This was going to start out as a simple review of Action Comics #858. The basic gist of that review was going to be, "love the art, but I've read this before."
But somehow, I got off on the tangent of Nostalgia.
Action Comics #858 is steeped in Nostalgia. It starts right on the cover, as we get a great shot of a Gary Frank-rendered Superman who looks uncannily like Christopher Reeve.
Then there is the cover blurb with the words "Legion of The Superheroes Part One" on it, and the flight ring Superman is wearing. Yes, the Legion is supposed to be all about the Future. But we we know it isn't, really. The Future is going to involve more sunscreen, a sharp reduction in beef consumption, and the extinction of polar bears. Oh, and Vulcans; if we're lucky, maybe Vulcans.
I open the issue and the first thing I see is a re-enactment of the whole "Destruction of Krypton"/"Baby Kal-El"/"Ma and Pa Kent" trope. Along with the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, this trope has been reenacted hundreds of times within the pages of DC Comics and their ancillary properties. It, along with many of the key DCU events, has been played out again and again with near-religious fervor.
Going further in the issue, I am struck by how dead-on Frank's illos of Superman/Clark Kent look like Reeve. We see Jimmy Olsen & Perry White, drawn and written in such a fashion that they haven't seemed to have aged in 50 years. We see the 80's version of Brainiac -- I used to have the Super Powers figure for him, looked just like that. Then we see the 60's version of the Legion of the Superheroes. And then Superman gets mixed up with a "Time Sphere."
It's another "time and space has done the funky moonwalk" issue. And that promises plenty of Nostalgia.
Both DC and Marvel -- as well as mainstream comics in general -- have always been hung-up with Nostalgia. I think it's a superhero thing. I think it's the very fact that characters like Superman and Captain America have such outlandish, retro costumes and idealistic backgrounds that fairly begs for the Nostalgia.
I mean, how can a Superman book exist without the use of Nostalgia? I mean, certainly you could have the continuing adventures of a near-invulnerable man. But it's going to look like the movie "Unbreakable." It's not going to be that beautiful multi-colored illustration of a pseudo-Chris Reeve on the cover of Action Comics #858.
What if Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and the rest continued their adventures without the baggage? What if instead of replaying the first meeting of Superman & The Legion you create a new trope? What if instead of focusing on Captain America frozen in that block of ice you create a new myth? And maybe that new myth would consist of Bucky Barnes finding redemption and what it means to truly be an all-American hero. And maybe the new trope for Batman, the one that will be played back over and over again fifty years from now, is yet-to-be-invented. Maybe there is some comic writer out there with the spark of inspiration Bob Kane had -- a spark that is not pre-planned but purely accidental, purely serendipitous, brilliant.
The comic book industry has lost at least one generation of kids to video games and navel-gazing. The comic book flavor of Nostalgia has lost its hold on them. Nostalgia for them consists of Super Mario Brothers on SNES. My adult brother's eyes mist up when he hears the "triumph song" at the end of Super Mario Brothers 2. His entire vocabulary of comic book nostalgia consists of Ben Reilly and that time Alicia Masters was really a Skrull.
I think we need new myths.
That said, the Gary Frank art alone in Action Comics #858 is worth the price of the entire comic book.
But isn't this nostalgia what Johns does best or at least what he's made his career over the last few years about? With the possible exception of 52, what has he done that hasn't mined the past to dig up elements from old stories?
ReplyDeleteIt's almost funny that Action Comics and JSA came out the same week. In both, Johns plays with our memories, whether it's the Levitz-era Legion or the Waid/Ross Kingdom Come. Both issues almost accomplish the same goals by coming at it through different directions.
Do you not like Johns?
ReplyDeleteJust curious, I think he's by far the best superhero writer around (with Millar somewhere there too).
I love DC because of Johns, and have never ever bought an Action Comics until now.
oo i would like to see a collection of all the different ways kripton exploding and bruces parents getting killed has been done over the years.
ReplyDeleteand while were on superman i'd like to see an elesworlds type thing where superman was found by the government not the kents...
Well, the whole "government finds the rocketship" thing was done in Supreme Power by Marvel. Actually, it was "bickering farm couple finds the rocket but the government takes it", but the idea is the same.
ReplyDeleteI did not like this issue of Action. I can't even say why.
I wrote a whole whining screed about the issue in this comment, but deleted it because it was all spoilery. And also way too much with the whiny.
So instead I'll just say that I was hoping my reaction to this issue could have been more than "Bleh".
Frank's art was great, though. So at least there's that.
Love the blog, by the way. I'm new here, but really enjoying your posts. :)
I feel like the real driver of nostalgia is of course the fact that most of the fans left are the ones who started reading at some point during their formative years, and so all they want is to relive those years, over and over again, with the aid of corporate intellectual properties.
ReplyDeleteNot that there's anything wrong with that--it's what I do. But you're so right--nostalgia's about all what sells mainstream superhero comics anymore.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. The only audience for comics left are those of us that were reading 20+ years ago. At the comic shop I go to, I'm the *youngest* customer and I'm 31!
Which is why I think Valerie's main idea is nice, but ultimately futile. The next mythos of Batman, if there is ever going to be a next mythos, is not going to come out of comics because there won't be anyone to read them.
I also don't think there is going to be a next mythos. There's no way an overly corporate company like Time Warner is ever going to make any lasting changes to one of their biggest IPs. Remember when Superman died?
Wow, see, I thought the Gary Frank art made the Legionnaires all look completely psychotic.
ReplyDeleteI think we *do* have new myths...they come in the form of people's first exposure to Batman being when he toppled Falcone after being trained by Ra's Al Ghul. Or the people who first see Hawkgirl as an original JLer. And the people who see Rogue as a young girl who later chooses to lose her mutant powers. Of course I can go on and on.
ReplyDeleteThe question out is whether it's important and/or desirable for comic books to explore new myths...because comic book *properties* have, and they are making tons of money from movies, tv and merchandising. Has that unconsciously relegated actual comic books themselves to be mere nostalgia pieces? Perhaps they have. But do we want more? It's possible that the ones who do are in the minority (I, admittedly, among them).
I was saddened when the new Firestorm book was cancelled...it was consistently a great book. Seems like comic book fans are often resistent to new myths...
*beware... long post ahead*
ReplyDeleteIn relation to what Matt and Kenny have said about the lack of new readers, I have to wonder whether this is due to the issue of local comic stores not catering to children, pre-teens and teens.
I'm 29, was introduced to comics a little over a year ago (and now have a collection of single issues to rival the person who introduced me, but I digress) and the only time I've ever seen a person under the age of sixteen at the comic store was last week when I saw a three year old pointing out all of the Spiderman comics to his father, who had come in to "feed his habit" ("Look Daddy! Spiderman!" "yeah, mate. That's Spiderman" "Look Daddy! Spiderman!" "uh... actually mate, that's Spidergirl...") but did he actually buy a comic for his son while he was there? Unfortunately not. I have to wonder whether the issue of bringing "new blood" into the readership is due to parents and older siblings refusing to purchase or pass down comics to younger people, or whether the comic stores jsut don't offer items for younger people to read? Out of all of the "kid friendly" comics that are solicited, only ONE was on the shelf last week (a DC comic; which might have put the father off, if he wants to bring his son up a Marvel devotee)
I could go on, but I fear that this subject has been debated over and over, and that I may just be rehashing old material that everyone's heard hundreds of times. Plus the fact that I've typed my way to a published novel. Sorry everyone for the rant.
*gets off soapbox*
"the spark of inspiration Bob Kane had" is the greatest line I've heard in ages.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI fall into the older guy who reads comics category, but I have found young people that enjoy the medium. My son, 14, reads a lot of comics and passes on many of the TPBs that we get to friends. I think this his how comics are introduced to the younger generation. Each kid that my son has loaned a TPB to originally thought it was "geeky" to read comics. After the fact, they are asking for the next chapter and more.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I enjoyed Action Comics #858. I don't think Frank was going for psychotic with the Legion. They just looked excited to meet their idol.
I think you're dead-on, moviegirl, and you're right--these are ideas that have been blogged and reblogged and message boarded to death, but they're still right.
ReplyDeleteI wish there were more, and better, comics for kids--or rather, more and better comics that were great that kids and adult fans could enjoy together. There are a few, but not many.
Anyway. Ahh...nostalgia.
Excellent review. But it's not just Johns' case, but almost all Marvel and DC writers from the last 2 decades. Since the beginning of the 90's mainstream writers lost their will to create new characters. In six years, Stan Lee created more (and far, far better) characters than Bendis, Mark Millar, Geoff Johns, Jeph Loeb and JMS in their entire life careers combined. Those guys just recycle old material; it's easier.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem is that writing fan fiction is easier than writing original fiction. Many of the writers today grew up on these characters and therefore have fond, nostalgic memories of these characters. But at the same time, to be brutally frank, some of them can't distinguish between nostalgia and the need for actual creativity.
ReplyDeleteThat kind of writing ability can be acquired by having experience writing wholly original characters rather than using another person's sandbox. To use another Doctor Who example, producer Russell T Davies, in putting together writers for the revived series in 2005, demanded that the writers must have had experience writing something other than Doctor Who. That cut out a lot of good writers, but that also ensured that you got writers who (a) knew how to write for television and (b) would have a better shot at being disciplined enough to not indulge their fanboy predilections. For an example of how it can go wrong see the Enterprise episodes written by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, which are packed with trivia (about Vulcans, say, that came from their written Trek fiction) that has nothing to do with the story except that they wanted to insert it, apparently to make it canon.
One person who does know the difference is Kurt Busiek, who manages to temper nostalgic references with actual new storytelling that moves the mythos forward (his Avengers run is a case in point, as is his Superman writing). One person that does not, these days, is Geoff Johns. He used to be better earlier in his writing career, but lately it's been more and more fanfic-leaning.
It's not the myths that are the problem. The characters are still gold. Those stories are still gold. It's the navel gazing and recycling the old stuff in an effort to recreate the magic instead of trying to understand what the magic was in the first place and using new things to reproduce it.
We do need new myths - but new myths don't necessarily require new characters. We can still tell new stories with these characters... writers just need to want to work harder.
On a personal note, I liked seeing the old school Legion back and am looking forward to the rest of the story, but then again, you're right... the reason has less to do with the quality of the writing than it is to do with the nostalgia that washes up every time I see those costumes. That's why I should never be asked to write a Legion book — I just love this particular era too, too much, and can't be objective about it. Self-indulgence has no real place in writing of this sort.