When Noah asked me if I would contribute to Hooded Utilitarian’s Anniversary of Hate, I didn’t have too much difficulty coming up with a list of personal candidates. Despite my normal preference for setting aside entertainment I’m not enjoying on the grounds that life’s just too short, over the years, I’ve still managed to amass an artistic shitlist — a list of things I hate so much I’m still angry I read them. So I ran through the list, and thought about writing about how John Ney Rieber’s using The Books of Magic as some kind of writing therapy for his intense self-loathing destroyed one of the most refreshing new characters Neil Gaiman had created for DC. Or about how the increasingly unsubtle and didactic right-wing politics of Bill Willingham in Fables is almost a case study in how not to integrate your personal politics into your work. Man-oh-man, was I ever tempted to pull out my copy of The Best American Comics 2006, and eviscerate a particularly horrible anti-Muslim short story that offended me so much when I read it that I actually gave in to the desire to hurl the book at the wall. (I wanted to pull it out and look up the title of the story, but I recently moved, and it’s in a box. I think. It might be in Massachusetts. I really have no way of knowing.)
But in the end, I decided to go with an old un-favorite, J. Michael Straczynski’s weirdly personal opus Midnight Nation. Midnight Nation is a twelve-issue limited series that I read a few years ago in hardback, about David, a cynical cop with a heart of blah blah, whose investigation into a gory murder is curtailed when his soul is unexpectedly ripped out by ghoulish monsters. He wakes up and walks right out of his body, essentially a ghost–a soulless ghost; what precisely David is, when he is neither body nor soul, is never discussed–and spends the next year walking cross-country with a mysterious, cranky, half-naked guide named Laurel, trying to reclaim his soul before he himself turns into one of the monsters that removed it in the first place.
Why did I say weirdly personal? The hardback edition I originally read a few years ago was accompanied by an essay penned by Straczynski (which, alas, I have not been able to put my hands on again to refresh my memory), relating a terrifying experience in his youth that he claimed was the direct inspiration for the series. He was walking along a beach one night, and had some kind of near-miss with a gang of violent thugs that apparently opened up to him all the deep secrets of the universe and the perilous balance of humanity.
It does sound a titch traumatic. But the work this encounter supposedly inspired features long speeches about the wretchedness of the human experience manifest in, among many other things:
1) People who talk in theaters
2) Christopher Reeve being confined to a wheelchair
3) Permissible counts of rat droppings in hot dogs
4) War
I’m open to the possibility that the ironic juxtaposition of petty annoyances and profound evils was meant to be witty, but it didn’t read that way. It read stupid; a list of pet peeves someone tried to elevate into profundity. Here are the revelations that come on the heels of a death narrowly dodged: people talking in the theater are just the worst. It’s so sad when bad things happen to people we like. War. What is it good for? Nothing.
I’m tempted just to list all the absurd little details of the speechifying, but I really should mention the terrible art, since it goes a long way towards making the book as bad as it is. The art is terrible! I don’t know what went wrong–I liked Gary Frank, the penciler, just fine when he worked on the 1990s Supergirl title (that’d be one with a heavy emphasis on Linda Danvers and angels), and he’s a competent artist, but his work on Midnight Nation is characterized by dead-eyed stares, stiff bodies and faces, and character designs that alternate between boring, exploitative, or flat-out stupid-looking. (I’ve never been able to figure out why Laurel spends the first few issues wandering around in an exercise bra, low-rise jeans, and a thong. ((SPOILERS: the best theory I’ve ever come up with is that it’s supposed to be an inversion of angel iconography, an angel being what Laurel is eventually revealed as. But if you can’t manage to undercut religious iconography without making your main character look like a refugee from Victoria’s Secret–well, bite me.)) Or why David’s ghoulish attackers, the Walkers, are green and bald with black tattoos, and wear crazy cultist robes–a colorful aesthetic jarringly out of place with the everyday look of the rest of the book.) Could it have been the inker? The colorist? Maybe Gary Frank had a bad cold that year. Maybe he phoned it in because he hated the script. (Probably not. But I wouldn’t blame him.)
(I tried to describe this comic to my sister, and she said, “I think I’m getting a feel for it– the sort of 90s’ extra-gritty slasher softcore that’s basically an excuse for the author to express his inner teenager.” I told her it’s not all that gritty. “That’s even worse, somehow,” she said.)
The first time I read Midnight Nation, I just thought it was bad and pretentious and boring. The second time, what mostly occupied my mind was the thought that there is a great dissonance between what I think Straczynski wanted to do, and what he did. I think he wanted to write about the margins of society, the way human beings fall through the cracks of the world and vanish, and where they go, metaphorically, when that happens. It’s the kind of metaphor story Joss Whedon (who I think Straczynski is often compared to, based on some superficial similarities in dialogue) used to pull off so well on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the kind of interplay of reality and story that made Sandman sublime. But the script is not sublime. It’s awkward and forced. A dead-eyed grocery cashier launches into a moralistic lecture to a dead-eyed customer about how she shouldn’t waste her life, speaking of a lost vitality completely absent from the flashbacks to her childhood. The characters refer to the out-of-phase dimension they inhabit as the metaphor side of things, but the relationship of the metaphor to their reality goes unexplored; it’s simply a setting. Moments that were perhaps meant to convey warmth or wit or fear are left dry and emotionless by the stiff, lifeless art.
I can’t attribute the book’s failures just to the lousy art, though. Straczynski is, after all, responsible for the plot, the pacing, the characterization, the development of relationships, and of course, the dialogue. When Laurel and David first meet, Laurel is intensely hostile to David, refusing to answer his questions, making snide asides, and complaining about being stuck shepherding someone so annoying. When they meet her acquaintances, they also treat David like an idiot, and sympathize with Laurel for being stuck with him. But David’s not that annoying–all of his questions are the obvious ones you’d ask, if you’d been savaged by bald, green cultists with claws and zig-zag tattoos, and started having an out-of-body experience with someone who told you your soul was missing. They’re such obvious questions that they don’t even do anything to establish David’s personality; they’re the rote questions of exposition. What’s Laurel so annoyed about? David’s not irritating, he’s just boring. There’s supposed to be some kind of zesty, push-pull relationship between the weary-and-wise traveler, and the bewildered-yet-spirited greenhorn, but it’s more like watching a confused dog being dragged along by its ill-tempered owner.
The whole book is characterized by this tension between what Straczynski wanted to do, and what actually came out on the page. That shouldn’t be hateworthy–there’s nothing wrong with ambition, and there probably isn’t an artist on earth who hasn’t had a project that failed to live up to their dream.
But I was already dubious about Straczynski when I first picked up Midnight Nation. In fact, the only reason I read Midnight Nation was because of an argument I had with a friend. My friend was a huge fan of Straczynski, but my only encounter with him at that point was in his awful “Sins Past” stint on The Amazing Spider-Man (for those fortunate enough to have forgotten, that’s the one where Gwen Stacy has Norman Osborn’s love babies), which I’d hated. The bad faith of Straczynski’s legendary feud with the writers of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (in which he encouraged his Babylon 5 fanbase to make accusations of plagiarism on his behalf) had put me off ever getting into the TV show that made his name. But my friend hoped I might change my mind on Straczynski if I got a chance to see what kind of material he could produce when his work wasn’t bound by editorial dictate or hampered by lousy special effects, if I could experience his writing in a context and a medium that didn’t undermine him. This was supposed to be the superlative Straczynski work that turned me around, something where I could see the genius that justified the ego and the dedicated fanbase.
I’m still looking for it.
And that is the thing that has really kept me from simply forgetting all about a comic that is, ultimately, more forgettable than hateable. I’m not a fan of Straczynski. I’m an un-fan. I become less of a fan with every passing year. He’s an arrogant person, someone who starts petty feuds with his peers, writes the shittiest storylines editorial can dream up, and is cheerfully complicit in fucking over a fellow artist because eh, bad contracts happen.
If you’re going to be that big of an asshole, you need to be a goddamn genius. A goddamn genius ought — when paired with a halfway competent artist and given the chance to write a twelve-issue miniseries whose concept was inspired by what he claims was a profoundly life-changing personal experience — to be able to produce something beautiful, something memorable, something that tells a truth so undeniable that I retire from it shaken, drained, wondering and muttering its wisdom; the trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts. Something that doesn’t feature cheap titty shots and does not weigh tainted hot dogs equally as heavy as the hell of war. It’s become impossible to untangle my disdain for the work and my loathing of the creator. I can’t read the arrogant “let me whisper the dark secrets of the universe, so that you may comprehend and choose” speeches of Midnight Nation‘s villain without thinking that’s Straczynski’s voice, so smug and sure that he’s got it all figured out. Every time I hear about some dickish thing Straczynski has said or done with regards to one of his fellow writers, I think to myself, “Where does he get off? His book was terrible.” I can’t even figure out why this guy gets work, much less how he’s managed to attract a rabid fanbase.
__________
Click here for the Anniversary Index of Hate.
“If you’re going to be that big of an asshole, you need to be a goddamn genius.”
I think this is the first post in the roundtable where the artist’s public persona per se (as opposed to their popularity or reputation) has been cited. It makes sense though that it would be difficult to divorce the artist from the art when the artist is out there making an idiot of himself the way Straczynski does….
I was going to make a serious comment agreeing with a lot of what you say, but instead why not see what other comic critics have to say about Straczynski?
Why here’s esteemed comic critic J. Michael Straczynski on J. Michael Straczynski:
“You must understand that I am harder on my work than any critic out there. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being Alan Moore, I think my monthly books have generally been in the 5-6 range, with the occasional pop to 6 or 7. By contrast, my limited series work has generally been in the 7 range, with the occasional pop to 8 or 9 (Midnight Nation, and Superman: Earth One). When I can be sure I can deliver a monthly book in the 7-8 range, I’ll come back to it. I know I can write better in short-form; I just need to figure out how to write better in long-form. And that’s what I’m going to be working on during this 1-5 year sabbatical.”
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/J-Michael-Straczynski-leaving-montly-comics-101112.html
Cerusee wrote: “Or about how the increasingly unsubtle and didactic right-wing politics of Bill Willingham in Fables is almost a case study in how not to integrate your personal politics into your work.”
I haven’t read “Fables” in about three years, and I only did so at the recommendation of someone whose opinion I value (someone who is definitely a very strong liberal), so I’m not sure if Willingham’s alleged “unsubtle and didactic right-wing politics” had surfaced at that point.
But I have to wonder if you show the same disdain for unsubtle and didactic left-wing politics, which, to be perfectly honest, is the popular culture norm.
For example, I love Jon Stewart, but he’s so frickin’ one-sided most of the time I just can’t take him seriously. Ditto for “Saturday Night Live.” I grew up loving the show, and I so want to love it now, but its political lopsidedness makes it way too one-dimensional.
I pine for the old days when popular culture juggernauts like “National Lampoon” skewered both sides with equal cleverness, objectivity and mercilessness.
If “Fables” does lean to the right now, it’s certainly an anomaly in comics, and would seem to me to be an unusual breath of air rather than a didactic tome.
Ditko’s work has been labled didactic so often it is almost like a mandatory adjective for describing his work. But the fact is, I really like reading his stuff because he peeks into corners most creators totally ignore.
I’m not aware of any specific political content in Fables aside from an infamous monologue by Bigbie in one particular issue (where’s he says how much he admires Israel). I think I read up to issue 80 or so.
Oh man, this is an excellent takedown of the most overrated writer in comics, a guy who keeps getting high profile work even though he either sucks at it or quits halfway through. His more recent stuff is hard to judge because he never bothered to finish half of it (that story where Superman walks across the country, a revamp of Wonder Woman that never went anywhere) or it’s just shitty hack-work like Before Watchmen or that Superman graphic novel that nobody wanted. But this is supposed to be one of his best works, delivered when he was in his “prime”. And it’s awful. You didn’t even mention the characters’ encounter with the Biblical Lazarus, who became immortal after being resurrected by Jesus and eventually just ended up wandering the Earth as a creepy old man. Or the way the whole thing led up to the dramatic moment where the main guy turned into a monster so he could kill the angel lady, for reasons that I don’t remember ever being explained adequately. Of course, that’s from memory, and it’s been years since I read the book, but it’s still a mess, pretty much worthless in terms of drama, dialogue, interesting subject matter, or decent art. Fuck that guy.
Re: Fables, I’ve been reading it for years, and I really don’t see the “didactic” right-wing content, aside from the pro-Israel speech that pallas mentioned. I know “fangirl” bloggers have complained about the scene in which Bigby Wolf finally won over Snow White because she describes finally falling for him as him having “defeated” her, but whatever your take on that relationship, it doesn’t have anything to do with politics.
I’ve thought about writing about Fables and how its politics can be interpreted, since I often see it described in this way, as if Bill Willingham had turned it into a pro-Republican screed, and I don’t really see it. I’ve never gotten around to it though. Maybe someday.
Pallas: I know I’m forgetting some other things I noticed at the time, but there was also the treatment of Snow’s unexpected pregnancy–when she goes to the doctor, he indicates that he’s willing to perform an abortion for her, if she’d like. She doesn’t just refuse, she gives him a lecture about what a disgusting piece of shit he is for the very idea. It bugged enormously. When I decided that wasn’t just a character note–hey, there ARE women who are vehemently anti-choice; some of ’em are so anti-choice that when they decide they have to terminate a pregnancy (which they’re only doing because they have to, unlike all those sluts in the waiting room) they’ll ream out the doctor who’s there to perform the procedure; Snow could be one of those women–but part of an overall pattern of Willingham using the book as a soapbox for his loathing of liberal beliefs, I decided I’d had enough.
R. Maheras–it was misleading of me to phrase it as “increasingly,” since that implies that I still read the book, and that I’m referring to recent events. I dropped it years ago–right after the Israel incident Pallas referred to. When I said “increasingly” I was thinking back to my experience of finding the politics increasingly blatant and hostile to me during the years that I was still reading. It started out much more subtle and funny–I remember a pretty funny joke in the first year or two about Young Republicans that it’s hard to imagine the Israel-era Willingham making–and gradually changed tone.
As for whether I would show the same disdain for left-wing didacticism–no and yes. I absolutely have my own, strong political opinions (and indeed, as you assume, I am left-leaning). When people say things I agree with, I’m less likely to register them as political, and I’m less likely to be offended by them; that’s just how our brains work. And I’m not even going to pretend to apologize for being offended by people who say things I find abhorrent or cruel, but not by people saying things I agree with.
But I have certainly had the experience of reading didactic works whose philosophies were in my general wheelhouse and feeling very uncomfortable with them. I have picked fights with liberal friends when I thought that they were being close-minded or needlessly offensive about people whose politics didn’t align with their own.
In case anyone’s interested, here’s me teeing off on Howard Zinn.
———————-
R. Maheras says:
…unsubtle and didactic left-wing politics, which, to be perfectly honest, is the popular culture norm.
———————-
(???) We must inhabit different “alternate universes”…
Mike wrote: “We must inhabit different “alternate universes”
You don’t think “The Daily Show” and SNL aren’t left leaning? The next thing you’ll be telling me is MSNBC is centrist.
Cerusee — I agree that preachy stuff can be a turn-off — regardless of the politics — but I’m more forgiving if the stuff being preached is honest, sincere, and, most of all, accurate.
I’m different than many in that I do not believe that either the far left or the far right has the moral high ground. Both extremes prize a candidate’s adherance to political doctrine over almost every other trait — including integrity, honesty, leadership, management ability and intelligence.
That’s something I find troubling on a number of levels.
If I were running a company, I wouldn’t hire half the people in Congress or the Executive Branch, because if I did, I’d be bankrupt inside of a year.
I don’t know Russ…boilerplate centrism isn’t any more thoughtful necessarily than boilerplate left or boilerplate right. The truth isn’t necessarily evenhanded, and pretending it is is as much an ideological act as anything else.
I’m beginning to think it’s an election year.
Noah — The advantage of centrism is one actually examines different points of view. Extremists don’t listen to the other side, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
I’ve had strong conservatives and strong liberals look at me like I was a Martian when I tell them that, in the 2004 election, I voted for both Obama (for the US Senate), and George W Bush. I routinely split my ticket based on who the candidates are because I can live with aspects of both liberalism and conservative, depending on the issue. A partisan will never, and I mean NEVER, vote for someone who is not in their party.
But I don’t have that problem. For example, I’d never vote for Rick Santorum, but I’d also never vote for Harry Reid. Santorum is too far right ideologically and says dumb stuff; and Reid is scary stupid and partisan — scary because he is the Senate majority leader. But partisans vote for their party’s candidate, right or wrong, just becuase the candidate has the right ideological blocks checked off.
In Illinois elections during the past 10 years, I’ve voted for Dick Durbin (D), Judy Baar Topinka (R), Lisa Madigan (D), and Mark Kirk (R). I did NOT for for Rod Blagojevich, even though I went to high school with him and his brother (who signed my yearbook). The reason? While his brother was a decent guy, Rod came across like a Chicago machine politician on frickin’ steroids. So I voted for his Republican opponents both times he ran for governor.
A real centrist to me is somewhere between anarchist libertarianism and communist socialism. Most people don’t mean that by centrism, though, but someone who likes a few Republicans and Democrats, which is really just a mangled form of classic liberalism. No, this breakdown isn’t going to catch on anytime soon, but America is conservative-leaning.
As for entertainment, I’d much rather watch a Mel Gibson film than a Sean Penn one.
Hey, I like Mel. Not only is he a fine actor and powerful filmmaker, but I find anti-Semitism a charmingly “retro” prejudice…
————————
R. Maheras says:
Mike wrote: “We must inhabit different “alternate universes”
You don’t think “The Daily Show” and SNL aren’t left leaning? The next thing you’ll be telling me is MSNBC is centrist.
————————-
Yeah, “left leaning” by American standards; which means more conservative than plenty of European right-wing political groups.
My amused bafflement is that you assert that these proportionately few examples — let’s toss in “The New Yorker” and “New York Times Review of Books” too — means that “unsubtle and didactic left-wing politics, which, to be perfectly honest,[are] the popular culture norm.”
But then, to hear right-wingers gripe, hatred of Christianity, guns, Capitalism, “Freedom,” the Flag, Free Enterprise, are omnipresent. You’d have to escape to “fair and balanced” Fox News or Rush Limbaugh to get away from the frenzied America-hating.
(And damn, talk about a “culture of victimhood!” For instance, consider these poor Christians, not allowed to shove prayer down peoples’ throats in public buildings! It’s as bad as the Roman Empire. And you know that atheist Muslim Obama has plans to put Christians in concentration camps, right?)
Rather than, in an exceedingly mild form (like, thinking that separation of Church and State is a good idea; that there should be regulation of business practices, lest pollution and financial scams wreak havok) being upheld in a small portion of the public sphere.
To add to the irony, “the liberal media” is actually far less liberal than the American people at large: http://www.alterpolitics.com/politics/new-study-the-american-public-prefers-liberal-policies-which-would-cut-budget-by-437-billion/
Alas, I’ve debated Russ at massive length at the TCJ message board. To save him the trouble, all the info above, and that which contradicts his views, can be dismissed — no matter how widely documented, or the result of independent studies — if it appears on a Democratic or mildly leftist website.
————————
I’m different than many in that I do not believe that either the far left or the far right has the moral high ground. Both extremes prize a candidate’s adherance to political doctrine over almost every other trait — including integrity, honesty, leadership, management ability and intelligence.
————————-
One of the differences is, that for all practical purposes, there is no “far left” in America. The Democratic Party and its positions are mostly mildly right-of-center.
While the GOP has been frenziedly purifying its ranks from anyone who is not an utter extremist. Sure, they’re not as extreme as the Nazis, but…
(BTW, note that when the Republicans attack Hitler, it’s not for the warmongering and genocide: it’s the socialism they go berserk over. “The Nazis had nationalized health care!!!”)
When I use the “far left” and “far right” when discussing American politics, it should be obvious to all but the most casual observer that I’m using relative terms for, well, AMERICA.
Okay folks; entertaining as the political argument may be, it has very little to do with the post at hand. So…maybe we can shelve it and try to get back on topic?
I’d almost forgotten I’d reviewed Straczynski’s Superman. Last mini-review here.
What a horrible comic that was….
——————
Noah Berlatsky says:
Okay folks; entertaining as the political argument may be, it has very little to do with the post at hand. So…maybe we can shelve it and try to get back on topic?
——————-
Sure!
As long as you were brave enough to admit liking “Tank Girl,” Noah, I might as well mention I enjoyed “Midnight Nation” a lot, ‘way back when. And since I was already fairly long in the tooth when it was published, I can’t blame my tastes for being “immature.”
Fortunately my copies aren’t handy (and my memories hardly vivid; though I recall liking that the Devil-figure was rather low-key) so you’ll be spared a lengthy defense…
I admit I enjoyed Babylon 5 when a friend showed it to me years ago, but I just cannot stand JMS’s public persona. It seems to have gotten worse over the years, if that’s possible. I gave one of his comics a try and hated it thoroughly. My review is here:
https://hoodedutilitarian.com/2010/05/why-do-i-do-this-to-myself-the-brave-the-bold-33/
I wonder if any of the Hu regulars like him. I get the feeling he was popular back in the day? (Yeah, yeah, I live under a rock.)
I think JMS was fairly well-regarded back around the turn of the millennium, when he was coming off the popular Babylon 5 (which I never watched, so I can’t really say if it was all that great, although I know Shaenon Garrity was going through it episode by episode a while back, and she has pretty good taste). His run on Spider-Man was pretty decent for a while, kind of revitalizing the character after a dull period, although he inserted some weird mystical stuff into his backstory, turning him into an avatar of a spider-god or something. I remember people thinking that was kind of daring at the time, but it’s mostly been ignored since then. And then he did the gross story about Norman Osborne and Gwen Stacy, and the whole thing kind of collapsed. It ended in a pretty ugly way too, with that infamous story in which Spidey sold his marriage to the devil in order to save Aunt May’s life. That whole thing was editorially mandated, and I think JMS has since disowned the story (I don’t know if writers can really do that, but whatever…). The thing is, he had managed to make Spider-Man’s marriage and relationship work really well, so it had to stick in his craw that he was “forced” to undo it so stupidly. Oh, the awful tribulations of well-paid writers, how sad.
Let’s see, there was also Supreme Power, which was a “mature readers” take on Squadron Supreme that started out fairly well, and then eventually petered out, with JMS leaving it unfinished, as was becoming his regular habit. I remember liking it, although I would probably find it pretty dumb if I reread it, with its oh-so-serious take on superheroes, adding lots of sex and violence and trying to treat people who can fly and run fast and shoot laser beams and whatnot realistically, working real-world people and events into the characters’ history and considering how they would influence global politics. Plus, it was Gary Frank on art again, and I find him much less interesting than I did back then.
What else was there? I never read Rising Stars, but I think it was kind of similar, following various characters who gained superpowers and treating them realistically. I think it’s another one that JMS never finished though. Is there anything else that he’s done that people don’t hate? Thor, maybe? Whatever the case, he’s mostly considered a hack and a company man these days, and he deserves it.
“he’s mostly considered a hack and a company man these days”
The quotes about Before Watchmen pretty much sealed this I think, and, as you say, rightfully so.
think JMS was fairly well-regarded back around the turn of the millennium, when he was coming off the popular Babylon 5
My pet theory, which is mine, is that while Babylon 5 is credited to JMS and what his reputation was build on, much of its strength and overall quality is due to all the other creative talents who worked on it: actors, script writers, sfx people undosweiter. Once he was working in comics, where there’s only so much stupidity a good artist can cover up for you, his weaknesses came to the front quickly.
I think Matt’s analysis of what JMS did well was spot on. He made Peter Parker a grown-up with grown-up relationships. As a thirty-something (at the time) husband, father, and son, I related to the JMS Spider-Man more than I ever had in my life.
I bought the spider-god stuff without any problem. The premise was really “Everything you know is still true, but there was more to our hero’s origin than we initially realized, dear reader.” That’s done all the time with superhero comics, especially Batman. I don’t even mind multiple contradictory versions of added backstory, since it all serves to explore the character. However, MB is correct that the Norman Osborne / Gwen Stacy story was genuinely off-putting, and it struck me as out of character for Gwen.
Regarding JMS’s Thor work (mentioned but not discussed) his characterization made the cast interesting and likable, while still consistent with their history. The notable, irritating exception was Baldur the Formerly Brave, But Now Just Stupid and Surrounded With Slatterns.
The interaction between the residents of Broxton, Oklahoma and the Aesir made the book. The Broxtonians were portrayed as real small-town Americans — hospitable, canny, provincial in their concerns but worldlier than expected in their knowledge, and widely varied in every other aspect. Most of them took to Asgardians with charming aplomb, treating them as the latest crop of fascinating weirdos from out of town — a welcome new topic of discussion in the diner or on the front porch. I grew up in a small town; this was how we generally thought of you big-city types when you came to stay.
“My pet theory, which is mine, is that while Babylon 5 is credited to JMS and what his reputation was build on, much of its strength and overall quality is due to all the other creative talents who worked on it: actors, script writers, sfx people undosweiter”
My theory is he can sometimes be a fine writer when doing his own stuff (Midnight Nation may not be good but it certainly isn’t “worst comic ever” material- from what I recall its so-so at worst, but I haven’t read it since originally published) but:
a) Comic books don’t play to his strength as a writer, since he writes pretentious sort of theater- inspired dialogue (this article aside, I’ve never heard him compared to Whedon, who is quippy and less monologue driven). He isn’t visually driven and doesn’t give his artists interesting things to draw.
b) As a man-child slumming in comics just to “play with action figures he liked when younger” he thinks he’s written a good stoy just because it features an action figure he played with as a child or geeked out on when younger. All judgement as a “writer” is obliterated by fanboy glee at doing fanfiction.
Supreme Powers was pretty transparently “JMS tries to do Miracleman”. His “12” comic was transparently “JMS tries to do Watchmen”
Lord knows what Before Watchmen is- I heard it has time travel and time being altered with Dr. Mahatten (haven’t read it) which seems to have nothing to do with the source material at all.
He does do this arrogant “I made it better” retcon thing- which seems to be neurotic- with every franchise character he writes. It’s really weird. Spider-man is a magic totem, the Fantastic Four were created by a living entity that shot the cosmic rays at them, Dr. Strange had a time travel altered origin to make him like Neo in the matrix, time travel was altered so Amazon island was blown up, Krypton style. In Superman: Earth 1 krypton was bombed by evil aliens.
—————————-
Martin Wisse says:
My pet theory…is that while Babylon 5 is credited to JMS and what his reputation was build on, much of its strength and overall quality is due to all the other creative talents who worked on it: actors, script writers, sfx people undosweiter. Once he was working in comics, where there’s only so much stupidity a good artist can cover up for you, his weaknesses came to the front quickly.
—————————–
Re “Babylon 5,” indeed many writers (including Neil Gaiman) contributed scripts, but…
—————————–
Straczynski wrote 92 out of the 110 Babylon 5 episodes, notably including an unbroken 59-episode run through the third and fourth seasons, and all but one episode of the fifth season. He also wrote the four Babylon 5 TV movies produced alongside the series.
—————————-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Straczynski
So when he was writing over 83% of the “Babylon 5” shows, nobody noticed the “stupidity” of his scripts, because of the contributions of the actors and special effects people (let’s not forget about the composer, set dressers, cinematographers, editors, lighting crew, make-up people)? (Not to mention he was also the series creator, producer, and “showrunner” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_runner ] …what a slacker!)
Why, then, nobody ought to be able to notice if a movie has lousy scripts, right?
Indeed, in comics there’s less cumulative talent to “pick up the slack” (i.e., a fine actor to give nuance to a simplistic line; a composer to add aural grandeur and portent to a cheesily-written scene).
But “Midnight Nation” — his first comic after leaving TV — and “Rising Stars” (which as I recall, petered out; dunno if it ever concluded) were pretty good, thus indicating that he could do good (if not great) comics.
Assuming that the other, later stuff is as bad as described; that in many years of scripting “company-owned” characters, whose narrative arcs he did not have full control over, and bunches of different titles, with a dwindling of quality, simply indicates that:
A. Company-owned characters are not the best creative “fit” for him
B. Cranking out bunches of varied books, with complex backhistories he did not create — as opposed to the single, focused entity that was B5 — can result in much dross
C. His talent has dwindled over time
My theory is that JMS has one good story to tell and he told it (B5). The rest of the stories he’s telling, he’s trying to riff on that in various ways. He’s always having various retconning and time-weirdness and whatever (a big B5 thing) and lots of woo philosophy. Now he’s trying to do it via fanfic, but he’s not any good at it. Some people aren’t, and instead of being true to what makes story matter, he’s in it for the egoboo and money.
‘My theory is that JMS has one good story to tell and he told it (B5)”
I actually enjoyed the second season of his show Jeremiah. It’s sort of about God battling the Big Brother organization (literally ripping of George Orwell) from 1984, with God subtly manipulating servants and prophets to destroy Big Brother.
(???) Sounds like “V for Vendetta”…
I’ve watched almost every episode of B5 (based on the hype) and it’s solidly mediocre TV – much praised because so much else is pure shite. The real myth is that it was good and signaled the arrival of a great pop artist. That just the pop propaganda machine at work.
The rightward politics of Fables appear early if you know where to look. IIRC, there’s a bit at the end of the Animal Farm story about how stupid mortals are for having dispensed with capital punishment.
Still not as bad as the Fox News wetdream that is Walking Dead.