Your Superhero Is Broken

Nice article, I agree with lot of it. Even the Spider-Man 3 dancing, I still don't get why people were so pissed off about that particulure thing. Also, doesn't Green Lantern have a weakness to wood too?

Don't we all?

Eh, it was a brilliant mess of bile and some good points...still, didnt like or agree much with the article...as long as a superhero comic is fun and enjoyable, who cares about its cultural value? Grant Morrison himself proved this point with All Star Superman, which is a brilliant love letter to the absurd fun superheroes are.
Also, what does this have to do with movies, Devin?

I don't have too much to say, since I agree with most of your article. I just wanted to chime in and mention that I'd be very interested in seeing what you have to say about realism in contemporary film.

Probably my favourite article you've written.
I still find a little guilty pleasure in the medium, but I'm getting less and less patient with superhero comics myself, bar the few that actually bother to embrace their pulp roots instead of trying to be anything else. Grant Morrison's work is consistently at least readable, but what I've read of The Invisibles does suggest he could be doing better.
Really, the only things by either DC or Marvel I buy these days are one or two of the Vertigo titles, and even those seem to be sliding and becoming comfortable in retreading the things titles like Sandman and Preacher already covered.

Authors like Rick Veitch, say, need more attention, or Posy Simmonds, or Jeff Smith, or Gary Spencer Millidge.

Well, I dont understand your signature, so we're even.

Devin hits the nail on the head. This is why I could never get into Silver Age comics…and why I’ve now dropped comics altogether.

It was interesting how the mainstream superhero comics assimilated the ideas of Miller and Moore in the 1990’s-2000’s. But how often can you deconstruct / retcom the same characters?

Add to that the increasing cost of the comics themselves and you get an industry that will just keep milking a fanbase that will decline year after year.

Comics are, at present, pathetic. Even the so-called "good" ones. Simple clarity is a lost artform, in the story and the pictures. What I've read of Morrison's Batman run is a disgrace in every respect.

Apparently having "things" actually "happen" in comics and films is no longer a prerequisite. If the comic industry survives another ten years, they'll just be producing reams of blank white paper stapled together.

Cinema's heading the same way. I didn't see Superman Returns because it appeared to consist entirely of nothing actually happening. Apparently I was right. And people blame low box-office on piracy. It's actually because nerds obsessed with realism are in charge of all the wonderful kids' stuff.

Reading Devin's nerd baiting articles is like watching a closeted homosexual jock go fag bashing.

You have touched on a problem with the culture in general: telling an interesting story in a linear way is now a rarity. We now have movies that are only about the characters, no plot (and that among other things destroyed Superman Returns). You see it in books that just go on and on for 800 -1000 pages to tell a story that could be told in 200-300 pages, often with no clear ending or reason for being (I'm looking at you Neal Stephenson!). And you see it in comics that portray "major" events that end up meaning nothing (see any crossover from Marvel or DC in the last 10 years)

Paul, I could almost agree with you if you hadn't chosen such a bad example. Morrison's always been complex and challenging as a storyteller, from The Invisibles to Seven Soldiers, superhero or otherwise. His comics are meant to make you work at understanding them, and they always makes sense if you put in the effort. It's not for everyone, no, but he's in no way emblematic of the problems with comic writing. Most bad comics writers (most of whom are working in the superhero genre--surprise) are bad because they have no sense of pacing or have no idea how people talk or can't communicate ideas properly. Grant Morrison can do all that, and has done so in the past. The lack of clarity in some of his work comes from legitimate narrative experimentation, and usually resolves itself if you're willing to pay attention. Even his current Batman run, which is indeed one of the weaker things he's done, is clearly making more sense as it goes along--it's a Morrison hallmark to throw us into a fractured, confusing narrative and slowly fill in the pieces until we get the whole picture.

This is one issue on which Devin can spew all the bile he wants and I'll be hard-pressed to disgree. There is indeed a lot of great comics work being ignored by the fanbase that just wants to read the same Spider-man stories over and over again. In fact, the level of quality in comics goes up exponentially once you get outside the superhero genre, but fandom's been frustratingly slow to follow it there. I've said it a thousand times: everyone, superhero fans and haters alike, will be much, much happier when superheroes stop being the dominant genre in comics and just start being "a" genre.

Excellent article.

ETA: I've noticed that the local comic shop has much more thematic diversity than it did just ten years ago. In 2004 I went to a bookstore in Paris, that had an entire level devoted to comics. Much like manga and anime, every sort of story was told in a graphic medium. Romantic comedy, Westerns, Horror, Sci Fi, etc. I feel that trend is slowly building here now.

Just more evidence that the DC universe blows.


...and yes, it DOES hurt to agree with Devin.

I'll note that "being yellow" was the natural opposite to a "man without fear" back in the 1950s.

The problem with the superhero these days is the fans, more than the writers. Particularly ones that embrace "realism" and "continuity" above all else. A "realistic superhero" is an oxymoron. But a "relevant superhero" isn't.

Still, I have to agree. Comics would be so much stronger if the medium wasn't drowning in superhero stories. Marvel in the 1960s, had something like 8 titles total. DC for a long while had as many science fiction, comedy, romance, and war titles as they did superhero titles.

They were all drawn by Jack Kirby, and they always came out on time.

I have to say, the thesis of this article is utter nonsense. Perhaps I'm failing to grasp the point, is it --

1) The IDEA of superheroes doesn't work anymore?

2) The APPEARANCE of superheroes in comics doesn't work anymore?

3) There are NO GOOD SUPERHERO comics anymore?

4) Trying to INCORPORATE THE IDEA OF SUPERHEROES INTO A RECOGNIZABLE REALITY doesn't work anymore?

I could site many examples to refute any of the above mentioned points, but this is such a scattershot, knee-jerk article that I wouldn't know where to start my counter-argument.

Keeping in mind even Schindler's List doesn't even rate high enough on Devin's scale of maturity...

Now, I do feel things have gotten ridiculous with realism when you have Dr. Light raping Elongated Man's wife or people in bright shiny costumes with ugly holes in the middle of their bright shiny costumes. I think it's kind of the same as with musicals, which have their own devoted fans, and dominate a niche medium. Likewise, what used to be generally lighthearted fare has developed into pretty dark or heavy stuff, and thus the productions with the most devoted fanbases like Sweeney Todd and Rent are pretty grim and gritty, or at the very least, rather self referencial, like The Producers. (Like the broadway musical equiavalent of Kurt Busiek)

However, while comic book fanbases are geeky and annoying, one shouldn't blame the genre, or them, for killing the medium. In fact, it was going downhill since the seventies, and saw spikes that were kind of inflated by speculator booms. But I think there's just something inherent about the medium that it just can't hit the mainstream. And people have to stop acting like being dominated by a niche genre is what's doing it. I mean, this is a world where even Ghost Rider is able to make 100 million dollars as a motion picture. And then we have the Heroes show, which isn't very good, but there you have it.

Although I admit, it's not like that many people have tried to go mainstream anyways. Vertigo produces some very good stuff, but I don't think it's the kind of stuff that would thrive if not for comic-phobia. In fact, I think the books tend to generally reach their audiences. And for all of Alan Moore and Frank Miller's "moving on", in my opinion, they've kind of been operating under "Cape by any other name..." Sin City may not explictly be superheroes, but an unstoppable guy with strange features, and sword wielding dominatrixes aren't really outside that realm. And what was 300 if not a legion of Batman's in ancient times? And then there's Alan Moore who goes to pulps for inspiration--which is a pretty neat idea, but not less inherently geeky. "Oh, I know, I'll resurrect a style that's kind of like superheroes, but even MORE obscure for to the general public".

Of course, the science fiction titles were usually anthologies, which for whatever reason, aren't particularly popular today. Hell, Marvel's attempts to anthologize with superhero stories are still met with lukewarm success. And the romance titles were well, horrible and insulting.

I've seen Westerns brought up--once Marvel's bread and butter. And which has also done very sparesely even as a motion picture genre. But then again, people felt Unforgiven did to that genre what Devin is arguing Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen did.

The idea of superheroes was utterly deconstructed by Watchmen and DKR. Much like Westerns after the anti-westerns of the 60s, the genre always has to contend with the fact that its readers have seen it for what it is: fascist and juvenile.

In so much that dudes dressing up in costumes is foolish and trying to pretend that it isn't is silly.

No, but all of those that come out are either appealing to teenagers, emotional teenagers or those who want to feel young-at-heart. Alternately they might succeed in spite of their superhero trappings instead of because of them.

No, it never worked. Superheroes are inherently antithetical to a recognizable reality. Most, if not all, examples where they are well integrated are usually just retreads of Watchmen.

This isn't a new argument. People have been making it for 23 years now.

I've introduced a ton of people to "Y: The Last Man", and they've all loved it. That comic is absolutely not reaching its full potential audience. Whenever "normal" people try to take an interest in comics, they're met by Marvel and DC, or their fans, who immediately attempt to cram a bunch of superhero crap down their throat, and it scares people away. Furthermore, I've talked to lots of people who have become frustrated with whatever wankery Marvel or DC are engaging in and resolved to "stop reading comics", because to them comics = superheroes.

Superheroes have become a millstone around the medium's neck.

I would contend that The Wild Bunch (and to a lesser extent, spaghetti westerns) did it with Westerns. Eastwood's The Outlaw Josey Wales is the kind of reconstruction attempt that current comics are on, and Unforgiven is him saying that a reconstruction is ultimately impossible.

[QUOTE=Yaz;2167603]The idea of superheroes was utterly deconstructed by Watchmen and DKR. Much like Westerns after the anti-westerns of the 60s, the genre always has to contend with the fact that its readers have seen it for what it is: fascist and juvenile.
[QUOTE=Yaz;2167603]

OK. So the genre was successfully deconstructed back in the 80's. Therefor it is no longer viable? Here's a newsflash -- we're living in something called the POST MODERN AGE. Every genre has been deconstructed. And any genre where the protagonist takes the law into their won hands can be labeled fascist, and any genre that involves fantasy can be labeled juvenile.


Here's another newsflash -- giant robots are silly. Superspies are silly. Monsters are silly. Slashers are silly. ANYTHING YOU CAN NAME THAT DOESN'T DEAL EXCLUSIVELY WITH REALITY AS WE KNOW IT IS SILLY. In fact, romantic comedies are silly. The "silly" argument bears no weight unless your entertainment regimen deals with nothing but fact. Then you can throw the "silly" label around.

I don't even understand what the fuck your point is with this. You post here at CHUD -- a site that deals almost exclusively with films that deal with subject matter for the (good spin) young at heart or (bad spin) emotionally stunted. So which is it?

[QUOTE=Yaz;2167603] No, it never worked. Superheroes are inherently antithetical to a recognizable reality. Most, if not all, examples where they are well integrated are usually just retreads of Watchmen. [QUOTE=Yaz;2167603]

Have you read Ed Brubaker's CAPTAIN AMERICA, or IRON FIST or DAREDEVIL? These are fine examples of superhero comics that seemlessly incorporate a recognizable reality and make WATCHMEN look like Harry fucking Potter as far as their relationship to reality is concerned. Do you actually know about contemporary comics or are you just ranting about them 'cause you don't like them?

Huh?? Your are as non-sensical as Devin. No wonder you agree with him.

Time for your pill dude...

Y: The Last Man is very good, but would it really be mainstream in another medium? (I mean, technically it probably could, but then, it might be heavily nuetered, like I Am Legend)

Let's face...ninety percent of most mediums are filled with dumb. It's just that one of them is a lot of the same kind of dumb, and it's hard to get bent out of shape that we don't have enough variety in our medicority. It'd be like if Television today had like, one Carbivale, a few Losts, and a hell out of a lot of Heroes, and people bitched that the lack of shows like 2 and a Half Men and Dancing With the Starsare killing the industry. But ultimately, that's what would theoritically save the industry, if anything could. (It's like printed media is having a great time of it in general) It would need someone getting the word out on a kind of well-done, but not too exstisential or esoteric Patsy Walker type book. Grant Morrison's brand of storytelling isn't being supressed in comics--in fact, if the industry were more successful, I think he'd have an even harder time having his own book. Sure, in the fifties, he'd spill out an occasional brillaint sci-fi yarn in an anthology book, but he'd never amount to having his own series to play around with.

I do enjoy reading superhero books, and the list I have is usually dictated by the artists and writers who are currently working on said title. But, much like the deconstruction of the archetypes done by people such as Moore and Miller, the only way that the capes and tights books will reach a new renaissance period and relevance is once they move out of the monthly and event driven sales models and into the market of graphic novels. Unfortunately, making a profit is the bottom line at Marvel and DC, so either expect it to continue, or see the medium run into the ground as a whole.

Your self-hatred is palpable. I could cut and paste a selection of your articles and release it as "The Self-loathing Manchild" to the unanimous praise of the psychological community.

Actually, I'm thinking maybe the fact that there are no budgets limiting what an artist can draw is what makes superheroes so popular in comics.

When you think about it, what is a superhero anyway? I think of them as the lead characters who are just cool guys who dress up funny and can do amazing things because - hey! - why not?

If TV could do something as out-there as, say, the Dark Phoenix Saga, with the unlimited visual and storytelling scope that comics provides, I'm pretty sure there'd be a shit-ton more "superhero" TV shows.

Unfortunately, modern comics seem to consist mainly of guys with soul patches and tattoos and piercings sitting around tables in dark rooms talking. TV offers that, and does it better; thus nobody buys today's shitty fucking comics.

Well yes. I don't disagree with this. Any genre where the hero takes the law into his own hands is at least somewhat fascist. And any plot that has fantastical elements that aren't somehow related to reality (through allegory or applicability) are juvenile.

Silly isn't always bad. It's just that superhero costumes are especially silly, and are especially resistant to realism. Which is a problem when most comics are trying to create a relationship with reality.

On good days I think I have the maturity to say that I'm the first, on bad days I feel like I really am emotionally retarded enough to be the second. But this starts to get into navel gazing, so let's just move on.

First off I would disagree with the contention that any of these really present a recognizable (ie realistic) reality so much as they create an erapturing and cohesive world of their own (ie they're well written).

A comic that tries to have a relationship with reality would be, say, Supreme Power.

I would also say that all three of your examples are good in spite of their superhero roots, not because of them. Daredevil has become a story about lawyers and crime and the fact that the main character dresses up in pajamas is mostly ignored. It's the same with Captain America; most of the trappings of superheroes are either ignored (secret identity) or vestigial (costume). The same goes for Iron Fist. And honestly, if you want to talk about Brubaker, Criminal works just as well as the superhero work he does anyway.

I would also contend that all three of those examples are still ultimately a touch fascist and juvenile.

You're right, this hasn't been talked about in the Comics Journal for two decades.

* Although it doesn't fit especially well into this thread, Harry Potter has a stronger relationship to reality than 99% of comics.

What the fuck comic was that?

These crass generalizations aren't helping your case.

Daredevil and Cap are still very invested in their superhero roots, its just they play the trappings of the genre in a more deliberate way than most other titles. I haven't kept up with Iron Fist, but what I read of it seemed the same way.

One that REFLECTS REALITY.

Christ, I actually rolled my eyes at that.

I also wanted to comment that although it appears a genre has accomplished as much as it ever will, that doesn't mean it loses all value or even potential. Just because the answer for where to go from, say, Watchmen or Dark Knight Returns hasn't been forthcoming, doesn't mean there won't ever be one.

It's just pure pessimism to see this issue like this. At the very least there's plenty of fun to be gleaned from superhero comics in spite of their juvenile nature.

EDIT: Also wanted to add that personally, I don't demand realism from comics and movies and things so much as a continuity of their internal reality. If they establish that everybody walks on their teeth or some other insanity, I can deal with it provided they obey their own rules, or break them as part of the larger picture. It does seem audiences today can't discern between things that intentionally don't reflect reality, and things that do.

Smeagol, are...are you taking Paul McCartney seriously?

And that is decidedly a crying shame. I completely agree superheros get a disproportionate amount of attention than their actual value, I'm just saying they still have some and possibly will have even more in the future. Declaring a genre dead is closing the door on future possibilities for growth, and giving plenty of great comics the short end of the stick. I completely understand your point that there's been a horrific stall in the development of their artistic merits, but once again there's at least a few books worth grabbing for their brilliant storytelling, and that's good enough for me for now (and apparently you as you still read Brubaker's Cap, don't you?).



I've heard the same basic points said in earnest many times, so yeah.

EDIT: Wanted to add one point about Grant Morrison. I feel he could easily help take superhero comics into the 21st century artistically, but he appears to have an unfortunate vanity that causes him to write and talk like he's accomplishing great things rather than focusing on actually doing them. It's really disappointing as almost everything I've read of his shows great promise in potentially moving the genre forward, or at least kicking off a lot of the dust. His Batman is a perfect example of where he'd rather show off how clever he is for resurrecting a bunch of useless b-list characters than actually tell a good story, or give us something new to think about.

I think some of you are missing the issue here. The problem with modern comics is not that they're silly or juvenile, it's that they've forgotten how to embrace that. Comics creators have become so preoccupied with genre deconstruction, and "mature" subject matter, and taking the characters "seriously", that they've left behind everything that was fun about the medium.

The best (by which I mean worst) example of all this I've seen in many years was Marvel's 9/11 special. We get pages of superheroes moaning over a real-world event that most of them could have prevented single-handedly, capped off by the bullshit of Dr. Doom crying. Apparently, he's had a mysterious attack of amnesia concerning the fact that he's tried to do worse things himself.

The problem is that the medium has become so obsessed with being taken seriously that they would draw real-world events into an arena that they have no business being in. The idea of superheroes as light escapism, which is the only approach wherein they even vaguely make sense, has been completely lost.

This is why the movies now more closely represent the original intents of these characters than the comics that spawned them. The filmmakers aren't concerned with the public's opinion of the medium itself; they just want to play in that sandbox, and create something fun and entertaining. Organic webshooters notwithstanding, Raimi's Spider-Man films are more true to the spirit of that character than any comics iteration of the last couple of decades.

I may be just speaking for myself here, but I don't think anyone who appreciates the medium of comics would argue that the superhero genre doesn't unjustly dominate the marketshare. If thats what this is really about -- then there is no argument. I would gladly see 75% of all superhero comics disappear. But if the argument is that superheroes are no longer viable, I'd disagree. CAPTAIN AMERICA, DAREDEVIL, INVINCIBLE, EX MACHINA, ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN and others are still great, fun, and yes juvenile entertainments that shouldn't be negated just because of all the crap. Is THE WIRE crap because we've "seen it all" as far as the TV police procedural goes?

The point was not that "we've seen it all". That wasn't even remotely the point. Have you even read the article? Maybe you should dial down the righteous indignation for five minutes and try that.

What's funny is that most of the creators working in comics that I've spoken with, whether they be independent or working for the big two, would agree with Devin. All-Star Superman has best captured what the superhero genre needs to be at this point in time, and it's a shame that comics have been ruined by their own continuities and self-important meandering through story lines. Like I said before though, it's not going to change until money is no longer an issue, and I don't see that particular move in the market place any time ever.

I agree with some of this, but I feel that some superhero comics can work really well with real world analogies and situations. The Authority provided some really silly escapist fun taking on all kinds of caricatures of despots, politicos etc. It wasn't high art, but it still used the world we live in effectively with superheros. I think the key is striking a balance between indulging the absurdity of comics and some touchstones to our world that keep the stories something we can care about. Spider-Man clicked so well because people could identify with a lot of the things he dealt with, so why is it unreasonable that idea go that little bit farther?

I also think it's a bit faulty to say superhero comics haven't been doing this. In general, sure, they haven't, but most of any medium sucks. There's plenty of superhero comics left that recognize the limitations of the genre and its inherent silliness, and also make minimal or effective use of our world.

Christ, Devin. You really like to wear that 'Misunderstood Genius' t-shirt with the pit stains, don't you? I read your article, and even agree with a good portion. I'm just asking you to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Also, fuck Green Lantern. If ever there was a comic that didn't reach its fantasy potential, that's it. You have an infinite universe filled with all kinds of life in your comic, and you choose to focus almost entirely on the human ones. Thank god for Alan Moore's stories that realized the potential of the concept.

OK. Dialing it down, read the article, not a GREEN LANTERN fan. I would just like to offer up INVINCIBLE as a great superhero comic. It embraces all that is inherently ridiculous about the superhero genre and runs with it, without irony, and crafts a compelling and fun story in its own right.

I'd say the only thing keeping some other titles from reaching the same tier as All-Star Superman is the continuity with other books. Having Cap and Daredevil be part of the larger Marvel Universe means editorial is more likely to step in and dictate how the story plays out, and also adds to the baggage of just picking up the book to read casually. Luckily, both those titles manage to stay in their own corner of the playground most of the time, and are still quite accessible.

I'm glad Hunter Rose mentioned french comics. If more of their books were translated into english and sold in North America, you guys would be happy. The diversity in the genres is staggering, yet they don't seem to have superhero books. Interesting....

Something I like about them: if a french writer wants to do a book about a character of a particular nationality, he can. An American cowboy, a British fighter pilot, etc... They don't limit themselves to preconceived notions and comics are well respected over there.

I wonder if manga is the same? Not too familiar with the Japanese take.

American superhero comics were never really that big in Australia. It was more common for me to read Tintin or Asterix & Obelix than Spiderman.

So when the article says "But as a comic book phenomenon, the super hero is completely broken." it's hard for me to relate as I've never really experienced that phenomenon.

There will always be a place for superpowered things punching each other. It is lots of fun and it's far cheaper to do in comics than movies and it's more spectacular than reading it in a book.

But if there will be superhero books in the future, I don't see why it has to be Spiderman or Superman. It's time for the established characters and their continuity to be put to bed.

Many writers make the attempt to handle different people from all walks of life in American comics. Garth Ennis is Irish born, and writes a lot about his adopted homeland of the States and about as much about England and Ireland. Mark Millar, a Scot, routinely writes about Americans. Those are the only examples that have immediately sprung to mind, and unfortunately they're not very good considering both are only de facto American writers. There definitely are more, I'm just really sleepy.