When Did Decompression Turn into "Nothing Happened?"

[CentralPower]

You might need to look up what 'genius' means if you can't see it. I reserve the word for people that are true innovators in their field. People that set the pace that other people follow with their work.

Lee half-drafted scripts and fobbed them off on his colleagues, which did determine how much they worked. So, I suppose he did set the pace. And, he then took credit for what they did, which does a take a kind of genius.

It's really hard to fairly judge Stan Lee's capabilities as a writer because his Marvel Method™ puts so much of what a comicbook writer is supposed to do on the shoulders of the artist.

Lee is why that method took root.

Kirby was a great comicbook writer. Sure, he wasn't that good with dialogue, but when you get down to it, the actual words on the page are such a small part of comicbook writing.

Yes, art (pencils to inks) and lettering matter.

But, the words are a huge part of the product.

I like Bendis, but I will be the first to agree that his Doom "sounds" wrong, especially in his early Marvel work. Similarly, Zub made the Squadron (especially Blur and Nighthawk) "sound" right in this week's "Thunderbolts". (Apparently, Zub is one of the 12 people reading the current "Squadron Supreme" series.)

Here is the thing: people didn't do that before the 70's. The industry relied on rapid replacement of the audience back then.

It was not as common. But, it did happen. (The uncomfortable stereotypes about grown comic readers came from somewhere.)

When I was a kid (reading comics at 6 or 7, discovering a COMIC STORE at maybe 10 or 11), there were guys who had been reading comics for years. I am nearly 40 now, and still not often one of the old guys in the shop.

There have been hundreds of writers that have made careers out of ideas and the ability to spin a great yarn who have not been exemplars of the craft of stringing words together.

I am not even impressed by Lee's use of ideas though. The best things done with Lee's characters, and their foundation concepts, have all been done by other writers.


For the sake of balance, here are two things I give Lee credit for.

-The marketing of the Sentry:
When Marvel pushed the Sentry, they pushed him as a "lost" character. The idea was to make the back-write "real" by making fans think that the Sentry was a legitimate (if very obscure) Silver Age character. Lee's participation was a huge part of that working as well as it did. (It also likely served to curb the fantrums after the ruse was revealed.)

-this is a second hand account (relayed by a friend who was there for it):
Years ago, Lee was at a convention. For whatever reason, he stopped being a pitchman for the industry and sat down with some fans to talk about life. He told them to stop reading comics for a while and go out in to the world. (The effect was a more benign variation of the infamous William Shatner "move out of your mothers' basements" spot on "Saturday Night LIve".) That was, to Lee's credit, classy.

[codystarbuck]

Text bosses at that frequency and length were completely foreign to me. Not used to the "third party narrator."

It is just so.... dense. Overly dense. Like the illustrations are being suffocated to death by words.

Like this page...



So... many... words

Or something like this where the words are 100% unnecessary and the illustration alone tells the story.

Don McGregor was considered wordy back then; but, he was a hell of a storyteller and Black Panther was a masterpiece, in his hands. Same with Killraven, and his later independent works, like Sabre, Ragamuffins, and Detectives, Inc.

I am an old timey reader. You had serialized storytelling back in the 40s, with Captain Marvel Adventures and you had things like the Spirit and the EC comics, where writers were allowed to stretch a bit. Stan brought some of that to superheroes, focusing on soap opera elements, while putting a lot more storytelling in the hands of the artists. Some, like Kirby and Ditko excelled at it. The 70s sees more multi-issue tales, as the next generation latched onto things like the classic FF Galactus tales, as they tried to create their own epics. Some of the writers also amped up the soap opera drama (Conway and Thomas did a lot of that). Claremont is the inheritor of that, as he followed in their footsteps. As pointed out, Steranko used pop art techniques, and ideas pioneered by Will Eisner and Bernard Kriegsten, in Nick Fury, back in the 60s. Barry Windsor-Smith did the same in Conan, though his influences came from fine art. McGregor followed in the traditions of the great pulp writers, especially the adventure and mystery writers. He also brought a lyrical quality to it. Doug Moench did the same. It continued into the 80s, with guys like Claremont, Wolfman and Levitz & Giffen, while the British writer invasion brought some of that to the horror books, launching what was to become Vertigo. Dave Sim had been doing it more and more in Cerebus, from Church & State onward (he had dabbled a bit earlier, but, it really takes hold, there). The independents had more room to explore things and that helped foster it. The real tipping point, from my perspective, is the advent of graphic novels and trade collections. Now, we had a vehicle for long-form storytelling. More and more, plotting was designed for reprint in a trade collection, rather than a single issue or two. Where in the 70s, issues were decided, usually, by how much room the story needed or were decided by the editor to fit in one or two issues. Now, stories were being set for 6 or 7 issues, to fit in a trade. Some authors used that to tell more complex stories, and spend time on scenes, others just padded things out. Now, it is a miracle if someone can do a story that fits in a single issue, let alone something that fits in 8 pages.

Archie Goodwin was a master of pacing. Manhunter was told in 8-page installments, in Detective Comics. Archie broke down the book for Walt Simonson and used panel numbers to speed up or slow down the story, depending on the needs of the scene. The finished story, which was told in less than 70 pages, is more epic than most comics that took 12 issues, let alone 6.

I never understand statements like old comics are too dense, or I can't watch black & white films. Good storytelling is good storytelling. Sometimes you have to allow yourself time to absorb things. I was a bookseller for 20 years and watched kids cringe when they were presented with the book they had to read for school, regardless of how many pages it was; and, then, watch them pick up 700+ pages of Harry Potter and devour it in a couple of days. It's all in the quality of the writing, not the length.

[Bl00dwerK]

I don't know, but it bugs the crap out of me when I pay 4.99 for a comic and I'm finished with it in a minute-and-a-half. I'm an old school reader/collector and love lots or reading in comics.

[JKtheMac]

It's really hard to fairly judge Stan Lee's capabilities as a writer because his Marvel Method™ puts so much of what a comicbook writer is supposed to do on the shoulders of the artist.
And there is also the thing that all or most his collaborators on his most famous creations went on do do great things all by themselves at other companies, but Stan Lee on his own or with lesser artists never created much interesting new things

I disagree, you can see his ethos to storytelling throughout books like FF, early X-Men, Spider-Man etc. I understand what you are saying, and it is received wisdom to cite such methods and the ability of the artists, but there is that distinctive signature to a Lee story that is never evident in the work of his contemporaries. Even Kirby used to espouse his passion and his talent for story. The way he tells it, when the deadline crush hit then the artists were left to their own devices, but otherwise he always credited him with the basic plot ideas and the style of story that he wanted to tell. I have read quite widely and I have never seen anyone try and take credit for his vision for how the comics were to be shaped.

I would go as far as to say you can tell when Lee was too busy to give detailed notes, because the stories were never quite as interesting and tended to drop back to a more traditional comic book style.

[gurkle]

I think of Lee primarily as a creative editor. This is a category that's sort of been lost, but in the '50s and '60s, editors were often the key creative people at comic companies. It doesn't matter all that much who wrote for Mort Weisinger or Julie Schwartz, those comics bear their stamp. Lee was not as hands-on as those guys, but his power as an editor and dialogue writer meant that the stories and characters were filtered through his sensibility. Note for example how Roy Thomas started out writing dialogue almost exactly like Stan and took on more of his own style after he got more power at the company.

So no, Stan Lee was not as creative as Jack Kirby, but the Lee/Kirby characters are recognizably different from the ones Kirby did on his own. Some people don't like that, which is fine: for example, Kirby on his own would not have made the Silver Surfer into a self-pitying angst-ridden guy. That's what Stan Lee liked so that's what he became, for better or worse.

I am not even impressed by Lee's use of ideas though. The best things done with Lee's characters, and their foundation concepts, have all been done by other writers.

The other writers didn't introduce many new characters, though. Some did, like Chris Claremont, but for the most part the newer, more sophisticated writers spent much of their time playing with other people's toys. It's true that they were saving their own character ideas for their own work, but it's not like most of their original characters have become icons like the Lee/Kirby characters or the Claremont-era X-Men.

Of course the eternal question is, did the more technically sophisticated writers have trouble creating new characters in spite of their technical sophistication, or because of it? I don't know, though I suspect some of the technically unsophisticated devices helped bring us closer to the characters. Like for example Claremont's insistence on showing the thoughts of every single X-Men character, bringing us closer to them than a more sophisticated writer would; in the sense of building a popular comic book character, writing a thought balloon that says "I am sad and morally conflicted" probably is better than trying to convey the same thing through the visuals alone.

It's not the only place where there is a conflict between technical sophistication and popular appeal; simple love songs with plain and corny lyrics sometimes touch more people than songs that try to say the same thing indirectly. There's room for all approaches, but I suspect we could not have a writer with Alan Moore's technique and Jack Kirby or Chris Claremont's gift for introducing popular characters. They don't exactly go together.

[JKtheMac]

Don McGregor...

Excellent post. Thanks for bringing us back to the topic in such a well considered manner.

[CentralPower]

never understand statements like old comics are too dense, or I can't watch black & white films. Good storytelling is good storytelling. Sometimes you have to allow yourself time to absorb things. I was a bookseller for 20 years and watched kids cringe when they were presented with the book they had to read for school, regardless of how many pages it was; and, then, watch them pick up 700+ pages of Harry Potter and devour it in a couple of days. It's all in the quality of the writing, not the length.

Yes, quality matters.

Silver Age comics were not good story-telling. They relied on telling, not showing. They used too many words for that telling. (The page given in this threat, though not by Lee, is a good example of this.) I have nothing against reading actual words. But, the quality of the writing (both in terms of idea and execution) has to be worth my tme. (I generally read higher word-count newspapers, because they tend to have better writers.)

With comics, the writing matters. (A series writer is the first thing I select for.) But, comics also have to look good. Pages with more, smaller, panels do not tend to look as good as pages with larger (but more clearly illustrated) panels. Cramming panels full of words (like "the tree bent as he jumped on to it") that describe what should be obvious defeats the purpose of comics.

And, if that requires decompression (and less happening per issue), then so be it.

Now, it is a miracle if someone can do a story that fits in a single issue, let alone something that fits in 8 pages.

It is also hard to do anything worthwhile in a single issue, let alone 8 pages.

he other writers didn't introduce many new characters, though. Some did, like Chris Claremont, but for the most part the newer, more sophisticated writers spent much of their time playing with other people's toys.

I said ideas (concepts), not characters. (This is why I have said that "the Ultimates" is the "Squadron Supreme" comic I want. Ewing is going a better job with Squadron type ideas than Robinson at the moment.) Lee did not seem to have much to say.

Of course the eternal question is, did the more technically sophisticated writers have trouble creating new characters in spite of their technical sophistication, or because of it?

It may be a question of the sophisticated writers knowing that they can make more money writing for established properties. Morrison's "Zenith" is like a beta test of ideas he used in "Animal Man" up to "Multiversity". Morrison had new ideas, and the "Zenith" characters are unique to that series. But, I tend to think that working on "Batman" has done more to line Morrison's pockets than anything else.

[Dog]

Enjoying this discussion, from all sides.

[gurkle]

Yes, quality matters.

Silver Age comics were not good story-telling. They relied on telling, not showing. They used too many words for that telling. (The page given in this threat, though not by Lee, is a good example of this.) I have nothing against reading actual words. But, the quality of the writing (both in terms of idea and execution) has to be worth my tme. (I generally read higher word-count newspapers, because they tend to have better writers.)

With comics, the writing matters. (A series writer is the first thing I select for.) But, comics also have to look good. Pages with more, smaller, panels do not tend to look as good as pages with larger (but more clearly illustrated) panels. Cramming panels full of words (like "the tree bent as he jumped on to it") that describe what should be obvious defeats the purpose of comics.

I promise not to argue about this again, but I think fundamentally we disagree on what the purpose of comics is. Comics are a combination of words and pictures; they're not like paintings where the drawing must carry all the meaning. If the words describe something we can't actually see, it's not necessarily wrong, and a lot of times when I see words criticized as redundant, they're actually not.

A drawing, or even a series of drawings, can't literally show us movement, so if the text describes the movement it can trick our mind into seeing more than we could ever see in the art, no matter how good and clear it is. Are there ways for the art to fool us into thinking we're seeing movement? Yes, and one reason the text-heavy approach has gone out of fashion is that today's art and coloring techniques make it easier for the pictures to provide that illusion. But what McGregor is doing - using text to contextualize the visuals - is hardly a violation of what comics are about, at least for me.

[codystarbuck]

Yes, quality matters.

Silver Age comics were not good story-telling. They relied on telling, not showing. They used too many words for that telling. (The page given in this threat, though not by Lee, is a good example of this.) I have nothing against reading actual words. But, the quality of the writing (both in terms of idea and execution) has to be worth my tme. (I generally read higher word-count newspapers, because they tend to have better writers.)

That's a matter of perspective. You and I may not look at the same story and have the same experience. That doesn't mean it's bad storytelling, it means it doesn't connect with you the way it does for me. There is no absolute to storytelling. Even the worst writers can connect with an audience, fro reasons that others can't begin to fathom. English teachers and literature professors will say "this" is good and give extensive analysis and you will still not enjoy reading the work. That's the thing about art and literature; it's totally subjective. No two people's experience is exactly the same; similar, maybe, but not exactly the same.

From my perspective, a lot of comics and most adventure movies, of today, feel like they were created with a short attention span. Some also read like the writer is in love with his own words, which is the feeling I get with much of Tarrantino's dialogue in his films. A lot feels self-indulgent. There were comics of the past that felt that way, too; but, not as many. Some of it is probably due to my perspective now, vs when I was young. I've seen and done far more things, had career successes and setbacks, started a family, etc..I don't necessarily see things the way I did when I was young. Some may look back on the comics of today and wonder why they thought it was great and decide they liked an older work better You sometimes come to an appreciation of what came before you, and even regard it higher than the culture and art of your own youth. I wasn't a fan of a lot of the music my parents listened to, until I was in my 30s and stopped hearing that it wasn't rock n roll and started hearing the voices and the melody; not to mention other music of the same time that kind of opened the door for the music of my time. The music hadn't changed, just my perspective.

Meanwhile, the music of today sucks, the movies are crap and you kids get off my lawn, and take yer darn smart phones with ya!

[Raye]

Of course the eternal question is, did the more technically sophisticated writers have trouble creating new characters in spite of their technical sophistication, or because of it? I don't know, though I suspect some of the technically unsophisticated devices helped bring us closer to the characters. Like for example Claremont's insistence on showing the thoughts of every single X-Men character, bringing us closer to them than a more sophisticated writer would; in the sense of building a popular comic book character, writing a thought balloon that says "I am sad and morally conflicted" probably is better than trying to convey the same thing through the visuals alone.

It's not the only place where there is a conflict between technical sophistication and popular appeal; simple love songs with plain and corny lyrics sometimes touch more people than songs that try to say the same thing indirectly. There's room for all approaches, but I suspect we could not have a writer with Alan Moore's technique and Jack Kirby or Chris Claremont's gift for introducing popular characters. They don't exactly go together.

I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the stories, style of writing, or characters at all. It's just that in the early days, there were fewer characters, and no character had been established for all that long, so it was much easier for a good character to stand out among the rest. 50 years and several hundred (maybe thousands?) of characters later, the old ones have nostalgia/icon based loyalty surrounding them, as well as have intricate backstories that have been built upon continually for all that time which adds to how interesting they are. And they are surrounded by so many other characters that someone could create the best most interesting character ever, and it may still get lost among all the noise. they have to compete with too many other characters for the spotlight, and there is no way they can have histories as rich as the old guard. There is also less incentive to create new characters. They have all these existing characters and among all of them, at least one could fill any role in the story a writer could desire. There is often no real need to create a new character.

[Carabas]

But, I tend to think that working on "Batman" has done more to line Morrison's pockets than anything else.

You'd be surprised.
He's likely seen way more money from The Invisibles, Supergods and WE3 than from everything he's ever done as a writer in the DCU combined.

[JKtheMac]

You'd be surprised.
He's likely seen way more money from The Invisibles, Supergods and WE3 than from everything he's ever done as a writer in the DCU combined.

Indeed in the modern, creator owned world, writers and artists make most of their money working outside the big two. That single fact is causing the shakeup we are seeing in comic book story. If an established writer or artist isnt allowed to express themselves with the kinds of writing or art that they prefer, they can afford to just say no and wait for a more attractive offer.

For example you would be unlikely to attract an established writer to an X-Man story under tight editorial control and limited choice of mutant characters. Hence the less rigid approach to editing and the wider range of styles we are seeing today. Even traditional realms of strong editorial oversight, like events and flagship books are much more creatively focused, and the editors themselves are more involved in the creative elements like bringing on new characters. This is a new age for comics. And bringing things back to decompression we hardly ever see issues with negligible content right now. Writing for trades and fleshing out a story for the long form is better understood and the publishers are more flexible with the size of trades.