eBay
Advertise on Eye on ComicsQuick Critiques – April 22, 2009
Posted by Don MacPherson on April 22nd, 2009
Amazing Spider-Man #592 (Marvel Comics)
by Mark Waid, Mike McKone & Andy Lanning
Best ending to a Spider-Man comic. Ever. OK, maybe I’m overstating it, but man, it was a riot. And everything about this issue seems to revolve around the more extreme, goofy elements in Spider-Man’s world. Mark Waid focuses his attention on the enmity between the title character and ex-newspaper publisher turned New York City Mayor J. Jonah Jameson. Now, I have to admit that I was much more impressed with Brian Michael Bendis’s take on the character recently in Ultimate Spider-Man, but Waid celebrates the stubbornness of the classic take on the character here. One can’t help but be entertained, especially by Spidey’s determination to aggravate his old nemesis. There’s a lot in this script that doesn’t make sense — Peter’s easy acceptance that his life didn’t seem to go off the rails after a two-month absence, for example — but the writing is so much fun, you really won’t notice or care all that much.
Mike McKone’s take on Spider-Man here has the kind of energy and enthusiasm we’ve seen in the past when artists such as John Romita Sr. and the late Mike Wieringo brought the character to life on the page. The one visual element in the book that didn’t quite work for me was the rather ordinary look of JJJ’s mayoral office; I’d expected something more opulent and official in appearance. Also disappointing is the cover art. The regular cover, by Joe Quesada, is too dark and intense in tone as compared to the lighter feel found within, and the “Wolverine Art Appreciation” variant cover has absolutely nothing to do with this story or the title character. Of course, I would imagine that’s true of all the various variant covers adorning Marvel’s titles this month. 7/10
Detective Comics #853 (DC Comics)
by Neil Gaiman, Andy Kubert & Scott Williams
Again, I have to give Andy Kubert a lot of credit for mimicking so many different visuals styles and eras of the Batman for this special two-part story. In this concluding chapter, there are moments that remind the reader of the styles of such artists as Neal Adams, Jim Aparo, Dick Sprang and so many more. At the same time, he maintains a surprisingly level of consistency throughout the entire issue.
Gaiman pulled off a nice little bit of misdirection in the first part of this story, and it was just based on who he is as a writer. An unseen female figure speaks with the Batman’s spirit throughout the story, and it was logical for the reader to assume it might be the cute goth version of Death that Gaiman created as part of the world of Sandman in the 1980s and 1990s. the female figure proves to be someone else, and her appearance and role in the story are just as logical… moreso, really. The best thing about this story is that it’s completely unconnected to “Batman R.I.P.,” Final Crisis, Blackest Night or any other DC event. Instead, Gaiman’s story is about all incarnations of the Batman and how much they differ, but it’s also about how each and every take on the Dark Knight is the same in a number of key ways, the most important of which is the drive never to give up no matter how hopeless the situation may be. Gaiman posits there’s only one possible ending for the Batman story, though the endings can vary as much as the incarnations of the character. Mind you, Gaiman’s approach to this point is surprisingly straightforward and matter of fact in tone. I would have expected something more nebulous and symbolic from this particular writer. 7/10
New Avengers #52 (Marvel Comics)
by Brian Michael Bendis, Billy Tan, Chris Bachalo, Matt Banning & Tim Townsend
The new storyline about the vacant Sorcerer Supreme position and the Hood has brought a fresh new feel to this title, one that’s fortunately not entrenched in previous or current event-driven storylines. Sure, this is labelled as a “Dark Reign” tie-in, and elements from that storyline are mentioned here. But for the most part, Bendis’s plot holds up well on its own. The script is accessible, even though there’s a lot of Marvel history coming into play here. I love the desperation, tempered with determination, that peppers Dr. Strange’s voice in this comic book. More importantly, Bendis is delivering a surprising effective look inside the character of the Hood, the most effective since writer Brian J. Vaughan first created the rogue a few years ago. The connection between the Hood and Madame Masque, only hinted at before this point, is quite convincing, and the glimpse we got here left me wanting more. Unfortunately, Bendis’s dialogue is awkward and distracting at times. It’s clear he’s aiming for a genuine tone with the repetitive bits, and sometimes, it works. This isn’t one of those times. The long, tedious debate that finally leads to Doc Strange accepting the Avengers’ help just didn’t ring true.
Once again, there’s a split approach with the art, and it works in this context. The mystical battle sequences are illustrated by Chris Bachalo, who delivers some of his strongest work in recent memory. Of course, the strength of Bachalo’s work here simply emphasizes the comparative weakness of Billy Tan’s art, which serves to bring the Avengers scenes to life. Those scenes are so conversational, and the dominant tone is meant to be one of reassurance, of friendship. Tan’s style just isn’t suited to conveying softer moments. 6/10
April 24th, 2009 at 1:29 am
It’s a bit strange to compliment Bendis on his handling of Dr. Strange, when he isn’t writing Strange, or anyone else in the series, to this point, as an actual sorcerer. Bendis doesn’t have Strange invoke any deities or do anything else recognizable as sorcery. Wiccan is supposedly — ridiculously, like Wanda — self-powered, but ineffectual in any case. The Hood is powered by Dormammu, of course, which means he’s not a sorcerer in any sense. Daimon Hellstrom might be able to wield Satanic energies, but that’s not sorcery, either.
You seem to have interpreted Bachalo’s artwork as battling, when it’s actually vaguely magical visual effects and nothing more than that. Sorcery, as practiced by Dr. Strange, is tactical, spell vs. counterspell, combat, but if Bendis is at all familiar with Strange’s history in that respect, that knowledge is absent from New Avengers. Bendis seems to think that the Eye of Agamotto is self-powered. It’s not.
The characterization of the Hood seems to rely largely on the idea that Dormammu, drawn as a demon by Bachalo, could somehow fool Dr. Strange into thinking that the (retconned) Hood is possessed by a Hellish demon, which is absurd.
The whole “New Sorcerer Supreme” storyline is based on a faulty premise, since Bendis hasn’t provided any valid reason for Strange not to be the Sorcerer Supreme. The World War Hulk material was as invalid as everything else Bendis has done with Strange.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:40 am
I might as well add that retconning the Hood’s connection to demonic tools into a connection to Dormammu can break — arguably, has already broken — the character. What happens if the connection to Dormammu is severed, or just blocked? Logically, the Hood becomes just a normal human. Given that Dormammu is an extra-dimensional villain who has been defeated numerous times, such an event would be likely. The only way Bendis might have of preventing such an occurrence is to depict Dr. Strange as the only threat to the Hood, and for the Hood to become the Sorcerer Supreme, even if such a development is absurd.
As originally conceived, the Hood could have gone on indefinitely, as a minor character, but spotlighting him exposes his limitations. As much as Bendis might like to think otherwise, he needs at least some familiarity with fantasy fiction to write fantasy fiction characters well.
SRS
April 26th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
On one hand I enjoyed New Avengers. The story interested me, and it seemed that a plot that showed no signes of resolution, finally coming to a resolution. On the other hand, I was disturbed. Not by the images, or really the characterizations, but by the language used by those characters. I am neither a prude, nor an advocate of censorship. However, the time when I can pick up a copy of Avengers, give it to my kid to read, as my father did long ago, seems to be over. Looking at other titles from Marvel and D.C., I can only conclude I’m right. Sure, if I want my child to read comics I can pick up those “kid friendly” books; but why should I? Why should I give more money to the publishers so that my child can read a comic book when comic books are supposed to be family entertainment? I enjoy, with glee I might add, Preacher, The Boys, and other mature, not for kids books. But personally I don’t think there is any room for it in the Avengers. Superheroes used to get their messages across without swear words or gloryfied violence. Used to. What a sad state of affairs we’re in now.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Bendis doesn’t have Strange invoke any deities or do anything else recognizable as sorcery. Wiccan is supposedly — ridiculously, like Wanda — self-powered, but ineffectual in any case. The Hood is powered by Dormammu, of course, which means he’s not a sorcerer in any sense. Daimon Hellstrom might be able to wield Satanic energies, but that’s not sorcery, either.
I find your arguments pretty overcritical. One can argue demonic powers are supernatural, and therefore magical, and therefore sorcery. If you say invoking deities is sorcery, then why isn’t wielding Satanic energies sorcery? You’re contradicting yourself there, and Bendis clearly has Dr. Strange evoking some kind of spell, which is quite clearly sorcery to me. If Wiccan is a mutant sorcerer, like the Scarlet Witch, why is that ridiculous? I think that’s pretty cool, along with the idea that Dr. Strange would be passing the torch to him as the Sorcerer Supreme. Why bash it, its a comic book, just enjoy it. And again, if invoking a deity is sorcery in your book, why isn’t the Hood a sorcerer if he is invoking a demigod like Dormammu. If he’s channeling magical powers from a source like Dormammu, a deity in his own right, why isn’t that sorcery? You again contradict yourself.
Bachalo is an incredible talent, but you bash his work as “vaguely magical visual effects and nothing more than that.” Can you draw like him? Thought so.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:21 am
SRS says, “Bendis doesn’t have Strange invoke any deities or do anything else recognizable as sorcery. Wiccan is supposedly — ridiculously, like Wanda — self-powered, but ineffectual in any case. The Hood is powered by Dormammu, of course, which means he’s not a sorcerer in any sense. Daimon Hellstrom might be able to wield Satanic energies, but that’s not sorcery, either.”
In my humble opinion, I find your arguments way too overcritical. One can argue demonic powers are supernatural, and therefore magical, and therefore sorcery. If you say invoking deities is sorcery, then why isn’t wielding Satanic energies sorcery? You’re contradicting yourself there, and Bendis clearly has Dr. Strange evoking some kind of spell, which is quite clearly sorcery to me. If Wiccan is a mutant sorcerer, like the Scarlet Witch, why is that ridiculous? I think that’s pretty cool, along with the idea that Dr. Strange would be passing the torch to him as the Sorcerer Supreme. Why bash it, its a comic book, just enjoy it. And again, if invoking a deity is sorcery in your book, why isn’t the Hood a sorcerer if he is invoking a demigod like Dormammu. If he’s channeling magical powers from a source like Dormammu, a deity in his own right, why isn’t that sorcery? You again contradict yourself.
Bachalo is an incredible talent, but you bash his work as “vaguely magical visual effects and nothing more than that.” Can you draw like him? Thought so.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Brent-
I couldn’t agree more about the sad state of superheroes. I find it almost impossible to hand a comic book to my kids these days for them to read. In my house, I have a stack of “Dad’s Books” and “Kids Books”. Sadly, the kids books include many books from the 70′s which are both DC/Marvel superhero and Richie Rich, Hot Stuff etc.
I’m starting to accept that I will be unable to pass my love of comics to my kids, and when I stop collecting there most likely won’t be another collector to replace me.
May 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 am
Flying Tiger wrote:
In my humble opinion, I find your arguments way too overcritical. One can argue demonic powers are supernatural, and therefore magical, and therefore sorcery. If you say invoking deities is sorcery, then why isn’t wielding Satanic energies sorcery? You’re contradicting yourself there, and Bendis clearly has Dr. Strange evoking some kind of spell, which is quite clearly sorcery to me. If Wiccan is a mutant sorcerer, like the Scarlet Witch, why is that ridiculous?
Daimon Hellstrom has actually played the role of “Satan,” has his own dimension, and has a greatly reduced power level when operating outside of that dimension. That’s not spell casting or invocation, and isn’t sorcery by any definition.
Bendis doesn’t have Strange “clearly” do anything. You give the impression of not having read any stories featuring the classical Strange, much less Englehart’s or Stern’s stories.
Bendis’s Wanda doesn’t have an identifiable power source, but isn’t a magical creature herself; conceptually, she’s nothing, a failed concept, just like her supposed son, who was described so incoherently by Vision II in Young Avengers #11 that he’s a failed concept too.
Sorcery in fiction is metaphysics, theology, and philosophy, not mumbled gibberish and visual effects.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Steven wrote:
Sorcery in fiction is metaphysics, theology, and philosophy, not mumbled gibberish and visual effects.
Sure it is.
Steven, DOOD, you are taking magic in the Marvel Universe way too seriously. While fiction ought to follow a certain logic, fantastic fiction isn’t something that’s quantifiable. Yes, there should be rules, but part of the fun is when the rules are broken. One of the hooks of super-hero comics is that anything is possible. Placing artificial limits on magic and scientific super-powers flies in the face of the sense of wonder the genre can instill in the reader.