CBC's Fresh Question #19. Comics??? Gritty Reality or Escapist Fun???

[Emerald Archer]

Hello to all, and welcome aboard, I'm your Cruise Director Emerald Archer

As Always you can visit the other members of our crew, and read the previous installment of out little soap opera here! (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=104658)

I also want to thank Ace for supplying some great questions for the last two issues. I have one more from him that I'm going to send out on a maiden voyage when we run out of steam.

Now, lets get this Boat on the Road, or is that sea????

_____________________________________________________________
CBC's Fresh Question #19. Comics??? Gritty Reality or Escapist Fun???

In the last two weeks I seem to be living in the movie Ground Hog Day, because I keep having the same conversation over and over with other comic book fans. The first time was with a brand new friend I made here at the Zone (Hello O Noble Queen). We met because we both responded to a tread that had taken a sudden turn for the political. The bottom line was that someone said that a recent turn of events in a comic was going to get the Right Wingers up in arms. Well, I am a Right Winger, and I didn't see a problem with the plot line...and neither did my new friend. We both agreed, their were by far more important problems in the world to worry about than a particular comics plot line. But it got met thinking..........

ANd that train of thought was reinfoced by another person.......

Then I got a call form a Toon Zone alum in New York talking about how one particular writer was driving him nuts. Instead of the escapist fun he was looking for in the book, it was like reading the New York Times. All political, all the time, and not a whole lot of fun. My friend said he read comics to get away from the real world, not to have it reinforced and crammed down his throat.

So I sat back and thought about it.

When I first started reading comics, while some were "Socially Relevant", a lot of them had one goal. They were escapist literature, they made no pretense to be high minded, high brow, or high concept. A lot of that changed with the Green Arrow/Green Lantern run of Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams. Now comics tried to be relevant, they tried to have a message. But they still, for the most part, also tried to be "Fun". But I think the point is well taken, I think we are losing the fun factor and getting more and more into the gritty reality of day to day life.

Is that a bad thing or a good thing. And truthfully, is the industry taking itself just a tad to seriously? Men and women in tights and Lycra running around saving the world from giant Starfish and Killer Galactic beings, also dealing with sub plots about Terrorists, Drug Use, Sexual Assault, Gun Violence and the hopelessness of the inner city.....

Does anyone else see a major disconnect here????

[randomguy]

Interesting question, on a variety of fronts. I'm not sure I buy into the notion that comics are supposed to be escapist entertainment. After all, good stories are good stories are good stories. I'm not, nor have I ever been, particularly concerned over whether or not stories qualify as escapism. However, there is an inherent silliness in most comic book heroes, and I do find the lack of fun stuff on the shelves a little disconcerting. Social commentary and gritty stories are all well and good, but I appreciate some fun stuff, too, and there's a serious dearth of that on the market right now. I think most comic book writers today have grown up reading (and being obssessed with) the medium, so they've come to attach a level of importance to the superheroes which is, perhaps, not entirely warranted. There's still some genuinely fun superhero stuff out there- Ultimate Spider-Man, Batman Adventures, and JLA/Avengers being the first three examples that came to mind. Overall, I have nothing against the trend towards the serious, as long as some people make an effort to put out some escapist entertainment- and right now, not enough people are.

[Eddie G.]

Well Emerald with all due respect I think the question needs to be changed a bit. You're refering to superhero comic books mainly, while these comics make up a good issue of the industry there are other genre that have the right to take themselves seriously. But since the question more targets superheroes and not other genre I will discuss superhero comics.

In Action Comics #1 which is the root to comics Superman fights a number of foes. First he saves a man who was exused of a crime he did not commit from death, then he beat up a wife beater, then he saved Lois Lane which in context of the story could of been rape, and then he scared the hell out of a curropt politician. So just to be fair to comics they started out with "gritty realism", but even this is not realism. In the real world Lois would have been raped, that man would of been killed, the wife would continue to be beaten, and one that dirty politician would get away with his dirty deeds.

My point is that my escapist reality would be a world where someone is able to stand up and fight back and make a difference. I wish there was a man who swung from buildings and would be there to save my friends and family or me from the horrors of the world, that to me is an incredible fantasy. The idea that there is someone powerful enough to stand up to the curropt powerful bussinessman that is a great fantasy. You see the comics aren't really presenting any realism just fantasy, and at one point the fantasy changed.

During the gold and silver age the sci/fi element grew above the hero and in many cases became dominant, as the detective aspect also began to take over in many titles. But still the fantasy is not that there are men from space who can fly, the fantasy that there is a hero who will protect us and stop our suffering (a fantasy constant through human society), and frankly star-fish aliens aren't the ones causing my suffering.

Sure we can talk about Speedy becoming a drug addict but that is different, and should be only used at minimum because comics should be fun. The fact is the urge to be "relevant" is not a problem exclusive to comics.

So in conclusion, comics should try to be a little more fun and not force relevancy, however they shouldn't abandon the real world and the problems in it.

[Marvel_Knight]

Boy, this is a toughie. It kinda depends. Look at Brian Michael Bendis, he writes Ultimate Spidey (which is light, airy and fun) and Daredevil (which is dark, gritty yet also fun) so this is a pretty hard question.:confused:

[Marc]

I made my feelings quite clear about escapism, fantasy and comic books here (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?p=1171355), so I don't see the need to repeat myself.

To summarize though, there is no definitive example of what comic books, especially superhero comic books, are supposed to be about. Much like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup™, "there's no wrong way to eat one", er...in this case, to write one. There is no written law that states superheroes are supposed to be bright and happy and preachy: "Remember kids, stay in school and eat your vegetables!" Likewise, nowhere is it written that comic books must be anti-spandex and our heroes must be bastards. This later notion of "everything Ultimate" is just a phase, it will pass, but it will never and should never be forgotten.

Comic books are like television, there must be a variety. Perhaps this isn't the best analogy, because TV nowadays, for the most part, sucks. For every gem like The Sopranos and King of the Hill, we have a dozen Survivor, American Idol and Yes Dear stink piles. Television, in theory, should provide something for everybody. Ditto with comic books. The current state of the industry is just due to marketing. Fans are getting older, that's a fact. Sex and violence sell, that's a fact. We'd all like to see a greater variety of comics that appeal to all ages, you bet, but the fact of the matter is the business suits are only concerned with what will make money TODAY, not two weeks, two months, or two years from now. Comics are a business.

Books like The Ultimates are what the majority of fans want right now, so the powers that be are aiming to deliver. Me, I love all comics, superhero or otherwise, and I especially love The Ultimates. Rather than whine about everything being "grim 'n gritty", I choose to enjoy what we have because I know nothing lasts forever. Gritty or not, Ultimates is still a gem of modern storytelling, and it should be embraced as such.

Comic books were born on the idea of artistic experimentation. Everything's an experiment, nothing is "official" or "the way it's supposed to be." The industry is continuously evolving, nothing is set is stone. Things will change, for the better or for the worse, all we can do is sit back and enjoy what we have, whether it be fresh off the racks or filed away in our boxed collections.

There is something for everybody, you just need to know where to look. Comics are "like a box of chocolates..." eh, you know how the rest goes.

- Cap

[Emerald Archer]

Unfortunately Comics, at least to me, are much less about experimentation and much more about emulation. In reality their isn't a whole lot of "experimentation" going on here, but a lot of "Monkey See, Monkey DO", at least in the American comic market.

The Marvel formula, in which the heroes not only deal with super villains but the mundanity of modern life was a new concept in the 60's. And for Marvel it worked and drove sales, and thats what this is all about, selling.

DC took a long time to realize that the Marvel formula worked and copied it. But some titles so scream for a light hearted touch that the way they are being written now makes them virtually unreadable

Case in point, Green Lantern. I do not envy Ben Raab his job, because he was handed a title that had so declined from it's hey day, that virtually nothing short of canceling the title and starting fresh would take care of the problems. Green Lantern is suppose to be an intergalactic peace officer, or at least when he was enjoyable to read he was. What he has been turned into is just another costumed do gooder with a bunch of really personal hang ups. His supporting cast is one of the most poorly handled and ill conceived in the comics.

Look how Hal Jordan was treated. Hero, to Super Villain at the whim of the writers. Certainly the influence of the "real world" was much to the detriment of that title.

I think the same case can be made for Superman. Enough of the Angst, the horrors inflicted on Kal and his friends. Can we not have a little breezy adventuring along the way? Some light hearted moments?

Batman and Punisher function best in a film noir setting. Superman and Captain America do not. Look at what has become of Cap's title. The best read in months was the time travel story where Cap ended up in an Alternate Reality where the Nazi's won WWII and the Red Skull was the new Fuhrer. The current soul searching of the Git-Mo story line is just plain depressing.

Maybe it's me, maybe I just would like to imagine a world where Hero's are Hero's. Maybe I just find it very disturbing when in an issue of Ultimate X-Men Wolverine basically convinces a fellow mutant, a child really, to commit suicide because his powers are to dangerous. The people I work with, care about, and love on a daily basis have feet of clay, do my superheros have to have them as well?

As far as the Ultimates go, I can't find one redeaming character in the group. These people are not heroes, at least not to the way of thinking I was brought up on.



EA

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I don't think this needs to be an either-or question, really. In fact, a lot of really really good superhero comics manage to be both at the same time (offhand, Astro City and Darwyn Cooke's The New Frontier).

I also agree with CaptainInfinity that there needs to be variety in the medium, even if you're limiting yourself to superhero comics. I'm glad I can read Sleeper and Stormwatch: Team Achilles, which are about as gritty as they get. I'm also glad I can read Runaways or Batman Adventures, which are about as light-hearted and fun as they get. And I'm glad I can read Wonder Woman and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (spy comics, but I'm stretching here), which manage to dance right between those lines. Fantastic Four jumps over the line and back as it needs to to tell the story it wants to tell. And then stuff like Top Ten and Astro City stomp all over that line with track shoes on.

Entertain me and tickle the neurons and show me something I haven't seen before. Whether you do it with dirt under your fingernails or with a pure sense of wonder or with a mixture of the two is kind of irrelevant.

-- Ed/Ace

[guinaevere]

I'm not sure where best to start.

My first reaction to this question had me thinking of Captain Planet, and then a Transformers Armada episode that turned me off of the series after only watching two epiosodes, in which my old friend, Optimus Prime started preaching about being careful not to ruin a forest by fire, only to have the entire fleet of Autobots trample everything in their path to reach a destination (which, of course, wasn't mentioned, as it was rather a blunder by the writers of the story).

I haven't any remembrance of reading a comic which insulted my intelligence this much, but I'll add what I can to this.

There is a time and a place for everything. Or if not quite everything, a time and place for most things.

Most writers start with a story to tell, a character or world to explore. Those generally turn into the more enjoyable fictitious stories, be they gritty reality or escapist fun.

Back when I had any idea of what was going on in the world of comics, I looked forward to the endeavors and relationships of the Xmen. Some stories were more serious than others, but never was anything too dark. (That isn't to say I don't appreciate a darker story as well, but that isn't relevant right now.)

The most realistic issue faced, was Bobby Drake dealing with his racist parents in rejecting his girlfriend, Opal.

And of course, in so much of the world of comics, there are always mutants or misfits who are persecuted for being different. This has been a sort of staple, a cross that our heroes and anti-heroes have always been burdened with.

Obviously, comics, as most media, have explored the many, many sides of humanity and atrocities we are capable of. But to keep comics kid-friendly, even the darker books have to keep their content in check. Blue Wolf says quite correctly, "In the real world Lois would have been raped, that man would of been killed, the wife would continue to be beaten, and one that dirty politician would get away with his dirty deeds." Even though (EDIT)he's (sorry Blue Wolf!!) speaking of Action Comics, the same holds true for heavier titles as well. Yes, some more mainstream comics have dealt with rape and other horrors, but never to any degree that does the subject or victims' justice to what they go through.

(I'm assuming we're not taking adult only books into account here, and as I've never read one, I couldn't speak with authority on the subject, anyway.)

So what the heck was my point... actually, I rather rambled from what I wanted to say... so I start next thought-

-here. In answer the the topic question, I'd agree with Ace and Capn Infinity. There's no call for limitation. No one or the other. A comic can deal with more serious issues, it can deal with lighter issues. It can deal with both, so long as the writing is balanced and handles each case responsibly. Which brings me to what I think my galant archer was getting at.

One can address socially relevant issues, one can question, probe, explore, admire & laugh at these topics. So long as they don't berate the reader. Nothing turns me off faster than a writer who attempts to preach their political (social, environmental, military, et cetera) ideals under the guise of a non-biased fictional story. That's where you insult your audience and in many cases, lose readers.

I know there are many writers out there who tire of the same story lines. I know they wish for their characters to have more depth, and desire for them to deal with more worldly concerns than spouting one-liners while facing arch foes. That's understandable. It can be comendable, so long as they are taking the appropriate characters there. There ought to be limitations within the boundaries of responsible comic book writing. Jug-head doesn't need to preach that those with bad upbringings can actually be good, productive members of society. And honestly, no one would listen, if he did.

Noble queen out.

[Shawn Hopkins]

What's wrong with both? I think it's easy to forget the comic book is a medium, not a genre, and it can be used to tell any type of story. It shouldn't be unusal to see Uncle Scrooge and Maus or Captain Marvel and Animal Man share shelf space.

If what your asking is whether DC, Marvel and companies like them should continue to mix real-world events and issues with their stories about people in tights smacking each other, I think it works if the writing is good and the kind of deadly serious earnesty that pervades some of the 1970s "issue" comics and the anti-drug comics that followed.

As a young guy, for example, Spider-Man is going to meet people who do drugs. He might know someone who has cancer. It would be okay to have him deal with these real world issues once in a while, between super threats. It would be hard to relate to him if he lived in a world that was so different from our own that such problems didn't exist. It only annoys me if hotbutton topics come up in "very special issues" every few months.

Even among the super comics, though, there should be room for some that are more escapism and drama and others that deal more with social issues. I think the discrimination metaphor is an important part of X-Men, for example, but something like the Avengers should be more about things like galactic menaces and relationships within the team.

[Anthonynotes]

I think there's room for both more serious comics stories and lighter-hearted stuff; though that said, I prefer lighter-hearted tales myself (though I've read "Preacher" and a few similar titles), particularly for superheroes.

Of course, since variety seems to be a "dead" or dying concept as far as DC/Marvel's concerned (besides issuing a few licensed-property comics and calling it a day), small wonder various titles have fallen prey to the "grim and gritty" mentality...

-B.

[TheImagineer]

As a comic book writer I see both sides of this all the time. As a creator I write what’s best for the characters and stories. In my comic “Witch Girls” I have lots of fun and keep it light mostly but occasionally going to the dark side from time to time. Comics are when you come down to it very long stories and over the course of a store the tone does change. Even in Shakespeare’s tragedy he throws in comedy and vice versa. Good comics as a rule follow that formula a Central tone but that occasionally changes to service a story.



Lots of angst is just too depressing and too light can be annoying. Batman needs to be a sarcastic from time to time and Ultimate Spidey needs a set back or two to make a good story. I think comics don’t need to for one way or another I think they need to just improve their story quality and people will stick with them.

[Bubblegum Girl]

I think comics should be light and fun. But comics that are (almost) down to earth are also good too, as long the artwork isn't too serious(maybe a little cartoony, maybe). ;)