RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Popping the Silver Age Myth

Let's pop an interesting myth of superhero comics. Or rather, of superhero comics fandom. . .

. . .Of course, every action has a reaction, and there was a vocal response to the grim'n'gritty movement. It wasn't the right response, which would have been to just point out how inane the formulization was and get on with the larger business of creating new comics with new and different points of view. But it was a response. What I call the "making comics fun again" school. By this theory, seemingly embraced by those mainly in comics to hold onto their Comics Code Authority approved childhood, "grim'n'gritty" was undermining everything good about comics, specifically superhero comics. (Which is true, just not in the way they think.) Complaints were filed that everything was so downbeat and depressing, heroes behaved in what the clique considered "unheroic" ways (damaging/obliterating their status as, heh, "role models") and villains all became homicidal maniacs.

Strangely, DC's THE FLASH ended up being the poster boy for this backlash, with the special distinction made that in 1960s FLASH comics, the villains were "fun" while in the '80s and early '90s they became cold-blooded killers. This theory ultimately cascaded into things like IDENTITY CRISIS, where the "bumbling" Dr. Light is recreated as a rapist and (at least by initial appearances) a killer, and the superheroes demonstrate their unexpectedly pragmatic view toward morality by tampering with the memories of villains, down to the final issue of last year's FLASH series, where the whole official Flash Rogues Gallery teams up to murder the third Flash, apparently to officially drive the final nail into the Silver Age.

But I grew up reading those Silver Age DC comics too, and Superman, Green Lantern, and whoever else had any means to pull it off routinely obliterating memories not only of their enemies who'd discovered some terrible secret (like a secret identity or the location of the Batcave and such) but of their friends, so why would that be a big deal to Silver Age fans? Recently I had reason to go through the John Broome/Gardner Fox/Carmine Infantino run of FLASH stories – don't ask – and know what I found?

The Flash Rogues Gallery were always homicidal maniacs.By and large the Rogues don't bother trying to kill bystanders, but if you read the books carefully it's clear it's only because they're not worth the bother and as time goes on they rarely come in contact with any. The Flash? Him they're constantly trying to kill, and not always with the goofy deathtraps that give him time to escape. (Captain Boomerang alone flings him into the murderous chill of outer space more than once.) In one scene later in the run where a number of villains gang up on the Flash and apparently obliterate him (though by then you'd think they'd know better) they start to bicker over who deserves the credit.

There's the theoretically innocuous Dr. Light, more than happy to be a murderer. Goofy? Sure. (I especially like the Top's plan to blow up half the world, because he'll be safe on the other half. Huh?) Callously homicidal? Obviously.

Read enough of these things and other DC Silver Age titles with a fresh eye, and you can recognize two trends going on: a lot of (basically silly) surrender to Code-dictated restrictions (pretty much every time Captain Cold freezes banks or cities or cops or bystanders with "absolute zero," they make a point of saying the victims will "thaw out" but science maven Julie Schwartz, not to mention the quite educated Gardner Fox and John Broome, surely understood that nothing normal could survive it) and little outbursts here and there that try to stretch the boundaries, though never to the extent that Stan Lee did at Marvel, where he only had himself and his publisher to answer to. Not that the stuff didn't have its moment or its effects – a whole generation of British comics writers apparently grew up believing not only that DC-style silliness was what American comics were all about but what they should be all about, but gussied up in 2000 AD drag – but it was never quite as innocent as it's generally remembered to be, and what has been done with superhero comics since are mostly things that were bubbling under the surface all along. The fight to revert them quietly goes on, with diminishing returns, and without much recognition of the little reversions that have occurred over time. Recently another friend commented on Marvel's WORLD WAR HULK, disappointed that much of it is less "Hulk smash" than "Hulk delegate," and noting the Hulk goes on a massive rampage but nobody dies. Neither especially bothered me, and as far as dying Hulk victims goes, it's easy enough to imagine plenty of corpses rotting in flattened brownstones and skyscrapers if you choose, but I never expect realistic violence from Marvel in the first place. The conceit of lots of destruction but nobody dying has been a standard conceit in comics since the beginning, and certainly a Marvel conceit since the first time the Mole Man invaded or Thor and the Absorbing Man first pounded a path of destruction through midtown, and most of the time I'm willing to look the other way. I think we all are; there are always conceits we're willing to accept in the short term, if the story is worth it. It's all a balancing act of what you can and can't get readers to accept. But what the "making comics fun again" crowd generally remember is a fantasy resting more on ignorance than innocence, and the day for that has passed.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. . .

it's not about trying to "destroy the Silver Age," it's about making people realize that 1) the Silver Age is over and cannot be recreated and 2) that the Silver Age was not the nostalgic "gumdrops and rainbows" that people want to remember it as.

when was the last time you actually read those books, as opposed to just looking back over them with rose colored glasses?

I have a bunch of DC archive books here. I really do prefer them to what is out now.

I know that this is NOT about destroying the books physically,but that it is about making what happened in them null and void.

That is what I meant: What happened in them, happened.. and they cannot be erased from continuity, to the chagrin of many writers.

..........what?

Did you even read the article at all? It has NOTHING to do with removing/denying/retconning the Silver Age. It's about how modern writers are all about trying to "recreate" the Silver Age as they remember it: through the nostalgia of childhood memories. When, in fact, the Silver Age was not as innocent and morally perfect as their memories lead them to believe.

It has nothing to do with denying the power of the era itself. It has everything to do with acknowledging the historical facts of the era, not the romanticized memories of fanboys...

Grant's arguement seems to boil down to "silver age villains did too kill."

He's correct to a certain extent. However, I think his argument fails to take into consideration the following:

• Sure, Silver Age villains sometimes killed people. But the deaths were often implied and definitely not as graphically portrayed. That's an important difference. Using what appears to be Grant's logic, there's no difference between an implied sex scene in a classic Hollywood film such as "Gone with the Wind" and a hardcore fuck session in a direct to video porn film since both films' narratives involve people have sex. Of course, there is a difference and Grant should be able to realize that.
• Perhaps more importantly a lot of [if not a major basis for] the knock on modern comics is not about the actions of the villains. It's about the actions of the heroes. Silver age heroes were clearly that: the good guys, and they acted accordingly. In the silver age, Spider-man might battle the Green Goblin, GG might kill someone but Spider-man sure as hell didn't make a deal with Satan to resolve the issue. Similarly, Reed Richards would fight like hell to keep someone from destroying the earth, but he didn't lock his friends in a negative zone gulag to accomplish it.
• Most of us recognize that the silver age was flawed and most of old time fans don't really want a return to that era. We don't want a Batman who acts like Adam West. We don't want simplistic stories that only last eight pages. But we do like the idea of taking what works in a modern age (better characterization, better logic, better art) and maybe, just maybe, making more comics that are, like the ones in the Silver Age, fun to read and even capable of attracting new readers, instead of catering to an ever shrinking readership that needs to be exposed to even more "shocking" moments to rouse themselves from their comics reading ennui

and by that, I mean that the books can be ignored, they can be said to NOT count..


But they do count.. just as, to many reading comics now who are kids, when this present comic continuity is made obsolete in another 15 years or so, those books will count to that generation of readers, as well.

Snarf, Jerry was on a tangent.

A tangent of his very own.

Please be quiet...

Snarf, Jerry was on a tangent.

I have a bunch of DC archive books here. I really do prefer them to what is out now.

I know that this is NOT about destroying the books physically,but that it is about making what happened in them null and void.

BUT all the current writers now are doing that to the Iron Age (86-96) characters that I knew and loved as a kid. They've ruined Kyle Rayner, killed Superboy and Bart Allen, screwed up the New Warriors; I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Quesada resurrects the Ultraverse just so Marvel can ruin that... Again.

Morrison's Superman is yet another example of trying to bring back the Silver Age. you can have good books with SA elements without trying to turn everything backwards (New Frontier and Brave and the Bold for two recent examples).

no, it's the nostalgic navel gazing attempts to recreate the era in favor of actually doing new things ala Loeb's "Return to Krypton" arc, Waid's "Silver Age" event, Morrison's Superman and so on.

I don't mind elements of the Silver Age as long as their mixed with new ideas and concepts ala Moore's Supreme, Morrison's Doom Patrol, New Frontier, etc.

take the old things and do something new as opposed to just re-telling old stories.

IMO, when something is ingrained in the public consciousness, trying something new for it's own sake is inevitably going to be doomed to failure. (see Azbats).

with such iconic characters as Superman, doing a self consciously obvious attempt to "modernize" the character was always doomed to failure because what they were doing was essentially ripping off silver age elements of the mythos and just adding stupid over analyzed explanations so the could feel good about including them in the new Superman's mythos (see Supergirl Titano etc.)

as far as the public conciousness, the general public doesn't even read comics. so attempting to appeal to them is the only thing "doomed to failure." the comics should be the comics and not worry about aping the film and tv incarnations (again, that's another rant. . .)

people say Archie still sells, but does it? and to whom and how many? I still see the digests at grocery stores, but I never see anyone buying them. although my brother devoured them when he was younger.

I know the "new look" wasn't met well, but again, how many of the people who complained about that actually buy and/or read the Archie stuff?

It does sell.Mostly it's parents picking up books for their kids.They shy away from super-heroes and buy the digests or comics that have Archie & friends or Disney,Scooby-Doo,Sonic and such.

NRAMA: Lately there's been a resurgence of crime comics. Why do you think that is?

SG: I don't know there's a genuine market for them yet - I think we'd have to have a certain density, a critical mass, of successful ones, or one or two wildly successful ones, before that happened - but my guess is a lot of writers are tired of the limitations of superhero comics and crime comics allow you to focus on themes you can't really approach in superhero comics. Or horror comics, really, even though there's some thematic spillover between crime and horror. Before anyone thinks I'm badrapping superhero comics, that's not what I'm saying. But superhero comics are about winners. You can occasionally get away from that, but there are only so many times people can rewrite Watchmen, and on monthly superhero titles sooner or later your hero has to win or he's not much of a hero. That's just the mechanics of it. Crime comics - and by crime comics I mean comics about criminals, not about cops, private or otherwise, solving crimes, that's really a different genre as far as I'm concerned - are about losers. I've always found writing about losers more interesting than writing about winners, so crime comics are a natural draw for me, not that I like writing any one thing endlessly.

The other thing about crime comics as opposed to superhero comics or horror comics is that you can keep the focus on more or less real people, and there's a lot more room for variety of emotional response.

NRAMA: And the flipside - in other mediums, crime is one of the primary genres - why do you think it's been so under-represented in comics?

SG: Partly because the superficial elements of crime fiction have been cannibalized by superhero comics, just like science fiction and about every other genre. That's part of the strength of superhero comics. If all you want is cops and robbers, there's nothing crime comics can give you that superhero comics can't. The other part of the equation is that the American comics market is built now on the direct market and on comics shops, and those were built on superhero comics, specifically Marvel comics, and are still mostly geared toward serving that market.

I'm not begrudging them that, Marvel superhero comics will always be their economic safety net, but it's really not a market that trusts alternative genres (aside from horror) and isn't particularly effective in building them, though that's not really their fault either. Like I said, you really need some sort of critical mass. If every publishers publishing a single crime comic, it's unlikely that, say, Boom! and Marvel are going to work together to co- or cross-promote 2 Guns and Criminal. Even if Ed and I were to team up to do it ourselves, it's unlikely that Marvel would see much percentage in helping Boom! get more sales. Most comics shops tend to rack by publisher, not by theme, so you've got Criminal swimming more or less lost amid a sea of Spider-man and X-men books. If someone reads 2 Guns and decides they've just got to read more crime comics, go into most comics shops and they'll have a hard time finding them. If some publisher ever decides to put money and effort behind creating a substantial line of good - I emphasize good, which is the part of the equation most people leave out - crime comics, then you've got a chance at visibility and you've got a shot at casual market building. The way things are now, even people who like crime comics and wouldn't mind seeing new ones have to pretty much know what they're looking for before they find it. Just the way things are structured prohibits browsing, but browsing is how most people who aren't already insiders are drawn to these things. If they can't find them they can't buy them, if they don't buy them no one thinks there's a market. But proving there's a market means taking a big risk and a big leap of faith.

cuz they average about three to four bucks a pop now?