On the works of Jonathan Hickman

[Agent John Bishop]

Just to be up front, this post is going to be a little bit fanboy-ish. Jonathan Hickman is my favorite current superhero writer and in honor of the end of his Marvel work for the time being (as soon as Secret Wars wraps up) I wanted to post a little analysis of my favorite themes/aspects of his work. A lot of this stuff goes for his Image work too but I will stick to talking to his Marvel output.

Firstly, there are a few themes that Hickman seems to really enjoy:


Fathers/sons: In FF we have Reed and Franklin, Reed and Nathaniel, and Bentley 23 and the Wizard. In Secret Warriors, we had Nick Fury and his son as well as a father/daughter relationship between Nick and Daisy. In Avengers we have Thane/Thanos, Cannonball and his baby, and Hyperion's children.

Secret Societies with incredible power: FF has the society of Reeds, Secret Warriors has well, Hydra, Leviathan, and the zodiac group. Of course Avengers has the Illuminati.

Biblical references: This one is a bit more of a stretch because it's more apparent in his non-Marvel stuff like East of West and Pax Romana, but there are a fair few interesting religious symbols in his superhero work. Specifically, there is the comparison of Thanos to Harod the great, the symbol of Ex Nihilo as a christ-like savior when he enters the void to find the cause of the universal collapse, and the mention in Time Runs Out that "I've always thought Peter did some of his bet work in prison". It's not so overt as to be annoying, but it adds a really intelligent flavor and gravity to his stories. "Owen Reece Died for Our Sins.

Realist depictions of children: I think that he has a specific talent for writing kids like Valeria, Franklin and Bentley who in his hands are often the best characters in his books. Kids are notoriously difficult to write in comics and the children of the Marvel Universe are often ignored, but Hickman has done an admirable job making them important and fun parts of his stories.

Massive overarching plans: The full scope of this remains to be seen, but each of his books seems to have its own giant arc that he knows from day one. His foreshadowing is some of the best in the business because it always fits since he has the plan going in. For example, in one of the early Avengers issues, Bruce Banner questions why Tony is using Richards technology, foreshadowing his discovery that the illuminati has been reformed which doesn't occur for almost a year.

Secondly, there are a few aspects to Hickman's writing that I specifically enjoy:

His work is serious and epic without feeling dully grim in the manner of some comics. Hickman's books are not comedies in the manner of Nick Spencer, Mark Waid, or sometimes Matt Fraction but neither are they festivals of grimy darkness. He writes stories with huge stakes that don't forget their characters. Each book manages to have comedy and lighter characters without making them purely comic relief (for example, the arc he gives Johnny Storm never gets rid of Johnny's wit or exuberance but does force him to confront what sort of hero he wants to be.

Further, he does not skimp on the epic. The new trend in comics, which is by no means a bad thing, is to make heros smaller scale. Issues are devoted to Hawkeye's dog, Ms. Marvel's parents, and Daredevil's love life. This has produced some great stories, but I am glad that Hickman is still delivering grandiose superhero stories in the line of Morisson or Kirby (albeit in an entirely different style). While some might feel the stories are too large, I like that he can culminate a story with a battle of Celestials, Galactus, and Franklin Richards without losing the characters for a minute: it's why I read superhero comics--I like the super part.

Hickman also is extremely talented at memorable dialogue. His writing in this respect can be a little stiff, characters aren't written as naturalistically as many writers would write them and the issues can be exposition heavy. This is always evened out by his ability to make legendary superhero quotes and moment I would like on a T-shirt such as:
--"I was born to fell giants"
--"To me my Galactus"
--"What if I am more than just a man?"(followed by Thor's hammer circling the sun and re-entering the atmosphere)
--"Every boy deserves a father--especially mine"
--"You got any final words?" "Yes." "Too fucking bad."

I could go on, but these scenes have stuck with me in a way few others in comics have.

Lastly, Hickman's works make sense. You can debate for days whether you like his decompressed style (I read in trades and love it, but I get that it is not for everyone), but as is so rare in comics, his storyline and huge machinations all tie together to make a satisfying whole. Upon a re-read of my favorite Hickman books, all the pieces always fit together in a way I wish other writers could pull off.

Anyhow that's my piece for the moment, but I would love to hear what else people respond to in Hickman's work. I for one am going to be really sad to see him leave marvel in the fall, and will be following his career closely (I mean, how damn good is East of West?)

TL;DR, What is your favorite Hickman-ism?

[t hedge coke]

Lastly, Hickman's works make sense. You can debate for days whether you like his decompressed style (I read in trades and love it, but I get that it is not for everyone), but as is so rare in comics, his storyline and huge machinations all tie together to make a satisfying whole. Upon a re-read of my favorite Hickman books, all the pieces always fit together in a way I wish other writers could pull off.

I've enjoyed comics he's done here and there, but this, for the lengthier runs I have read, doesn't click for me.

I don't think it "makes sense." There generally seems to be a lot of chance, several elements will be simply accepted as if "of course" they're true. Lots of predestination and true prince stuff, lots of "knowledgable" people standing around saying things are this way or that without showing any evidence. His Fantastic Four and FF runs seemed mostly comprised of statements or spinning wheels and the occasional weird bit like "Hey, let's have Doom and all these guys in the house now; Sue, you just shut up" or the impossibility of Australians to put on a shirt.

Nothing is ever dealt with, the characters just stand around in this configuration and four issues later, they stand around in another configuration. Medusa doesn't like that Black Bolt's going to have a bunch of other wives... then next time, she's accepted it... because. Sue doesn't like where the FF is going but she accepts it... because. The Avengers demand the Kree and everyone listen to them because they're from Earth and Earth is super important and Earth people know stuff and aren't at all a totally backwater and third world planet in the galaxy, and they do... because.

But, I love how much Hickman's work excites his fans and does get people speculating and thinking. I love the effects he has on the people who enjoy his work the most. And his set pieces are interesting.

[Agent John Bishop]

But, I love how much Hickman's work excites his fans and does get people speculating and thinking. I love the effects he has on the people who enjoy his work the most. And his set pieces are interesting.

This is a great attitude to have about authors you don't connect with. I should try to be this generous about the various authors I dislike.

[shgs]

Realist depictions of children

Realist? Isn't Valeria supposed to be 3?

[InformationGeek]

Jonathan Hickman is a lot like Grant Morrison to me in some ways. Both guys are really big into their themes, concepts, and ideas when writing their stories to the point where it sort overshadows the story and characters (to point where they might sacrifice one of these elements to make their point, even if it doesn't make sense or feels forced).

Ultimately, when it comes down to it, I'm not as huge or as big into themes, concepts, ideas, and messages as others. I think these are very important aspects to be sure and will certainly elevate a writer's story to the next level if they pull it off, but foremost, I feel the most important aspects are the story and characters. You can have greatest ideas and most thought provoking concepts known to humanity, but if you are writing story with them in it and the story and characters themselves are not well written, then what's the point? Two thirds of the book is bad.

And that's the thing about Hickman. I get why people like his work and he can be one heck of a plotter (I do like East of West to a certain degree), I just see his writing has heavily flawed and honestly, his themes seem done to death at this point. I would love to see him try something that is out of his comfort zone. Nothing epic, no secret societies, no biblical references, toss aside the themes of death and life, and something that has tighter pacing.

[Agent John Bishop]

Realist? Isn't Valeria supposed to be 3?

That is true, actually 6 I think. Perhaps more than realistic, I should say well-written. His kids are unique characters not generalize children archetypes. But in a way, realistic too despite being super smart, I love for example the moment when Bentley breaks into valeria's room via a blowtorch to share his sandwich.

[Agent John Bishop]

Ultimately, when it comes down to it, I'm not as huge or as big into themes, concepts, ideas, and messages as others. I think these are very important aspects to be sure and will certainly elevate a writer's story to the next level if they pull it off, but foremost, I feel the most important aspects are the story and characters. You can have greatest ideas and most thought provoking concepts known to humanity, but if you are writing story with them in it and the story and characters themselves are not well written, then what's the point? Two thirds of the book is bad.
.

I would hold that Hickman is underrated as a character guy. Yes, first and foremost are big concepts (which I don't mind), but they are never arbitrarily big concepts; they are always in service of characters. For example, in FF the entire story was about time travel, mad Celestials, alternate selves, and godlike power. However, it was all grounded in the idea that Reed loves his son, and that their relationship is more important than any science he has done or will do. It's not the type of character work being done by other writers, but I think it is extremely well-done in its own right.

[InformationGeek]

I would hold that Hickman is underrated as a character guy. Yes, first and foremost are big concepts (which I don't mind), but they are never arbitrarily big concepts; they are always in service of characters. For example, in FF the entire story was about time travel, mad Celestials, alternate selves, and godlike power. However, it was all grounded in the idea that Reed loves his son, and that their relationship is more important than any science he has done or will do. It's not the type of character work being done by other writers, but I think it is extremely well-done in its own right.

I haven't read Hickman's FF, but I do know he is very capable of writing strong characterization or great character bits at times. For instance, I really like Chamberlain from East of West. He's such an interesting character and so well-written that I also look forward to seeing him in the comic, wondering what his next plan is or how he'll manipulate the situation to his own advantage. He always has the best lines and best moments in the book (I was immediately sold on the character when he did that cat joke when he first meet Death in #2).

[shgs]

That is true, actually 6 I think. Perhaps more than realistic, I should say well-written. His kids are unique characters not generalize children archetypes. But in a way, realistic too despite being super smart, I love for example the moment when Bentley breaks into valeria's room via a blowtorch to share his sandwich.

Ha yes I do actually agree the FF kids were really well written, but Valeria thing has always annoyed me (not so much that she's a kid super genius but 3 is a bit too early for that and she's not even the right size for her age!).

Is Valeria really only 3? That's too awesome

True fact! She’s big for her age. (Or possibly that’s a robot body that she rides around in.)

http://brevoortformspring.tumblr.com...ts-too-awesome

[Of Atlantis]

Couldn't agree with OP more about Hickman's awesomeness. Currently my favourite writer at Marvel and I'm not sure what my status with Marvel comics will be after he leaves. He really set the bar high as far as character exploration goes. His Secret Warriors run is one of my personal favourites and I've yet to read a Marvel book deeper or more thought out than his run on New Avengers. Not to mention Infinity has been my favourite Marvel events in recent history. He asks some really hard hitting questions and raises some very debatable situations. He can make you love and hate a character at the same time. It's been a hell of a ride following his work with this company and I personally look forward to catching up with some of his creator owned work. East of West and Manhattan Projects are two titles I'd like to start collecting from him and I can't wait.

[Diamond]

I haven't read Hickman's FF, but I do know he is very capable of writing strong characterization or great character bits at times. For instance, I really like Chamberlain from East of West. He's such an interesting character and so well-written that I also look forward to seeing him in the comic, wondering what his next plan is or how he'll manipulate the situation to his own advantage. He always has the best lines and best moments in the book (I was immediately sold on the character when he did that cat joke when he first meet Death in #2).

Then give his FF a try. It's full of warmth and love, the kind of character work you seem to like. Hickman is the first guy in years to make Reed Richards a sympathetic character (I'm not counting New Avengers).

It was a book filled with mad gods, cryptic clues and little hints towards Secret Wars. But its central theme was family.

[gurkle]

I liked Hickman's Fantastic Four, but not his Avengers. I think his style is more appropriate to FF, and the FF's characters and tropes are so well-defined that they anchor the big concepts, and you never doubt you're reading an FF story no matter how big it gets.

His Avengers doesn't feel to me like he likes the Avengers very much; he shows no interest in the Avengers tropes and history (this is deliberate on his part; he said in advance that while his FF had all the FF stuff fans would expect, he wanted the Avengers to be forward-looking and not refer to past stories). It's more of a Marvel Universe mash-up than an Avengers story. He's most interested in the aspects of the Marvel universe that are only tangentially related to the Avengers, like the Illuminati.

Hickman has a lot of strengths, but one of his biggest strengths, as an architect, doesn't really interest me much. I honestly don't want a plot to be planned out five years in advance and to see how the creator fit everything together. It feels contrived and lacks the spontaneous fun of comics where things seem more ramshackle and made up as they go along. Yes, he sets things up and pays them off later. But I go, so what? That's architecture, not art.

To get pretentious, it reminds me a bit of what Anthony Trollope, the Victorian novelist, wrote about the writer of mystery and suspense novels Wilkie Collins (The Woman in White). I guess Victorian novels are a bit like the comics of their time since they were published in monthly instalments.

"When I sit down to write a novel I do not at all know, and I do not very much care, how it is to end. Wilkie Collins seems so to construct his that he not only, before writing, plans everything on, down to the minutest detail, from the beginning to the end; but then plots it all back again, to see that there is no piece of necessary dove-tailing which does not dove-tail with absolute accuracy.
The construction is most minute and most wonderful. But I can never lose the taste of the construction. The author seems always to be warning me to remember that something happened at exactly half-past two o’clock on Tuesday morning; or that a woman disappeared from the road just fifteen yards beyond the fourth mile-stone.
One is constrained by mysteries and hemmed in by difficulties, knowing, however, that the mysteries will be made clear, and the difficulties overcome at the end of the third volume. Such work gives me no pleasure. I am, however, quite prepared to acknowledge that the want of pleasure comes from fault of my intellect."

Replace "Collins" with "Hickman" and that sums up how I feel, including the acknowledgement that not liking his work "comes from fault of my intellect." But like I said, I think his FF is fine. I think he was unleashed too much on Avengers, just as Remender's work on Uncanny Avengers doesn't show off his skill as well as his X-Force did.

[Iron Maiden]

Then give his FF a try. It's full of warmth and love, the kind of character work you seem to like. Hickman is the first guy in years to make Reed Richards a sympathetic character (I'm not counting New Avengers).

It was a book filled with mad gods, cryptic clues and little hints towards Secret Wars. But its central theme was family.

I agree. Like the OP mentions, he was very big on father/son and family relationships. Personally, I like that he has made the most interesting Doom we've seen since the Byrne days. Hickman accepts that he is a flawed individual with this grandiose meglomania but he also humanizes him a bit like Byrne did esp when he brought back Kristoff from limbo. I also give him credit for not only making Reed likeable again (and make no mistake, Civil War did some serious damage there IMO) he also brings back Reed's father in an important way. He was another character that had been missing from the Fantastic Four for decades. The Future Foundation was a great vehicle to showcase Reed and Sue as parents.

Of his two Avengers titles I prefer the New Avengers because IMO it's almost like a continuation of his Fantastic Four. There hasn't been much room for humor in the Avengers storyline. There was just more opportunity for that in the FF.

[Diamond]

I agree. Like the OP mentions, he was very big on father/son and family relationships. Personally, I like that he has made the most interesting Doom we've seen since the Byrne days. Hickman accepts that he is a flawed individual with this grandiose meglomania but he also humanizes him a bit like Byrne did esp when he brought back Kristoff from limbo. I also give him credit for not only making Reed likeable again (and make no mistake, Civil War did some serious damage there IMO) he also brings back Reed's father in an important way. He was another character that had been missing from the Fantastic Four for decades. The Future Foundation was a great vehicle to showcase Reed and Sue as parents.

I agree with that, too. I had written off Doom as that incompetent mad genius whose obsession with Richards is genuinely creepy, but Hickman proved me wrong. I especially loved his interactions with Valeria; the two make me always smile.

[Iron Maiden]

I agree with that, too. I had written off Doom as that incompetent mad genius whose obsession with Richards is genuinely creepy, but Hickman proved me wrong. I especially loved his interactions with Valeria; the two make me always smile.

I really liked that new wrinkle also but it does seem to be a controversial relationship. Doom has a pretty tangled (or should I say "mangled"? ) back history in the MU. Obviously Hickman doesn't reference Waid's version of Doom because of that you can see how some fans would think why would any parent in their right mind even condone it? IMO Waid had painted the character into a corner with Unthinkable and the follow up in Authoritative Actions so I think you can justify a writer taking a different direction yet still stay true to the character. Even Silver Age Doom was going through a change in tone with younger writers like Gerry Conway, Bill Mantlo and Roy Thomas and later Byrne. But then other writers would take the less nuanced version.