.

As the name would suggest, it's primarily aimed at fans of Marvel's Ultimate Line. Yet because it's small, and because of the people there, it's become a general Marvel board. Further, because people want to, and because they are generally accepting of new people, tastes, and conversations we're starting to move towards a general comics board.Discussions on DC titles are on the rise,all imprints of it, and soon enough we'll be moving towards Image and indie discussions.

Try it out, you might be pleasantly surprised.

[James Groves]

Nice plug. ;) :P

[Janne Pietikainen]

Here on ComiX-fan and CBR I find the posters seem to heavily favour X-books, where on other forums I can get in great debates about MTU and other comics, it seems here only Mainstream marvel or X-books gets discussed. It's definitly not the fault of the staff here, who are excellent on the reporting and reviewing of more indy books.

Comixfan used to be X-Fan, and lot of those fans stayed when the site turned to Comixfan. Majority of character bios are still X-related. That's the main reason for slight favour of X-books here.

I personally try to find somethig good in every work. I like Claremont's work and I also enjoyed Morrison's New X-Men. Most people see red when someone mentions Chuck Austen but I think he made some logical and interesting choices even with the X-Men. I'm all Marvel myself but I do always keep a few low-selling books on my pull list.

But I do admit there excists some hardcore fans who do not try to see others' viewpoints. Even I have sounded like that a few times, so I try not to take anything too seriously. The posters at Comixfan act nice so I don't have a need to go elsewhere. The rudeness elsewhere is awkward.

[Phil Hunn]

What is this, "I hate Claremont's work therefore, I'm a Morrison fan." Do they declare they are a Morrison fan or their sigs hint that? Maybe, those guys you mentioned, are just, pardon my french, just jerks, hating what everyone else loves.

DINGDINGDING! We have a winnah! :)

Great thing about being a loner here in CXF, I just post my opinions and comments not wanting to band with a group of people who agrees with me and besides it's also fun to have little chats with people who disagrees with you, well, as long as it's civilized.

Yes, civil discussion is great (as tormented_spawn will tell anyone else, he and I rarely agree on Morrison's X-Men work, but we can talk about it without throwing things at each other. For the most part, anyway :)). "Discussion" that basically entails one group of intolerant assclowns telling another bunch of intolerant assclowns that they're just a stupid little congregation of stupid stupidheads, on the other hand...

[Ovid]

However, when a link here directs me to another site, I am often taken aback by how rude and nasty and insulting many posts are. I'm GLAD that Comixfan.com requires people to behave in a civilized fashion.
Precisely. What makes a discussion divisive is the tone. Comixfan's rules are absolutely what makes it a pleasant place to post. I too have been shocked by other boards. I don't think this is something unique to comics, though. I think it's the internet. If you look at political boards, for example, people ghettoize themselves there. Being free to talk to whomever you like, you end up only talking to the people you like. Which means you never get any other opinion, and the more you have your own opinion reinforced, the more you think those of other opinions are stupid or insane. The only way to make sure a newcomer of differing opinions isn't mobbed is to enforce rules of civility.

Just out of interest... but does this column have any links to your opinion of The FourthRails's reviews of Claremont's Uncanny X-Men? ;)
:LOL: Having been on the end of one of Duncan's harangues on this topic myself, I can vouch that he is vehement but polite. Civility doesn't have to be bland or 'nice'. :P

Good column, Duncan. :clap:

[Jack O'Lantern]

I was going to disagree with this column, but after reading the replies I don't need to: people with different opinions expressing their views intelligently. Where's the problem?

[Patriot]

Nice plug. ;) :P

:LOL: Thanks.Were you sold on it? :cross:

[Ann Nichols]

What is this, "I hate Claremont's work therefore, I'm a Morrison fan." Do they declare they are a Morrison fan or their sigs hint that?

Hardly, sir. If you knew me better, you would know that when I joked about bludgeoning people with documentation that I have defended or criticised the writing of Messrs. Austen, Claremont, and Morrison through the citing and quoting of issues (and basic reference work).

No, these fans would come to the threads of Mr. Claremont's titles and insult his work and his fans while praising Mr. Morrison's work. Funny thing, though, if you challenged them to cite evidence in favor of their declarations, most of them couldn't rise to the challenge.

[Jon Hancock]

Interesting if a little redundant. Our own board's population is expanding with different titles and brands. More importantly the column argues well that humans act according to their nature. As has been said previously, people tend to congregate with others they either get on with or share common traits with. I don't think that it's damaging to a community but rather strengthening.

[Al Harahap]

Here on ComiX-fan and CBR I find the posters seem to heavily favour X-books, where on other forums I can get in great debates about MTU and other comics, it seems here only Mainstream marvel or X-books gets discussed. It's definitly not the fault of the staff here, who are excellent on the reporting and reviewing of more indy books.

Thanks for the encouraging words. We really do try to be inclusive of what's out there and always hope our readers will come with us on the journey. At the same time, we're also very aware that our readership was made up mainly of X-fans, so we do try to keep as much of a balance as we can.

[KenB3]

I visit several websites but I don't post on any of them that much. I'm not sure which one I would fit at either. I like older comics and newer, Marvel and DC, straight superhero and some of the really different stuff out there. If there is one thing I would be interested in, it would be more of comics as an art form, where people discussed comic storytelling and the different cultural influences that show up. Then a site could review comics with that in mind, but most boards are more the type that say "Millar rules" and argue about it.

[Phasmal]

You know what I think is kinda funny? Austen succeeded in getting himself mentioned in the same sentence as Claremont and Morrison not by being as good as them, but by (at least in many people's eyes) really really sucking.

Almost makes me think that he decided to do that just because he knew he'd never get that good. The people that constantly bash him pay him as much of a service as they do the Claremonts and Morrisons they like.

Just a funny observation, I thought.

[Duncan]

First of all, thank you for all the kind words.

To answer some questions... why this topic? What inspired it? In part it was the review on TheFourthRail, but it wasn't the only reason or inspiration for this column. You take with you impressions and opinions, you get them from living your life encountering new things and old things. This topic was inspired by more than just a review that rubbed me the wrong way.

We've all encountered the formation of cliques, wheter we fall outside of one or belong to one.

We've all been on the internet and I'm sure that we've all encountered a discussion where we were basically told that we were dumb cattle with no taste and even less intelligence.

So this was more about multiple elements coming together, and me repeatedly encountering them, up to the point where I decided I could voice my opinion in a column. This column.

As has been said previously, people tend to congregate with others they either get on with or share common traits with. I don't think that it's damaging to a community but rather strengthening.

How appropriate that the father of Evolution (so to speak) came with the perfect answer to what you see as desirable.
(Evolution, mutations, mutants, X-men...)

take is away--

Charles Darwin:
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness. It’s slow death."

I think that we should be cautious to accept falling apart in tighter groups, because we sacrifice diversity.

[Jon Hancock]

But people naturally congregate with their fellows. I think if a person's sole social interaction is one community then they are damaging their social skills. But for a community to contain people with strongly similar beliefs? I don't see that as bad at all. It's not overspecializing to share common interests. Comixfan in particular doesn't shun people for being different. If a poster tries to exhibit that sort of attitude then they get cracked down on quickly.

[Ryan Day]

Comic fans are notoriously close-minded, and the industry itself comes perilously close to inbreeding. Many people define their reading lists by publisher, and often won't even consider reading something that falls outside their conventional superhero standards.

That said, though, the message board issues are just a symptom of that. And taken alone, that makes perfect sense: People want to talk about the things they like with other people who like them. I don't post on X-Men boards very often because I have little or no interest in discussing the X-Men. Might I learn something new and interesting there? Possibly, but the same might be said for message boards devoted to golf or Danielle Steele.

The problem isn't where people post, it's what people read. Here at Comixfan, we cover a wide range of books. But how many people are even interested in reading a review of a book that isn't about a mutant? Never mind actually buying the book - people don't even seem interested in learning about it. That is the depressing part.

[Ovid]

Comic fans are notoriously close-minded, ... I don't post on X-Men boards very often because I have little or no interest in discussing the X-Men. Might I learn something new and interesting there? Possibly, but the same might be said for message boards devoted to golf or Danielle Steele.
:P ;)

Some people just aren't interested in comics as a medium. They're interested in the X-Men or Teen Titans but then they're Teen Titans fans or whatever, not 'comics' fans. It's not a mentality I subscribe to, but there's nothing wrong with it, IMO. The only attitude I really don't get is the people who'll only shop with one publisher. The only power a consumer has in a capitalist economy is the ability to take his/her custom elsewhere. Brand loyalty is like selling yourself into slavery.

The problem isn't where people post, it's what people read. Here at Comixfan, we cover a wide range of books. But how many people are even interested in reading a review of a book that isn't about a mutant? Never mind actually buying the book - people don't even seem interested in learning about it. That is the depressing part.
How about Comixfan setting up an exchange for those who might be willing to experiment? A lot of fans complain about why people don't read their title. I don't know how it could be done, but this site could encourage people to 'swap' comics. Someone would agree to read one of my favourites, e.g. Gotham Central, this month, so long as I tried out their favourite title.

Of course, you'd have to start reading some X-books, Ryan. :LOL:

[Ann Nichols]

I was willing to read reviews for independent comics when I could afford to check them out. Right now my money is extremely tight, so I'm avoiding temptation.

[James Groves]

But that's the problem right there, Ann.

You're looking at independent comics purely as an "extra" rather than as an "instead of".

You seem to have a set amount of comics that you get regardless of quality.

So if an indie book gets 4/5, and an X-related book gets 2/5...which are you going to buy? The answer? The X-book. Cuz i would merit a guess that you buy some books based on characters and teams rather than actual quality artwork and stories.

And that's incredibly, incredibly frustrating.

And i don't understand the logic behind only being willing to read reviews for independent comics when you can afford to check them out. That makes no sense to me. It doesn't cost anythin to read a review of a book you've never heard of before. That's the whole point of a review!

It's like Ryan has said a number of times previously: Some posters look at reviews to see if they can find a good super-X comic, rather than a good comic.

[Jon Hancock]

I disagree James. I'm the same as Ann. I have titles that I know I'll enjoy 99% of the time and if it's a slow week then I'll look at what else is on the shelves. I don't get buying consistently low quality comics that you don't enjoy reading but I do understand that some people like rubbish :)

[James Groves]

So enjoyment doesn't correlate to high quality then? I thought it would do.

I'm sorry, but if one likes rubbish...then one is an imbecile. (notice i put "one"...just in case i'm considered an axe murderer) I don't understand that train of thought.

So, in terms of enjoyment, you'e happy with what you have and don't actively look to find something better, Jon? But then by that principle you're just gonna stagnate as a comic book reader. Yer not gonna challenge yerself, Jon. You're happy with yer lot. Safe comic book reading that is.

[Ovid]

Well, it depends what you're looking for. Some people enjoy the feeling of looking into a fully-realised and complex fictional world. In that case the quality of the individual comic is measured as much by the spin it puts on continuity as by the script or art. I'm something of a convert from this mentality to yours, James, but I don't despise it.

So no-one likes my exchange idea, then? :lonely: :(

[Dylan McKay]

I'd agree with that--to a point. The mainstream stuff today is just really medicore and lacklustre and lacking in new ideas at the moment. I think my point is that the alternative reading scene is still as good as it's ever been, but the mainstream stuff has peaks and troughs in quality. There's still the indie/small press books that are as good now as they've ever been (imo), Vertigo is still going strong (perhaps not as strong as it once was...within the context of breaking new ground within the industry, i mean), Wildstorm is doing some great stuff now with Ex Machina, etc, and Marvel and DC do have a few titles that are very good at the moment, too, to be honest. E.g. Supreme Power, Ultimates, Gotham Central, etc.

I don't think we've seen anything recently that breaks new ground within the industry, though. That's an area i'd like to see some improvement on.

See, I disagree about the lack of innovation. Maybe it's just that I haven't read enough, but there is plenty out there.

100 Bullets

Genre innovation: Transcending comics, 100 Bullets sheds many of the more restrictive trappings of crime noir, often even shedding the crime element, yet remaining fundamentally noir makes it an important an innovated piece of noir fiction, medium be damned.
Pacing innovation: Having a multitude of stories only tangently related grow into a very dense and tight narrative is something not only impressive, but rare, particularly to comics.

The Walking Dead

Genre innovation: Monster horror where the humans are the monsters, and yet there are still monsters and we feel for the humans while we fear them and fear that we are like them which makes the reader sympathize with them. Make sense? Either way, a very unique and supremely effective spin on horror comics by putting drama first and letting the drama be the horror
Pacing innovation: I'm not sure specifically how, but it is a very fast pace, and very dense read, like comics were in the good old days, without relying on any of the cheap tricks and short hand techniques that were used to pull this off.
Supreme Power

Juxtaposition innovations: Virtually every issue is a text book on different ways in which text and image can be juxtaposed to create uniquely comic book story telling techniques.

Brian Micheal Bendis[/i]

Pacing innovation: Since his style is mainstream now, it's easy to forget that his pacing and story telling style is still very new and very much in development in so far as every other writer is concerned. Love it or hate it, the way Bendis paces books is a major innovation.

Shall I continue? I haven't even touched on Joe Casey, Grant Morrison or Slave Labor Graphics...

:P ;)

Some people just aren't interested in comics as a medium. They're interested in the X-Men or Teen Titans but then they're Teen Titans fans or whatever, not 'comics' fans. It's not a mentality I subscribe to, but there's nothing wrong with it, IMO. The only attitude I really don't get is the people who'll only shop with one publisher. The only power a consumer has in a capitalist economy is the ability to take his/her custom elsewhere. Brand loyalty is like selling yourself into slavery.


Yup, particularly with Spiderman, Batman and X-Men. And you have to respect that really. I would like it if people started hounding me to watch more TV...

I was willing to read reviews for independent comics when I could afford to check them out. Right now my money is extremely tight, so I'm avoiding temptation.

I can appreciate that, if I had to, I'd cut back to 100 Bullets, Rex Mundi, Walking Dead, Small Gods, Battle Royale, Tokyo Tribes and Hellblazer. But more so, I would avoid temptation. Some of us are weak willed and need to try anything fresh and acclaimed...

But that's the problem right there, Ann.

You're looking at independent comics purely as an "extra" rather than as an "instead of".

You seem to have a set amount of comics that you get regardless of quality.

So if an indie book gets 4/5, and an X-related book gets 2/5...which are you going to buy? The answer? The X-book. Cuz i would merit a guess that you buy some books based on characters and teams rather than actual quality artwork and stories.

And that's incredibly, incredibly frustrating.


So what you're saying is that you'll drop Gotham Central in favour of Rex Mundi because Rex Mundi is a significantly better comic?

Geez, let people have their comfort zone...

I disagree James. I'm the same as Ann. I have titles that I know I'll enjoy 99% of the time and if it's a slow week then I'll look at what else is on the shelves. I don't get buying consistently low quality comics that you don't enjoy reading but I do understand that some people like rubbish :)

Everyone has different qualifications for quality. I've noticed many people judge a book almost solely on how their favourite characters are portrayed. If that's what makes them happy, then let them be happy. Me, I'm a plot man, I like a juicy plot that I can really sink my teeth into, regardless of how I feel about characters. But clearly I'm the minority there.


So no-one likes my exchange idea, then? :lonely: :(

I would, but the last thing I need is more titles to try.

[Jon Hancock]

I think Dylan's got it. Quality isn't a measurable quantity but an opinion. I certainly don't consider myself a stagnant comic book reader as I am frequently dropping and adding different titles. However, the pay cheque only goes so far so if I'm choosing between a book someone else has read and liked and Flash a book I know I'll enjoy then I'll take the latter.

Not being arsey James but what qualifies you better than me to say what comics anyone should read? I know which reviewers I have similar tastes to and I'm more likely to listen to them (cheers for Human Target, Al) than just gamble.

What's wrong with buying things you enjoy? Why should you force yourself to get "quality" that you're going to either not enjoy or struggle with. Comics are episodic in nature and so I think dipping in and out of titles is the wrong way to read them.

Of course this is just my opinion and it's no more valid that the way you enjoy reading comics. I don't think it's unsafe or stagnating to read something that you enjoy and you get something out of. Reading can have many purposes. While exploring literary techniques and revelling in innovation is one of them, enjoying a good story is another! Personally I think it's more fun too :P Comics to me are not something that I read to gain wisdom or literary insight from, that's why I work in a bookshop. But there's nothing wrong with using them in that way either.

I think basically I'm saying in a long winded way that we're both right and it's wrong to assume that comics have to be assessed to the same set of credentials when there's a million different reasons why one person may pick up any one title from the shelf that week.

[Yellow Lion]

So, in terms of enjoyment, you'e happy with what you have and don't actively look to find something better, Jon? But then by that principle you're just gonna stagnate as a comic book reader. Yer not gonna challenge yerself, Jon. You're happy with yer lot. Safe comic book reading that is.

Can I ask why it's important to have to look 'elsewhere' if you're happy with what you're already reading? I just don't understand the importance of 'challenging yourself', if you're perfectly happy with what you read/how you are? What's wrong with 'stagnating'? What's wrong with 'safe comic book reading'?

At the end of the day if I'm enjoying the books or genre I'm reading now, why am I lacking in not actively searching for different books or genres? I'm the first to admit that (at least when it comes to comics) my tastes are very very narrow indeed. I'm only particularly interested in the superhero genre (and even then just the 'team' books). No other genre appeals to me as that is not my taste. I already know (to a degree) what I am going to like and what I'm not based in the tastes I know I have. For example, 99% of people could agree that 'Comic A' was the best comic ever in that genre, 'Crime' for a random example. Yet I know irrelavent of how good it is, even knowing myself it was one of the best comics around, that I wouldn't like it.

No, I don't read reviews posted of comics I'm unfamiliar with. Some might say that's a shame. But like I said, I know what I like and what I don't like and no amount of pitching from anyone would convince me to check something out as chances are, I would already be looking into it if it had something I'm remotely interested in.

To open it more broadly, I watch a lot of TV, and if I was watching a show I like that I knew a friend or family member would be interested in (based on the tastes I know they have and the time I know they would be willing to devote to it), sure I'd recomend it to them (and this is how I've got a lot of people I know to watch and become a fan of a lot shows). But on the same note, I'd never even bother to try and convince someone of the quality of a show if I knew that person didn't like that genre or type of show. For example while I might be a Science-Fiction fan (for the most part), I would never try and bother to get someone else interested in a show of that genre if they had no interest in it whatsoever. Maybe it's just me and the people I know, but we all have a very good idea of what we like and what we don't, and to a certain degree, experimentation with 'new' things, as a rule, is pointless.

(Sorry to go off on a rant there. After lurking on these boards (and this site) for as long as I can remember (way back when it was X-Fan), I finally, finally decided I needed to post. Too many good debates I've noticed surfacing in the last couple of months. Too many of which have compelled me to finally post. Anyway, I'm happy now I have that off my chest :) ).

[Ovid]

Can I ask why it's important to have to look 'elsewhere' if you're happy with what you're already reading? I just don't understand the importance of 'challenging yourself', if you're perfectly happy with what you read/how you are? What's wrong with 'stagnating'? What's wrong with 'safe comic book reading'?

At the end of the day if I'm enjoying the books or genre I'm reading now, why am I lacking in not actively searching for different books or genres? I'm the first to admit that (at least when it comes to comics) my tastes are very very narrow indeed. I'm only particularly interested in the superhero genre (and even then just the 'team' books). No other genre appeals to me as that is not my taste. I already know (to a degree) what I am going to like and what I'm not based in the tastes I know I have. For example, 99% of people could agree that 'Comic A' was the best comic ever in that genre, 'Crime' for a random example. Yet I know irrelavent of how good it is, even knowing myself it was one of the best comics around, that I wouldn't like it.

No, I don't read reviews posted of comics I'm unfamiliar with. Some might say that's a shame. But like I said, I know what I like and what I don't like and no amount of pitching from anyone would convince me to check something out as chances are, I would already be looking into it if it had something I'm remotely interested in.

To open it more broadly, I watch a lot of TV, and if I was watching a show I like that I knew a friend or family member would be interested in (based on the tastes I know they have and the time I know they would be willing to devote to it), sure I'd recomend it to them (and this is how I've got a lot of people I know to watch and become a fan of a lot shows). But on the same note, I'd never even bother to try and convince someone of the quality of a show if I knew that person didn't like that genre or type of show. For example while I might be a Science-Fiction fan (for the most part), I would never try and bother to get someone else interested in a show of that genre if they had no interest in it whatsoever. Maybe it's just me and the people I know, but we all have a very good idea of what we like and what we don't, and to a certain degree, experimentation with 'new' things, as a rule, is pointless.
But if you don't look elsewhere, how do you 'know' you won't like them? Aren't you precluding the possibility of being pleasantly surprised? What about genre-busting comics? Aren't you assuming that just because a comic ostensibly fits a genre you 'know' you don't like, it therefore has the attributes that turn you off? You may not like Star Trek, but why should that stop you reading Orwell (or vice versa)? Doesn't developing as wide a taste as possible (whatever the field) mean you can enjoy that much more of life? Don't so many people drop comics precisely because they 'grow out of' them without knowing that there's much more variety than they think and probably a comic to suit their new stage in life? Have you never missed out on something good because you weren't keeping an eye open for a new opportunity? (But then, how would you know? ;))

(Sorry to go off on a rant there. After lurking on these boards (and this site) for as long as I can remember (way back when it was X-Fan), I finally, finally decided I needed to post. Too many good debates I've noticed surfacing in the last couple of months. Too many of which have compelled me to finally post. Anyway, I'm happy now I have that off my chest :) ).
:LOL: Yeah, that's the 'problem' with this site: the debates. They were what got me posting, but virtually as soon as I came across the site. Still, welcome out of the closet, however belatedly. :) :flower:

Anyway, back on topic: one tell-tale sign of cliqueness is the 'if you haven't got anything positive to post, don't post anything at all' accusation. I've seen that a lot. OK, posts should be constructive but that doesn't mean they can't be critical. Yet when someone posts a critical post, and doesn't instantly concede when fans back their writer/title, s/he's often accused of negativity or trolling. (The 'if you don't like a book, drop it' argument is closely related while entirely missing the point: people who follow a book because of the characters but don't like the current writing have every right to complain.) I mean, what's the point of a discussion forum where everyone's mindlessly positive about everything?

[Yellow Lion]

But if you don't look elsewhere, how do you 'know' you won't like them? Aren't you precluding the possibility of being pleasantly surprised? What about genre-busting comics? Aren't you assuming that just because a comic ostensibly fits a genre you 'know' you don't like, it therefore has the attributes that turn you off? You may not like Star Trek, but why should that stop you reading Orwell (or vice versa)? Doesn't developing as wide a taste as possible (whatever the field) mean you can enjoy that much more of life? Don't so many people drop comics precisely because they 'grow out of' them without knowing that there's much more variety than they think and probably a comic to suit their new stage in life? Have you never missed out on something good because you weren't keeping an eye open for a new opportunity? (But then, how would you know? ;))

Very, very good points. I think I'm just weird. I just 'feel' like I know. Take films for example, I'm quite picky about what films I watch and the ones I do choose to watch I like (to varying degrees) without fail (the one exception to this rule would be Waterworld, but in my defense it wasn't my idea to go and see that :P ). Some people have told me in the past I make up my mind way before I see/watch/read something whether I'm going to like it or not. They might be right. Probably not the best mindset to have, I admit. I rarely am 'pleasantly surprised' about something I think I'm not going to like, but can be about things that I thought I was going to like, just not quite as much as I actually did. Weird point: I like Star Trek, but don't like Star Wars. Also I never 'grow out' of things and have no 'new stages in life' (yet). As a rule my tastes have rarely changed in my 21 years of existence. :)

:LOL: Yeah, that's the 'problem' with this site: the debates. They were what got me posting, but virtually as soon as I came across the site. Still, welcome out of the closet, however belatedly. :) :flower:

Thanks. :hug:

Anyway, back on topic: one tell-tale sign of cliqueness is the 'if you haven't got anything positive to post, don't post anything at all' accusation. I've seen that a lot. OK, posts should be constructive but that doesn't mean they can't be critical. Yet when someone posts a critical post, and doesn't instantly concede when fans back their writer/title, s/he's often accused of negativity or trolling. (The 'if you don't like a book, drop it' argument is closely related while entirely missing the point: people who follow a book because of the characters but don't like the current writing have every right to complain.) I mean, what's the point of a discussion forum where everyone's mindlessly positive about everything?

Completely agreed. Providing the criticism is fair and not hateful 'bashing'. There's a fine line. Everyone draws their 'line' in different places I think. Hence how people (me included) can get very defensive about what they percieve to be bashing/hating/disrespecting/whatever of a character/title/writer/artist/whatever that they like/love/appreciate.

[Ryan Day]

I'm only particularly interested in the superhero genre (and even then just the 'team' books). No other genre appeals to me as that is not my taste.

For example while I might be a Science-Fiction fan (for the most part),

Don't these two things contradict each other, though? If you generally enjoy watching sci-fi TV shows, why wouldn't you enjoy sci-fi comics?

In other mediums, people don't generally limit themselves to one genre. People don't stop going to movies just because Spidey, Batman or James Bond aren't playing at the time. They'll go to see action films, comedies, maybe a romance... Not many people like everything, but many people enjoy lots of things. Yet somehow, that view disappears when it comes to comics.

I'm not suggesting that people should stop reading the things they enjoy, or read things they don't enjoy... rather, that they should expand their expectations of what they might enjoy.

For another example: People often react to Marvel/DC exclusive announcements as though the creator is going to disappear from the face of the Earth for the duration of the contract. Many fans won't follow a "favourite" creator from one company to the other, but it's totally absurd: If you loved Geoff Johns' Avengers, why not try his JSA? If you were a big fan of Gail Simone on Agent X, why on Earth aren't you reading Birds of Prey

[Yellow Lion]

Don't these two things contradict each other, though? If you generally enjoy watching sci-fi TV shows, why wouldn't you enjoy sci-fi comics?

In other mediums, people don't generally limit themselves to one genre. People don't stop going to movies just because Spidey, Batman or James Bond aren't playing at the time. They'll go to see action films, comedies, maybe a romance... Not many people like everything, but many people enjoy lots of things. Yet somehow, that view disappears when it comes to comics.

Good points, but one of the differences (as far as I'm concerned) between movies and comics is the social experience. I might be willing to pay to watch a movie if I'm going with a group of friends. That's a good night out to me. Over half the films I've watched in my life I would never have gotten to see if it wasn't for me going to see it with others. And I never care enough about the ones I miss to find the time to watch them at home. But with comics you get no such interaction, I'm only going to be prepared to spend my money on the comics I know I like. I can't afford to spend money on comics I'm pretty sure aren't to my tastes. Saying that, I do pick up the odd limited series related to characters I like.

I'm not suggesting that people should stop reading the things they enjoy, or read things they don't enjoy... rather, that they should expand their expectations of what they might enjoy.

In theory, yes, I agree. There's nothing wrong with expanding expactations I suppose. I just don't see it as important. Why should someone have to see what else they might like if they're happy with what they're already reading? There's only so much room in my head for comics. :)

For another example: People often react to Marvel/DC exclusive announcements as though the creator is going to disappear from the face of the Earth for the duration of the contract. Many fans won't follow a "favourite" creator from one company to the other, but it's totally absurd: If you loved Geoff Johns' Avengers, why not try his JSA? If you were a big fan of Gail Simone on Agent X, why on Earth aren't you reading Birds of Prey?

There's a key point you're missing with this. You're going by the assumption that everyone (presumably like you, correct me if I'm wrong) follows certain creators/writers/artists. Certainly people do, obviously, but I would argue there's at least an equally large amount of people (like me) who follow characters/titles/teams more so. For example, while I like Chris Claremont, I like him for his interpretation of the X-Men. I'd be lying if I said I'd read anything non-X related that he'd done. Is it wrong of me to like him soley based on his X-work? True, if there was other work done by him I might be inclined to find out about it (online), but at the end of the day, it won't be the characters I know and love. Yes, there's a good chance I might like these new characters, but to be honest I just don't have the time, money, or frankly room in my head to read about these new characters. Whereas with new TV shows for example, theres no money involved (directly at least) and it's just a lot easier for me to watch something new than to read something new. I'm not saying that that's in any way a good way to be, just explaining where I'm coming from. At the end of the day I follow characters and where they go and not the creators behind those characters. To me, the characters are more than just the creations of the writer behind them at any given point in time. Liking comics for characters should be no more or less important than liking comics for creators as far as I'm concerned.

[Jon Hancock]

Lion, great to have you on board but can you limit your sig to 5 smilies please

One thing I'm a little intrigued about. You say you can't follow new characters, what made you take the plunge with new avengers, exiles and new x-men when they were released? They all feature totally original line ups.

[Ovid]

I was going to come out with the standard response, 'But how can you follow characters and not writers? Characters only exist when they're written down!' But on second thoughts this misses the point. I think this is the real oddity of comics. Because they last so long and have rotating creative teams, the characters acquire a kind of existence independent of the people writing them. And that existence is in the heads of their fans, since it's the fans who have a much better overview than any creator (with the possible exception of Claremont's X-Men). This might be why fans can get so proprietorial. Anybody who's witnessed Ann 'bludgeon [people] with documentation' (or, poor souls, been on the receiving end :grave:;)) will understand who the real bosses are when it comes to correct (as opposed to merely 'good') characterisation.

It's really just a question of priorities. I don't have the head-room for the stakhanovite levels of commitment someone like Ann demonstrates. I also have a limited budget. In a choice between following characters and following writers, I go for writers. The trade-off is that I have little personal connection to any of the characters.

[Ann Nichols]

Because they last so long and have rotating creative teams, the characters acquire a kind of existence independent of the people writing them. And that existence is in the heads of their fans, since it's the fans who have a much better overview than any creator (with the possible exception of Claremont's X-Men).

Dang straight! This phenomena is not limited to comics. Sherlock Holmes' creator died a long time ago. Did new stories with Mr. Holmes die with him?
No. When someone else writes a new Holmes book, isn't it likely that Holmes fans will judge it -- at least in part -- on whether or not the characters behave in character?

Yes, characters change over the years. When I came back to the X-Men after a 23-year absence, I was stunned by the changes. However, I want changes to arise out of circumstances and elements within the character's character. I joke about Marvel using three fairies: Witless Retcon, Out of the Blue, and Swept Under the Rug, to wave wands to change characters or not deal with changes, but it's not really a joke.

One of the reasons I was so irritated by "House of M" #1 was that I didn't buy the premise that Dr. Strange and Professor X -- based on the level of power and solutions they have demonstrated/used in the past -- couldn't have dealt with Wanda.

True, Mr. Claremont did try to explain Xavier's problem as a result of his own emotional baggage (which, given his past history of not dealing with his emotional problems, made sense), but what was Strange's problem?

When Mr. McKeever took over "Mystique", Shortpack stopped being such a fun, cheerful character. Sure, Xavier had been through "Planet X" and was on Genosha, but his behavior in "Excalibur" didn't suggest that he was going to be as intolerant of Mystique as Mr. McKeever wrote him. Heck, on Genosha (Excal v.3, #8), Xavier offered parole to captured Magistrates who had held Karima & Shola captive and fired upon the survivors of Genosha. Xavier also offered parole to the scuzzbags who had attempted to enslave him and his friends.


This might be why fans can get so proprietorial. Anybody who's witnessed Ann 'bludgeon [people] with documentation' (or, poor souls, been on the receiving end :grave:;)) will understand who the real bosses are when it comes to correct (as opposed to merely 'good') characterisation.

Perhaps because I've been the victim of libel in real life, fans who make pronouncements about characters which I know or suspect to be false drive me nuts. I've been known to concede an argument if my research makes me decide the other person is right -- and give the other person my findings. However, I am going to document to prove that what's said wasn't true if it's not.


It's really just a question of priorities. I don't have the head-room for the stakhanovite levels of commitment someone like Ann demonstrates. I also have a limited budget. In a choice between following characters and following writers, I go for writers. The trade-off is that I have little personal connection to any of the characters.

Thanks for a term new to me -- I don't recall learning about Stakhanovites when I took Russian History. (Yeah, I just looked it up online. I'm a former librarian.)

Eh, you wouldn't want the reason I have my memory: spatial disabilities.


So if an indie book gets 4/5, and an X-related book gets 2/5...which are you going to buy? The answer? The X-book. Cuz i would merit a guess that you buy some books based on characters and teams rather than actual quality artwork and stories.

Characters.

And i don't understand the logic behind only being willing to read reviews for independent comics when you can afford to check them out. That makes no sense to me.

To avoid temptation, which is not easy for me. I can stay away from Amazon.com, but while I was searching the bargain books tables at the local chain store for a b-day gift, I ran across 3 books I wanted for myself. I succeeded in putting only two of them back and it was a wrench.

So enjoyment doesn't correlate to high quality then? I thought it would do.

Not necessarily. I don't like "police procedural" or "mean streets" mysteries. A book in those categories could be extremely well written, but I would prefer a mediocre cozy or humorous mystery to that book.

So no-one likes my exchange idea, then? :lonely: :(

Sorry, but I keep my comics.


Pacing innovation: Since his style is mainstream now, it's easy to forget that his pacing and story telling style is still very new and very much in development in so far as every other writer is concerned. Love it or hate it, the way Bendis paces books is a major innovation.

What made me feel gypped with HoM #2 is that I'm buying the series to see Magneto and Xavier and neither one appeared. Nor did Maggie's kids and grandkid. As I complained in another thread, if you're going to call the book "House of M[agnus]", I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting to see a member of the House of Magnus in the issue. It's like having an Avengers or X-Men issue in which no Avenger or X-Man appears.


Everyone has different qualifications for quality. I've noticed many people judge a book almost solely on how their favourite characters are portrayed. If that's what makes them happy, then let them be happy. Me, I'm a plot man, I like a juicy plot that I can really sink my teeth into, regardless of how I feel about characters. But clearly I'm the minority there.

And I severely object to characters being written out of character for the sake of the plot, no matter how juicy.


Can I ask why it's important to have to look 'elsewhere' if you're happy with what you're already reading? I just don't understand the importance of 'challenging yourself', if you're perfectly happy with what you read/how you are? What's wrong with 'stagnating'? What's wrong with 'safe comic book reading'?


If you can afford the cost, trying a new comic can add to your enjoyment. I picked up "Fables", for instance, based on reviews. A good new comic can be a consolation if the latest issue of your usual is a dud.

Don't so many people drop comics precisely because they 'grow out of' them without knowing that there's much more variety than they think and probably a comic to suit their new stage in life?

No, when I dumped American comics (with occasional buys of those based on shows or movies I watched, etc.) in the early '80s, it was because I got tired of being yanked around.

I got tired of making that emotional investment in a comic's characters and relationships (romantic or otherwise) only to have a new writer come in and throw out everything I loved.

I got tired of having supporting characters brought out of limbo just to be killed off. Comic book deaths were shocking when they were extremely rare. After they became common, I just got annoyed at what I still see as a cheap and lazy way to manipulate reader emotions.

I still loved the genre. So I switched to manga reprint volumes -- and that was back when, with extremely rare exceptions, we couldn't get them in English. It's why I took Japanese. If my ability to get the gist of a story from what little I could read and the art wasn't enough, I'd haul out my dictionaries. There was a time when I was so used to manga that if I picked up an American comic, I automatically started reading from the last page, right to left.
[/QUOTE]

As a rule my tastes have rarely changed in my 21 years of existence. :)

Wait until you're middle aged. I grew up loving both SF & fantasy and mysteries. When I was young, it was mostly SF & fantasy. Later, it turned to mostly mystery. I still enjoy SF and fantasy when I read/reread it, but I'm most likely to pick a mystery.
[/QUOTE]

For another example: People often react to Marvel/DC exclusive announcements as though the creator is going to disappear from the face of the Earth for the duration of the contract. Many fans won't follow a "favourite" creator from one company to the other, but it's totally absurd: If you loved Geoff Johns' Avengers, why not try his JSA? If you were a big fan of Gail Simone on Agent X, why on Earth aren't you reading Birds of Prey

I don't have a favorite creator, I have favorite characters. It's not just comics. There are a couple of mystery series authors where I enjoy one of their series and :bored: at the other. I know other authors where I enjoy both or all of their series, but I'll still have preferences.

Sure, I'll read individual novels, but when they're over, you have to say goodbye.

Getting back to comics, just because I loved the way a writer handled characters I already care about doesn't mean that said writer can make me care about characters I previously couldn't care less about.

[Dylan McKay]

I don't get following creators, because to me, that limits oppertunities for something fresh. I usually try to read no more than two by a writer at one time unless they can really excel at bringing something totally new to each book.

I try to read something new every week, and as such, there is nothing I am currently reading that I was reading in 2003.

And Ann, I agree about getting jerked around by creative changes. That's why I do the only thing that can solve that, I read mostly creator owned series. I can have faith that Arvid Nelson won't ever write Dr. Julien Sauniere out of character, I can't have the same faith about whomever is writing Cannonball or Nightcrawler.

[Yellow Lion]

One thing I'm a little intrigued about. You say you can't follow new characters, what made you take the plunge with new avengers, exiles and new x-men when they were released? They all feature totally original line ups.

Good point. Sorry, that's my fault. Should have made myself clear. The reason I can read those three books is that to me they weren't entirely new characters. For the last (almost) decade, since I first got into the X-Men, I've trawled the net (or one site in particular, truth be known) researching their history and everything I could find out about them (I still do this when I'm in a reading mood). That's what I do when I get into something new, head online and commit to memory every little detail I can fit into my tiny brain about it. I'm a freak. Lol. So, as a result I came across a lot of these characters and the things they'd done in the past, and decided I liked them and wanted to read more about them, hence how I got into all the other 'satellite' X-titles of the time (X-Factor, Excalibur, X-Force, Generation X).

So basically a lot of these characters weren't really new to me. I read New X-Men after reading New Mutants (Vol 2) beacuse Dani was a main character in that book, having liked her from her time in X-Force. I liked it a lot more when other New Mutants showed up (Shan, Rahne, Amara) and began to actually like the kids themselves a lot by the end of the run. Naturally I followed with New X-Men, which in the last year has been one of my favourite books ever for a variety of reasons. So really again, not new characters to me. And even without the teachers I would've picked it up knowing these new characters could and would interact with the X-Men at some points. Exiles featured alternate universe versions (yet still in continuity I might add) of characters I knew at least something about or their relatives, and also it reminded me of one of my favourite TV shows, Sliders. Again not entirely new characters to me. I'm reading New Avengers as more of a hold over from the previous Avengers title to be honest. I can't say I like it right now as much as I did the previous title, if only because of the roster involved, but I'm sticking with it in the hopes I'll like it more very soon (yes, I still buy books I'm not a big fan of right now in future hope, so sue me :P ). Again not really entirely new characters to me as I'd found out a little about them while looking into X-Men. The shared universe was a benefit to me.

What I should of said earlier perhaps is not so much I don't like new characters, more that I don't like new 'universes' if that makes any sense. Or at least I'm not easily open to them. Hence why almost all the books I've bought in the past have been Marvel (Gen 13 was an exception to this, having it recommened by a friend who knew my tastes and told me a lot about it. A friend I no longer get to see by the way). Theres reason to suggest I might like some DC titles I understand, but from what I've read about the DC world I'm not really sure I could get into them based on how that 'universe' works and a few other things too long to go into detail here. I'd need convincing.

It's the interactive universe as a whole that I like, I'd be up for trying any new team book if it was in the Marvel universe (and had at least one character I was familiar with, if only in name). It's that potential interactivity I like. I don't know why.

I think this is the real oddity of comics. Because they last so long and have rotating creative teams, the characters acquire a kind of existence independent of the people writing them. And that existence is in the heads of their fans, since it's the fans who have a much better overview than any creator (with the possible exception of Claremont's X-Men). This might be why fans can get so proprietorial. Anybody who's witnessed Ann 'bludgeon [people] with documentation' (or, poor souls, been on the receiving end ) will understand who the real bosses are when it comes to correct (as opposed to merely 'good') characterisation.

It's really just a question of priorities. I don't have the head-room for the stakhanovite levels of commitment someone like Ann demonstrates. I also have a limited budget. In a choice between following characters and following writers, I go for writers. The trade-off is that I have little personal connection to any of the characters.

Very, very well said. And I completely agree. That's just about summed it up perfectly. The two different types of comic book buyers. I'm more of the 'Ann' type I think (without the good memory it seems :) ).

Edited to add:

Yes, characters change over the years. When I came back to the X-Men after a 23-year absence, I was stunned by the changes. However, I want changes to arise out of circumstances and elements within the character's character.

Exactly. You've spoken my mind.

I joke about Marvel using three fairies: Witless Retcon, Out of the Blue, and Swept Under the Rug, to wave wands to change characters or not deal with changes, but it's not really a joke.

Lol! :rofl: . Despite how spot on you are and how it's really not a joke, that's still hilarious to me. :clap:

Perhaps because I've been the victim of libel in real life, fans who make pronouncements about characters which I know or suspect to be false drive me nuts. I've been known to concede an argument if my research makes me decide the other person is right -- and give the other person my findings. However, I am going to document to prove that what's said wasn't true if it's not.

That's a really good quality to have IMO. I wish was more like you and had the time and effort to be like that.

And I severely object to characters being written out of character for the sake of the plot, no matter how juicy.

I got tired of making that emotional investment in a comic's characters and relationships (romantic or otherwise) only to have a new writer come in and throw out everything I loved.

I got tired of having supporting characters brought out of limbo just to be killed off. Comic book deaths were shocking when they were extremely rare. After they became common, I just got annoyed at what I still see as a cheap and lazy way to manipulate reader emotions.

Getting back to comics, just because I loved the way a writer handled characters I already care about doesn't mean that said writer can make me care about characters I previously couldn't care less about.

You're reading my mind again. Word for word.

If you can afford the cost, trying a new comic can add to your enjoyment. I picked up "Fables", for instance, based on reviews. A good new comic can be a consolation if the latest issue of your usual is a dud.

As we have rather similar tastes I might just look into that now.

Wait until you're middle aged. I grew up loving both SF & fantasy and mysteries. When I was young, it was mostly SF & fantasy. Later, it turned to mostly mystery. I still enjoy SF and fantasy when I read/reread it, but I'm most likely to pick a mystery.

That sounds scarily similar to me thus far. :scared:

Does reading and really liking three Agatha Christie books in Secondary school count as liking Mysteries? :)

[Ovid]

Dang straight! This phenomena is not limited to comics. Sherlock Holmes' creator died a long time ago. Did new stories with Mr. Holmes die with him?
No. When someone else writes a new Holmes book, isn't it likely that Holmes fans will judge it -- at least in part -- on whether or not the characters behave in character?
But if you look at the sequels to, for example, Jane Austen's books, they're not nearly as good. Characterisation can only really be maintained if only one author works on a character. You say you have to say goodbye to novels as if that were a bad thing. Isn't one of the reasons the original AoA is so fondly remembered that it actually ended? Hasn't Gaiman's Sandman largely retained its integrity because he has creative control over the character's use? Don't you improve your appreciation for a book by artificially 'creating' an ending when you drop it, for example when a new creative team arrives?
At the same time you can win a slot on your reading list for something entirely new? I guess I'm saying it's like supply and demand: cut the supply by limiting the length of the series and you'll value the product more.

I joke about Marvel using three fairies: Witless Retcon, Out of the Blue, and Swept Under the Rug, to wave wands to change characters or not deal with changes, but it's not really a joke.
But surely that's an inevitable result of the size and age of the MU (and DCU for that matter)? No writer and editor could possibly make the whole thing make sense all the time. Again, isn't it better to 'let go' of something, even if you love it, and avoid these entanglements?

To avoid temptation, which is not easy for me. I can stay away from Amazon.com, but while I was searching the bargain books tables at the local chain store for a b-day gift, I ran across 3 books I wanted for myself. I succeeded in putting only two of them back and it was a wrench.
I'm entirely with you on this. My comics budget is a damn sight bigger for reading the reviews here. :sigh:

Sorry, but I keep my comics.
Just to clarify: I didn't mean a physical exchange. If I'm massively enthusiastic about Title A, for example and want everyone to read it, and there's someone who feels the same about Title B, there could be somewhere on Comixfan where I would try out B in return for the other person trying out A. No actual comics would change hands though.

I don't get following creators, because to me, that limits oppertunities for something fresh. I usually try to read no more than two by a writer at one time unless they can really excel at bringing something totally new to each book.
For budgetary reasons I generally don't get more than one monthly from the same writer, although I may well pick up TPB's (e.g. Runaways monthly and Ex Machina in TPB). But a writer is a better indication that I'm going to like a given comic's style than character or, especially, publisher.

And for the very first time I've heard, from Yellow Lion, a good reason why someone would be loyal to a 'publisher'. If someone's interested in the size and interconnectedness of a publisher's universe then it would take an enormous investment to read up on another's. I put 'publisher' in inverted commas because actually what these fans are interested in is the universe, not the company or its publishing strategy (in contrast to, e.g., Dylan's(?) support for Image). This would also explain why often the very people who shout 'Make Mine Marvel!' are endlessly bitching about Marvel's editorial policies. The irony of course is that Marvel probably has more brand loyalty but the DCU the tighter continuity. Maybe all those inconsistencies Ann was complaining about just serve to make the fans feel superior to the company... ;)

[Dylan McKay]

For budgetary reasons I generally don't get more than one monthly from the same writer, although I may well pick up TPB's (e.g. Runaways monthly and Ex Machina in TPB). But a writer is a better indication that I'm going to like a given comic's style than character or, especially, publisher.

And for the very first time I've heard, from Yellow Lion, a good reason why someone would be loyal to a 'publisher'. If someone's interested in the size and interconnectedness of a publisher's universe then it would take an enormous investment to read up on another's. I put 'publisher' in inverted commas because actually what these fans are interested in is the universe, not the company or its publishing strategy (in contrast to, e.g., Dylan's(?) support for Image). This would also explain why often the very people who shout 'Make Mine Marvel!' are endlessly bitching about Marvel's editorial policies. The irony of course is that Marvel probably has more brand loyalty but the DCU the tighter continuity. Maybe all those inconsistencies Ann was complaining about just serve to make the fans feel superior to the company... ;)


For me, publisher loyalty is on two fronts.

1) Political/Corporate: I believe in creators rights. I believe that those who's imagination produced the characters and stories should be the ones to determine the fates and destinies of the characters. I also find that when the creators own their own projects and create them from the ground up, there is a greater love for the work then when they are working in someone else's playground. And for creators rights and creator owned work, there is no publisher better than Image. (And for the record, I mean Image Central, not partner studios like Top Cow or TMP.) Also, I respect and admire that anyone can make a pitch to Image comics and that they do a great job of being an open door to entrance in the industry. I think one thing that seperates comics from other entertainment industries is how the fan becomes the pro, no where is this more evident than in Japan. (This is also why I have rising respect for Tokyopop and their Rising Stars of Manga initiative.)

2) Quality control: Maybe it's because they get so many pitches that the odds increase that there will be something special in the lot. Or maybe it's because the projects are all personal. Or the freedom to have a wide variety of formats, such as Sea of Red using paper quality as an artistic element, or Amazing Joy Buzzards having an issue overflow onto the 'net. Or some combination of factors. But I find as a general rule, Image books are just better. Better stories better art, better comics. So no matter who is making the book, whether I've heard of them or not, whether I've liked their work or not, I have good reason to believe that if the premise sounds interesting, I will like the comic. It isn't 100% perfect, but they have a much better success ratio in regards to making the concept work that I find myself perfectly comfortable taking a risk based completely on the basic pitch. The only publisher I have enough faith in that the previews blurb has enough to sell me, because I have reason to believe that the potential of the blurb will be legitimate.

That is why almost 50% of all books I buy are published by Image.

[Jon Hancock]

Lion, I know how you feel. 90% of my titles are DC because I've become so disillusioned with how Marvel construct their stories and treat their staff and fans (still thinking of you Jim)

Saying that I would suggest you don't dismiss DC based on what you've heard about their universe. There's a common myth that DC's characters and stories aren't realistic or gritty. That's tosh to be honest. DC has so many down to earth titles. They're more than just Superman ;)

Dylan, I agree with you. Brand loyalty exists in lots of areas of retail. Comics is the same IMO.

[Yellow Lion]

But if you look at the sequels to, for example, Jane Austen's books, they're not nearly as good. Characterisation can only really be maintained if only one author works on a character.

I would disagree with that last line. I think characterisation can be maintained by a different author/writer in books/comics providing they have read most (if not all) of the past events and personality traits of the characters they're now using. Admittedly with high profile icons such as Spiderman, Fantasitc Four, X-Men etc. it would be difficult, but not impossible. I know if I was made a writer of an already establised book (which would never happend as I can't write a thing), I would go out of my way to learn everything I could about the characters/situations I was going to be dealing with. I understand that maybe not all do this. That's a shame.

You say you have to say goodbye to novels as if that were a bad thing.

To me, it is (would be if I read a lot of novels). It's part of the reason I rarely watch movies, but watch hell of a lot of TV (way more than I should). It's because I can't get invested in characters that I know will just dissapear at the end of the (usually just the one) story. I would be much more inclined to look into something knowing it had at least a shot of continuation. Hence my attitude to sequels. I like them. (Almost) without fail. Don't get me wrong there is some self contained stories I do like, The Lord of the Rings for example, but even that was technically spread over three films.

Isn't one of the reasons the original AoA is so fondly remembered that it actually ended?

For me, kind of, yes. But just as much for knowing the changes wouldn't be permanent as it is to how good (and it was good) the actual story is. I think that's why the AOA is looked on fondly by almost all. By being a self contained timeline and yet still in continuity, it seemed to cater to everyones tastes.

Hasn't Gaiman's Sandman largely retained its integrity because he has creative control over the character's use? Don't you improve your appreciation for a book by artificially 'creating' an ending when you drop it, for example when a new creative team arrives?

Not really no. If only for the fact I have a rubbish imagination and couldn't wrap up a story with any semblence of quality and coherence if I was paid to. And I've never dropped a book thus far so I can't really comment on the last bit.

At the same time you can win a slot on your reading list for something entirely new? I guess I'm saying it's like supply and demand: cut the supply by limiting the length of the series and you'll value the product more.

Probably true, but then again I've never been a fan of the word 'new'. ;)

But surely that's an inevitable result of the size and age of the MU (and DCU for that matter)? No writer and editor could possibly make the whole thing make sense all the time.

Again, I don't see why not. At least speaking for the MU, I think they could. All it would really take is deciding what character goes where from month to month, keeping track of where characters are (in and out of limbo) and finally, making sure no writer expressly contradicts a previous story (without at least going to some trouble of explaining why, even if it be only a line). Why is that so much to ask? The way I see it, Marvel's editors need to spend more time actually editing and less time hiring 'hot new talent' to replace the previous 'hot new talent' they signed barely a year before.

Again, isn't it better to 'let go' of something, even if you love it, and avoid these entanglements?

Maybe, but I just can't do that myself. :)

And for the very first time I've heard, from Yellow Lion, a good reason why someone would be loyal to a 'publisher'. If someone's interested in the size and interconnectedness of a publisher's universe then it would take an enormous investment to read up on another's. I put 'publisher' in inverted commas because actually what these fans are interested in is the universe, not the company or its publishing strategy (in contrast to, e.g., Dylan's(?) support for Image). This would also explain why often the very people who shout 'Make Mine Marvel!' are endlessly bitching about Marvel's editorial policies. The irony of course is that Marvel probably has more brand loyalty but the DCU the tighter continuity. Maybe all those inconsistencies Ann was complaining about just serve to make the fans feel superior to the company... ;)

Exactly. That's very true for me. DC has tighter continuity? Mmmm. I didn't know that. Also, I'm not sure I feel superior to the company, just less money obsessed (duh). :)

Lion, I know how you feel. 90% of my titles are DC because I've become so disillusioned with how Marvel construct their stories and treat their staff and fans (still thinking of you Jim)

Saying that I would suggest you don't dismiss DC based on what you've heard about their universe. There's a common myth that DC's characters and stories aren't realistic or gritty. That's tosh to be honest. DC has so many down to earth titles. They're more than just Superman

How easy was it to get into a whole new 'world' as it were, switching from Marvel to DC? It's not about whether they're realisitc or gritty to me, I'm sure they have lots of down to earth titles. What I meant about the DCU is probably more (from the little I've seen) it's aging and progression of characters, it's passing of the mantle from one character to another. The seemingy endless Robins or Green Arrows. I know I'm in the minority here, but I'm just not that big a fan of that for some reason, I don't know why. Maybe I'm just not used to it. And also the things I've read about them continuity rebooting (am I imagining reading that?).

[Jon Hancock]

continuity reboots are just a prevalent in Marvel. DC differs by generally trying to make things make sense whereas Marvel aren't too bothered if they'll make profit (AOA relaunch case in point.) Legacy is an important part of mainstream DC but there's a lot of titles free from the big 7 and their sidekicks. Manhunter is a new title from last year who's only link to the past is the name. Otherwise it's totally new. There's others too. Basically, if you get tired with the 24th letter of the alphabet try sniffing around new things ;)

[Yellow Lion]

continuity reboots are just a prevalent in Marvel. DC differs by generally trying to make things make sense whereas Marvel aren't too bothered if they'll make profit (AOA relaunch case in point.)

I think this more depends on what an individual constitutes as a 'continuity reboot'. I don't consider the AOA to be a continuity reboot as it was intended to be a temporary 'parallel unviserse' storyline as done in many TV shows. To me, that's not Marvel's attempt to throw away continuity on a permanent basis. The only other example I can think of is over a year ago with X-Men Reloaded and the writers switched around. But again I would argue they didn't expressly reboot continuity they just went back to a way of doing things they'd done before. Theres a big difference in my book. The only other way thing left outstanding is the Magneto mess, but I have faith Claremont (if not, some other writer) will eventually give some form of explanation for it, however far fetched. I'm willing to wait a little longer.

Legacy is an important part of mainstream DC but there's a lot of titles free from the big 7 and their sidekicks. Manhunter is a new title from last year who's only link to the past is the name. Otherwise it's totally new. There's others too. Basically, if you get tired with the 24th letter of the alphabet try sniffing around new things ;)

The day I get tired of the 24th letter of the alphabet is the day I'm abducted and replaced by a very poor acting extraterrestrial. Or Marvel decides to kill off Storm (however temporary that may be). Whichever comes first. ;)

[tormented_spawn]

So what you're saying is that you'll drop Gotham Central in favour of Rex Mundi because Rex Mundi is a significantly better comic?
I'll get both, with Rex Mundi being late and all, I can afford to get both comics. While, I like RM more than GC (well the stand-alone was awesome so I don't know at times), but for me, isn't overly better. So, I'll be getting those two great comics.

I don't get following creators, because to me, that limits oppertunities for something fresh.
I think you do get it, what about that guy doing Wildsiderz, you seems to made up your mind before that book was publish because whatiz is on the book.

[Dylan McKay]

I think you do get it, what about that guy doing Wildsiderz, you seems to made up your mind before that book was publish because whatiz is on the book.
Seeing as it's been years since his last published work, that is different, and I'll there are some exceptions, ok, two, Adam Warren and Brian Azzarello. To me, the creator has to be mind blowingly good and not overly prolific.

[Ovid]

If you can afford the cost, trying a new comic can add to your enjoyment. I picked up "Fables", for instance, based on reviews. A good new comic can be a consolation if the latest issue of your usual is a dud.
Vertigo and Image are good places to look for a 'back-up' if your regular dose fails. Their books are usually in self-contained worlds so don't require a big investment in getting to know another universe.

The new Legion of Superheroes from DC is a team book set in the far future and so has virtually no continuity to get to know. It's also 30 pages of story rather than the normal 22 for the same price. :D It isn't written in story arcs, but as a series of linked one-shots and is only on #7 as of last week, so is easy to get into. It's by Mark Waid who wrote Fantastic Four until recently, IIRC.

The other option is of course Runaways, which is consistently good (and often great) and is still in the MU, although a little-used corner of it. And one of its characters is a mutant. :)

[Dylan McKay]

The other option is of course Runaways, which is consistently good (and often great) and is still in the MU, although a little-used corner of it. And one of its characters is a mutant. :)
Funny that outside New York is a "corner"... :D

[Ovid]

Funny that outside New York is a "corner"... :D
This is the MU we're talking about! :LOL:

[Will Carper]

I remember I used to be exclusively X-Men/Wolverine (with a little Punisher) until I picked up the "E is for Extinction" TPB in a local comic shop and heard a frequent customer testifying to how reading Morrison's work opened his eyes to how crappy the X-titles had been over the last 10 years. Upon hearing this I knew, deep down, that I agreed.

I was subsequently introduced to Morrison's other works, along with Vertigo, and I knew that I had found my calling--true literary comics (I am one of those people who believes Sandman and Watchmen are as good as anything Orwell ever wrote). Though I still subscribe to Wolverine and the 3 core X-titles (out of habit and love for the characters), I really only pay attention to something if it's got the Vertigo label on it (yeah, I know this sounds close-minded, but I am also interested by Wildstorm, Dark Horse, and various other publishers).

After reading The Invisibles and understanding about 6% of it, I turned to the internet for answers and was introduced to comixfan. When I first began posting here I am sad to say I was one of those "Claremont-bashers, Morrison-praisers" Ann was talking about earlier. However, over time, I became more respectful of CC's work--though I'm still prone to a good ol' "why Claremont's writing can't hold up to the likes of Alan Moore" debate (I was in one a few hours ago :blush:, though it was perfectly civil)--and even began to appreciate some of his recent issues of Uncanny.

In addition to that, comixfan has also kept me informed of titles to come (such as All-Star Superman) and titles past (like Bone--I ordered the 55-issue TPB today :dance: ).

So thank you Morrison for introducing me to a wider range of comics--er, graphic novels ;)--and thank you comixfan for making me a better poster/comics reader (and keeping the forums clean--thank god for that!). :)

[Ann Nichols]

Lol! :rofl: . Despite how spot on you are and how it's really not a joke, that's still hilarious to me. :clap:

Thank you for that and other compliments!


As we have rather similar tastes I might just look into that now.


"Fables" #39 has characters from The Jungle Books....


Does reading and really liking three Agatha Christie books in Secondary school count as liking Mysteries? :)

It sounds like a start. :)

But if you look at the sequels to, for example, Jane Austen's books, they're not nearly as good. Characterisation can only really be maintained if only one author works on a character. )

You're correct about characterization, but some persons who carrying on a series or completing an unfinished work do better jobs than others.

Jane Austen was very talented -- I'd hate to try to measure up to her.


I know if I was made a writer of an already establised book (which would never happend as I can't write a thing), I would go out of my way to learn everything I could about the characters/situations I was going to be dealing with. I understand that maybe not all do this. That's a shame.

Yes, it is! Why aren't editors doing a better job of catching this sort of thing? Think of all the mistakes in "Astonishing X-Men" #11? :razz:

An older friend of mine told me Marvel had someone who kept track of their continuity. Why don't they have continuity checkers now?


Again, I don't see why not. At least speaking for the MU, I think they could. All it would really take is deciding what character goes where from month to month, keeping track of where characters are (in and out of limbo) and finally, making sure no writer expressly contradicts a previous story (without at least going to some trouble of explaining why, even if it be only a line). Why is that so much to ask? The way I see it, Marvel's editors need to spend more time actually editing and less time hiring 'hot new talent' to replace the previous 'hot new talent' they signed barely a year before.

Yes! Yes!
The only other way thing left outstanding is the Magneto mess, but I have faith Claremont (if not, some other writer) will eventually give some form of explanation for it, however far fetched. I'm willing to wait a little longer.


I think Mr. Bendis is going to explain Xorneto. I am apprehensive.

When I first began posting here I am sad to say I was one of those "Claremont-bashers, Morrison-praisers" Ann was talking about earlier. However, over time, I became more respectful of CC's work--though I'm still prone to a good ol' "why Claremont's writing can't hold up to the likes of Alan Moore" debate (I was in one a few hours ago :blush:, though it was perfectly civil)--and even began to appreciate some of his recent issues of Uncanny.

So thank you Morrison for introducing me to a wider range of comics--er, graphic novels ;)--and thank you comixfan for making me a better poster/comics reader (and keeping the forums clean--thank god for that!). :)

It was nice of you to say that.