The Unwritten #6: While The Unwritten is quickly becoming one of my favourite monthly comics, it does take an approach to English literature that I'm not sure I fully support -- particularly in its storytelling. It's too early to really comment on the series as a whole, but it's strongly pushing the idea of allusion as storytelling. Of taking existing works and basing a new story around them. It's not a new idea, but it's one that's really taken off in the past decade or so. In my creative writing class at grad school, the prof talked about how allusion creates resonance in the story and it does, but there's also an element of laziness in it. Frankenstein shows up at the end of this issue and that's fine, that's great, we all know who Frankenstein is, so Carey can play off our expectations... but it's also a case where he doesn't have to really work at it either. (He will, no doubt...) The character is there, we all know it, that's half the battle done for him. Then again, are modern superhero comics any different? Are they nothing more than fan fiction built upon allusion? How is this series any different other than referencing different characters and works? Take X-Men Legacy, a book that was based upon the idea of delving into the past and using those existing ideas to create stories that people will, supposedly, want to read... it all leads to a question: Can Mike Carey write an original work? Something that doesn't require an existing framework, existing characters, a whole literature canon... from my understanding, Lucifer is heavily indebted to Paradise Lost as well... The tougher question: is Carey alone in his reliance on what has come before? They say that there are no new ideas... but have we all taken that as law? Have we all given up and decided to play inside baseball for the rest of our lives? Remakes, relaunches, allusions, updates... Some of the greatest works have been created this way, but, goddamn, isn't it getting a little out of hand? I honestly liked The Unwritten more when Frankenstein was a fictional character that was referenced for thematic purposes in issue three. That was interesting. Are we reliving the past through entertainment? Or is it just part of the grand tradition of retelling stories, each new retelling adding its own spin? Am I expecting too much?
Fuck, I hate it when all I have are questions and few answers.
CR Holiday Interview #18 -- Dan Nadel On Boys
8 minutes ago
2 comments:
This is an excellent post, bringing to attention a common storytelling technique, that is even slightly hampered by being billed as a review. American comics are certainly in need of strong creative voices that speak of their creators' particular worldview and experiences. The story shouldn't be solely about filling 23 pages with variations on the cliches, brought together by a common theme, but something much more intimate then that. Unfortunately, mainstream comics have long been saddled with exclusively telling genre stories that start and end with the impenetrable wall of decades-old superhero characters. Take Jason Aaron's Wolverine work for example - it is almost defined by being a classic version of character not tying into the current continuity developments in his other solo title. This is a work that forces it's writer to rearrange the props once more for a better effect, tying with the movie even, where Aaron's rare additions staring out as strange, such as Wolverine as a reader of classic works, or the last minute idea of adding depth to the story by featuring a short rumination on the nature of Hell. Unfortunately, comics have long been trapped in a pattern on trying to provide a unique way of telling tales done in other mediums. Mike Carey is certainly a victim of this kind of storytelling, especially on his work on the X-Men, a franchise seemingly resistant to creative voices outside of Claremont and Morrison. And wheeling out an old idea with a new coat of paint as a shocker for the cliffhanger is by no means innovative storytelling. Would Shelly's work be as regarded as it is today if it was merely a collection of tweaks on popular 18th century fiction? This kind of nudge nudge, wink wink storytelling really has to start exhibiting diminishing returns at some point, even to the reader well-versed in the original, and numerious homages and commenteries.
Honestly, EVERY comic published by Marvel and DC is based WAY more on allusion than Unwritten or Lucifer -- they all derive directly from pre-created concepts and characters and it's like a holy-shit-big-deal if a writer ever introduces ONE new character or ONE retconned bit of backstory that differs SLIGHTLY form the way it happened in the original comic. For the allusion in Unwritten to even come close to that in your average Marvel book, we would need a lot more than a Frankenstein issue -- League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is the only thing that even comes close to superhero comics in terms of indebtedness to previous works.
Post a Comment