When Fanboys React
April 5, 2007 by The Fortress Keeper
Recent entries at Seven Hells! forced your friendly neighborhood Fortress Keeper to take a long, hard look at himself .
The items - subtle, yet probing bits concerning the grisly deaths of Supergirl and Orpheus - struck effective blows against “fanboy entitlement,” a particular mindset described by Dorian at postmodernbarney.com as “wanting superhero books to be exactly the same way they were when (he or she) started reading comics.”
It’s an affliction that strikes just about anyone who writes a comics blog. Even The Absorbascon’s Scipio - who finds much to enjoy about modern DC comics - complained loudly when Kurt Busiek tried to revamp Aquaman.
We’re certainly guilty of such acts, given the Keeper’s strong preference for the traditional iterations of Supergirl and the Marvel Family over DC’s current versions.
The Keeper has also shed tears (figurative, not literal; we’re not that far gone …) when childhood favorites like Captain America bite the dust - even though we know the characters in question will return eventually.
So is it hopeless then? Is the Fortress Keeper forever doomed to be one of those fans, a 3-D “Comic Book Guy” who complains bitterly if one iota of continuity is violated?!?
Welll … yes and no.
There’s no sin in forming attachments with fictional characters. DC and Marvel count on that very fact. They couldn’t survive lean - or perhaps even healthy - years unless fans faithfully followed the ups and downs of their favorite heroes, even when the stories aren’t very good.
It always seemed disingenuous to the Keeper when creators like Joey Q. complain that fans care more about the characters than the writers and artists who produce comics.
If we didn’t care about Spider-Man, Mr. Editor-In-Chief wouldn’t have a job, let alone afford his beloved flat-screen TVs.
Of course, fans can take things too far. The Big Two own the characters, which gives them the right to tell whatever stories they choose. The only thing they owe fans is a decent read, and if they fail that task the book probably won’t sell.
Despite scores of irate bloggers, DC only took notice of Supergirl’s failings after her once-hot book cooled considerably. This week’s issue clearly marked an attempt to set things right, even if reinventing Kara as a crystalline avenger out to destroy Phantom Zone criminals is just as convoluted as the Earth-Angel incarnation.
Why is it so difficult for DC to put out a comic book with a likable, teenage heroine??? Who thought the crystal bit was a good idea?
*Sigh*
For the Keeper’s part, we only want to read a decent comic or two.
We’re not against “modern” comics as long as the story is entertaining enough and doesn’t reshape a long-standing character for no other reason than a writer or artist’s vanity.
We loved the Ditko and the Giffen/DeMatteis Blue Beetle because both interpretations were entertaining and not necessarily incompatible. Brubaker and Fraction’s Immortal Iron Fist similarly adds new dimensions to the character’s history without negating everything that came before.
On the other hand, Trials of Shazam fits dark sensibilities onto characters ill-equipped for such conventions. In fact, it’s easy to argue that Judd Winick is merely creating new characters bearing the likeness and names of old favorites.
How creative is that?
So, in our humble estimation, fanboy privilege is harmless enough with the proper perspective. The ability to afford comics - let alone access the Internet and launch a blog - is a privilege in and of itself. Why not let off a bit of steam?
Of course, if worse comes to worse readers can always stop buying comics.
No one is forcing us to spend money, right?
Right, don’t be too hard on yourself, Mr. Keeper!
My own opinion:
There are two kinds of company-owned comics characters: Iconic characters and iconic names.
You cannot change the nature of an icon. You can’t kill off Superman and give somebody else the name. You can’t change his powers or costume in any great measure, and you can’t mess with his supporting cast. Basically, everything John Q. Public knows about said icon is pretty much untouchable. (You can make changes temporarily, of course, but there will always be resistance from fans who think it could be permanent or too long-lived.)
Every other character falls into the iconic name mold (since all superhero/villain names are meant to be punchy and resonant). In such cases, you certainly can kill them off and give the mantle over to someone new, and the concept can change wildly (as per the 3 generations of Blue Beetle) or simply change the character’s paradigm after some life-changing event. I think that’s where comics creators should try to make their stamp, until perhaps THEIR version achieves classic icon status.
All that said, every rule has its exceptions. Aquaman with a hook hand? Hulk as a casino leg-breaker? The 2996 adult Legion? Loved them all.
But I don’t think the Marvel Family or Supergirl are an exception. The projects you mention have strayed too far from the iconic nature of the characters.
So are we “entitled” to guide those properties back in the direction we want? Of course not. Are we “entitled” to our opinion? Definitely. Can we express that opinion in the 21st-century version of the letters’ page, i.e. the Internet? Of course! Can editors use that public opinion (which has no less weight than letters to the editor, IMO, and in fact has more because webpinions can influence the opinions of others) to guide their books? It’s probably a good idea.
Hmm, I don’t care if superhero comics are unchanged from my childhood, I would just love for them to be good and readable and meant for anyone other than the very narrow fan base they seem to be meant for. You know, like all the cool cartoon shows that have been around the last several years that actually have a grip on things rather than the quagmire that DC, specifically, has descended into of late.
But, whatever, it’s just comic books. There are decades of older better ones you can pick up and so many of them that you can always find something you never read before! And when you find yourself backed into a corner where there’s nothing left to read but old Elongated Man collections, then you can just start over again because you probably won’t remember the stuff you’ve already read very well, anyhow.
“We’re not against “modern” comics as long as the story is entertaining enough and doesn’t reshape a long-standing character for no other reason than a writer or artist’s vanity.”
An excellent point, Fortress Keeper.
We always hear about “fanboy entitlement”, but you touch on the concept of “creator entitlement”, an equally destructive and selfish impulse that the “creator class” needs to be mindful of. It’s the impulse that insists that all characters be crammed into his or her own narrow tastes or genre preferences…despite the previously established look and feel of the character’s title. Sure…there’s definitely a case to be made for challenging readers and moving outside of comfort zones, but there’s also the flipside of that where there is such a thing as pushing a character beyond it’s logical or thematic boundries. A great example of this is Winick’s preposterous Trials of Shazam series, or Greg Rucka’s insistance that Supergirl conform to his preference for dark, gritty, street level stories.
Comics has got to be one of the few industries where near-instantaneous consumer feedback is quickly dismissed as “entitlement”.
Fans have been following these books for years, and now represent a huge share of their market. We’ve all seen editors make really idiotic moves in the name of “revitalizing” a character we enjoy. Hell, Spider-Man still hasn’t fully recovered from that clone mess. So why is it so shocking that people would be wary about huge changes to their favorite characters? As people in the Big Two keep reminding us, comics are “just” a business. So where’s the business advantage in pissing off the people who actually buy the books?
Now yeah, I know that any risk you take with a character is going to make people mad, and that you sometimes have to ignore that criticism to write good stories. Fine. But there’s a difference between pressing ahead in the face of criticism and attacking the fact that it exists. It exists because too many creators have chosen to take wild leaps into stupid places, but it will go away if the change results in good stories. If I were a creator I would love to have that kind of feedback!
I find it inteesting that this post should come up just now. I have recently been considering pursuing a PhD program, because I have been interested in how “series narrative” works - not just comics, but television series, novel series (best represented by mystery), and so on. One of the intriguing aspects is how audience feedback influences the development of the narrative. Keep is describing how audience feedback can be a force _resisting_ change or development in the narrative (plot or characters), but audience feedback can also serve to impel change: how many TV series can you name had breakway stars because of audience feedback, changing the whole narrative focus of the series (Fonzie, anyone)?
This great discussion has further convinced me that this would indeed be a rich topic to investigate.
Oh, and while I am sure I can be as guilty of “it was better when I was a kid” as anyone, I think that John put it best when he said we are all really just looking for something “good and readable.”
[...] should I just sit down because, hey, people are buying them right? Why is this getting me down? Mr. Keeper stopped me in my tracks this evening, as he was stopped in his tracks by Mr. Sanders. I do my [...]
I find it a bit weird or difficult to talk about fanboy entitlement. I have it yet I don’t. I know what I want out of a story or character but I don’t necessarily care if it’s all wrong.
For instance take the recent Detective Comics. I love Dini’s stories but not so much the fill ins. I don’t hate them either, I just tend to favour one type of story over another for whatever reason. If I don’t like something I simply don’t like it. I’m too old, not really, to spend too much time telling other people how to do their jobs or how to create a world bubble that contains only things that make me happy.
Comics are an escape, less so now because I used to really hate my job and got a new one, but they don’t need to keep rehashing the type of story I like. I do like variety, which is why I find it a bit difficult to stay with any one comic too long. And yet I’m still a completist at heart who wants to own it all. It’s tough I tell ya.
So something like 52 is like the ideal comic for me - it’s weekly so I’m getting something every Wednesday and there are multiple plotlines with separate characters so I’m not limited to one loyalty but can get aspects I like, others I don’t, and still others that surprise me. If I didn’t try new things I wouldn’t have bothered picking up Marvel Adventures: The Avengers.
I feel my time is too valuable to waste on complaining about something that isn’t mine. If I don’t like a story, I stop buying it. It’s like getting exercise or trying to eat healthy - at first it’s hard but once you get over that initial hump it makes it much easier to continue. Sure you can slip back into old behaviour but getting yourself out is the import step. If you’re entertainment is causing you anguish, drop it. Use that money for something you might be surprised by - like trades of Planet Hulk or something.
Thanks for checking me out, FK.
No problem Devon. I’m a big fan.