I consider myself a comic book fan slightly more on the fanatic than casual side, but I have only started reading comics three years ago (I'm much younger though than the average comic book reader). The reason I must inform the reader of this is because even though I have read many of the great classics of comic book stories I still am not familiar with every single tiny detail and fact about a character's mythology. I do not completely understand the multi universes that have been built for these characters. These universes are unforgivingly complex to a new reader who has no comic book "guru."
As far as spider-man current reading goes I had catching up to do. I read starting from Big Time but never read the conclusion (Dying Wish); I knew what happened so I skipped the last seven issues and went straight to SSM. Being a somewhat outsider to comics allowed me to appreciate the superior story more than those who literally grew up with Peter. Well, I finally went back and finished reading the Amazing Spider-man #700 by Dan Slott. Mixed opinions are obviously prevalent due to the ending, but there is no need for me to give a review on it other than to say that this is an opportunity to explore Spider-man like never before. The one problem I keep running into while reading SSM is the question of how this is actually working? I mean, the neural patterns thing, okay? I love Dan Slott's writing. He is probably the only one who can handle this tale of Spider-man, but this story brought up a nagging thought of mine. Do writers actually understand how the story they are telling works? Because if they do, they are not making it clear.
I do not expect comic books filled with superheroes and the outer space to be either scientifically accurate or grounded in reality (although that helps to connect to the characters). I do expect much from comic book writing as should anyone. They are regarded no less than television and film, but a television series actually has to make sense and for the most part explain the workings of a new concept. So, is Peter alive? Is he sharing a brain? What are the morality or soul complications? And this is not just about Superior Spider-man. How many times have you read a comic that borderlines ridiculousness because the writer can't explain what is happening. You read it and There is no concrete anything, and the reader just goes along with it. New readers can barely understand Grant Morrison whom I greatly admire, but my goodness, a reader has to really know his $#&t if he reads some of his more complex works. And what about the Green Lantern Universe? That can get so in-depth it loses the joy in reading. Writers had the power to create whatever they wanted, but there was no cap, no ground rules, no thought behind it, and now many comic books cater to a cult following. They have to understand, which in reality most of them do, that serious consideration has to go into adding something new to the universe.
I danced with excitement when I heard about DC new 52 because the promise was that it was new. It meant that writers were going to finally build a new universe, and new readers were finally invited to partake in it (Yes I'm sorry to those who "lost" their favorite characters). This promise did not become a reality. On the Marvel side of the world, I can't even read X-men right now because I'm so far behind. The stories in X-men are alluding to arcs not a year ago, not two years ago, but more than seven years ago. (Also so no one bites me, I'm not discussing independent comics right now, but I do read those as well.)
The main points I want to say is that comic books should be held to a high standard because comic books deserve that respect and so do the writers and so do the readers. It is not a standard that requires each issue to be accesible to a new reader, but a standard where new powers or phenomenon are explained and where after several years it is okay to let some things go. Comics are expensive and people definitely deserve great stories. If a publisher or a writer does not understand what they are writing or cannot explain it, they should reconsider the story.
The suspension of disbelief that readers allow comics is extremely high, and it hurts when writers take advantage of it, especially if they can't explain it why or how some events occur in their stories. Also, a hero has a database of mythology, and just jumping into a comic with a storyline from 1994 without prior information is hurtful to new readers. If this is unimportant to a publisher or to an older reader, then how can they expect a new generation of comic book readers because I know a lot of lost business because of these..issues.
What do you think? I agree I may be taking this problem too far, but isn't there truth to it?
Log in to comment