First, go read Kyle DuVall's post on auteurism at Marvel and DC and then come back.
I've seen these sentiments raised before and they never fail to baffle me. This idea that the status quo of corporate-owned superhero comics is a fragile little thing that needs to be protected from dangerous men with dangerous new ideas... it took Marvel, what, two comics to gut and turn around any progress made during Grant Morrison's New X-Men run? The status quo and the corporate-owned superheroes will be just fine. They've been going for almost 50 years in most cases (some more by a few decades, some less) and it doesn't look like they're going anywhere. Oh, there may be some twists and turns, but, at the end of the day, Spider-Man is still Spider-Man, he's always been Spider-Man, and he'll always be Spider-Man.
Your comics are safe.
Even if these characters could be 'ruined,' so what? Why is ambitious storytelling that pushes things forward, changing characters, making them grow, why is this a bad thing? Why is the reader concerned with maintaining the status quo, of not hurting the character in the longterm, when that's clearly only something that the owners of said characters should care about? I don't understand that mentality. Is it as simple as I sometimes say -- is it that most corporate-owned superhero readers believe somewhere that they will get a chance to write them someday and don't want changes to fuck with that? Or is it something else? Why the resistance to change?
And why blame the creator? Blame the creator for the way a story is told, even partly for the ideas, but don't the publishers approve them? Isn't that where the true responsibility for preserving these characters lies? The creator's only responsibility is to the story, to producing the best possible comics. For some, that includes caring about the status quo, about what comes next, but not all. Some would say that's part of the job, but, if the editors/publisher don't hold the writer to that standard, why should the writer go out of his or her way to adhere to those limitations?
Fuck the characters, give me stories from auteurs. Why would I (why would anyone) want to read some middling bullshit that's too afraid to step out of line that I can't remember what the story was about three minutes after putting the book down? I wouldn't. I don't. The only problem with auteurs in corporate-owned mainstream comics is that there aren't enough of them. Obviously, you're not going to like everything, but I'd rather see stuff like what Geoff Johns write on the shelves than toothless, bland comics. At least Johns has his vision and he sticks to it. It alienates readers like me, but I can respect it.
There's no such thing as ruined or broken or going too far. These are fictional characters and do you know how easy it is to put them right back where they began? Any hack with a keyboard could do it in a single panel. That's how fragile they are: one panel to fix any problems.
I look at my bookshelves, at the corporate-owned superhero comics that I own and they're the ones with ambition and vision. Those are the books I want to read. The stuff you'll actually remember in five minutes, in two years, in two decades... The precious status quo was built by auteurs with vision and drive, making it all up as they went, no rules to follow because the characters were brand new and those are the books celebrated. Those are the creators celebrated. No one remembers the journeymen who wrote safe little stories that didn't rock the boat, because why would anyone?
Give me more auteurs. Give me more ambition. Give me more change. The toys will still be there, the status quo will take care of itself, stop being a bunch of timid children.
"Auteur problem"? Fuck...
First Trailer And Poster For James Bond: Skyfall
38 minutes ago
8 comments:
The editors (some) allowed and encouraged these "auteurs". Obviously it's doing something good, apparently sales weren't so bad for Civil War and those kinds of stories... And, at the end of the day, that's what counts for a publisher.
So yeah, I also don't understand this "more papist than the pope" attitude.
Great post. I disagree with you somewhat on Johns, however, in that I see him as kind of a pro-status-quo guy, because many of his bold moves seemed designed to return the universe to a past (composite?) status quo that he liked best. Returning Barry and Hal, returning an Aquaman dressed in what's assuredly Johns' own favorite Aquaman outfit. On the other hand, I believe Johns has shown the aptitude for introducing some innovations (different color corps); and I do tend to enjoy his writing more than you do. But when I think of writers in love with (the? a?) status quo, I think of Johns.
I also think readers' love of the status quo overlaps with their love of nostalgia. I'm reminded of that article from a few weeks ago, where the writer coined the term "nostalgia porn". Personally, though I have a fondness for certain old stories and certain status quos, I believe that nostalgia is often a form of cowardice: fear of different stories, fear of stories that shatter the past illusions that we have held onto since we were children.
But at the same time as we are thinking about this subject, twenty times as many people are current expressing their believe that "Grant Morrison RUINED Batman!"
An auteur isn't necessarily anti-status quo. Besides, Johns has changed the status quo of the DCU quite a bit -- it's a regressive change to an earlier status quo, but it's still change. More than that, he's a writer with vision and drive. We may not agree with his vision, but he has it and pursues it strongly.
Chad, thx for posting this. Your piece really got me thinking. I wrote a response to both you and Kyle:
http://www.audioshocker.com/2010/04/13/auteurism-and-the-false-cult-of-superhero-comics-creation
Nick -- You raise some ideas I considered, but I disagree about the idea that auteurs can't exist in corporate-owned superhero comics. The collaborative nature of the medium isn't necessarily different from that of film where the director's vision is filtered through a cinematographer, a camera man, the actors, the writer, etc. An auteur is someone who can express a dominant influence on the work, something that is clearly apparent with certain creators whose style is so strong that their works stand out as more their work than something that fits into the shared universe. Especially when you compare the work-for-hire work of some creators to their creator-owned work and notice that there isn't a big difference in style and substance.
The point seems to be that we shouldn't worry about Auteurs shaking up the status quo, because the status quo always returns.
Then the question becomes, why bother? The sort of auteurism that irks me is this endless gimmickry: This character dies, this character goes rogue and begins killing people, etc. we all know its going ot get retconned, reversed whatever,
We all know none of these bold ideas will stick, why not push the greatest creative minds in the biz to innovate in ways that matter: sharper characterization, nuanced plotting etc. rather than THE NEXT BIG THING THAT WILL CHANGE EVRYTHING (for a little while)
The writers themselves should be more interested in putting their radical concepts into creator-owned projects, where they will actually mean something.
Chad, I think you're definitely right about how some creators can bring a flavor that translates to both independent work and corporate work. In the sense that the toys in the sandbox can never be truly damaged, I think we agree.
But I also don't believe that enough creative freedom and room for singular voice exists (most of the time, at least) in modern superhero comics. Take Johns, for example. I think it behooves DC to promote Blackest Night as John's vision. But then look at a guy like Peter Tomasi, as both an editor and then as a writer, who was so instrumental in the whole thing. Johns has the name recognition, while Tomasi is an editor-turned-writer. While both of them having been collaborating on this stuff for many years, Johns gets the credit because it's easier to promote than the alternative. I think Johns' auteur image is just that -- an image, not a reality of the work.
I detest the "sandbox theory".
Here is the thing. I love Superman. I read the comics, seen the movies, adored the Fleisher cartoons, seen the all three tv series and enjoyed the animated series.
That is me: big Superman guy. But, I don't read the monthly comics anymore.
I mean, why would I? I have seen him get married, die and the rest. There aren't really that many soap opera plot twists left. The same is true for most of the characters with their roots in the Silver Age, or earlier.
What I hadn't seen was Grant Morrison and Frank Quitley's personal take on him. I didn't know what Superman meant to THEM. I am glad I found out.
When creators play nicely with others and make sure the toys in the sandbox are in good repair for the next person, their stories are less personal. Personal is all most of these characters have left to show me.
Post a Comment