tupiaz's forum posts

#1 Edited by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

#2 Posted by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

That fact doesn't really establish anything useful to this conversation though. It's just a really long and roundabout way of saying "water is wet."

My point is that it isn't really relevant to talk about the bronze age when the discussion has been about a light/silver age DD.

@tupiaz said:

Yes English is a second language.

I'm glad I wasn't just imagining that!

@tupiaz said:

Doesn't really change the fact you there is a difference between the silver age and bronze age and the tone therefore would be different.

That fact doesn't really establish anything useful to this conversation though. It's just a really long and roundabout way of saying "water is wet."

@tupiaz said:

To clarify I do see a difference between a comic being dark and pulp noir. Millers run is much lighter in tone than both Bendis's and Brubaker's e.g. Turk was often used for comic relief doing Miller's run general that sort of lightness is gone.

It's a frequent misapprehension that "dark" equals "humorless."

I didn't say humourless I said lighter and used Turk as comic relief. Dark stories can have humour however it will often be satire /black humour.

That isn't so, and you've misunderstood the point of my long rant about "pulp noir." My point--and I don't see it as one that is at all controversial--was that it was both the tone that best fit with the Daredevil concept and the tone that gave the book its unique voice--the thing that finally helped it break out of the poor man's Spider-Man mode and come into its own. That's derived from a logical examination of the concept and an historical examination of the book. Daredevil is, in any form, a romantic fantasy, the thing you label a "swashbuckler." That's not, as you seem to think, some thing separate and apart from the rest of this. The problem is that you seem to want to associate terminal lightheartedness, silliness, etc. with that word "swashbuckler," when, in reality, these are things that have no inherent connection to it. Admittedly, this is a fairly common shorthand people use, a consequence of pop-culture depictions of Captain Blood, Zorro, Robin Hood, etc., but we're not writing in shorthand here and the distinction, for our purposes, is fairly significant. You don't have to talk about how Daredevil works as a "swashbuckler"; he's always a "swashbuckler."

My point is which you still haven't got is whatever or not DD got a new and unique voice when he was done as pulp noir doesn't change the fact that the stories could work when his is lighter. You haven't really talk that much in detail how DD was a poor mans Spider-man that is something you have just estbalished was there. You have just established that there wasn't a differen't take on DD than Spider-man which I have then tired to show by the Mike Murdock subplot as example. If you don't want to use a shorthand then why do you use the poor man Spider-man analogy it is as shorthanded and used as the Swashbuckler. The thing is that many writers have tried to give Daredevil a unique flavour. If we go further ahead in time he under Steve Gerber got a pulp Sci-fi flavour and under Roger McKenzie he got a more horror flavour to it with Death-stalker. Not necessarily the same themes there was used with Spider-man. Who has more fought against animalistic enemies (Vulture, Scorpion, Lizard, Kangaroo, Grizzly, Gibbon among others) often created with some technology or by accident. Spider-man's subplot was flavoured back then that he was studying.

As I said before if you wanna look if DD works as a light character you need to look at the light periods and see if they work or not. Just because 5 plus 2 equals 7 doesn't mean 4 plus 3 won't. Therefore analysing the crime noir wont help analysing the light DD. For the record no I don't consider either Gerber noir Mckenzie as a light DD.

But Matt, who created Daredevil to avenge his father, didn't bury Daredevil after bringing justice to his father's killer. He continued his war on crime and corruption. Taking out the Fixer isn't an ending to what happened with his father; it's a beginning. To note the obvious, if he thinks he's put his father's soul to rest and that he's then free to "enjoy his life," dedicating that life to an endless, unwinnable war against crime that makes him a criminal and puts he and everyone around him in constant danger is not how to go about it. That sort of war is a serious business with serious consequences and serious casualties, and it's not something to approach flippantly.

One can, of course, write stories in which they're handled flippantly--Marvel published such stories in the pages of Daredevil for years--but those are, as I said a few posts ago, stories without depth featuring a "character" that is really nothing more than an empty archetype without depth (unless Matt is just shown as some crazed, reckless adrenaline junky without a great deal of concern for those around him, and he never has been).

No, he didn't stopped because as I said he now has the opportunity to do what he wasn't allowed to when he was a kid. Daredevil is out fighting other kids in the school yard. DD even at times reflect that he father wouldn't approve what he did and was using his fits. He then goes out and do it anyway. He is rebelling about having had a sheltered upbringing and there is one of the reason he is DD. DD is not only about getting justice it is also something that he likes and feels is important.

Matt choose to stay dead for long period of time without saying anything to either Karen or Foggy. Clearly here it was more important to be Daredevil than Matt Murdock and help his friends. Matt has time and time like so many other heroes put DD first and then his friends. How many times have Foggy been left alone to deal with a case in court?

In DD vol 1 issue 246 on page 22 Daredevil thinks: "Fight. Come back and fight. I need somebody to blame for this mess Nigel's life has become. I need some tabgible focus point for my frustration...a bad guy...". Given this is not the silver age but DD has on several occasions been a guy that has enjoyed what he did as DD.

Don't make Waid's mistake of being a literalist and so strongly associating goofiness with the DNA of the Silver Age. That does the period a grave disservice. If you ask comic aficionados who had the best Fantastic Four run of all time, all of them, to this day, will immediately and without hesitation say Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. The best Thor: Lee and Kirby. The best Spider-Man: Lee/Ditko (though a few will sometimes say Lee/Romita, of the same era). This wasn't an era that only produced lightweight, disposable trash; its best material was as far removed from that as it's possible to get--some of the best material comics have ever seen.

Ask them who was the best Daredevil writer, though, and Miller will top nearly every list, usually followed closely by Bendis (with some reversing that order). More importantly for our discussion, none of them--not one--will pick Stan Lee. Ask them the greatest Daredevil story of all time, none of Stan's stories will be chosen. Make it more general and ask about the greatest Marvel stories or the greatest Silver Age stories or the greatest Marvel Silver Age stories--it doesn't matter how you slice it, nothing from the Daredevil of that era would be chosen. Daredevil, in those days, simply hadn't found its voice and after it became the poor man's Spider-Man couldn't even remotely hold up to its contemporaries.

The "problem," in short, has nothing to do with my view of the Silver Age.

Is Lee/Kirby's run good? Yeah I know some who would prefer Byrne's run. However he did look back on what work and didn't rewrap the character. Thor I more connect with Walter Simonson than anybody else who did take Thor in a new direction. Besides comparring anything to what Kirby has done isn't that fair since the Marvel method made use for the artist to make the plots as well I consider his stories more a creation he made than Stan Lee made. Stan Lee made the frame. If Kirby had worked on Daredevil I'm pretty sure we would had a different DD back then.

My point wasn't whatever the silver age needed to be goofy it was whatever or not if many silver age comics was goofy and there where. The comic code have done that it needed to be light and the comics was aimed at kids so there wasn't that many serious stories at the times. Especially Stan made the comics goofy with al the comments that had nothing to do with the story in it self. Those need to be somehow taken out of the story it self. I didn't say nor will I say that Miller hasn't been of if not the greatest DD writers. I'm not trying to neglect Millers change for the DD mythos. Never have I said nor will I say that Daredevil has some of the best stories in the Silver age why would I? That doesn't change that he made sense as a character and had his own flavour. There is a difference between having a unique flavour and being good.

You didn't comment on MU's legal system?

#3 Posted by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

@wardishy said:

Never read anything by J.M. DeMatteis nor did I read the Phantom Stranger or Pandora ongoings, but I'm willing to give this a shot for my guy Vic if nothing else.

What's DeMatteis' track record like?

He made Kraven's Last Hunt which is the Spider-man story. I have heard good things about his Spectre as well.

#4 Posted by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

@jriddle73: Yes English is a second language. The person `Greiber` you never heard of was meant to be Steve Gerber, my mistake. Doesn't really change the fact you there is a difference between the silver age and bronze age and the tone therefore would be different.

I know why you wrote about pulp noir. If I'm not mistaken then @daredevil21134: asked for your thoughts about a light DD because I had just stated that DD didn't needed to be dark. To clarify I do see a difference between a comic being dark and pulp noir. Millers run is much lighter in tone than both Bendis's and Brubaker's e.g. Turk was often used for comic relief doing Miller's run general that sort of lightness is gone. But again this is hardly relevant for our discussion.

You have in longer detail explain what the noir does for DD as a character (and here I agree) than what the swashbuckler mythos has done/does for Daredevil. So if you look at DD when he is noir and see he works as a character, you will of cause come up with the answer 'Daredevil works when he is noir'. However this does not exclude him from working as a character when he is a swashbuckler. You haven't look at DD from this angel. You have just stated a few statement about Stan Lee is goffy and everything is goofy. That is how the comics was in the silver, it doesn't say anything about whatever DD works as a swashbuckler character or not. To answer the question if DD works as a swashbuckler you have to see him from this aspect and make your analysis from here. You have to view the problem from a different angel. Which is what I have done and tried to show to you form the beginning.

The reason why I have stated that Stan Lee's DD psychological make sense is simply to prove/show/argument that DD could be a light character and there could be a rational expiation. This would prove that DD don't need to be dark nor pulp noir. Yes, I'm aware the psychological thoughts wasn't shown directly in the comics because they are very simplistic you therefore have to look a little deeper. Matt is at the end of vol. 1 issue 1 hoping that Jack has now gotten a little more peace. This proves that Matt to a certain degree has put Jack to rest and Matt can now enjoy his life. Matt has giving his father justice and fulfilled his wishes that Matt should become a lawyer. You have in your post stated that Stan Lee didn't do much for the DD mytos. I have then shown that he brought in several part of the DD mythos there is still relevant to this day. I still haven't read any stories from that period that dealt with having a fake identity and being outed for so long. Is it goofy? Yes, it is the silver age for crying out loud. Your problem seems more to be the silver age goofiness than DD being light which is two separated things.

Regarded MU's legal system then put your prejudices a side and let me talk for my self would you? Of cause the police would stop DD if he smashed in an old lady's head it would be violence and not vigilantism. Vigilantism is for the most part to use the needed violence (if any it could also just be treats) to stop a given problem. Vigilantism is not to beat people up for fun even though that Daredevil has shown this lust before (for instance issue 246). Punisher is a person who has a lot of troubles because he kills people and use more force than needed. Daredevil would under no circumstance need to use that force to stop an old lady. Using an old lady is cheap trick since that would be seen as one of the weakest persons in the society and as not guilty. But do explain why Daredevil could defend him self in court as DD without giving up his identity if it has the same legal system as us. The legal system in MU is not clearly defined for us the reader and can there for change from writer to writer for the purpose of the story.

@jriddle73: I agree with 100% of your points you been making.It's no mistake why you've been receiving praise here

Have you read any of the silver age comics?

#5 Posted by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

@jriddle73 said:

And I'm talking about the evolution of the character over time, in a thread explicitly devoted to critiquing Waid's work on Daredevil, one of the most prominent components of which is his radical devolution of the character back to his own twisted, literalist version of the Silver Age.

As I said, a major problem communicating.

The whole discussion started because you where asked if a light Daredevil story could be a Daredevil story. It there had nothing to do with Waid. Doing your statement about noir and against the light DD you mentioned Waid's name twice (I have just reread the story) both in the end when concluding what you wrote. It wasn't in the analyse here you used Stan and Greiber among others. What you wrote about Noir did come across as a general argument for noir and against a general light story and not specific against Waid . Hence your comment "The answer to the original question is that, theoretically, Daredevil doesn't have to be "pulp noir" in tone to be great, but it probably has to be "pulp noir" in tone to be great Daredevil."

"When it comes to the 'swashbuckling' business, characters like Daredevil are, by their very nature, a romantic fantasy, the masked hero who, defying all the odds, swoops in at the last minute and saves the day. "

As I points you there is a psychological reason for Matt to doing hence become more that just a romantic fantasy.

"The silver age Daredevil swashbuckler mythos is pretty simple. Matt has now redeemed his dad by dealing with Fixer and Matt got an education that Jack wanted Matt to get. Matt can know play/fight with the other kids which he wasn't allowed to as a kid. So the Swashbuckler DD is a pretty logical reaction for Matt. Yes he has been trained by Stick and yes Elektra as left him but at this point his life hasn't turned as miserable as it does later on. Matt is doing what he wasn't allowed to do as a kid and try to enjoy life. It make sense for him to be a swashbuckler."

Actually, what I've written is that Stan, having created the character, clearly had no idea where to go with him. As a consequence, the book was, through most of its first 14 or so years, without a soul. Qtmxd and I have also been discussing this over in the "Official Daredevil Discussion Thread." He notes that DD was a much more serious character in his earliest stories, only became the "grinning fool" when Johnny Romita was doing the art chores on the book and only became the full-blown jokester during the Gene Colan era. A bit of a simplification but basically correct, and a consequence of the book's lack of a soul. DD ended up the poor man's Spider-Man because no one writing the book had any sort of unique vision for him. Stan was just goofing off. That's not some argument that "nothing big happened to the DD mythos during Stan's run"; it's just a recitation of the character's history. Your earlier assertion was that the Mike Murdock subplot was groundbreaking in terms of it being a continuing storyline; I demonstrated that wasn't the case. And in any event (as qtmxd has also noted), Mike Murdock isn't even a storyline, it was just a bad running joke that was kept around too long, run into the ground, broken off, then ended. The sort of thing that was just being used to take up space because no one knew what to do with the book.

Not knowing where to go can be said about a lot of fictional characters and especially comics characters. Batman killed and used a gun in his early stories. Superman's power was not complete define in the beginning. Kryptonite, Jimmy Olesen among other classic superman mythos was introduced doing his first radio show in 1940. In the beginning it was speedy not Green Arrow who was on an island. Characters involve over time.

My point is DD being outed and making a fake identity you might find goofy but that is not really the point. Many stories in the silver age was goofy and Stan especially goofed off. That was his way of doing things. You have yet to prove that there was a so convoluted and long running subplot or a subplot with that theme going on at the time. Which has been my point to begin with.

You state that the series is without a soul and thereby having is own thing going. Well, when DD is the only character being outed and making a fake identity then it has something special. You may find it goofy and weird. However when such to rather distinct part of DD mythos is already created in the beginning then it defines the character. To my knowledge DD is by far the character that has been outed most times doing his career. He has also on multiple times made a fake identities and dealt with this in psychological terms (for instance doing. J.M. DeMatteis run). Those part of the mythos have later on be used in a more serious manner than in the silver age. However this can be said about almost every comic character doing the silver. Again you can expect deep stories in the silver age.

No, I haven't. Not anywhere at any time. I made a case for the tone that, in general, best suits the material (a case the book, for more than three decades, made for me--I'm just the one pointing it out). Nothing about it rules out "a light story."

Those two statements for me contradict each other. Feel free to clarify.

If you're merely going to retreat to the argument that the correct answer is unknowable, why bother raising it as a topic of discussion at all? Everyone would have to confess the MU is a clunky, problematic critter, fraught with problems, but it has worked as a general framework, problems and all, for decades. It's a grand experiment. The One Big Story. Earth in the MU has always been intended as a close mirror of our own--that's, in fact, one of the things that made it so revolutionary in the first place--and its progress over the decades has been more and more in that direction. And that's the right direction; if it goes too badly off the rails, the kind of intelligent, mature stories in which Daredevil features don't work anymore. Matt can continue to practice law after fessing up about being Daredevil because... well, because he just can. Why worry over such things and spoil all the "fun"? The answer--which shouldn't have to be so overtly stated--is "Because that ain't fun." If you have a universe intended to mirror our own but that is very suddenly so divorced from our own that a guy can, for decades, put on a mask, stalk suspected criminals and commit assault and battery upon them then, upon exposure, face no consequences, you have a world that is suddenly very divorced from our own, and you'd better have a damn good in-story excuse for it, not one that merely says, "well, it's a fantasy universe so why make a fuss?" Reducing everything to the arbitrary whim of the writer saps the meaning from anything we're shown; "stories" became little more than a series of random events. Not good.

I'm not retreating my argument I'm saying that the MU legal system is not like ours and it is a lot more loose and depends on the writer. Hence Why I mentioned Bob Gale's story. You where the one who complaint about Waid moving DD to SF so he could practrice law. Now he can do it again just like you want him to do? Yes, MU is a close mirror of our world (they live in real cities and not fictional ones) but it is not the same. I wasn't talking about which made the better story. I was talking about whatever or not the MU had a loose legal system when it comes to vigilantes which they do. When the stories demands it the legal system will be tough on vigilantes when it needs to be soft on vigilantes it is soft. You may claim the stories is better when the legal system is hard on vigilantes I never said that wasn't the case. I said that being soft on vigilantes did happened before Waid and it will happen again. Whatever you like it or not will be a question of taste. Bottom line is that MU don't have our legal system when it comes to vigilantes it depends on the writer.

#6 Posted by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

Actually, I addressed that above and at some length. Your "reply" to it just didn't acknowledge it.

As I said earlier, we seem to be having some major communication problem. Among other things, your point on this matter isn't at all clear. The fact that the Marv Wolfman story in question (from DD #127) happened post-Stan, for example, was precisely my point, and makes my point about DD's activities becoming an increasingly serious business, and not one where a great deal of levity is necessarily appropriate.

Marv Wolfman is a bronze age comics writer. The bronze age has a more serious tone and dealt with social issues. I want to talk about the silver age Daredevil mythos.

I have a hard time understanding where I am not clear? It feels like that In stead of answering the points in my earlier comment your now divert the discussion from the actual discussion and making about me not acknowledge your points and that we have a communication problem. If I don't agree with your points entirely then I will of cause make arguments against them, that is how a discussion works. Feel free to argument against my points.

I will now try to clarify the discussion. You have earlier stated that nothing big happened for the DD mythos doing Stan's run. I have stated two points how Stan influenced the DD mythos.

I have yet to see an early silver age subplot so convoluted like the Mike Murdock subplot spanning almost 1 1/2 years (the stories you listed before aren't as long and are centred about the well know hero versus hero fight). DD's outing is to my knowledge on of the first and longest outing stories when it was released. Therefore it is a rater new subject in comics. However it is not so relevant how revolutionising the Mike Murdock subplot is. The central point is the outing and the creation of Mike Murdock creates two parts of the DD mythos (a fake identity and being outed) which has been used later on being and is a rather big part of the mythos for DD.

If Stan did nothing for the DD mythos who did he created the fake identity and the outing mythos?

You also stated that a light story couldn't work as a DD story.

The silver age Daredevil swashbuckler mythos is pretty simple. Matt has now redeemed his dad by dealing with Fixer and Matt got an education that Jack wanted Matt to get. Matt can know play/fight with the other kids which he wasn't allowed to as a kid. So the Swashbuckler DD is a pretty logical reaction for Matt. Yes he has been trained by Stick and yes Elektra as left him but at this point his life hasn't turned as miserable as it does later on. Matt is doing what he wasn't allowed to do as a kid and try to enjoy life. It make sense for him to be a swashbuckler.

How those this not work for a DD story? I'm not trying to force you to like neither Stan Lee's work nor the silver age. I'm simply trying to have a discussion about the silver age comics and who it effected the DD mythos.

The MU, however, is largely designed as a mirror of our own world, and even if you want to set aside general and subsidiary laws regarding vigilantism, Matt is a fellow who puts on a mask and, operating entirely outside the law, commits assault and battery on criminal suspects on pretty much a daily basis. He metes out instant punishment and he practically never even reports these incidents, even when they result in deaths (the list of the latter alone would stretch into infinity).

As for the reaction of cops, I go back to that great conversation between the lawmen during Bendis' run, the rookie cop who soon gives DD some trouble vs. the seasoned vet who recognizes DD's value. There's no question where the law fell--when they came upon a masked man pounding a fellow to a pulp, the rookie had that right. He had the letter of the law, but the older cop knew the score. And before he left the scene, DD threatened to fuck up the younger cop if he ever again fired a weapon in public in so careless a way.

The system doesn't reflect our system even though it is closer to ours than DC's legal system. The MU legal system is not like ours. The story Bob Gale wrote starting with vol. 2 issue 20 Daredevil is being sued. Because it is Daredevil there is being sued he can defend him self as Daredevil in court. This could never happen in our legal system. The legal system change from writer to writer and MU doesn't have a definitive legal system. The critic is a critic of the editor since it is the editor's job to keep these events in line with the universe not a writers job.

#7 Posted by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

@king1_icon: You do know that profanity sucks, right?

#8 Posted by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz: I don't know... I guess I just didn't happen to come across much. That, and the fact that I haven't been very interested in Buddy's comics much until recently.

Ok. It has just been praised very much I thought everybody have heard about it.

#9 Edited by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:

@jriddle73 said:

Mike Murdock definitely wasn't "way ahead of its time" insofar as serialized, multi-part stories were concerned. Marvel, which did innovate such storytelling, had been doing it for some time by that point. Mike Murdock was exceptionally stupid, and a result of Stan just using the book to goof off.

The Galactus trilogy was less than a year old. This was certianly new in comics to have a comic doing a story like that. I have yet to see a so convoluted subplot in any silver age comic. Feel free to name any. You think it is stupid but you don't really back it up with anything. Was it weird/goofy/crazy? Yes, but it was the silver age so what do you expect?

By the time Mike Murdock came along, Daredevil was entirely directionless, and that entire awful subplot was just another example of it. That kind of goofing off is basically all Stan was doing with the book, often even mocking his own plots. As for continuing stories--the original issue here--all the Marvel characters (including Daredevil) had ongoing subplots right from the beginning. Marvel had introduced full-blown multi-part tales--not just subplots--years before Mike Murdock. The (godawful) Avengers/Masters of Evil war--itself an outgrowth of the books featuring the individual Avengers characters--began with Avengers #6 (July 1964) and went on for a year (before becoming more sporadic). Spider-Man's first multi-part epic began with issue #17 (Oct. 1964). Both Thor and the Fantastic Four were being tightly serialized long before that, with one issue leading directly into the next with no let-up. The FF had gone full-on serial from FF #38 (May 1965) forward--well before the first Galactus tale. Mike Murdock only limped into existence in DD #25 (Feb. 1967). Way too late to the party to be considered an innovation.

That was how silver age and Marvel comics was made backthen. The silver age was for kids. The first really big ongoing stories (Galactus triology) was released less than a year before Mike Murdock. Ongoing stories was still a relative new ting. Even though Mike first appeared in DD 25 it started with the Spider-man story in DD 16 (a two parter I may add). Heck the Doctor van Eyck story started in 9 and went on to ten. There has been a lot of smaller subplots around. I haven't seen one with that complexity in I didn't say Marvel didn't made subplot for the beginning I said I haven't seen one that was so convoluted at the time. Not in Spider-man (you mean a sick Aunt May, hardly convoluted at all?), not in FF (the story with Ben leaving FF and fighting against is no more convoluted than a hero versus hero fight. However it did go on for a while and lasted until 44) not in Avengers (the Zemo fight ended the next issue) I havenn't seen it anywhere. Mike Murdock went on from issue 25 to issue 41. That is more than a year even longer if you go back to the Spider-man story. Besides it was also the point that started two very typical DD mythos/stories one being Matt being outed as Daredevil (which has happened to DD so many times I don't even know who many times) and Making up a fake identity.

He wouldn't be allowed to practice law anywhere after all the shenanigans he's pulled in court related to his Daredevil identity--he would, in fact, be in jail, not just for that particular criminal activity but for his entire vigilante career. He's able to simply move out of state and start over because the world Waid is writing is--just as I said--ridiculous, superficial and without depth.
The final word on DD's "playing" was delivered decades ago by Marv Wolfman in that story I mentioned in which his "playing" with the Torpedo--knocking around one another while wisecracking back and forth--destroyed a family's home. That doesn't mean he can't enjoy being Daredevil, and it certainly doesn't mean vigorous romantic flourishes are off the table, but it does mean the writing should feature a heightened awareness of the typically very high stakes involved in his activities--high enough that those sort of Spider-Man-modeled antics aren't usually appropriate. When DD fails, people die. But all of that presupposes a world that in some way resembles the world of Daredevil, and Waid has taken that away.

Again it wasn't the plot to dicuss if Mark Waid's run is good or not but whatever Matt being a swashbuckler is part of the mythos. DD playing and enjoy being DD is seen before Marv Wolfman it was established with Stan Lee. Which you have still to make any arguments against. I didn't say he didn't enjoy being DD when he is Noir. DD has proven on many occasions that DD is a more important life for him than his Matt Murdock life is. I will say that it is not guaranteed that Matt will go to jail just because he is DD. The laws of vigilantism has never been stated that clear (neither in DC nor in Marvel - however Marvel has a more skeptic feel to it). Many times police officers are seen doing nothing against vigilantes.

#10 Posted by tupiaz (2166 posts) - - Show Bio

Mike Murdock definitely wasn't "way ahead of its time" insofar as serialized, multi-part stories were concerned. Marvel, which did innovate such storytelling, had been doing it for some time by that point. Mike Murdock was exceptionally stupid, and a result of Stan just using the book to goof off.

The Galactus trilogy was less than a year old. This was certianly new in comics to have a comic doing a story like that. I have yet to see a so convoluted subplot in any silver age comic. Feel free to name any. You think it is stupid but you don't really back it up with anything. Was it weird/goofy/crazy? Yes, but it was the silver age so what do you expect?

When it comes to the "swashbuckling" business, characters like Daredevil are, by their very nature, a romantic fantasy, the masked hero who, defying all the odds, swoops in at the last minute and saves the day. In the context of Waid's DD, this unfortunately becomes entangled in a lot of other issues, and this is often intentional (it's certainly intentionally done by Waid when he talks about his DD work). To untangle the thicket, then, there's absolutely nothing about the romantic hero that demands or requires Waid's constant silliness, nor does it demand or require his oppressive lightheartedness--in its DNA, it's only "lighthearted" insofar as any romantic fantasy tends to be considered a fancy. Waid does seem to consider the whole thing a fancy, and his notion of the romantic hero, entangled in everything I've just tried to straighten, is the romantic hero merely for its own sake, using the archetype as an end rather than taking it as a given. This isn't uncommon in literature, and it's why such characters are commonly--and, in most cases, correctly--regarded as merely a fancy. When, like Waid, one works from the archetype and makes no real effort to conceptualize a person beyond it, the resulting character is superficial and without depth, and to allow it to live, Waid has placed it in a world that is, likewise, superficial and without depth. A world in which, among other things, the story of Daredevil as it existed prior to Waid can mostly just be ignored; a world in which Matt can fess up about being DD then just move to California and start over with no real repercussions.

Now I haven't read the latest issue of Waid's run but the SF story is clearly homeage to the character has been there before when he was with Black widow. The reason for him to be in SF is to do law since he can't practice in New York. It seems like a natural thing to do if you want to work in your profession. The way I see the Silver age comics is that Matt is finally aloud to play. He wasn't aloud to play for his father as a kid. He has revenged his dad by dealing with the Fixer and he has a successful job. Therefor he now has the right to go out and play and he enjoys it. Whatever Mark Waid is doing it correct or not is not the point but whatever the Daredevil as a swashbuckler is a part of his mythos or not.