Can Someone Explain the Criticism of Bendis' Avengers?

[The Cool Thatguy]

One (of many) thing(s) I didn't like was Bendis' use of (bad) dialog.
Attachment 86422

Another example of Bendis' poor writing. He never resolved who hacked Doom's satellite to release the symbiotes. Instead, it was resolved by Christos Gage in a mini series

[jetengine]

I couldn't disagree more. Comics, as a medium, need to transcend their formal components in order to be artistically valid.

You would have a point...if we werent didcussing criticism of BENDIS ALONE. Not his comics (which frequently have good art) but his writing alone. You can divorce them and have to lest your allowing the artist to somehow influence your opinion on a msns writing.

[JKtheMac]

The idea that nothing happens in a Bendis book clearly comes from the notion that comics are an action medium. They are not. They can contain every genre. If nothing happened in a Bendis book it would be possible to summarise a single issue in a couple of lines. But instead they are usually very nuanced and full of emotional beats and interpersonal negotiations.

Ironically it is easier and quicker to summarise an action book because at least half of the book could be summarised as ‘and they fight’.

It is laughable that a writer constantly cited in end of year lists and in Eisner nominations, as well as uniquely having a Peabody award, and selling more comics than just about anyone, is so negatively criticised by a group of fans.

Don’t like Dickens? Don’t read him. Don’t like how a comic book writer handles a favourite character or team, stop buying and reading the books. Nobody has an automatic right to enjoy their favourite books. They are not written for you as individuals.

If you read a Bendis book and can’t see the craft then that’s not his fault. He is a more than competent writer with a clear talent and many fans.

[Paradox_Nihil]

You would have a point...if we werent didcussing criticism of BENDIS ALONE. Not his comics (which frequently have good art) but his writing alone. You can divorce them and have to lest your allowing the artist to somehow influence your opinion on a msns writing.

But, I've actually understood that this topic IS about The Avengers written by Bendis, which is a very specific end product, not about Bendis' writing in general (although that would inevitably play a part, of course). And you don't always know who is responsible for what. The writer? The artist? The editor? Even the colorist? What type of script is it? "The full script" is the most frequent case nowadays, but not exclusive, and there are different types of "fullness". There is a podcast I like, What, what? by Jeff Lester and Graeme McMillan, and I heard them once talking about The New Gods vol. 3, and how Mark Evanier had done an amazing job (as the writer), usually neglected in our time, but the thing is I know how the production of that comic book was done, and I can tell you it was a complete mess. The artist, Paris Cullins, incorporated many ideas of his own, and what was left to Evanier was to put words to already finished pictures. Not always, but very often - plus Starlin's involvent at the beginning makes things even more complicated. Maybe you can start to understand why it's very difficult to talk about responsibilities and credits, generally, without assuming too much.

But, in this case... maybe you can. I've read Superman Event Leviathan special and an earlier short story about Superman (in DC Nation #0, I think), both written by Bendis, and each drawn by a different artist. Yanick Paquette and Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez, respectively, and it's curious how their approach to camera angles and rhythm and page structure is similar, almost the same. So, my first conclusion is that it's designed by Bendis, who can draw and understand visual storytelling (surpise, surprise, some writers do NOT).

[Paradox_Nihil]

The idea that nothing happens in a Bendis book clearly comes from the notion that comics are an action medium. They are not. They can contain every genre. If nothing happened in a Bendis book it would be possible to summarise a single issue in a couple of lines. But instead they are usually very nuanced and full of emotional beats and interpersonal negotiations.

JKtheMac, my friend, you are assuming too much, as always. You accuse others of simplifying things, and then go on oversimplifying more than the others ever could. I am on this forum only ocasionally. My main interests do not lie here, although I like some superhero stuff. I've read more 'slice of life' comics than you probably knew existing, because I've studied Japanese to be able to read manga. I've read many European comics (being from Europe myself), as well as American comics (and others), so I have a pretty good picture of what the medium can do, and what genres it incorporates.

It is laughable that a writer constantly cited in end of year lists and in Eisner nominations, as well as uniquely having a Peabody award, and selling more comics than just about anyone, is so negatively criticised by a group of fans.

Irrelevent. I will repeat it, in case it didn't sink in the first time: IRRELEVANT. (In the terms of the artistic merit, but it is relevent as a cultural discussion of this time and age.) Not in my opinion, but, you know, in the opinion of History herself. You want to - let's say it this way - "sit on two different chairs at the same time". Give me arguments or I'll not take you seriously any more. "He is good because they say he's good", means nothing to me. You are all focused on fans and awards and (artistic) intentions, and THEN you hop, like a rabbit, onto craft, but, when you can't say anything there, hop back to the fans and awards and intentions. Let's put it in other words. Let's take hip-hop as an example of a modern music genre. As far as I know, Eminem had infinitely more fans than Aesop Rock, but was it because he was a better artist? And that insinuation would be what I really call laughable. If you connect popularity with art in any way, then you dismiss possibility of overrating and underrating and then you by default dismiss possibility and value of change. And I don't mean a change of taste (taste is irrelevant here), but a change of perspective.

For example, one (tiny) argument would be: what are the motivations of Talia al Ghul in the Event Leviathan story? Not what she (Bendis!) says she wants, but her real motivations? Are there those at all? I mean, beyond Bendis' need to push the story in the direction he wants. Because, if what she says is true, she is acting completely retarded in order to achieve her goals. Which isn't a big deal generally, but, when we are talking about a would-be conqueror of the world, and about just one of many characters with retarded behaviour, it can be very damaging to the appreciation of the book. (Sorry to bring Superman to this, but it's the freshest Bendis' contribution to comics in my mind.) Maybe he is indeed a much better writer than I give him credit for, but you are doing a poor job of proving that.

Don’t like Dickens? Don’t read him. Don’t like how a comic book writer handles a favourite character or team, stop buying and reading the books. Nobody has an automatic right to enjoy their favourite books. They are not written for you as individuals.

Actually, Dickens was very unpopular some time after his death, and it was Chesterton, among several others, who brought him the glory he deserved. He surely didn't succumb to the opinion of the majority! And love has nothing to do with respect and appreciation. I'll repeat it, in case it didn't sink in the first time: LOVE has nothing to do with RESPECT and APPRECIATION. I'm not very interested in the works of Tillie Walden, but I recognize her craft, and I always respect that. So, I'll never, ever dismiss her as an artist or cartoonist (my God, English even don't have a proper word for the writer and the artist in one person - the 'cartoonist' can be misleading).

If you read a Bendis book and can’t see the craft then that’s not his fault. He is a more than competent writer with a clear talent and many fans.

Let's just laugh at the clarity on display here!

[The Cool Thatguy]

The idea that nothing happens in a Bendis book clearly comes from the notion that comics are an action medium. They are not. They can contain every genre. If nothing happened in a Bendis book it would be possible to summarise a single issue in a couple of lines. But instead they are usually very nuanced and full of emotional beats and interpersonal negotiations.

Ironically it is easier and quicker to summarise an action book because at least half of the book could be summarised as ‘and they fight’.

It is laughable that a writer constantly cited in end of year lists and in Eisner nominations, as well as uniquely having a Peabody award, and selling more comics than just about anyone, is so negatively criticised by a group of fans.

Don’t like Dickens? Don’t read him. Don’t like how a comic book writer handles a favourite character or team, stop buying and reading the books. Nobody has an automatic right to enjoy their favourite books. They are not written for you as individuals.

If you read a Bendis book and can’t see the craft then that’s not his fault. He is a more than competent writer with a clear talent and many fans.

Translation:

Pay no attention to the main behind the curtain! Also, speak only in abstract!

[JKtheMac]

JKtheMac, my friend, you are assuming too much, as always. You accuse others of simplifying things, and then go on oversimplifying more than the others ever could. I am on this forum only ocasionally. My main interests do not lie here, although I like some superhero stuff. I've read more 'slice of life' comics than you probably knew existing, because I've studied Japanese to be able to read manga. I've read many European comics (being from Europe myself), as well as American comics (and others), so I have a pretty good picture of what the medium can do, and what genres it incorporates.

All well and good but bear in mind I consider your views entirely incompatible with my own, despite both of us being well read. Reading lots doesn’t automatically validate our views. I made a broad claim about many actual critiques I have seen. Why waste time telling me you are not the person I am attacking? I have seen people attack the work in this way and commented upon that. I wasn’t aiming it at you. I was aiming it at the clear and present bias in the majority of amateur criticism I see of Bendis. ‘Nothing happens’. Did you say that? If not then why tell me you didn’t?

Claiming art has no value does lessen the value of the criticism and undermines the critic. That I do aim at you:

Irrelevant.

It is relevant to the point I was making. Not apparently to the point you want to make which I am not particularly focused on. This isn’t some game of proving a writer is objectively good or bad. That’s not criticism, that’s just individual opinion. Not the same thing.

I think an argument that tries to suggest the admiration of peers and neutral academic bodies, as well as success in sales and a large number of fans points out how pointless and humourous it is to seek to objectively claim Bendis is a bad writer.

It is an example of why I have no time for the argument. Let us never mix up the right to express an opinion with the idea that we necessarily need to give opinions any weight. If opinion has a neutral perspective, acknowledges strengths and weaknesses, seeks to understand the work and the craft, removes obvious individual biases or tastes, and otherwise tries not to be derogatory of the artist, then I give it my time. If it doesn’t it isn’t criticism in my opinion.

All you go on to do is try and claim that success or awards are not a point for the objectivity of his work and I wasn’t claiming that. I was claiming it goes towards an objective measurement of his craft. You use words like worth and merit in a terribly incoherent manner. If it is deliberate then you clearly don’t understand my point. Otherwise my point was maybe not clear enough, so let’s make it very clear.

You are free to hate his work but to deny his craft is literally comedic. You can not like Gothic Perpendicular architecture and still appreciate it. To say it has no merit is to invite laughter and derision from architects or critics thereof.

I am relatively neutral on Bendis as far as my tastes are concerned, but his craft is obvious. To not acknowledge that craft would leave me open to ridicule from any true critic or writer. It is there, clearly on the page, regardless of my tastes. I know you could point to it but you clearly think by doing so it would undermine your point. You would be correct.

For example, one (tiny) argument would be: what are the motivations of Talia al Ghul in the Event Leviathan story?

I can’t comment. I don’t read DC books, for the same reason I don’t understand why you even took the time to read that book. Just to complain? You already know you don’t like the writer. To tease out something you personally think is pointless or not to your taste in a project you already have a bias against is not neutral. Indeed it seems like your aim is to validate a personal distaste.

Actually, Dickens was very unpopular some time after his death

Presumably that’s why he spent so much time bathing in the admiration of those who came to see his successful book tours around the US.

I'm not very interested in the works of... but I recognize craft... and I always respect that.

Perhaps you should extend the same grace to Bendis. To do otherwise seems a little strange.

[your_name_here]

Bendis made the Skrulls modern and interesting.
Dark Reign was lots of fun.
He gave one of the best Luke Cage stories in the Civil War tie in.
He wrote Iron-Man like RDJ before RDJ

[Paradox_Nihil]

All well and good but bear in mind I consider your views entirely incompatible with my own, despite both of us being well read. Reading lots doesn’t automatically validate our views. I made a broad claim about many actual critiques I have seen. Why waste time telling me you are not the person I am attacking? I have seen people attack the work in this way and commented upon that. I wasn’t aiming it at you. I was aiming it at the clear and present bias in the majority of amateur criticism I see of Bendis. ‘Nothing happens’. Did you say that? If not then why tell me you didn’t?

No, you have made a very, very broad claim about any possible critisism of Bendis' work - very broad, indeed! The last sentence in your post proves that. How can I not understand that greatness?

It is relevant to the point I was making. Not apparently to the point you want to make which I am not particularly focused on. This isn’t some game of proving a writer is objectively good or bad. That’s not criticism, that’s just individual opinion. Not the same thing.

...

All you go on to do is try and claim that success or awards are not a point for the objectivity of his work and I wasn’t claiming that. I was claiming it goes towards an objective measurement of his craft.

What is the difference between the claims that the artist is "objectively" good and that the craft put into the work is recognizable? It can mean the same, depending on the context. There is no objectivity beyond that. And all you are saying is "He uses phenomenal display of craft because they (critics, academia, public?) say so". And all I'm asking for is: show me that. Show me (and the rest of 'us') that craft, here and now. You are too much decompressing your arguments, just like... No, no, that's an awful thought.

I don't have time to be properly engaged in this, too. I know I could do it - if my memory serves me correctly - and we could pick one of his works and go panel by panel or page by page or word by word, and then generally, with the complete picture, but unless someone pays me for the lost time and energy, it's impossible task for me. English is not my mother language and I need more time than you or other English-speaking folks to discuss on that level.

But, about critics:

I don't know where does your idea of Bendis being "worshipped" by the academia or 'serious critics' come from? Eisner Awards? They are just as serious as the Academy Awards. Not too much. Yes, we all want to be loved and respected and recognized, but that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't put value in those awards automatically and I will not live and die by their choices. Artistic value, not a social value (or maybe cultural?) which they have, by their very nature. But that's a different thing. Anyway... two of the most serious critics of comics I've ever read in English (imagine, there are critics in other languages as well) - John Kane of The Savage Critics (despite the humour in his tone) and Joe "The Jog" McCulloch - openly despised much of Bendis' work. As did many others I have read throughout the years. Too many to remember their names correctly. But my judgement is not based on theirs - I've read several of Bendis' works. Not too many, but when I can find no appreciation or pleasure in the ones considered the best in his opus, how can I expect anything from the others? (But, it is possible, of course - I mean, for them to be better than the more respected cousins.)

If you are asking me why I've read Event Leviathan - well, my opinions are not set in stone, and I'll give Bendis another chance, and another. And then maybe another. It isn't just a matter of who writes something, because sometimes the art can redeem the bad plotting, and it was recieved moderately well (contrary to his Avengers). It's new and it's relatively short and it's not written only by Bendis. So, that's a whole bunch of reasons. Hate never guides me in my reading choices. And what you've said tells more about you than about me: you would never do such a thing (read a new book by the writer you didn't like). Or?

Perhaps you should extend the same grace to Bendis. To do otherwise seems a little strange.

No, comparing Walden to Bendis is ridiculous. She has much better grasps on many elements of comics. She is kind of a student of Scott McCloud, and uses his ideas about comics to their maximum potential. Bendis uses ideas of David Mamet... but in the wrong medium. Mamet's type of dialogue has effect in practice largely due to the timing and acting, which are the elements of plays (and films) comics can't simulate well. And Bendis sacrifices almost everything else for that effect (which he can't properly accomplish anyway). So, what are we left with? The humour? I can't find it, but the humour is the most subjective thing. Together with the fun, but I can't find the fun factor in his work either (unless it is drawn by someone like Oeming, but that's another case). What then? Tell us, tell us! We want to know where the craft is!

[XPac]

Bendis made the Skrulls modern and interesting.
Dark Reign was lots of fun.
He gave one of the best Luke Cage stories in the Civil War tie in.
He wrote Iron-Man like RDJ before RDJ

I credit him with building up the Avengers and making them the biggest most talked about franchise in comics, and he did this BEFORE the MCU movies. Now the Avengers are a billion dollar franchise, but I think Bendis on the comic side of things really got people talking about the Avengers.

Not that editorial backing him didn't play a huge part... but there are plenty of events how which don't have even half the buzz Bendis was able to generate at the start of his Avengers run. He was able to capture lightning in the bottle, and make the Avengers the most MUST READ book in the entire industry. That was no happy accident.

[JKtheMac]

What is the difference between the claims that the artist is "objectively" good and that the craft put into the work is recognizable?

From where I am sitting everything. Including the right to a reply. I see a very apparent craft at work. So do Marvel and everyone else that pays him.

You don't have the time apparently, and I don't have the inclination. You attacked me. I didn't attack you. You just took a generalisation personally and I pointed out why I don't agree with you either. You made some very incorrect assumptions about me and my opinions in your post, but hey.

[H-E-D]

Let's put it in other words. Let's take hip-hop as an example of a modern music genre. As far as I know, Eminem had infinitely more fans than Aesop Rock, but was it because he was a better artist? And that insinuation would be what I really call laughable. If you connect popularity with art in any way, then you dismiss possibility of overrating and underrating and then you by default dismiss possibility and value of change.
!

Look, if you're trying to call Bendis untalented, comparing him to Eminem is a bad way to go about it.

Though, actually, it might be a better comparison than you intended.

Nobody denies Eminem's raw technical skill. He's criticized for not really having anything to say anymore, but his raw talent is undeniable. Whether he uses that talent for anything worthwhile or not is a separate question than if he has it.

[Paradox_Nihil]

Look, if you're trying to call Bendis untalented, comparing him to Eminem is a bad way to go about it.

Though, actually, it might be a better comparison than you intended.

Nobody denies Eminem's raw technical skill. He's criticized for not really having anything to say anymore, but his raw talent is undeniable. Whether he uses that talent for anything worthwhile or not is a separate question than if he has it.

No, I was comparing Eminem to Aesop Rock, with regards to their levels of popularity. It was intended to be used as an argument against the popularity in relation to the perceived quality of their output (whatever that actually means).

But, when we are at that point anyway... Bendis has talent, that's obvious. But - and let me be extremely clear here - talent and craft are not the same thing. Talent is raw potential (as you said), knowing the craft is all about using little details to your advantage and builds through experience. And Bendis obviously knows the craft of selling ideas very well, and would make for a good demagogue, probably even a good lawyer. But I was discussing the emotional and/or intelectual side of his work, not Bendis as a person, or his potential or his marketing skill or whatever. And in that context, it doesn't matter if he isn't able to do something or he doesn't care. If so many people love his work (and generate the profit for him) why would he feel the need to change his writing habits?

[Zero Hunter]

I credit him with building up the Avengers and making them the biggest most talked about franchise in comics, and he did this BEFORE the MCU movies. Now the Avengers are a billion dollar franchise, but I think Bendis on the comic side of things really got people talking about the Avengers.

Not that editorial backing him didn't play a huge part... but there are plenty of events how which don't have even half the buzz Bendis was able to generate at the start of his Avengers run. He was able to capture lightning in the bottle, and make the Avengers the most MUST READ book in the entire industry. That was no happy accident.

I will say it again. ANY writer could have made the Avengers as big as Bendis did. It had nothing to do with his talent it was the fact that Marvel gave him the whole store to work with. Bendis said "I want to use all the biggest most popular characters" and Marvel said sure whatever we don't care. He had EVERYONE to play with. Even someone like Rob Liefeld could have made the Avengers sell if he was given every big popular character Marvel had. If he had not be given Spider-Man, Wolverine, and all the other big characters and his run had still sold I would give him credit.

[Frontier]

The idea that nothing happens in a Bendis book clearly comes from the notion that comics are an action medium. They are not. They can contain every genre. If nothing happened in a Bendis book it would be possible to summarise a single issue in a couple of lines. But instead they are usually very nuanced and full of emotional beats and interpersonal negotiations.

Ironically it is easier and quicker to summarise an action book because at least half of the book could be summarised as ‘and they fight’.

It is laughable that a writer constantly cited in end of year lists and in Eisner nominations, as well as uniquely having a Peabody award, and selling more comics than just about anyone, is so negatively criticised by a group of fans.

Don’t like Dickens? Don’t read him. Don’t like how a comic book writer handles a favourite character or team, stop buying and reading the books. Nobody has an automatic right to enjoy their favourite books. They are not written for you as individuals.

If you read a Bendis book and can’t see the craft then that’s not his fault. He is a more than competent writer with a clear talent and many fans.

I don't even judge it from that level. Sometimes even Bendis' action sequences feel like they're padding things out.

But I think Bendis does have a fine level of craft, it just is better realized in some areas then others. Daredevil and Spider-Man fare better then his team books or Iron Man.