You make it sound like Peter David is a some wild bull that needs to br lassoed and reigned in everytime he submits a script.

That same 'too cute for its own good' has always been one of my pet peeves. The example yesterday I gave a pass because it was the lesser of the two evils, but stuff like this? It also reminds me of the bit about how Captain Marvel as the reason for there being two Absorbing Men.

Posted by IanZL on 2007-07-09 18:40:55
Yeah probably a mistake but I gotta say...those couple of people that were in on it were loving it im sure

Posted by steve_swv on 2007-07-09 22:41:28
I think it's good to do stuff like that! For one it makes those in the know think they are really part of the inner loop, and for those that don't, who cares so long as it's still entertaining. In fact, they possibly get the added enjoyment of knowing that little things like this still happen even now that marvel is this huge global company. I know I do.

Posted by smunzimus on 2007-07-10 02:54:42
Ah the good days...
Leedom was his name.

I miss the old AOL boards. They were much more personal.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-07-10 09:54:21
I'd forgotten about that - but yeah it was pretty ridiculous.

Posted by bomaya on 2007-07-10 12:11:43
On Captain Marvels, Iron Man, etc.
Some comments on Captain Marvels (Mar-Vell and Genis) and Iron Man:

Both Marvels failed as character concepts, and for the same reasons. Both were men without homes; their attempts to find homes were doomed because of their need to fight villains. They were best suited for cosmic villains and situations, but those situations didn’t attract readers wanting Earthly foes and threats, and made developing supporting casts difficult. Rick Jones was interesting in ways that Mar-Vell and Genis were not, but, rather than being complementary, the space devoted to him detracted from the title characters’ narratives. In any given storyline, one could argue that his presence was a plus, but over the long term, Jones’s presence was negative in both series.

Generally, both characters’ stories were as entertaining as the villains and guest stars made them. Thanos was a factor in each “best” storyline (Genis’s involving the death god, Walker). I’d guess that David relied heavily on alternate futures and selves for plot material because the current characters and situations were uninteresting. The flaws in the character concept were why Mar-Vell should have stayed deceased.

Iron Man’s been a problematic character over the decades. The main reason why, I believe, is that the character concept is a case of trying to glue together two separate, non-complementary concepts: the billionaire playboy who does some good, and the inventive genius with a high-tech suit of armor. Any storyline that emphasized one of the concepts gave short shrift to the other; keeping Stark’s reputation as a playboy intact prevented serious romantic relationships; his supporting cast was painfully small; and giving some actual substance to Stark‘s business dealings (assuming the writer could do so) would have bored readers wanting action. Having more Stark family members would have helped develop the civilian identity, but then, there would have been even less space for the hero. Iron Man has been better as an Avenger than as a solo hero, because Stark’s civilian identity is (was) less relevant to AVENGERS.

As for meta-commentary: There have been stories about Claremont and Byrne jabbing each other in their handling of characters within series. Way back in AVENGERS #137, Englehart took a shot at McGregor’s dialogue for the Black Panther in JUNGLE ACTION. For better or worse, when Bendis can’t think of actual jokes for Spider-Man in NEW AVENGERS, he has him joke about joking, and has characters refer to online criticism of previous stories (Dr. Strange in HOUSE OF M #7; the Sentry in MIGHTY AVENGERS #3). There’s been no subtlety in his meta-commentary.

SRS


Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2007-07-10 14:41:52
Comments
Just like there's nothing subtle about your constant jabs at Bendis in every second post ... eh, Steven? ;-)

Posted by eamonmcgrane on 2007-07-11 03:19:39
Dear Steven R Stahl: It's amazing how your degree in lit crit provides you with the best understanding of all characters. Us poor souls who decided to major in something else just can't manage your level of insight into the Marvel Universe.

It's also fascinating that you presume that your view is correct and completely objective (arrived at intellectually rather than emotionally) surely that is incredibly outside the perview of literary criticism. Indeed it could be said that the goal of literary criticism is to illuminate the ways in which a text can be understood not that way it necessarily is. If there was only one way that a text could be read then surely there would be no use for literary criticism. Thus when you admit your debt in reading to lit crit you are, in essence, demonstrating the personal aspect of your readings. When you insist on the superior and objective nature of them you must surely be misunderstanding your own education.

Posted by musicalcolin on 2007-07-11 04:43:54
also...
you continually suggest that the way a certain writer portrayed a certain character was better than is done in New Avengers. Characters evolve, writers change, readers change. I would hope that that nothing remained static. I believe your criticism could be broken down into: "I like the way things used to be and not the way they are now." And that, of course, is the worst possible reaction to any type of art and, maybe more importantly, the most destined to fail.

Posted by musicalcolin on 2007-07-11 04:47:41
Going Beyond Like/Dislike
musicalcolin, there’s no depth to your criticism; if you have a different perspective on a story that’s been criticized, that extends beyond merely “liking” it, then describe that perspective. There are people who can admire a writer’s technique, and not react simply to what the characters in a story do.

SRS


Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2007-07-11 08:47:22
Personal Jabs
I agree that it seems a poor practice to put too much personal, inside jokes or jabs into comics. Although, as with most art, if you can pack something SO full of meaning and content, an inside joke or two isn't going to hurt and will add to the reading of people who either get it directly or have heard of it.

That aside, a standard story that has a basis in an inside joke that most people are ignorant of is decidedly awkward.

Oh, and thanks for adding the lesson at the end! Much appreciated.

And far as Mr. Stahl is concerned: Yes, you do frequently refer to your own personal opinions as objective facts. As if your own thought proccesses lead you inevitably to conclusions that can be considered by all as hard facts. Which just isn't true of anyone, ever. An English degree does not grant anyone the ability to compress the often contradictory, expansive world of art, expression and emotion into a few statements of "good/bad" or "right/wrong".

That's just something everyone who runs their mind non-stop needs to learn in life - in my opinion. Even the most base, mindless popular art has its place. It's just something that I'm, personally, never going to aim for. Which is a choice, not a justification for existing.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2007-07-11 11:06:34
Countering Criticism
The subject I’m interested in is the quality of the writing in the comics Marvel publishes--the quality of the writing in the “Avengers” titles, in particular. The role of the editing department is to ensure that the published product meets the company’s editorial standards. Since Marvel’s “universe” is a shared universe, and its comics are published in series, one would expect the editors to ensure that stories have continuity in plotting and characterization.

Complaints about the tone of my comments are not counterarguments re the quality of the comics. They seem to be simply attempts to avoid the issue, because criticism that points out how shoddy the writing is, and that character concepts are flawed, is apparently too painful to tolerate.

Grammatical errors of the sort that occurred in NEW AVENGERS #28 are rarely seen in commercial fiction, in because the writers and editors who put out the products have vocabularies suited for their jobs. The continuity errors that have appeared repeatedly in Bendis’s stories can damage or destroy the entertainment value of the stories, because events can’t occur as they’re supposedly shown occurring. The argument that “Continuity errors don’t bother me, so they shouldn’t bother you” is, to put it kindly, unconvincing.

The effects of the continuity errors in “Avengers Disassembled” is worse than the effects of errors that invalidate a minor plot point in one issue, because the errors make the basis for NEW AVENGERS and HOUSE OF M unreal. If a story corrects the misinterpretation of Wanda in “Avengers Disassembled,” etc., then the unreal (manipulative) basis for those storylines becomes apparent.

I don’t believe anyone can justify Bendis’s (“Avengers’) stories on an artistic basis, because the problems with his work as published are too severe. No one can rationally argue in favor of grammatical and continuity errors in stories. Fans of his stories who want to counter criticism effectively have to attempt to justify the stories. Attacking the tone of criticism, rather than its substance, accomplishes nothing.

SRS


SRS


Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2007-07-12 11:18:07
Leedom's response
Hey, Leedom couldn't figure out how to post here, so he asked me to post his response. Everything below is his:

"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The key thing you need to know about this individual is that Red Raven was a pet character of his--he'd turn up at the weekly chat sessions that Kurt Busiek and I used to hold every week and campaign relentlessly for the return of Red Raven. It was, to put it kindly, fairly annoying. Enthusiasm is good, but this bordered on the psychotic. It was irritating.

In any case, Peter got into it online with this fellow about their favorite ballclubs, who were rivals in the race to the pennant that year. And Peter, in what must have been a fit of pique, bet the guy that, if the Yankees clinched the World Series, he was going to write Red Raven into a comic book and have him get run over by a truck.

This was that comic book. And I let him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



********************************

Well, Tom, I think you may be misremembering some things, but given the time that's past, that's understandable. First, I was a co-founder of the Red Raven Revival Society and its "President." This is a group created to get the Red Raven character alive in the Marvel Universe and back in at least one issue of his own magazine.

Second, there weren't any weekly chats I was involved in. I hate the chat format and have participated in three, maybe four in my life. Those, to the best of my recollection, were only at the request of various people running them.

What there was, instead of chats, was the old AOL board format which had several boards devoted to and visited by various pros. PAD had one. Kurt had another. I believe even John Byrne had one too. The RRRS had, and still has, though its nearly dead, one.

My posts were on those boards and, yes, I and others did use the Red Raven revival as a running joke/commentary on (then) current comics.

Where those to whom the board was devoted (Kurt) didn't like the gag, we dropped them at his request. I forgot once in a while but tried to honor his request.

Kurt had once said the Red Raven couldn't show up in a current comic because (paraphrasing), "He was dead and Marvel didn't return dead characters." Or words to that effect. Even back then (Hi, Bucky!) that was an absurd argument, but clearly Kurt wanted nothing to do with RR and we didn't want to upset someone over this. Making someone angry at us (and thus with the character) wasn't going to help our cause, a living character and, hopefully, a new comic giving him a fair shot. Let me make that clear, upsetting, embarrassing, annoying any pro, let alone gifted writers, would be counter productive to our aims.

If pros were interested we gave them as much aid as we could. For example, when Erik Larsen contacted me, I gave him Red's history and some ideas. Erik then used RR in Nova and the Defenders. I didn't agree with everything Erik did, but he did make a sincere effort, all one could ask for. Unfortunately, Nova was already on its last legs when Red was introduced so even the presence of the mighty Red Raven could not save the book. :-)

On PAD's folder he took the Red Raven comments, as I recall, with a sense of humor; his soon to be wife was already steady poster on our RRRS site. She was a joy to "talk" with. As was PAD.
Until --

I'm a Yankees and Cubs fan. The memory of the 1969 loss of the Cubs to the "Miracle" Mets is a bitter one in my familly and passed down unto every generation. So, in addition to loving the Yanks, I loathe the Mets.

When the Yankees and Mets were set to meet in the World Series I razzed PAD about his team. It was intended to be the general razzing MLB fans do to each other but it got under PAD's skin. Far more than I realized. Perhaps I'm better at it than I think.

PAD proposed a bet. If the Yankees SWEPT the Mets in the Series he'd write a story bringing back the Red Raven as a great hero. IF the Mets won (fat chance) the Series, he'd put RR into the most humiliating story he could come up with. Anything else was a push.

Due likely to direct intervention by the forces of darkness, the Mets managed to win one game, so I didn't win. The Yankees won the Series so PAD didn't win either. But I continued to razz him about how bad the Mets were and he decided to go ahead and show me not to mess with a writer. He'd go ahead with his plan to humilate the world's greatest hero who hasn't appeared in his won book in sixty years.

Most of us took it as a joke. I thought he was kidding. He did it but the artist drew Red Raven's outfit as some thing he'd never worn and no one (if not in on the whole bet and exchange on PAD's folder) recognized the character. The story's inside gags were funny to those of us in the know, but I can't imagine more than a hundred people are so were familiar with what was going on behind the scenes. You and I discussed this in one email, I believe, way back then. I made it clear that I was happy to see Red back in a comic in ANY form and didn't object to PAD's story.
I was just happy to see Red back in comics. The whole "bet" was a win/win situation.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******************
"It was, to put it kindly, fairly annoying. Enthusiasm is good, but this bordered on the psychotic. It was irritating."
***********************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry you felt that way. Or, at least, remember it that way. You had my email address. (Recall that I'd sent you my spare copy of Red Raven Comics for your collection. You'd sent me the Deadpool #0 published in Wizard which has a small/humorous Red Raven cameo. We did exchange email, but, knowing how busy editors are, I sought to keep it to a minimum.) All you had to do was privately email me about any concerns. That's why I think you're misremembering it, because you would have.

BTW, you also emailed me that when you reprinted the sole Golden Age Red Raven story in Golden Age of Marvel Comics Vol II, you knew that "at least one fan out there would be happy" about it. I was. Thank you again. I'm still wondering how you got the "film" or whatever it was you reprinted the story from.

I wasn't alone. At its peak there were 112 signed up members of the Red Raven Revival Society. We were even planning to send out membership cards and kits like the original MMMS's. Right down to the reddish (not orange as on the original) stickers (that never stuck to anything!) showing the Raven in a Thing-like J. Montgomery Flagg type pose saying "THE RRRS WANTS YOU." If any of them were harrassing you in chats, I wasn't aware of it and would have stopped them.

Then the AOL board system fell apart when AOL, determined to mess up something that was working, redesigned their boards and, I think, upped their prices. Most pros bailed and the fans followed.


George Leedom, President of the Red Raven Revival Society, a fan of Marvel Comics, PAD's work, Kurt's efforts, Erik's aborted return of Red in the Nova series, the Red Raven, the editors at Marvel, and STILL hoping someone gives ol' Red a fair shot in a new book. There are ideas of how that can be done and possibly turn the first character Marvel ever named a book after into a viable commercial property for the corporation. (Think the air version of Sub-Mariner's people back as Bill Everett treated them in the early issues of Marvel Mystery -- endangered by the surface dwellers's actions and determined to stop them from destroying the planet.)

Most of all, Tom, I REALLY thought being the President of the Red Raven Revival Society would get me chicks.

Sigh."

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-07-20 16:40:13