When you ignore the colorful costumes, the ridiculous names and the complicated means of superpowers, comic books are fiction. Like any novel, like any movie, like any story these are tales sewn together by craftsman of a different art. They aren't just to look at, they're to look into. To attach. To find a character or a story you enjoy for what it is and not what it appears to be. However, like all things, story has fallen into one lane. There's a repetition to comic books nowadays that hasn't always been there.
Not too long ago I read a series called "Bat-Mite" which was about an imp from the 5th dimension going around The DC Comic's Universe and trying to make some characters as "cool as Batman". In concept it sounded fun, and I won't deny the humor of the series, but something about the book bothered me. I thought each issue of the story would be about Bat-Mite finding another hero and messing with them and I was mostly right. However, there was a through-line behind that part of the book. Yes on the surface Bat-Mite was having whacky adventures, but he also stayed in an apartment with two civilians. One civilian even worked for the government and was secretly spying on Bat-Mite. It just felt wrong, you know? I guess what I mean is, comic books these days tend to stick to a linear story spread across each issue. Bat-Mite is not the kind of character you'd expect to have a long story, but to have individual funny stories is okay. There are no anthologies anymore.
Let's put this in comparison. In May of 1963, "Amazing Spider-Man #2" featured Spider-Man battling The Vulture for the first time. Vulture was defeated at the end of that issue and didn't reappear until #7 in December of the same year. Between those two issues Spider-Man battled four other foes, three villains being newly created Spider-Man foes and one being Doctor Doom, fan-favorite villain of The Fantastic Four. Now in September 1997 "Amazing Spider-Man #426" Doctor Octopus resurfaced to battle Spider-Man. The issue didn't end with Doc being defeated, it ended with "To Be Continued in #427". Okay, so a villain Spider-Man beat in one story back in 1963 is a little stronger now. That's fine. But did issue #427 end with Doc Ock getting his tentacles handed to him? No. "To Be Concluded in #428". In 1963 Spidey beat Doc Ock by the end of one issue, but in 1997 it took three issues for Spidey to defeat Doc Ock. See that's what I mean! It wasn't until August of 1966 that Spider-Man battled a villain in one issue and didn't defeat him until the next issue. This was the third Green Goblin story and he had already been considered Spider-Man's greatest foe so maybe that was okay. However, four issues later The Lizard got a two issue story, and then one issue later The Vulture got a two issue story. The landscape of storytelling changed for Stan Lee and Steve Didko as one-and-done story arcs began to fade away.
Even before then you can look at 1938's "Action Comics" from DC Comics, this was the first publication of Superman and every issue of the book dealt with a different problem. This was before the day of established universes so if Superman fought a giant robot in one issue nobody would mention it in the next issue. The only consistent thing about the book were the characters and the location, as long as they were present that's all that mattered. Even Superman's powers were inconsistent. In one issue he could pull a moon, and in another he could create miniature versions of himself. Those powers came and went as the writers chose, but nobody ever brings them up anymore.
Maybe that's what I'm trying to get across, because comic books are so dependent on sales these days most books need to have a continuous story, a story with a cliff hanger ending to pull readers in and make them buy the next issue. If they publish a book where the problem of the issue is wrapped up at the end they run the risk of people not caring because it's not one long story that they feel compelled to buy. Like most things, it's just business. Overall the point of this post was to share my thoughts on how the way of storytelling in comic books has evolved from the 60's to now. For better or worse.
Thanks for reading.
Even before then you can look at 1938's "Action Comics" from DC Comics, this was the first publication of Superman and every issue of the book dealt with a different problem. This was before the day of established universes so if Superman fought a giant robot in one issue nobody would mention it in the next issue. The only consistent thing about the book were the characters and the location, as long as they were present that's all that mattered. Even Superman's powers were inconsistent. In one issue he could pull a moon, and in another he could create miniature versions of himself. Those powers came and went as the writers chose, but nobody ever brings them up anymore.
Maybe that's what I'm trying to get across, because comic books are so dependent on sales these days most books need to have a continuous story, a story with a cliff hanger ending to pull readers in and make them buy the next issue. If they publish a book where the problem of the issue is wrapped up at the end they run the risk of people not caring because it's not one long story that they feel compelled to buy. Like most things, it's just business. Overall the point of this post was to share my thoughts on how the way of storytelling in comic books has evolved from the 60's to now. For better or worse.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment