|
How To Read Superhero Comics And Why
by Geoff Klock
Pub: Continuum Books. 206 page enlarged paperback.
Paperback: Price: £14.99 (UK). ISBN: 0-8264-1419-2. Hardback: Price:
£14.99 (UK). ISBN: 0-8264-1419-2.
check out website: www.continuumbooks.com
This
title is a bit of a misnomer. If you’re looking for a book to tell
you in what order to read speech balloons when reading comicbooks
then this isn’t the one.
Author Klock has written a scholarly piece regarding
the effects of Frank Miller’s ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ and Alan
Moore/Dave Gibbons ‘The Watchmen’ have had on the changing face
of comics plus a few of the more current stars like Warren Ellis
and Grant Morrison.
Up until about 9 years ago, this is really home territory
for this reviewer.
I
have to confess to certain misgivings about this book. It reads
very much like a university thesis, which it probably was based
on the mini-bio on the back cover, in that there are a lot of footnotes
and quotes from various people. Typical student fare really.
Why come up your own observations when all you have
to do is find well-known writers who’ve said it in the past and
use it as authoritative ramblings?
Such actions tend to make me wary as such work is
written with what the author feels is right rather than weighing
up the evidence on both sides of the fulcrum before drawing any
conclusions.
The point is this particular instance is forgetting
how throughout the history of comics that the creators have always
liberally borrowed from outside sources for ideas and inspiration
and occasionally renovated it in the process.
Although author Klock acknowledges the influence of
Japanese comics on Frank Miller, he makes a total balls-up when
it comes to Moore’s ‘Watchmen’ when it’s already acknowledged in
print that although they were archetypes based on Charlton characters
not the JLA.
The names were changed when DC who had acquired them
weren’t prepared to have the majority killed for a story. Calling
the Watchmen archetypal would also match variations on Marvel’s
Avengers line-up equally well.
Then again, there’s a singular lack of Marvel influence
as well turning them into footnotes. This isn’t a pro-Marvel stance
just an understanding of this author’s biasness or budget when he
was doing his thesis.
All right, so this might appear to be a mote point
but it raises odd points of favouring a particular argument without
going far enough in research. This doesn’t mean that I find all
things Klock wrote is wrong.
I do agree with him that the effects of both Miller
and Moore’s work resulted in more violent vigilante comics when
other writers and artists thought was the key ingredient that sold
the material rather than the true face of vigilantism. [For the
record, I did a rather popular article at the time called ‘No More
Mr. Nice-Vigilante’ myself on the subject.]
It’s a pity further examination of why it was thought
the violence was so important to other creators than story development
and tends to undermine what their editors are after.
There is often a feeling of not examining the field
in its wider aspect and the decline in comicbook sales that allowed
more revolutionary comicbook writers an ‘in’ to trying some things
that would be deemed different and able to find an audience.
Anyway, I’m sure if you’re into comicbooks, you’re
bound to pick up a copy of this book if only to argue a contrary
argument to what is written here.
GF Willmetts
|