Can Someone Explain the Criticism of Bendis' Avengers?

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

So you wanted a Bendis to actually make sense?

I scoff at your idea of writing a sensible story. Scoff I say.

Underrated post.

[Saffron]

COmics get professional critiques. THat's how Bendis got won his Eisners. Like any other art form there are critics, awards, etc.

That's not what I mean. Awards don't serve as critique. You win an award, and all you know is you did good, but in what area? Sales? Popularity? Maybe you just produced something that appealed to the naval gazing tendencies of the judges.

No, what I want is a Robert Ebert or a Pauline Kael - people who have studied the medium and understand the theory behind what makes a story work AND have the skill to apply that knowledge in their evaluation of the work. I find at least the latter to be lacking for comics. And that's probably because comics are considered low art, and so compared to film and literature and fine art, academic interest in comics is tiny.

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

That's not what I mean. Awards don't serve as critique. You win an award, and all you know is you did good, but in what area? Sales? Popularity? Maybe you just produced something that appealed to the naval gazing tendencies of the judges.

No, what I want is a Robert Ebert or a Pauline Kael - people who have studied the medium and understand the theory behind what makes a story work AND have the skill to apply that knowledge in their evaluation of the work. I find at least the latter to be lacking for comics. And that's probably because comics are considered low art, and so compared to film and literature and fine art, academic interest in comics is tiny.

I think Tegan O'Neil is the closest to a ''Roger Ebert for comics'' we are gonna get. Although be warned that she can come across as an elitist pseudo-intellectual snob.

[ermac]

I wish comics would get professional critique, just as art in any other medium would. Right now, the writers don't get any feedback other than "you made X character do this. I don't like that. This story is bad!" because most readers don't have the depth of understanding of writing to be able to analyse and communicate why a story works or doesn't (I certainly don't). Even valid criticism comes off as fanboy whining and the editors/writers can brush it off without much consequence.

You know, I never thought it that way. But makes total sense. In a lot of ways, comics are still amateur media...

[Citizen Kane]

Right now, the writers don't get any feedback other than "you made X character do this. I don't like that. This story is bad!" because most readers don't have the depth of understanding of writing to be able to analyse and communicate why a story works or doesn't (I certainly don't).

I don't know how you managed to write this without bursting out in laughter. Did you--honest to god--just say that most readers don't understand storytelling? I don't know about you, but I can tell what I like about a story and what I don't. I find it quite easy to pick out beats or elements of the story that I liked and didn't like. I'd recommend reading more critiques from non-professionals, as most are more insightful than you claim. There's a reason most sensible people despise "professional" critics.

The first sin of storytelling is assuming your audience is stupid. Sure, there is making stories more accessible, but questioning your audience's intelligence is outright degrading. Many comic writers have fallen into this way of thinking, which has unsurprisingly turned away many a reader.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I don't know how you managed to write this without bursting out in laughter. Did you--honest to god--just say that most readers don't understand storytelling? I don't know about you, but I can tell what I like about a story and what I don't. I find it quite easy to pick out beats or elements of the story that I liked and didn't like. I'd recommend reading more critiques from non-professionals, as most are more insightful than you claim. There's a reason most sensible people despise "professional" critics.

The first sin of storytelling is assuming your audience is stupid. Sure, there is making stories more accessible, but questioning your audience's intelligence is outright degrading. Many comic writers have fallen into this way of thinking, which has unsurprisingly turned away many a reader.

While there are many an articulate and insightful reader, I would argue that they are not the majority. Nor do they have sufficient recognition for writers to be aware of them, let alone consider their opinions.

Sadly, most fans fall to knee jerk reactions or terribly over-dramatic. Someone in this thread, for example, compared Bendis' poor writing to rape. I'm no fan of his, but no.

[Saffron]

I think Tegan O'Neil is the closest to a ''Roger Ebert for comics'' we are gonna get. Although be warned that she can come across as an elitist pseudo-intellectual snob.

That's how all critics come off, especially those who engage in academic criticism. And I think there's actually a lot of truth to it lol. Still, I think its good for the artform and for the industry.

I don't know how you managed to write this without bursting out in laughter. Did you--honest to god--just say that most readers don't understand storytelling? I don't know about you, but I can tell what I like about a story and what I don't. I find it quite easy to pick out beats or elements of the story that I liked and didn't like. I'd recommend reading more critiques from non-professionals, as most are more insightful than you claim. There's a reason most sensible people despise "professional" critics.

The first sin of storytelling is assuming your audience is stupid. Sure, there is making stories more accessible, but questioning your audience's intelligence is outright degrading. Many comic writers have fallen into this way of thinking, which has unsurprisingly turned away many a reader.

No, I said most readers don't have the depth of understanding of storytelling that professional critics (are expected to) have. I can complain about cliches and plot holes and WHAT IS THIS IDIOT DOING MY FAV CHARACTER?! but someone who's studied the art can critique it from a less subjective perspective. They may even say this cliche and that plot hole were trivial flaws, necessary for maintaining narrative structure or reinforcing theme because yadayadayada... you get the idea. Having a degree doesn't give your critique more authority than anyone else's but it does give you the tools to more effectively evaluate art.

If you think you're already at that level - good for you. Though, how do you know you're not suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect? Also, there is quite a bit of irony in you telling me broaden my experience while you dismiss the views of a whole field of people.

[jetengine]

Comics are two art forms merged into one. If you can critically review fiction text, then you can review Bendis work. The art whilst important doesnt effect the core of his narrative issues. Ie: Remove the art and give me the script and its still bad writing.

[Paradox_Nihil]

Comics are two art forms merged into one.

I couldn't disagree more. Comics, as a medium, need to transcend their formal components in order to be artistically valid. In other words, synergy is the third, most-important-but-rarely-mentioned aspect, and if you evaluate script and art (whatever that means) independently, they could be marvelous, and the comic could still be a disaster.

The best thing Bendis has ever written was Daredevil #28. Yeah, I didn't like his (and Maleev's) Daredevil, as you would guess from the previous sentence, let alone Avengers or other team books. It strives too much to be a TV series, and that's in direct conflict with the premise from the beginning of this post. It's like a program on Paper TV - a poor man's version of proper TV entertainment. Comics can't have good grasp on the aspect that makes TV what it is, i.e. acting performances. So, it all looks like a sketch for the TV show. Contrast this with Powers, with Oeming, who has completely different style than Maleev, and that's the reason it feels different. Maybe it's just the difference between live-action and animation? I am not sure, and I have no time to research that, because of the priorities which consist of the things I actually like.

[JKtheMac]

Comics are two art forms merged into one. If you can critically review fiction text, then you can review Bendis work. The art whilst important doesnt effect the core of his narrative issues. Ie: Remove the art and give me the script and its still bad writing.

Declaring a professional writer as having produced “bad writing” is not exactly a critique. It’s just you declaring you don’t like it.

[Frontier]

I couldn't disagree more. Comics, as a medium, need to transcend their formal components in order to be artistically valid. In other words, synergy is the third, most-important-but-rarely-mentioned aspect, and if you evaluate script and art (whatever that means) independently, they could be marvelous, and the comic could still be a disaster.

The best thing Bendis has ever written was Daredevil #28. Yeah, I didn't like his (and Maleev's) Daredevil, as you would guess from the previous sentence, let alone Avengers or other team books. It strives too much to be a TV series, and that's in direct conflict with the premise from the beginning of this post. It's like a program on Paper TV - a poor man's version of proper TV entertainment. Comics can't have good grasp on the aspect that makes TV what it is, i.e. acting performances. So, it all looks like a sketch for the TV show. Contrast this with Powers, with Oeming, who has completely different style than Maleev, and that's the reason it feels different. Maybe it's just the difference between live-action and animation? I am not sure, and I have no time to research that, because of the priorities which consist of the things I actually like.

I've seen it said before that an average arc of a Bendis comic can sometimes feels like an episode of a TV show, which might explain why it feels like barely anything happens over the course of one of his runs unless he's on the book for a considerable length of time.

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

I've seen it said before that an average arc of a Bendis comic can sometimes feels like an episode of a TV show, which might explain why it feels like barely anything happens over the course of one of his runs unless he's on the book for a considerable length of time.

Almost literally nothing happened during his awful run on Guardians of the Galaxy, aside for turning J'Son into a villain, s****ing on Thanos and Richard Rider and destroying the Kree homeworld of Hala (because Marvel love s****ing on their alien races instead of doing something creative and compelling with them).

Bendis' use of my favorite cosmic characters made me put him in my blacklist of comic authors, basically i refuse to buy comics with his name on them. You can call me the Superboy Prime of Marvel Cosmic but that won't stop me.

[Mike]

One (of many) thing(s) I didn't like was Bendis' use of (bad) dialog.
mightyavengers11whore.jpg

[Frontier]

One (of many) thing(s) I didn't like was Bendis' use of (bad) dialog.
mightyavengers11whore.jpg

I wonder if he deliberately wrote in the script that that line would come in the same panel with a very prominent shot of Carol's butt ?

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

One (of many) thing(s) I didn't like was Bendis' use of (bad) dialog.
mightyavengers11whore.jpg

Dat ass though.