Marvel.com Blogs - Comics for All by Nicole Boose

web marvel.com

BLOGS HOME|COMIC BLOGS|VIDEO GAME BLOGS|OTHER BLOGS|MARVEL NEWS

Welcome to Comics. Now Get Out.
2008-01-11 12:04:27

It’s interesting to consider the contrast between art or entertainment that succeeds by being universal, as opposed to appealing to a specific in-crowd. I tend to think of the latter as dangerously close to snobbery, but the truth is I’m just as susceptible to it as the next person. There’s nothing really wrong with a little in-joke now and again. The problem is when you’re laughing not because it’s all that funny, but because you’re so damned pleased with yourself for being the only one who gets it.

Comics are a medium that has the potential to unite audiences by being universal, or to alienate them by being exclusive. It’s strange to me when I read articles in the comics industry press in which comics pros marvel slack-jawed over how comics are becoming “mainstream.” By this, they seem to mean that comics are getting attention from audiences for whom comics are a form of art and entertainment, instead of a lifestyle. This perspective seems completely backwards to me. Didn’t comics start off as one of the most mainstream, widely-accessible forms of entertainment available to the public? When modern comic pros refer to their colleagues and fans as “us,” and the rest of the world as “them,” does that honestly reflect a division that really exists, or is it just another way to draw imaginary lines in the sand that drive away casual readers and make them feel unwelcome?

There are a couple of comic-related things that I’ve seen recently that made me think about these distinctions. One of them succeeds because it takes the relatively esoteric language of comics, and makes it universal. The other is less universal, but it’s presented so skillfully that it seems a real shame that more people don’t have the points of reference needed to enjoy it.

The first item is the art from a gallery exhibit called “Under the Influence: A Tribute to Stan Lee,” which opened this week in Los Angeles. (I saw photos at Collider.com, but a quick Google search reveals plenty of other stuff about the show.) The exhibit features the work of 100 artists, doing work inspired by Stan and the many Marvel characters he created and co-created.

Looking at the images from this show, it feels like each artist is inviting the viewer to share his or her own sense of joy and whimsy and unbridled enthusiasm for the characters and their iconic status. The art’s enjoyableness has everything to do with aesthetic quality, and nothing to do with how many years the viewer has been reading Marvel comics.

Contrast that with an article that appeared on the Comics Should Be Good website a few days ago. The piece uses a serious journalistic style to expertly satirize the recent uproar about Marvel’s very own “One More Day” storyline. The story is funny and well-written by any standard, but a lot of the satire relies on specific references that are probably understandable only to the very people that they’re meant to mock. Judging by the reader comments, that wasn’t a problem: the audience recognized its quality and happily went along for the ride.

With that article, the writer made a deliberate choice: he intentionally limited his audience, but that let him focus on the subject with laser precision, and the results fired on every cylinder. I just hope he keeps writing, and on a variety of subjects, so that more people have the opportunity to enjoy his work.

I don’t think that creating something for a wide audience is inherently better than creating something for a limited audience. And we all know that when creative folks—in comics or otherwise—set out to please everyone, there’s a good chance they’ll end up pleasing no one. Some of the best works of art and literature, especially the classics, are better appreciated when you have some background and context. Would so many people today appreciate Shakespeare if it weren’t for generations of English teachers helping kids understand him? For that matter, would so many super hero comic fans have worked their way through years of continuity if they didn’t feel like there was some sort of reward in it for them?

I only hope that the reward they’re seeking is the satisfaction of partaking of something good, and not the false superiority of being part of something that shuts others out.

Not Writing to Exclude
Ms. Boose, you made some good points about writing to include potential readers, not writing to exclude. Unfortunately, it appears that (some) writers of superhero comics nowadays, at DC as well as Marvel, implicitly write to exclude. At DC, they have obvious problems trying to make some characters click with the audience, but they’re trademarked properties with some theoretical value, at least, so they try relaunching e.g., LSH again, again, and again, put their other trademarked properties through various permutations and gyrations, and continue to chase an audience that is probably shrinking.

I lived through decades of Marvel Editorial using the “illusion of change” policy, but even within the limits of that policy, writers were still allowed to innovate. Gerber’s HOWARD THE DUCK and DEFENDERS, Englehart’s AVENGERS and DR. STRANGE, Moench’s MASTER OF KUNG FU--those titles and others from Marvel were satisfying to read, even while I was reading adult novels (as a 16- to 20-year-old), because the writers told actual stories, with plots, characterization, and themes. Even when readers were presented with fill-ins, due to the Dreaded Deadline Doom or other reasons, the fill-ins still functioned as stories, as did weak efforts from weak writers.

Now, with all the recent publicity about Spider-Man, etc., there’s the perception that Marvel Editorial is determined to enforce the “illusion of change” policy, in Spider-Man’s case, at least, to the point that there’s no reason for an adult looking for stories to read the material. He’ll be getting pure formula fiction, with plot material and themes recycled periodically on the assumption that most of the audience will have turned over after “n” (two? three?) years anyway.

If one goes back and looks at Englehart’s AVENGERS, for example, he’ll see that the heroes didn’t change drastically. Englehart worked with their relationships, had them react to new characters, and provided stimulating plot ideas and themes. Nothing happened to the heroes that interfered with their marketability or their trademarked appearances; they simply functioned well in stories. The Vision and Scarlet Witch worked well as a couple, so marrying them wasn’t damaging.

And now, with the idea that “Marriage is bad” being bandied about again, by people who should know better--marriage isn’t bad in itself, it’s whether the characters being married complement each other. If they do, then they’re natural couples, so marriage changes very little. If they don’t complement each other, then making them a couple is good only for stories in the short term, and having them marry is an obvious mistake.

I hope that the policy taken toward Spider-Man is an exception, and that the “illusion of change” policy won’t be enforced on all the characters, to the point that there’s no reason for an adult to buy the comics any more. I wouldn’t expect Marvel Editorial to publicly announce such a move, even if there was a blanket policy in effect, because readers would be chased away. If such a policy is in force, the evidence will be in the stories, as characters engage in meaningless and shallow romances and relationships that go nowhere, just to fill page space.

As I’ve said before online, Marvel’s characters have plenty of potential to entertain, but they’ll only entertain readers looking for actual stories if the writers work to produce them. Making various series merely continuing tie-ins to “events” or writing formula fiction to fill pages isn’t work in an artistic sense; rather, it’s a waste of time, and cheats readers who deserve better material. The dialogue-only approach used for many series has a detrimental effect on story content, but going into that would require a separate posting.

SRS

Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2008-01-11 21:55:12

I whole heartedly agree with this article. It seems like a lot of fans-or at least it seems like a lot of fans judging by the Marvel forums and elsewhere-are critical of others for not knowing as much of Dr. Strange's or the Silver Surfer's history as they do. I even saw someone on the Marvel forums talk about how disgusted they were when someone said "HULK SMASH!" to him when they saw the forum member wearing a Hulk t-shirt and then the forum member went on a tirade about how the Hulk "hasn't been a dumb illiterate monster for years."
It's the same type of elitism that you went just wrote about that not only drives away casual readers, it makes them think ill of us. I just hope that the forum members don't reflect a real demographic of comic fans, because if it does then I'd have the opinion that yes we do deserve the negative stereotype I've seen portrayed on the media.

Posted by doncorswhazie on 2008-01-13 14:04:30

Ownership
I am a long-time comics reader (and creator), and my notion of what comics are and should be is completely rooted in the comics of my youth. I am fortunate that those comics included romance, science fiction, suspense, classic adaptations, funny character and parody as well as super hero -- and I do enjoy a good super hero comic. I am heartened to see that today, comics are being taken seriously as a visual and written literacy tool. With regard to avid collectors, I believe that many comics enthusiasts continually relate to and are invested in the comics of childhood (the ones that got them collecting); it's a matter of ownership. I think that may be why it can be difficult for some readers to accept changes to storylines, even though the changes may help overall to make plots or characters grow. My nephew loves Spider-Man and Venom; his reference has been movies, so I bought him comics. (Thank you for the Marvel Adventures!) He's at the age where these comics are going to imprint on him in the same way that the first comics I read affected me. And, from a creator's standpoint, the best course is to do what you love to the best of your ability -- and hopefully, when readers find your work, that discovery will be both positive and inclusive.
IMHO, Cheers---JLH

Posted by BestDestiny on 2008-01-14 11:13:15

Signed.
Very very correct. I agree on all fronts, and as an avid gamer as well, feel that this is a lesson that should be learned across the anti-culture borders. The only reason we are considered fringe is because we seem to want to be. Who of us has the guts to open the door to a new person? Help them into "our" world. Loan out an old issue or two. Why not?

Posted by Saint Jackal on 2008-01-15 12:56:50

Array

Enter a response to this blog post:

About this blog:
A guide to Marvel’s comic offerings for librarians, parents and teachers.

About the author:
Nicole Boose is an Associate Editor at Marvel Comics, working on various titles including the Marvel Illustrated classics. She oversees the comics in Marvel’s custom publishing program.


save this link

More entries by this author:
Picture a... (2008-04-30) (1 responses)
I had a fun... (2008-04-24) (2 responses)
Comics For... (2008-04-23) (3 responses)
Tracy... (2008-02-20) (1 responses)
It’s a short... (2008-01-23) (1 responses)