BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Is comics writing actually any good?

 
 
Sax
12:03 / 25.01.05
I've tried to get Mrs Sax interested in comics occasionally and though she's gamely flipped through a couple none have managed to keep her interest or even to elicit any praise from her.

I got to thinking about this when I accidentally caught a few minutes of Ultimate Force (for non-UK residents, this is a cheesy TV action drama based on the exploits of the SAS) the other night.

As crap as Ultimate Force is, it seems to me that the quality of writing is at least as good as, say, Millar's The Ultimates.

So a comic that is lauded as one of the best things since sliced bread is only as good as a really crap TV show?

Even the much-vaunted Bendis dialogues aren't a patch on EastEnders famous occasional two-way conversation episodes. While I'm sure many comics writers would like to have the paycheck that the Friends or Frazier writers took home, TV soap scribes probably only earn a pittance.

If there's to be a future for comics vis a vis getting a wider audience, don't they need to be written at least as well as TV shows? Or is that more than we can expect?
 
 
Benny the Ball
12:16 / 25.01.05
A lot of writing is very substandard, which is kind of what got me off of comics in the first place (and the good stuff of yesteryear, particularly Alan Moore Swamp Thing, what got me onto them). I remember when Image came about, and I was disgusted at the stuff that was coming out of there, and even now, when I flick through something that is getting good reviews, I tend to cringe.

I'm not sure if the format is limiting, or of it is a case of trying for the bigger common market (a la block-buster cinema).
 
 
sleazenation
12:17 / 25.01.05
I think people accept low standards of writing in a variety of media all too often.
I wouldn't rate The Ultimates as a particularly good comic, nor would I rate Ultimate Force, nor do I rate Desperate Housewives. All of them could do nothing but benefit from much better writing.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
14:15 / 25.01.05
Comic writing in general is much better than TV's. the ratio favors Comics because, although there are "fillers" in print media, TV is mostly made of "filler" shows to attract sponsors. sometimes something good comes out of it [lately THE SHIELD, 24, BATTLESTAR GALATICA, SOUTH PARK, THE AMAZING RACE]. but that's why there's so much crap on TV: they need to fill the grid.

and that's why Comics always lose when its writers are only influenced by TV shows and dialogue-oriented movies rather than good Books/Music/Film.
 
 
sleazenation
14:34 / 25.01.05
I'm not sure this arguement holds water - aren't ongoing series (and non-ongoing series now I think about it) to an extent also 'fillers' filling up the shelves of comics retailers (the equivilent of TV's prime time slots) and selling advertising space just as Television programs do?
I'm also confused as to what you mean when you say:

'that's why Comics always lose when its writers are only influenced by TV shows and dialogue-oriented movies rather than good Books/Music/Film.'

lose in what sense?
 
 
This Sunday
16:32 / 25.01.05
Based solely on Scott Lobdell's Northstar outing of some time back, I have to say comics writing has given me far more than probably any television program, ever. Hands down.
Besides, if you gave George Morrison, Pete Milligan, Warren Ellis, Barbara Kesel, A. Moore, Lea Hernandez, or even John Byrne their own glass teat hour... I'd tune in every day and make pirate recordings to spread throughout the globe. If the show could somehow pull together a number of random comics-writers and be called 'Fatbeards Unite!'... It's too much to dream, innit? Oh, well.

Actually, since I can't stand more than fifteen minutes at a shot, of 'Friends', thought 'Black Books' was marvelous, don't particularly care for 'Watchmen', but reread the whole span of 'Reed is dead' 'Fantastic Four' issues at least every couple years... I really can't talk, can I?

And television shied off from 'The Invisibles' because of a lack of comfortability with telepathy, yeah? Heck, movies, those wonderful everything-and-the-kitchen-sink depravities, couldn't pull of LoEG, which wasn't exactly God-on-toast, in the first.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:54 / 25.01.05
And television shied off from 'The Invisibles' because of a lack of comfortability with telepathy, yeah?

What about the Tomorrow People? And the New Champions? And, in fact, pretty much all the cult TV Morrison spent a week solid watching before writing the Invisibles in the first place?

Please explain.
 
 
Benny the Ball
17:22 / 25.01.05
Pete Milligan's Crossroads wasn't really worth watching now was it.
 
 
Mario
17:29 / 25.01.05
I'd say that comics writing can, and often is, excellent.

The problem is that SUPERHERO comics are usually crap, with hackneyed plots, consciously-hip dialogue, and character development on a moebius strip. But every time a writer is called on it, the cry goes out "Hey, it's just comics."

Look at Kevin Smith. A longtime fanboy who treats his OWN comics work as secondary to his cinema work, because agreeing to write a story is less important to him than another couple of hours of film of he and his friends making bad jokes.

And ever since, having a TV show on your resume is enough to be hyped as the second coming of Good Comics...yet, almost without exception, every single one of these screenwriters have put in work that would be thrown out at any network you care to name.

I don't think it's entirely the fault of the reader, tho. I blame the editors (especially at Marvel) who accept substandard work because they are blinded by the dollar signs. Quality of work has been eviscerated by quantity of units sold.

But if we buy crap, crap is all we're going to get. And that's something that only the readers can fix.
 
 
Simplist
17:47 / 25.01.05
I tend to think we accept such low-grade writing from comics nowadays mainly because prior to the late 80s they were usually written so much worse. Sure, we all love silver age comics, but seriously, go back and read them with fresh eyes. Great plotting, great ideas, but the actual writing was comically bad. It's only since the late 80s that the work of comic writers in general has risen to the quality level of hack genre novelists and bad tv writers—the bar was set so low in the first place by the originators of the form, and so few creators since have approached anything like a literary level of writing craft, that our standards have never really risen beyond the merely adequate.
 
 
lekvar
19:26 / 25.01.05
I'm with Mario on this one.

I have collected my share of hero comics, and Morrison and others have done amazing things with them, but the limitations of the superhero genre result in and rewards hack writing. Most examples of above-par writing I can think of off the top of my head are cases where hero comics have been infused with the DNA of other genres... Moore's Swamp Thing brought horror into the mix, Bendis' first works were noir comix, Morrison hit his stride with Doom Patrol and Invisibles (surrealism and chaos-majyk-eschaton-conspiracy theory).

The same thing happened in the Silver Age: the stories people remember and talk about had less to do with strict good-guy-vs.-bad-guy action and more on bending the traditional rules. Green Arrow and Green Lantern confront racism. Warlock's cosmic journeys. Lois Lane spends a day being black.

Barring occasional flashes of brilliance, I feel that hero comics are inbred to the point that any writer is forced to either regurgitate yesterday's story arcs with today's XTREEM players or mix in an outside influence. Identity Crisis was supposed to be a radical shake-up, but wasn't the death of a loved one Batman's central motivation? And how many times can Batman-Superman-Phoenix-Rick Jones come back from the dead? Why should a writer even bother breaking new ground, provide new character insight, if the next writer comes along and disregards it? (I'm looking at you, Byrne)

The fans and fatbeards are largely to blame for this, as much as the editors and John Byrnes of the world. See the fuss that arose when Green Lantern turned bad? HOW DARE any writer sully the Emerald Knight! When someone takes a franchise in a new direction a sea of resistance rises up to meet them.

So. Yes. I think writhing in the superhero books is predisposed towards crap. Not that it HAS to be this was, but I do believe that is the predominant state.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
20:32 / 25.01.05
I'm not sure this arguement holds water - aren't ongoing series (and non-ongoing series now I think about it) to an extent also 'fillers' filling up the shelves of comics retailers (the equivilent of TV's prime time slots) and selling advertising space just as Television programs do?

yeah, sleaze, that's why I wrote "although there are fillers in print media". =)

my [confused] point being: more often than in TV, Comics have better product, because [complete] print works don't need ads - this goes with my theory that even crap TV shows get an "important" feel when they're released in DVD.

high TV execs don't mind filling the grid with crap [that sometimes low TV execs think are good] because they need fillers, more than Comics do. the fact millions are spent in pilots that never even see the light of day is a sympton of that. it's about the format. the Comics format is closer to the Literature and Film ones and doesn't always depend on ads to be done [hence the "importance" of DVDs as objects]. TV - even cable now - is mostly an ad broadcast filled with shows that work as attention-catchers in-between. dreamer and butterfly, all that.


I'm also confused as to what you mean when you say:

'that's why Comics always lose when its writers are only influenced by TV shows and dialogue-oriented movies rather than good Books/Music/Film.'

lose in what sense?


in the sense that a lot of mainstream [and sometimes even indie] writers today think about their story as a movie or - worse - as a TV show, limited by a budget. Comics is the media with infinite budget when you think of what/how a story can be done in the paper. that "lack of imagination thing" Grant Morrison has been talking about for some time now.

there's even some Comics and Movies from which you could rub off the images [or only listen to the sound] and still get it, because they're so based in words. some look like illustrated stageplays or radio dramas [the problem I had with the movie CLOSER, for instance].

Comic books are words and pictures. they can be told with only the latter, but not with the former solely. it's not easy to use all that Comics can offer as a creative media, in terms of using words and pictures, but it's easier when you're more influenced by books than by TV, since prose requires more from your imagination.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
20:36 / 25.01.05
Please explain

Well that was GM's take on why the commissioning editor at BBC2 eventually turned down the Invisibles TV series. I think I might even have the interview to hand, god help me...

Yes, it appears that I do.

I wrote two episodes and really detailed outlines for the rest... They were brilliant... They got all the way up to this woman in the BBC high command and she just said, " No one will understand what telepathy is. " I said " Right now your biggest show is The X Files. These people look at weirder things than telepathy every week ! " And she said, " No, I don't get it. " It was ridiculous. That was it; it just died.

As I explained to George in the last letter I wrote him - first post this morning, so I dare say it's time I got to work on another - I still love him very, very much. Unlike some other people who seem all too eager to put the boot in these days, every time his name is mentioned. I mean I told him this would happen, god only knows I warned him repeatedly...

But that aside, apart from being wonderful, amazing and brilliant, The Invisibles TV show might have at least been a bit more interesting than say, the latest excitement in Holby City, or the 'Enders or The Bill - It's not just comics writers who are exactly strangers to churning out bland, formulaic crap, surely, is it ?
 
 
Haus of Mystery
22:32 / 25.01.05
I agree. Good TV writing is as rare as good comic writing. The difference between something like 'Buried'(excellent Channel 4 prison drama that failed to get a second series) and an ITV shite-fest starring anybody with Kemp as a surname is vast. Eastenders has good writers and bad writers, and the good ones are pulled out for 'special' episodes. Most of the time it's crapola that goes through the motions to keep people watching.
Surely the reason Mrs Sax is less interested in comics is because she's less familiar with the form - most people have watched TV since they were wee.
 
 
diz
04:21 / 26.01.05
i think you're on the wrong track here. you're basically asking us to judge "just the writing" as if the words on the page weren't written with the intent of being paired with pictures, and you seem to be doing the same for TV and movies.

no, of course, if you take the pictures away from Casablanca, the words don't read as well as most novels. that's OK though, because Casablanca is not a novel. the same applies to Watchmen or what-have-you.

no, the words minus the pictures don't make for very good reading, but by the same token, most chairs minus a few legs don't make for very good sitting. you're judging them by the standards of something they aren't trying to do.
 
 
Dan Fish - @Fish1k
07:16 / 26.01.05
TV and Comics both have very different styles. TV excels at delivery of dialogue, it can do it well because it has an actor delivering the speech, and can use movements and sound to keep things interesting. Comics require a stripped-down approach, or they become scripts, or illustrated novels.

So yes, TV is better at dialogue, but good comics can create the illusion of great dialogue.

Probably.
 
 
at the scarwash
08:03 / 26.01.05
Are we talking about the writing as in the dialog? Or are we including the storytelling elements that (some) comics writers utilize to make their work dance? Although there are tons of tv shows that are as good as most Marvel/DC shit published monthly, I've never seen a TV show that functions as intricately or on as many levels as the best in comics work, apart from Twin Peaks and Mr. Show. Even crap scripters for superhero rags of the lowest order routinely use metanarrative tricks cribbed from Watchmen or Flex Mentallo. And I don't see even that derivative level of sophitication on tv.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
11:45 / 26.01.05
diz, maybe I could boil what I said previously to "Comics require more from your attention/imagination, therefore is bound to require more from who's receiving the message".
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:17 / 26.01.05
I'm constantly amazed by how much bad writing of all sorts gets out into the world. People publish in books and magazines things which I would consider to be doomed to the recycle bin; films and TV shows are conceived, written, produced and shown which are so obviously, savagely awful, from plot to character to dialogue, that no amount of talented acting can save them. Comics are no different - there are good writers and bad, and good episodes and bad.

I think it can be hard to interest people in comics because they're still "for kids"; I think also we often misjudge what will win our friends over. Bendis writes very, very well, but his subject matter isn't universal and his occasional waywardness can put people off. Sax, amazing as it sounds, if she reads crime novels, you might want to try Mrs. Sax on Sin City - especially if the movie's any good. Though you may already have thought of that.

Do we accept bad writing more in comics than in TV? I don't think so. But then so much TV that I think is unwatchable is made and broadcast that I may be an unreliable witness. Of course, since comics are "for kids", and kids can be undemanding in some ways regarding fiction (though exacting in others) perhaps that's what's going on...
 
 
PatrickMM
18:40 / 30.01.05
I'd say the best of comics is better than the best of TV. Nothing on TV has come close to The Invisibles, in terms of idea density and story scope. The thing that TV has over comics is obviously movement and sound, but also it takes much more of your time, and as a result, you can get more attached to the characters. Watching Buffy, you've spent over 100 hours with these people, and there's a ton of depth in the character development, whereas in something like Preacher, you still know the characters, but not as much, becuase it takes much longer to tell the story in comics.

Both mediums have their merits, but I certainly don't think we accept a lower standard of writing in comics than TV or even films. Grant Morrison's X-Men is much, much better than the highly acclaimed X2, and The Invisibles shames The Matrix. Even outside the action genre, Sin City or 100 Bullets are up there with the best film noir movies, and Ghost World the book is just as potent as the film.
 
 
The Natural Way
20:06 / 30.01.05
Just a minute.

Bendis "very, very good"?.

No he fucking well is not.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
18:22 / 31.01.05
Bendis [or at least his work in superheroes, haven't read his indie comics] is the perfect example of what a heavy influence of talky sitcoms - or 80's Woody Allen movies - can do to a writer of a visual media. you know all those books on scriptwriting? see how they focus mainly in heavy dialogue for exposition. maybe it's an American thing, I don't know.
 
 
bio k9
19:05 / 31.01.05
Are people really holding Sin City up as an example of good writing in comic books?
 
 
PatrickMM
20:02 / 31.01.05
Sin City probably isn't good writing, as in the words, but in terms of story and storytelling it's a great comic. I'm kind of unclear whether this thread is meant to be just about the words, or whether it's meant to be the story as a whole. The story in the Sin City books is generally top notch, and the storytelling is even better, but some of the dialogue is very hokey.
 
 
bio k9
20:40 / 31.01.05
See, I would say that the art carries the entire book and that the plots and dialogue Miller writes are goofy as all hell. His visual storytelling is top notch but everything under it is severely lacking.

Other things:

writers today think about their story as a movie or - worse - as a TV show, limited by a budget. Comics is the media with infinite budget when you think of what/how a story can be done in the paper.

I don't understand the "limited by a budget" thing. Do comics need bigger special effects?

I wrote two episodes and really detailed outlines for the rest... They were brilliant... ~G.M.

Yes. Like a large-scale, shimmering holographic tapestry. See also: "And when it reaches its conclusion, somewhere down the line, I promise to reveal who runs the world, why our lives are the way they are and exactly what happens to us when we die."

Superhero comic writing seems to get a free pass from most comic readers because they have been reading comics their entire lives and don't really give a fuck if superhero comics are well written (or perhaps they have deficient critical faculties due to ignoring their scholarly pursuits in favor of spandex clad muscle men, I dunno). To me Ultimates is like Armageddon, Independence Day or Con Air - big dumb fun. And written just well enough that you don't disconnect from the story. I also think that the people reading Ultimates project the 5-10-20-whatever years they have been reading comics onto the title. We know the basic relationships between these characters and half the fun come from discovering the differences between the Marvel Universe proper and Ultimate Marvel. People that haven't been reading comics for years aren't going to get that.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:57 / 01.02.05
Bendis "very, very good"?.

No he fucking well is not.


[shrug] You say not. I say he's one of the ablest dialogue writers in comics, and the creator of some of the most interesting storylines I've seen from the other side of the pond. If you think otherwise, I'd be interested to know who you're going to hold up against him for comparison.

There's no question Bendis writes dialogue in the now-familiar, disjointed Mamet/Tarantino/West Wing style; I'd say that was an acknowledgement of the simple fact that people don't speak whole speech bubbles in real life. In comics, as in the movies, people have had a tendency to speak pure - as if each person knew exactly when the other will finish talking and doesn't mind waiting.

Sin City probably isn't good writing, as in the words, but in terms of story and storytelling it's a great comic.

That's very interesting. I wouldn't dream of separating writing from storytelling. Dialogue - for all that it's distinctive - is the last thing you want to worry about as a storyteller, because only very rarely is it going to be telling the story. Dialogue gives you character and so on, but action is going to give you the story.

you know all those books on scriptwriting? see how they focus mainly in heavy dialogue for exposition. maybe it's an American thing, I don't know.

Sheesh. That's interesting too. I would have expected them to kick you as far away from that as possible. When I was reading those things, there was one rule above others: don't talk about it, show it.
 
 
The Natural Way
16:07 / 01.02.05
But don't you find all of Bendis's dialogue sounds the same? Waffle, waffle, talk-in-brackets, waffle, shitty syntax, waffle. And all that annoying to-ing and fro-ing.... He has a really, really limited range.
 
 
The Natural Way
16:10 / 01.02.05
TBH I can't really debate this - I just really can't stand his clunky, clunky sentences. Count the number of times a character says " we, as a group" in Avengers. Urrgh. Yuck.
 
 
Haus of Mystery
16:12 / 01.02.05
Don't talk about the 'phone trick' or Gambit'll turn up here shooting his potty-mouth off.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:41 / 01.02.05
But don't you find all of Bendis's dialogue sounds the same?

I think it's consisten within books; Powers sounds like Powers and doesn't vary. That's how the characters talk. Torso is very different, as is Goldfish. Avengers I think I've read one issue of, but I'm not sure, so I can't comment.

Waffle, waffle, talk-in-brackets, waffle, shitty syntax, waffle.

Well, as I say, that's one way of rendering how people actually talk, which I like. For some comics, it's going to be superior to the straight bubble. For others (and for other people) it's going to be inappropriate.

And all that annoying to-ing and fro-ing.... He has a really, really limited range.

Not sure what you mean by to-ing and fro-ing, but I can't agree with the limited range. Even if his dialogue were one-note, however, I'd have to say again that the storylines he comes up with are as engaging and imaginative as most anything else I get sight of; to me, that's at least as important. I love style, but I can't stand it in the absence of substance. Tarantino makes me crazy, because he does all this cool dialogue and then there's nothing behind it.
 
 
broken gentleman.
01:21 / 08.02.05
i think blaming the superhero genre and it's supposed limitations for the quality of the writing produced withing it is a lot like saying that there could never be a good fantasy novel. brilliant work can be done in pretty much any medium. however, it's easy to agree that both the reader acceptance of lots of complete shit, and the history of comics as poorly written crap makes today's books look like works of art.

it all comes down to the importance of innovation. and to the sad truth that a book doesn't need to be intelligent or well written to sell, so the big two have no need to focus on the quality of the creation, or the ideas behind it.
 
 
John Octave
03:00 / 08.02.05
On the subject of Bendis, since he's been brought up, whether or not you find his plots inventive or engaging is subjective (and for me personally, Nick's thoughts about Tarantino pretty much sum up my thoughts on Bendis), but just looking at storytelling, I see a lot of problems in his style, particularly in Ultimate Spider-Man.

-Very often you'll have a three-page conversation composed of close-ups of characters' faces with one sentence of dialogue per panel. And then on another page, you'll get a panel with six or more balloons crammed together in conversation. Imbalance.
-Sometimes there'll be a splash panel of Spider-Man swinging through the city or Peter doing his homework or something, with a big seperate block of text alongside it as an inner monologue. (See whatever recent issue it was where he meets the Ultimates and fights Deathlok.) Seperating the art and dialogue like that kind of misses the point of sequential art comics, doesn't it?
-I can think of at least two instances in Ultimate Spider-Man where you have a panel that says "X MONTHS LATER" (the Carnage arc, for one) and those X number of months will be completely lost to us, and in that time apparently nothing has been resolved or newly brought up.
-Do parentheses really work in dialogue? I never know quite how to read them and they just serve to distract.
-Despite his reputation for having a keen ear for dialogue, he abstains from using contractions at an alarming rate. How often do you actually say "They are"?

Anyway, I know it's fashionable to take potshots at Bendis now, and I hope this isn't threadrot, but I really do think there are examples of simply bad storytelling in his comics that the editors just seem to let go by because he is Brian Michael Bendis.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:26 / 08.02.05
That's an interesting last point. I think it may have a great deal to say about serial writing in general rather than Bendis in particular. Charles Dickens and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle both wrote exceptional stories much of the time, but also turned in turkeys, and sometimes contradictions within stories. The business of writing regularly to a deadline produces this kind of thing, and editors ultimately are responsible for getting something on the shelves as well as for getting the perfect version on the shelves. Similarly with soaps - there are episodes, even episodes by good writers, which are utterly appalling - because anyone can have an off day. Now, if you want to talk about occasional off issues, my personal favourite is GM himself, whose remarkable reach can really exceed his grasp from time to time - which is as it should be.

Bendis's most notorious piece of writing is the 'Dawn of Time' episode of Powers. For anyone who hasn't read it, it has no dialogue and features naked ape sex with, um, full illustrations. I think it's daft - but not because it's got naked ape sex. It's daft because, now that I've seen the scripts, I know that I had no fucking idea what was going on. But it was a brave thing to do. For some people, it was revelatory. In that respect, perhaps, it compares with the silent Buffy episode 'Hush', which supposedly was written to make the point that Buffy was not all fancy dialogue, and which is to me one of the most interesting (and certainly the creepiest) episode of the show.

To answer the original question, I think that in both TV and comics we frequently live with a tragically low standard of writing; I think in TV and film in the UK particularly, we've stopped taking chances at the same time as refusing to do what we do well. Typically, because I'm a writer, I tend to blame reality TV for much of that and Hugh Grant for the rest, but in fact I think there's much more to it than that. But I can't understand, at root, how it is that we let the stars of the UK comic scene end up writing for comics when they could have been creating their own series to replace Dr. Who, B7, and Quatermass - not that comics is a lesser medium, just that TV should have been chasing these guys down and begging for them instead of giving them a hard time. I can't believe that Mike Marshall Smith had such a lousy time with script writing that he swore off. Do we accept a lower standard of writing from comics than from TV? I don't think so. Do we accept a lower standard of writing than we should in both media? Absolutely.
 
  
Add Your Reply