Wednesday, 8 February 2012

On "Fantastic Four" #600

In which the blogger, with his apologies to the friends of TooBusyThinking who're passionate fans of Jonathan Hickman's work, finds himself getting terrible shirty about the first 5 pages of FF #600. Best, no doubt, for everyone not to proceed any further;



If Jonathan Hickman's scripts didn't make such a play of his work belonging to a more deliberately adult approach to the super-person comic-book, then the lack of sense in a great many of them wouldn't be so obvious. But Hickman's style is one of never-apparently-ending stories which proceed at a purposefully ponderous pace, with the reader's attention quite intently drawn to the reputed layering of meaning and the slow accumulation of momentum in the plot. The pleasure lies, it seems, in the reader actively enjoying the delayed gratification offered by a tale which requires the retention of the details of months if not years of backstory combined with a willingness to indefatigably persevere for months if not years more. These are, Hickman's scripts seem to declare for themselves, comics for the more literate, the more laudably patient reader, who's concerned with the virtues of subtlety and guile and the nuance of character rather than the matter of who-hits-who and how hard? Yet if this is so, and if Hickman's work is to be taken as it seems to be intended to be, then why is so often difficult for the less-committed reader to just work out what it is that's actually happening on the page? For Hickman's eye seems to be so focused upon tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow that he repeatedly ignores the imperative to explain what's actually going on in his stories to anyone other than the month-by-month diehards. Worse yet, a great deal of the little that Hickman does deign to spell out in any particular single issue can often appear, at second glance, to be little more than careless nonsense, and that's especially true of the opening five pages of Fantastic Four #600.

"Forever" hits its stride with a shot of an Avengers Quinjet powering through a sky full of Kree warships. Yet who's on the ship, or where they're going, or why the scene is important enough to be a focus of  the first story-page of the issue is never explained. That's not even a red herring. It's a cheat.
        
I will admit, at the inevitable cost of seeming to be neither literate nor patient, to having been repeatedly defeated by the first 5 pages of the appropriately named Forever, the lead and yet very much not finite and self-contained feature in the title's "100-page 50th anniversary 600th Issue Extravaganza".  To be frank, the book's opening sequence isn't just obscurely told, but it's also profoundly unconvincing too. This would, of course, be of no real consequence in a typical silly superhero story, where all the spectacle and energy can compensate for the sheer and essential daftness of the sub-genre. But the work of Hickman and artist Steve Epting sits poorly with the conventions of the aliens-invade-NYC story. On the one side the creators are dolling out great dollops of cod-sci-fi goofiness, and on the other, there's the comics-realism of the art and the dopey empty solemnity of the script. Nothing makes the lack of energy and sense in Hickman's work seem so obvious as the presence in it of a great super-heroic set-piece. The qualities of verve and fun necessary to obscure how stupid the very idea of such an alien assault is are entirely missing here, and so all the reader can see is how poorly-constructed and utterly implausible - even by the logic of a superheroic universe - the whole set-up is.





We might expect that the introductory text page of Forever would have provided the essential minimum of backstory for the reader who selfishly consumed the preceding issue a few months before without bothering to take and memorise a few sides of notes, but nothing of the sort is so. It's not that there's a lack of information on the text page, but it's almost utterly unhelpful in the context of the story which follows. And so, the editorial staff responsible for this issue informs their audience that "The Supreme Intelligence orders the Kree Armada to burn the Earth, leaving nothing alive". Why this should be so isn't explained, and so it's impossible to know what anyone's motives and ends are beyond the issue of the attempted destruction of the Earth and the efforts on the superheroes part to prevent it happening. Yet even that apparently straight-forward aspect of the plot collapses into confusion when the story itself eventually kicks off on pages 4 and 5.
   
As you can see from the scans above, the first two pages of "Forever" are taken up by 6 panels explaining where the comic's cast are. (The single frame repeated here is as useful, or useless, as any of them.) These pages constitute an entirely spurious exercise. Only those who've been keeping up religiously with the book will be able to make sense of the information that's being given, and there's very little of that anyway. In truth, it's the return of our old friend from Mr Hickman's previous issues of the FF, the pages of backstory which don't explain the backstory. Remove them and nothing about the tale changes, just as nothing about the story has been illuminated. Why someone didn't suggest that the background of Forever might have actually been explained here escapes me.Nothing else was going on anyway. Perhaps everyone involved thought the text introduction would do that, but then our old friend the unhelpful text page is back again too. (Anyway, if the text page was designed to explain what was going on, why were these first two pages and six panels commissioned in the first place?)
     
For the dastardly determination by the Kree to "burn the Earth" apparently involves using highly advanced alien craft to attack and bombard New York City just as a squadron of bombers might have attacked London, Berlin or Tokyo in the Second World War. It's such an entirely unconvincing portrayal of hi-tech warfare that it carries a deep sense not of absurdity, but stupidity. Whyever would a "full Kree armada .. in orbit" assault New York with weapons no more powerful than the standard payload of a Lancaster Bomber circa 1944? The attack is well underway as the story opens, and yet all that's been achieved for such a massive investment of interstellar forces is the blowing away of a few top stories of skyscrapers. This isn't mass destruction, and it's certainly not the end of the world, and, as such, it makes no sense at all. That's a fact that's particularly obvious given that the Supreme Intelligence cannot help but be aware that NYC is home to a cadre of Earth's most meddlesome and powerful super-people. There's simply no excuse for the Kree not nuking the entire planet, or raking it with death beams from orbit, or using whatever science-fiction conceit might be pressed into service to do the world-scouring job.

At a moment of absolute peril, Tony Stark calmly reels off some quite irrelevant information. Not the behaviour of a super-genius contributing to a life-or-death situation then. It sounds worryingly close to showing off, or is the use of the phrase "old school" intended by Hickman to explain why the Kree ships are behaving like primitive fighter planes rather than as super-scientific weapons of war. Whatever, the plot's neither forwarded or clarified, so we have to assume Hickman was presenting us with dialogue which helps us understand Tony's character. Given that Stark also has the temerity to ask begin to ask Reed if he knows where the Kree have come from, which indicates he suspects Reed might well have key information he's not sharing with the group, Hickman's take on Stark appears to be of a man characterised by egoism and paranoia.
    
Yes, the scene as depicted by Epting makes a pretty enough picture, and if the antique space operatic riffs had been played with a tongue in the cheek and some relish in the script, then who would have noticed or minded? But Hickman is determined to play this ridiculous scene straight, and so he has Iron Man declare that these ships are "Kree warships. Configuration suggests the central shipyards -- old-school." Gawd knows how Stark would know which interstellar shipyards produce which particular types of Kree ships, but then, gawd only knows why Hickman has the character say all of that in the first place. It doesn't advance the plot a whit, but it does immediately throw the reader out of the story. It's cleverness for the sake of cleverness, and it tells us, with a deeply meaningful frown, that we're in a cleverly written story. When Hickman wants to produce a story which is profoundly dumb, he chooses to present it with a facile covering of seriousness, as if the latter quality won't actually accentuate the former. 

My Gawd!! They're bombing the water towers!!!! What will Ditko say? How will the Earth survive? (One single antique B-52 armed with cruise missiles could've been well on the way to wiping out several cities on America's East Coast before the superheroes even made it up the steps onto the Baxter Building's roof. Why should we care in the slightest for the un-menace posed by the Kree? If we're going to have endless scenes of stereotypical aliens attacking in an entirely stereotypical fashion, then can creators either put some thought into the process or just crank it out without the deeply serious air?)
         
It's a statement that sets a tone which demands that we take the events before us entirely seriously, and in doing so, it simply draws attention to the essential implausibility and hollowness of events. Why aren't the alien ships at the very least bombarding the Baxter Building? If it's protected, why haven't we been told? Why don't the Kree have bunker-busters to take out cities or even continents? (How couldn't they have developed such technology?) Why are the Kree wasting time knocking over water towers and apartment buildings when their mission to raze the Earth as a whole? Are they going to blast the entire surface of the globe flat using such ineffective and fourth-division weaponry? How will they ever get the job done? Why are they dropping troops into New York anyway? (Did they have some shopping to do first? Are they going to execute Earth's people one by one, starting with the citizens of the Big Apple?) Look again at this apparently spectacular and supposedly informing establishing shot by Mr Epting and it simply defies the logic even of the wonderfully absurd Marvel Universe.

Yet another example of Hickman's dialogue seeming to make perfect sense until the reader thinks about it. Here Hickman counter-productively diminishes the threat of the Kree attack by having, as now is canon, the eternally arrogant Captain America express contempt for their threat. Note that the apparent super-strategist of the Marvel Universe incorrectly analyses the situation as well, so that Reed has to correct him; we'd expect such a master of warfare to at least look for expert opinion before opening his vainglorious mouth, but he doesn't. Indeed, the master of America's defences doesn't even choose to check in with any of his own forces as far as we can see, let alone the irrelevancy of the President. But then what kind of battlefield genius is Rodgers? He seems to think that the Kree have picked the wrong time to attack. Yet the heroes already face a power so great they've had to combine together to challenge it, which must suggest the possibility of war on two fronts, an obvious military catastrophe. Not only that, but by the coincidence of their arrival, the Kree now have a great many of their most dangerous foes concentrated by chance in a single place. One nuke and that's it for the Avengers and their friends, but the not-so-good Captain thinks his side hold all the aces. He's obviously never to studied military history at all.

The problem lies in Hickman's lack of interest in making his work as transparent as possible. From the evidence of just about everything I've ever read of his, from Fantastic Four to the Ultimates to S.H.I.E.L.D., the author just doesn't seem to care too much about such trifles. In these first few pages of Forever, we see all the well-established habits of this exposition-adverse, funophobic writer. In avoiding the responsibility to be clear and rational in the context of his own stories, he's presented a script which focuses on spectacle and moments of supposed character insight when he might have been more productively focusing on the basics of storytelling. Why didn't he consider the events on these pages as a sequence of plot-points which need to be established in as transparent and as logical a fashion as possible? In such a situation, Hickman and his various collaborators might have managed not to have undermined his own narrative with so much that's quite obviously dysfunctional. There might even have been time for a touch of a brief info-dump to explain why the Kree have sent such ineffective warships to destroy the Earth that they're being effectively resisted by the masonry of central Manhattan even before the super-people come out to play. But for all his reputation as a man who focuses on character and upon the subtleties of plot, Hickman consistently produces work which seems simply daft. But of course, he isn't really concerned with logic, anymore than he's concerned with sense. Instead, he appears to be fixated with the clever-sounding moments, the supposedly breathtaking scenes, and, presumably, the long-term twists and turns of his plot. But what his work doesn't often seem to suggest is a great many of the virtues which are commonly associated with it.

Again, it looks like Hickman's giving Sue Richards some valuable respect as she dominates the congregation of the MU's great and super-bright here. Yet her words, and those which follow on page 6, are those of well-meaning idiot. To Ms Richards, defending the people and property of NYC is the first priority and it's to that cause that the superheroes commit.  Yet if the Earth is being invaded, then the well-being of New York isn't the priority at all. The priority is defeating the invasion, and given that the reader has been told the genocidal purpose of the assault, that's especially true. Yet all of these battle-hardened super-people bow to Sue Richard's strategically nonsensical proposal. They don't even decide to split their forces so that some of them can gather intelligence, liaise with the armed forces, contact the government, collect as many super-people together as possible, establish an evacuation point in another dimension/planet, and so on.(Even Dr Strange is shown bringing down space-ships. That's obviously the best use of his skills in the situation.) No, the symptom rather than the cause of this problem takes absolute priority for every super-person present. This is patent balderdash from beginning to end. It sounds noble but it's actually piffle, and it utterly demeans the characters it's intended to illuminate. They're all, it seems, well-meaning simpletons, as are those in charge of the American state, who make no apparent effort to contact these superheoes and incorporate them into the Republic's defence plans.
      
The sequences which focus on the super-kids of the Baxter Building are as enjoyable as always, and Hickman does have a knack for making it seem as if his characters actually do know each other in an intimate fashion. But that's hardly enough to justify buying one stupid, portentuous, short-changing issue of the Fantastic Four after another. My apologies to the friends of TooBusyThinking who carry a sincere and substantial regard for Mr Hickman's work, but if I can't make it past 5 pages of a comic without despairing, without its plot being quite obviously ill-thought through and poorly explained, then I don't think that I'm going to be back.

Here's another prime example of why the superhero comic-book of today simply doesn't sell beyond a tiny number of acolytes. And yet this book is apparently a symbol of excellence, of value for money, of the best that the industry can produce. Either I've gone absolutely mad, or several hundred thousand others have, and I know which explanation I'm sticking with. I've read and re-read the beginning of Forever and, no matter how I try, I simply can't shift the conviction that the necessary backstory for this issue is absent, that the Kree's invasion is 100% implausible, and that the behaviour of every single superhuman shown in those first few word-balloon bearing panels reflects an unbelievable ignorance of even the very basics of military strategy. In short, in just a few sides, Jonathan Hickman's work has sent me ricocheting out of his narrative and off in search of a quiet room and a calming cool drink of water.

How are we ever going to sell the superhero comic to anyone who isn't already a fully paid up member of the Rump, when the so-called best of the sub-genre is so often profoundly lackadaisical, so often lacking in either winning wackiness or even storytelling sense?
        
If you tolerate this, the rest of the mainstream comics industry, or what's left of it, will be next.

.

21 comments:

  1. Hi Colin,

    I've been away for a while (work Boo!) which is why I haven't commented for awhile.

    It's funny but I kind of agree with you on some of your points about Hickman being ponderous and opaque with regards as to whats going on. But... I still like it. I honestly can't work it out but I still like it. Hickman's scripts can be ridiculously obtuse but after reading FF and Fantastic Four (Ugh JUST PUT IT ALL IN ONE BOOK!) for a while now I think he has a habit of explaining important plot points later in flashbacks and such. I haven't made my mind up as to whether I like it or not (I think as a finished run it will hang together better). To be honest, your right about some logical errors (Incidentally the Kree strategy is to tie the heroes up then drop a Nega-bomb so your correct about their tactics) and the pacing of the comics. But it's something I've seen in most comics at the moment (It was the style at the time...) I'd rather go through this than 90's art and story again which is faint praise indeed.

    It's strange becasue there are comics out there that are hailed as 'incredible' that I can't stand. I found Watchmen to be ponderously dull with flashes of (unfunny) idiocy. I hate all of Jack Kirby's New Gods, especially all the characters apart from Darkseid. To me it's horribly written with appalling dialogue. There for I don't see the big deal about it.

    I'd never stop reading your blog for telling us your thoughts, it's why I come here!

    I also think if you don't like the comic, you should definitely stop reading it. Nothing annoys me more than readers who read a comic they don't like and carry on. Its like I always say, there's nothing wrong with not liking something, unless I created it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Ejaz:- Ah, well, I did start off with an apology, Mr E! And I was thinking of your good self as well as few other good folks who've been friends to the blog.

      I think there might be even more common ground that we might agree on, namely, that these comics won't sell to any kind of broader audience. Whether I like FF or you do is in some ways beside the point, although I do enjoy, as I believe you know, swapping ideas with you and learning from your point of view. But the FF is a second-rank superhero property. It may not be Superman or Spider-Man, but it is very well known; there have been three movies, loads of cartoons, masses of merchandising. The 600th issue of the FF should have been something that reached beyond the Rump, but instead it aimed low and even then missed the target. It's a fantastic lack of ambition matched with what almost seems like fanboy snobbery; if those other folks won't buy the book WE like, then we'll just ignore them. And go away they have. None of which means that I'm suggesting that your p.o.v. isn't valid. Of course it is. But it's just another example of the industry giving up and fiddling while, er, Manhattan burns.

      "Incidentally the Kree strategy is to tie the heroes up then drop a Nega-bomb so your correct about their tactics"

      If you have stupid villains and you pretend they're fearsome, you insult your readers. If that's the Kree "strategy", then they're idiots. They've got ships which can get to Earth without being detected, as Reed says? Well, all they do is prime a dozen nega-bombs, crash them to Earth in a dozen different spots, and the Earth and all it's heroes are gone. That's ... that's just stupid. The Supreme Intelligence is supposed to be SO bright and experienced and THAT'S his strategy? It would be funny if that was the point of the story, or if this was camp, but neither's true.

      "I'd rather go through this than 90's art and story again which is faint praise indeed."

      Two points come to mind. (1) Which nineties? The 90s of Waid's Flash and Cap, of Morrison's Justice League? Millar's Superman Adventures? Ellis and Hitch’s Authority? I could do with more of all of that! (2) But that's not the choice, is it? We've got so much material to draw from, so many examples of what comics can be. The alternative isn't the crap comics of the past. Just this week I've been enjoying the heck out of Urusawa's 20th Century Boys, out of Eisner's 1947 Spirit, out of present-day 2000AD, out of the most recent Action Comics. The alternative surely could be something so much better! (Forgive me my naive enthusiasm. It's nearly m'bedtime.)

      Cont;

      Delete
    2. Cont;
      I too find Watchman tough going, although the prison break chapter is wonderful, and the first one intriguing. Have you read the Kirby 4th World books or what's come after? (There's not been anything since JK to match his work on the characters, although series like Simonson's Orion were fine runs.) By which I mean, it's the principles of storytelling that concern me most rather than the specific examples of supposedly great books. The problems I see with JH's work are structural. In the two dozen or so books I've read, he doesn't often explain, he often doesn't seem to think out his dialogue and his grand set-pieces are often clunky, draw-out and mechanical. Yes, there are moments I enjoy and I've a soft spot for his first FF arc. But it's his technical flaws that I believe hurt the sub-genre itself. The super-person book is dead unless it can aspire to far higher standards of storytelling, standards which can appeal to a far broader audience. The result doesn't have to be literary flim-flam. It can be as flat-out punch'n'grimace as it likes. But without the clarity and density etc, it's a dead art form.

      "I also think if you don't like the comic, you should definitely stop reading it."

      I agree. But I will be popping back every three or four months because I can't really hack away at this blog for another few months and ignore JH's work. I doubt I'll return to the above issues again, although if I'm grumpy enough ...

      One reason I do return is that I suspect that JH is a gifted writer. For my money, he and many of his colleagues use the wrong tools for this Pop product, but it's obvious that he's gifted. I'd love to be able to say that I was wrong. As you'll know, I never have a problem with being wrong. I'd rather that than be, er, wronger.

      And his tweet about England needing "Zombie Brian Clough" tonight was a cracker.

      I'm sorry to hear of the pressure of work you're under, and I appreciate you popping in despite that. I hope you get a touch more liberty in the coming months.

      Delete
    3. Hi Colin

      I regularly enjoy your writings on here and fortunately this time you review I comic I had actually read. So thats doubly good :)

      It interesting that for the big 600th issue spectacular Hickman would produce a comic that apparently hopes no new readers pick it up. Based on my vague memories of the rest of the issue the Kree invasion stops being a problem at some point for some reason I can't remember, and some guys come to open the negative zone and when they do you get a big reveal of Johnny Storm *spoiler*.

      Perhaps this is just me, but rather than just putting it down and thinking "this is shit!", I always find myself feeling a little bit guilty when I don't enjoy it. It feels like saying a movie will be garbage after only seeing the trailer. Am I being paranoid and thinking that may be part of the design?

      Delete
    4. Hello Anonymous:- No, I don't think you're being paranoid, though I wonder if that sense of feeling guilty isn't rather the result of simply wanting to enjoy the comic and wanting to be fair to the creators. It's certainly how I feel when I don't enjoy a book. One of the reasons to write these pieces is to check whether I really can support a negative opinion of a book. Sometimes I find that, when I pay closer attention, I can't keep feeling grumpy at all. Writing about John Forte and Wayne Boring, for example, helped transform my opinion of their work. But in the case of Mr Hickman's FF, I just find that I can't get passed the choices he makes. I keep trying, but I can't. I feel I should, I want to , but no luck.

      And of course I recognise your point that it's hard not to see the individual issue as really belonging in a great long phonebook collection. Yet the likes of Urasawa can produce 20+ of 20th Century Boys and as far as I can, the narrative always makes sense and each chapter is worthwhile in itself. No, I think JH is just not doing a very good job, although I fully accept that tens of thousands of folks, including Marvel's top brass and his fellow professionals, would disagree.

      Thanks for the kind words! They're much appreciated. I hope by chance your choices of comics and mine coincide at some time in the future again.

      Delete
  2. I couldn't make it past the first few issues of Hickman's FF (the first 6 issues, maybe? 8?) because of the ponderous pace. I don't have a problem with long-term epics, but ye gods, there has to be some short-term payoff too. I do enjoy SHIELD, more for the spectacle than the logic, and I thought Secret Warriors eventually worked out fairly well, perhaps because Marvel wouldn't publish it indefinitely and Hickman had to, you know, wrap it up.

    His best work, I think, remains The Nightly News, and this is why I think his Marvel work doesn't work as well. Hickman seems to be a very polemical writer - he has BIG THINGS he wants to write about, and if he happens to do some nice characterization or introduce interesting plots along the way, that's all well and good, but he won't let it interfere with his IMPORTANT POINT. He can't really do that in mainstream superhero books, so he kind of meanders, trying to make big points but failing because, you know, superheroes. It's very odd.

    He has two new series coming out from Image, and I'll be picking them up, because I think he has more freedom at Image. Perhaps those might be more to your liking!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Greg:- Well, at last I've got a destination to go in order to check out the virtues of JH's work now. The Nightly News sounds interesting, and I've gone for a quick Google and even the premise reads like it's got legs.

      I've never managed to see the big things you mention, so perhaps that's where I've got to go. I can't see the point of what he's doing in Marvel's titles, to be honest. It's that meandering mixed with what feels like a grasping for the profound. I keep wanting to assure him that I can be trusted to cope with text and sub-text at the same time ....

      I'd very much like to check out his non-superhero work. I do want to "get", to appreciate, the work of the folks I try to blog about. But with JH, I keep trying to learn the language of the work and although some words and phrases seem clear, it's mostly just a babble. Sounds very interesting at a distance, but get close enough to hear and it's babble ...

      The Nightly News it is then. Thank you. I will go check it out!

      Delete
  3. So, five pages down, 95 to go ...

    Oh go on, you know you want to. I managed to get through the issue. Feel free to pop over to my review, I suspect that while I like the opening short more than you, we're chiming on the rest of the comic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Martin:- Why, you under-estimate my loyalty to your reviews, sir! I read your piece a good while ago, and I agree with you, as is our way, that we do come a good way towards agreeing on a great many of the fundamentals. Remember your FF review? I remember your Doom Patrol reviews!

      I have made my way through the other 100 pages, but I wouldn't call it reading (: I'm beginning to suspect that there's a terrible kind of elitism which underpins a great many modern comics, an assumption that those who don't get the project don't deserve to get the project. I find it hard to grasp how any such thing could come about, but there seems little doubt that a great deal of the industry believes that there is no alternative, financially and aesthetically, to Rumpishness.

      In other news: the second part of your recommended Spidey issues arrived yesterday. The first part is still to arrive. A very minor irritation, but it's hard not to start with the second issue and work backwards. Discipline, discipline ...

      Delete
  4. Colin: I forgot to mention: in the second sentence, I think you mean "proceed" and not "precede." Yes, I'm that guy.

    I think that with his Marvel work, as you point out, there's a "grasping for the profound," but in FF, at least, he doesn't seem to know that is. As ridiculous as SHIELD is, he's trying to make it epic, and whether he succeeds or not is up to the reader. In Secret Warriors, I think he managed to not be profound, exactly, but at least tell a pretty big espionage epic. But yeah, from what I've read of FF, it seems like he wants to tell some giant sci-fi opera, but the early part of the run was ALL set-up. It's too bad he still hasn't gotten around to anything, in your view. He's been writing the thing for, what, three years now?

    The Nightly News is mostly interesting with some babble, but what I appreciate about it is that Hickman has a clear point of view and for much of the book, he's absolutely fearless about following through on that POV. The ending falters a bit, but not enough, I don't think, to invalidate the rest of the book. I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Greg:- Oh, thank you for the typo catch! It's terrible how many mistakes I make. You'd think I didn't check the work, but I do, and not just a couple of times either. Ah, well.

      I'm still coming to terms with that grasping-for-the-profound idea. I wonder what it can be with the FF? There's been themes of family and honesty weaving in and out of tales, but nothing else that I could recognise. I thought it was just that he wasn't thinking about the substance so much as the spectacular. Sue telling her fellows to ignore the invasion and act like a 4th emergency service seemed to me to be the mark of a writer who just isn't thinking about his work. He's going for the flashy gesture and not worrying about whether it makes sense or not. That JH might be focusing on a bigger picture or point beyond the never-ending plot itself escaped me. I'll have to take a look at SHIELD again, because there too I just found what seemed to be the carelessness kicked me out of the book. As I said in the above, if these books were being written with the unpretentious verve of a Bill Mantlo, the daftness/sloppiness wouldn't matter. To romp or not to romp would be the only question. But here it all comes along with the po-faced sense of an artist weaving out his work, and I don't think the work deserves to carry that sense of the worthy. If these books are to be approached as serious works of fiction, then the bar's been raised. If they're pop pap, then fair enough. But the get-out-of-jail card of mindless fun's missing in what I've read of JH's work. That's why I'm really interested in Nightly News. Perhaps I'll find the key there which will help me see I'm wrong about all of the above.

      I don't want to be one of those guys who moans about comics today. The likes of C C Beck had very fine points when they attacked the modern-era comics of my youth, and of course Beck had earned the right through his work to have such an opinion anyway. Yet they missed the virtues of so many creators who weren't doing things the old fashioned way. And I'd love to see that the work of JH and many of his current colleagues is a valid way of producing comics which are anything other than a Rumpish indulgence. Here's to finding out I'm wrong, and thanks for the typo-catch and the further reading :)

      Delete
  5. I think most of your points of the Kree attack scene, while accurate, would be seen as missing the point - and probably not made by you at all - if that scene wasn't being presented in the art and tone as Very Serious. If it was brighter colours and lots of dynamic posings and BOLDED SECTIONS ending in EXCLAMATION marks!!, then questions about the implausibilities of WW2-style bombing tactics and Cap's tactical daftness don't come up: it's not that type of story.

    But this is the wrong type of art for a "ALIENS INVADE EVERYONE PUNCH THEM" spectacle and the tone in the writing doesn't fit it either - compare to Annihilators Earthfall two months ago, which also had a threat of Kree omnicide and the Avengers, but had bright colours, clean and kinetic art, and a lighter tone. It wasn't the best DnA cosmic book but it had its tone right, you knew what sort of story you were getting. If it wants to be serious, there's the current Nikolai Dante: the strategies being used by both rebel and villain are a bit rubbish, but even though things are serious and high-stakes, the art and dialogue of the current strip are making it clear that this is an adventure strip with, at the moment, clear-cut heroes and villains and this is the soon-to-be-triumphant storming of the castle. The grimmer Dante's deliberately changed the flow of dialogue, the layout of the art, the beats - even the artist, John Burns getting most of Tsar Wars because his art just feels moody and serious. That scene in FF is just getting it a bit wrong.

    (Though the montage of characters as the opening makes no sense at all to me, whatever the tone and intent. It's not a very interesting scene to start with, and no panel seems connected to the other panel.)

    As a side note, the Kree aren't shooting or bombing anything in that scene. They're just flying and stuff is on fire, and the Avengers are running. That's a bit weird, that could mean they've done their attack, won, and are coming in for the occupation while the Avengers flee. (You could even think they're turning up to help out!)

    - Charles RB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Charles:- Oh, I entirely agree. It's that clash of the ponderous and portentous with the silly and ill-thought through. I might have thought it was daft if it'd been a Sal Buscema/Bill Mantlo tale, but I'd have taken it for what it was. The problem is that we've reached a point where the culture of insiders regards this not just as entertainment, but good writing. I was hoping to point out that as good writing, it failed to achieve it's own ends. As I say so often, in the end, I'm convinced its the culture which shapes modern comics rather than JH or any of his individual colleagues.

      You're right about Dante. It does seem a touch odd that the rebels are being allowed to congregate as they are; I assume there are still a few tactical nukes, or sci-fi nasty-Beasty weapons, in that future to take out all of them in one explosion. Yet the rebels survival is nicely put down the hubris of the big baddie, and the real interest is in Dante's escape and so on. The emotion of the piece, as well as its essential good humour, compensate for any quibbling about reality in what's essentially a heroic melodrama. I say that not to carp; I'm a big fan, as I believe you know. Yet the FF offers none of that excitement, emotion or even the intense and compact experience offered by each of ND's chapters.

      "Sense" is not one of this book's priorities, I'm afraid. And that's despite the many critics who'll tell you that this is deliciously plotted and written.

      I agree about the confusion of that scene. I was going to write about, although I wouldn't have thought to add your point :) It's odd that the heroes are all running for their live sin the first scene, while their compatriots, who are equally out in the open, are just standing as still as if nothing's happening at all. It gives the impression that the second division characters are all scared and running for the comfort of the company of the senior good guys. But then, for a while I thought the characters in the second panel were actually sitting in the quinjet which was shown flying away for no good reason. It just seemed to make sense, explaining why they'd be so still, why they weren't running too, and so on.

      Me, I'm on the Kree's side. I've always liked those Captain's outfits.

      Delete
    2. I think Charles hits it exactly. To drag in a favorite quote, James Wood wrote in How Fiction Works the following:

      "I think that novels tend to fail not when the characters are not vivid or deep enough, but when the novel in question has failed to each us how to adapt to its conventions, has failed to manage a specific hunger for its own characters, its own reality level. In such cases, our appetite is quickly disappointed, and surges wildly in excess of what we are provided, and we tend to blame the author for not giving us enough – the characters, we complain, are not alive or round or free enough. Yet, we would not dream of accusing Sebald or Woolf or Roth – none of whom is especially interested in creating character in the solid, old-fashioned nineteenth-century sense—of letting us down in this way, because they have so finely tutored us in their own conventions, their own expansive limitations, to be satisfied with just what they give us."

      Replace "novel" with "comic" and "Sebald or Woolf or Roth" with "Kirby or Gerber or Kanigher," and there ya go.

      The way the story in FF 600 tells us it should be read is at odds with what it's saying.

      Delete
    3. Hello Harvey:- That's a well-chosen and appropriate quote. Thank you. It speaks of a culture that doesn't think in any great depth about what it writes, but which takes for granted the conventions which it's used to and thinks that a little surface flash and ponderous seriousness passes as art.

      The worst thing, in many ways, is that because of that miss-match between ends and means, method and intention, I don't think Sue Richards is mischaracterized. I just think she and her fellows are idiots. Just enough poor technique to ruin the illusion, just enough serious intent to make me believe that everyone on the page is a fool. When we view those old stories, we can believe that what we're seeing is a comicbook version of events which somehow happened. Reading FF #600, I couldn't do that. I was looking at silly grown-ups in daft costumes making mistake after mistake while thinking themselves rather wonderful.

      Delete
  6. I'm glad to see I haven't been wrong to avoid Hickman's Marvel work. I thought his lauded the Nightly News was a dreadful piece of neo-anarchist fan wank and haven't been impressed by his work since. And after there wonderful use by Abnett/Lanning during their Cosmic Marvel period, I'm sad to see both the Kree Empire and I'm guessing the Inhumans (who aren't in charge anymore I guess) so woefully underwritten...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello LurkerWithout:- Whatever I say is of course nought more than my opinion, but given that, I just can't see what JH is up to. I'm often told that it reads better in collected form, but I can't see that'll make the likes of the behaviour of Sue Richards above make sense.

      I certainly wouldn't disagree with you concerning the superior take on those cultures from Abnett and Lanning.

      Delete
  7. Two pages to show who's who? Good grief, once upon a time they'd have just had little character heads running vertically down the side of page one and be done with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello B Smith;- Agreed. Or the text page could've been used to do the same. Similarly, we're told next to nothing about the locations which are shown. The whole sequence couldn't be more wasteful.

      Delete
  8. Hi Colin, sadly I'm running behind on your blog lately, but I'm glad to have a chance to see your thoughts on FF 600. I'm glad you pointed out the positive section that is the interactions between the kid characters, with the exception of ff #13 (my last issue of the Hickman run on either fantastic title) those kids have been disproportionately wonderful.

    I'd rather a certain first family be wonderful, but I'll takes what I can gets until I drop the book. Which, again, I've finally (and thankfully) done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Isaac:- Those kid characters can be charming, can't they? They can't compensate for the glacial plot, but there's still a great deal to be said for the scenes with them in. Your phrase "disproportionately wonderful" sums up my feelings too.

      It's a shame, isn't it, that the virtues of FF don't outweigh the problems? I can't believe that we're the only ones who want to be enjoying the book and yet find that they can't.

      Delete