What do you like/dislike about the Claremont writing style?

[gurkle]

Chris Claremont's writing style was really the house style for the X-Men until Grant Morrison arrived; even after Claremont was gone, writers were still expected to write like him. (When Joe Casey suggested doing some 1999 X-Men issues without thought balloons and captions, the editors told him no, and he said one assistant even laughed at him.) In the early '00s this style went from being house style to being considered very old-fashioned. But what do you think of this writing style? Do you enjoy reading it, or do you enjoy the classic X-Men in spite of it, or a bit of both?

What I think of when I think of the Claremont style is:
- Lots of thought balloons. Duh. Thought balloons for the characters' feelings, for exposition, for everything.
- Lots of narration, which is used not just to provide information and fill us in on what's going on, but to comment on the story and provide atmosphere and even have narrator catchphrases ("No quarter is asked...").
- A very direct way of writing, without a lot of subtext. Characters tell us exactly what they are thinking or feeling, often at great length.

Claremont didn't invent any of those devices, of course (the captions, in particular, were very much the house style at Marvel in the '70s) but the way he combined them is very much his own, and other X-writers like Louise Simonson and Scott Lobdell are obviously influenced by his way of doing things.

A classic Claremont double-page spread is this one from Classic X-Men 18:



What I like about this style is:
1. It places a value on clarity. Claremont always wants us to know what's going on. He would rather over-explain things than leave us wondering what happened. To me that's part of why his X-Men was so popular; no matter how complicated the plots get, it's always reader-friendly because the information we need is always there. Today's writers will not write a caption explaining what's going on in a panel, but the result is that some readers will look at it and wonder what the hell happened.
2. He spends so much time inside the head of every character that we always feel we know everyone intimately. A lot of writers feel that we should never see more than one character's POV at one time, but one of the great things about comics is you can show what everyone is thinking in one scene, and it makes you see that everyone has a different way of looking at things. Imagine X-Men 137 without all the thought balloons where the characters give their individual opinions on Jean and why they're fighting to help her. It wouldn't be the same.

What I don't like about the style is that by explaining everything, Claremont and his imitators removed all the possibility of subtext. Characters usually say exactly what they mean, and explain exactly how they feel. Whereas in novels and movies, and in more modern styles of comic writing, characters don't always say what they mean - sometimes they leave important things unsaid, or say the opposite of what they mean, or lie to themselves when they're thinking. Claremont doesn't seem comfortable doing that, and I understand why the next generation of comic book writers wanted to get a bit more subtle.

That's my perspective, anyway. I'd be interested to know what other people like and don't like about the Claremontian style. Or as Grant Morrison called it when he wrote his X-Men pitch, "an old-fashioned, over-dense style."

[just another user]

Like: everything
dislike: nothing

[NewMutant]

I pretty much love it all. His plots can get a little out of hand, so I actually think he works better with a editorial guidance. His exposition and/or thought bubbles can get wordy. But its all just part of his style and that's what I like about him. He, like Morrison or other great writers, has their own writing style. Most writers just fit in a typical style. When you read Claremont you know its his work.

[Tobinator]

Like: Every character has a voice and a personality
Dislike: That Makes Me Feel Angry

[Neko]

heh heh - I really disliked the "I AM (insert character name here)" ... and some of the speeches he would have the characters he wrote say were a bit over the top. Cheesy. But overall, his work isn't too bad. I would say he has some groan worthy moments, but generally his writing usually over shadows those moments.

[Kwadruple]

I agree with your likes. I loved seeing inside each character's head in a very intimate way and maybe that is a bit too literal for some, but it worked for me. I also loved that there were always multiple stories going on in the background. Secret plans and meetings were laid out that would sometimes take half a year to become part of the main plot. It was riveting and kept me on the edge of my seat. Obviously, some of those plots were dropped, but the majority were not and the payoff was usually worth it. When I finish a Claremont issue, I feel as though I've finished a chapter in a book. When I finish an issue of just about any X-book currently on the stands, I feel like I've read a preface and nothing actually happened.

Dislikes: I thought Claremont got a little too far out there in some of his stories dealing with magic, demons, underworlds, etc. It's nice to have those on occasion but I felt at times the X-Men were taken away from their civil rights endeavors for a bit too long which is a shame because he writes those stories so well, and they really are right at the heart of what make the X-Men compelling.

[The_Greatest_Username]

Claremont's style of writing is the reason the X-Men had the best books for such a long time. Every issue was packed with dialogue and though-bubbles, so you knew why every character was doing what they were doing. Everything had a purpose.

[Sardorim]

He gave us Rachel so I like him.

[Nomads1]

Like: Claremont is in my opinion, as aa writer, one of the best fight coregraaphers in the biz, ever (Jim Starlin is a great artist in this category). The rythm of his action scenes is perfect. Exciting. That is a lost art, nowadays and not as easy as it might seem. This was never clearer for me than in the X-Tinction Agenda, or other X-overs of the time, where there is a HUGE contrast between Claremont's writing, and pacing, and other's x-writers (mostly Luoise Simonson, which is a writer a normally enjoy and respect).
Dislike: His overuse of writing ticks (such as accents and foreign expressions randomly inserted in characters dialogues. I'm a Brazilian and "Madonna" is not a word that any Brazilian ever used to call Christ's mother, as he had Sunspot constaantly do. Only the Pop singer. The correct use would have been "Nossa senhora".) and catchphrases. IMHO, it's part of what makes his writing feel dated.

Overall, I like Claremont's writing, and he is still light-years ahead of any of the writers that came after him, especially the current crop. However, he does benefit immensly from a good chemestry with the artist, such as he had with Byrne, Cockrum, Davis, Lee, etc... However, I never felt he had it with Romita JR, Silvestri, Buscema, and others.

Peace

[gurkle]

Overall, I like Claremont's writing, and he is still light-years ahead of any of the writers that came after him, especially the current crop. However, he does benefit immensly from a good chemestry with the artist, such as he had with Byrne, Cockrum, Davis, Lee, etc... However, I never felt he had it with Romita JR, Silvestri, Buscema, and others.

Peace

Don't forget Paul Smith; he was so in tune with Smith that for the first time ever he sometimes let Smith's action scenes stand as they were, with no dialogue or captions added at all.

I think Marvel Method writers - and Claremont mostly worked Marvel Method in his prime - need very much to have a great chemistry with their artists, because the final script is built around what the artist comes up with. Which is one reason why a writer like Alan Moore, who prefers to tell the artist every single thing to draw in every single panel, has had more influence in the long run than Claremont, because most modern writers don't want to share so much with the artist.

[motherofpearl1]

Claremont is always spot on with his characterisation, and how no one is completely right or wrong - he leaves us with plenty to think about all the time. If he has a weak spot it's his tendency to focus a little too much on his favourites - but even then he makes sure other characters have a chance to shine.

[TheCatBastet]

I liked the way he wrote different characters with different personalities. And when characters were supposed to be friends, he would write scenes with them behaving like friends. AND THE BASEBALL GAMES!!!!!

[Vaishakh]

He gave us Rachel so I like him.

He was also the one who ruined her (especially with Dino crap)

[Emerald_616]

Many things, but my absolute favorite thing he can do is have extremely realistic dialogue between two characters. For example, Karma & Kitty's conversation in the Mekanix mini-series is exactly like a real surprise reunion with an old friend IRL. I also love long-term plotting. Some short term plots are strange though, especially in X-Treme.

On the converse side, his monologues and narration are too verbose at times so he needs a co-writer or good editor to reign him in.

[mr_crisp]

Dislikes:

1) The foreign words he just tosses into a character's speech just to remind us the character is a foreigner.

2) The constant need to remind us of a character's power.