John Jakala
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 8
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 9:04 pm
Post subject: Geoff Johns:
Threat or Menace? |
|
|
Alan -
I've been discussing this a bit with Chris Allen over on my blog, but I
thought I'd stop over here and ask you directly: So what's your beef
with Geoff Johns?
I get that you don't like his work, that you think it's mediocre and
perhaps too highly valued by many fans, but I'm confused by your desire
to see him removed from the industry "by any means necessary." Am I
taking your statements too literally here? Are you exaggerating for
hyperbolic effect? If not, I guess I just don't understand the wish for
someone to be booted from the industry.
_________________
John Jakala
Grotesque Anatomy:
• The Blog • The Forum |
|
|
ADD
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 37
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Geoff Johns:
Threat or Menace? |
|
|
John,
There are plenty of people that should be booted from the industry,
it's just that Johns
should be the first to go. More than any other mediocre writer, he has
been given free reign to misguide the fates of a number of icons like
The Flash, JSA and Avengers, making them unreadable for anyone who
wants more than just shambling avatars stumbling through their
superhero comics. He writes characters that, at their best, I have
enjoyed a great deal over the years, and currently none of them are any
goddamned good at all. Believe me, I would LOVE to have good Flash
comics to read. I'd love me SON, who loves the character from the JLA
cartoon, to be able to read his adventures in comics. But with Johns's
one-note sadism holding the title hostage, there's nothing to be done
but to try to point out that this particular fucking emporer has no
goddamned clothes.
Christ, at least Chuck Austen sucks in interesting ways.
ADD |
|
|
John Jakala
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 8
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:59 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Alan,
How is your attitude any different from those fanboys who bemoaned that
Morrison was "ruining" the X-Men with his weird, trippy ideas? If
you're not enjoying what so-and-so is doing on a certain title, isn't
the best course of action to find another comic that *does* give you
the buzz you're looking for? Why does it have to be The Flash that
delivers the thrills? You're pretty plugged in to the comics scene:
Couldn't the fact that Flash has become unreadable for you free up time
and money to devote to other books?
And what about all the people who *are* enjoying what Johns
is doing on Flash, JSA, etc.? Doesn't their enjoyment factor into the
equation at all?
I hope you don't mind my pressing this issue, but I'm genuinely
perplexed by your take on this.
_________________
John Jakala
Grotesque Anatomy:
• The Blog • The Forum |
|
|
ADD
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 37
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:38 am
Post subject: |
|
|
John,
If you honestly can't detect a qualitative difference between the work
of Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns,
then there's no point whatsoever in discussing this.
But if it makes you feel better, sure, there's no difference, Morrison
and Johns
are creative equals and JSA is every bit as nuanced, intelligent and
compelling as THE FILTH, THE INVISIBLES, ANIMAL MAN, KILL YOUR
BOYFRIEND, SEBASTIAN O, ST. SWITHIN'S DAY and of course NEW X-MEN.
Silly, ain't it?
I hadn't pegged you as one of those people who gets nervous and
defensive when someone like me states the truth passionately, John, and
I hope I'm wrong, because I like what you do.
ADD |
|
|
ADD
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 37
|
|
|
John Jakala
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 8
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:26 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Alan -
My point wasn't that the works of Morrison and Johns
are on equal footing but that your reaction to Johns'
mediocrity on FLASH struck me as similar to rabid fanboys' defensive
reaction to Morrison's "weirdness" on NXM. If you're not digging
Morrison on NXM, seek out something else you *do* dig. If you're not
enjoying Johns
on FLASH, go read something else that *does* tickle your superhero
funny bone. (And if you're really upset that The Flash as a particular
character is unreadable in his monthly title, search out some back
issues on eBay that are more to your liking. Heck, I'll send you my
copy of THE FLASH ARCHIVES if you'd like it.)
I'll grant you for the sake of argument that Johns
is a hack, and that his mere competency is somehow the Biggest Threat
Facing Comics. I still don't understand why anyone should expend any
energy toward removing him from comics. Yes, write about his work from
time to time; point out all the ways he offends the more developed and
refined critical faculties; recommend other works that are better worth
readers' time and money. But don't pretend (1) that repeated ranting
about Johns
will get others who have reflected upon his work and legitimately enjoy
it (for whatever reason) to stop buying his work; or (2) that removing
Johns
(and everyone else somehow determined to be substandard) will magically
elevate comics to a medium where Only Good Works grace the shelves.
Non-genius, mindless entertainment will still find its way into the
marketplace, Johns
or no Johns.
I find it interesting that Mark Millar makes your list of approved
superhero comic book writers. I haven't read Johns'
FLASH, so I'm not sure how sadomasochistic it is, but I have read parts
of Millar's ULTIMATES and ULTIMATE X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN and those all
seem pretty sadistic and brutal to me. Isn't Millar's approach on books
meant to serve as entry-level titles totally inappropriate given that
the featured characters appear in movies and other media geared toward
children?
And I apologize for my being nervous and defensive: It's not so
much that the truth scares me, even when passionately expressed; it's
all the Comic Book Orange Alerts and other hysterical tactics that
unnerve me.
_________________
John Jakala
Grotesque Anatomy:
• The Blog • The Forum |
|
|
ADD
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 37
|
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:30 am
Post subject: |
|
|
"If you're not
enjoying Johns
on FLASH, go read something else that *does* tickle your superhero
funny bone."
John, I agree that this is a good policy for the average comic book
reader.
My opinion of Johns
comes almost entirely by way of review copies I've been sent or the
occasional issue I've bought because I was interested in an art change
(Porter on Flash) or to investigate the buzz (JSA and Hawkman, gak).
I'd also note that, as someone who runs a website about comic books
(oh, my mum woulda been so proud), I feel some responsibility to stay
aware of what is going on in the varioous segments of the industry.
"(And if you're really upset that The Flash as a particular character
is unreadable in his monthly title, search out some back issues on eBay
that are more to your liking. Heck, I'll send you my copy of THE FLASH
ARCHIVES if you'd like it.)"
As I have mentioned more than once, I'm most interested in the
Flash as an entry-level superhero for all ages, which is what he has
been for 95 percent of his history. And mostly for my son, who would
seriously love some Flash comics that are fun and exciting and
inventive and don't have people peeling the flesh off their own faces
and sewing their lips closed.
So if you'd like to send the Flash Archives volume for him, John, I'm
not gonna say no.
"I'll grant you for the sake of argument that Johns
is a hack, and that his mere competency is somehow the Biggest Threat
Facing Comics."
The biggest threat facing comics is not Geoff Johns.
He isn't even in the top 100 biggest threats facing comics. He is just
the Biggest Bore in the Wizard Top Ten, which is generally PACKED with
bores, so it's really quite an accomplishment.
"I still don't understand why anyone should expend any energy toward
removing him from comics."
Honestly, John, how much energy do you think I've expended? Do you
envision me organizing pickets and benefit concerts and going door to
door to decry him to the hoi polloi? While it's funny to imagine, in
truth I have mentioned it a time or two in the context of writing about
what IS good in comics, and frankly, it didn't take that much energy at
all.
And I personally find it worthwhile, when pointing out what IS good in
superhero comics (Brubaker, Moore, Cooke, Morrison, often Bendis,
Ellis, Millar, occasionally even Joe Casey), I find it helps to also
discuss what is mediocre and lifeless, especially when something that
is as, yes, soporific as the majority of Johns's
comics are still manage to sell in the tens of thousands, while better
and more creative and more engaging comics languish in obscurity. It's
grating, I admit it. But talking about the dichotomy allows a writer to
compare and contrast, which you may have heard is a valid technique in
discussing two elements that share similar properties (Johns
and Morisson are both men who write comics after all, even if the
comparison crashes to the ground immediately thereafter).
"Don't pretend (1) that repeated ranting about Johns
will get others who have reflected upon his work and legitimately enjoy
it (for whatever reason) to stop buying his work; or (2) that removing
Johns
(and everyone else somehow determined to be substandard) will magically
elevate comics to a medium where Only Good Works grace the shelves."
Actually, John, having been doing this for about a half-decade now,
I HAVE had readers write to me to tell me that my writing finally got
them to take a look at their pull list and more honestly evaluate how
much they aren't enjoying marginal works. You may not care for my
technique, and that's fine; as you suggest to me, if you're not
enjoying it, move on. There's plenty of other stuff about comics to
read on "This, the comics internet."
"I find it interesting that Mark Millar makes your list of approved
superhero comic book writers."
Thanks for the condescension. I'm trying to keep this civil,
because as I've said, John, I like what you do, and more to the point,
to the degree that we've interacted over "This, the comics internet," I
like you personally.
That said, if you can find a place where I have posted my "List of
Approved Superhero Writers," I'll gladly pay you $1000.00.
Just because I have a list in my head of writers whose superhero work I
enjoy more than others, and just because I share that list with my
readers in an informal manner (NOT as the List of Approved Superhero
Writers you speak of), does not mean that this is received wisdom that
I assume All Right Thinking Mammals Share.
Here's a big revelation, John: EVERYTHING I WRITE IS MY OPINION. Feel
free to dismiss or embrace it as you like, as long as you are able to
understand it. If you disagree with it, that's great. If you feel it's
really important that Geoff Johns
Stay in Comics, tell me why. Tell me why the industry wouldn't be
better if marginal hacks like him got the fuck out of the way for
people with an actual creative spark in their psyches.
"I haven't read Johns'
FLASH, so I'm not sure how sadomasochistic it is..."
Well, it's less nausea-inducing than Frank Tieri's
nipple-and-eyeball-eating early years (and you BETTER not think I'm
making THAT up), but it's altogether inappropriate for any reader under
the age of 14, and I think that's wrong, when as I have mentioned, The
Flash is deliberately marketed to kids as part of an animated cartoon
series and accompanying line of action figures which are 100 percent
kids' stuff.
"I have read parts of Millar's ULTIMATES and ULTIMATE X-MEN and
SPIDER-MAN and those all seem pretty sadistic and brutal to me."
I don't disagree. However in the case of THE ULTIMATES A) They are
also done with occasional wit, creativity and genuine entertainment
value and B) The Ultimates is aimed primarily at adult readers through
trade dress and artistic style. I have children, John, and they're not
int he least bit engaged by the look of The Ultimates. They don't want
to read it and the art is too complex to intrigue them. The Flash on
Cartoon Network is just the opposite.
And I'm not going to address Millar's Spider-Man or Ultimate X-Men
because in the case of the first I've never read it and in the case of
the second, I didn't care for it very much. I don't remember anyone
ever peeling the flesh off their faces in it, though the modest sexual
overtones (Jean sleeping with Logan) would mark it as a title for
strictly 12 and up, I guess.
"Isn't Millar's approach on books meant to serve as entry-level
titles totally inappropriate given that the featured characters appear
in movies and other media geared toward children?"
The only purely entry-level Millar book I am aware of is Superman
Adventures, which is generally lauded for its all-ages appeal.
One final note, John. I've seen this ongoing,
blog-and-message-board-spanning discussion of ours described as a
"tiff," and again, I hope I'm not coming off as uncivil. I have no
desire to insult you or do battle with you. I've tried to respond to
your questions because I think it will provide more insight for both of
us (and perhaps one or two others) about just why Johns's
work is just so damned aggravating.
ADD |
|
|
John Jakala
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 8
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2004 10:26 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Alan -
I understand that as a critic who tries to keep his pulse on all
aspects of the comic book industry, you feel an obligation to be
familiar with writers such as Johns.
That's why I said in my earlier post that you should write about Johns'
work from time to time. What I don't understand is the desire to remove
Johns
(or anyone else) from the comic book industry. I don't picture you
organizing grass-roots campaigns to remove Johns
from comic book office, but I do recall your disparaging Johns
repeatedly, most recently in your discussion about Moore and Morrison
and in your review of EIGHTBALL #23 ("the majority of people who buy
comics and support their local comics shops, want nothing more than to
be comforted by the type of shit Geoff Johns
can squeeze out in his deep and dreamless sleep"). Your devoting all
that space to deriding Johns
is what I meant by "expending energy." I know it's not much, but that's
kind of my point: Even that infinitesimal bit of energy seems wasted to
me, for the two reasons I've already mentioned. I'm sure there are
readers whom you've managed to sway by pointing out something they
hadn't considered before. But I was referring to readers "who have
reflected upon his work and legitimately enjoy it" such as Shane Bailey.
Unless you're going to start arguing that such readers have deluded
themselves into a state of False Consciousness, I think it's best
simply to let those readers have the books they enjoy while you stump
for books you feel are better worth their time. And even if you believe
that Johns'
work is so egregious that it's Harming Comics, I don't think that
removing Johns
and everyone else who will fit in the U-Haul of Shame will Save Comics:
other mediocre writers will rise to take their place. That's why I
believe it's a better use of your time to promote good works if your
goal is to elevate the medium. (Although even then I think a critic's
impact will be small, not sweeping, but I think the positive approach
will work better than the negative one.)
Again, not saying you shouldn't do reviews of stuff you don't like.
On the contrary, I think you should, as it provides your readers with a
(negative) baseline by which they can determine your tastes. I'm just
saying that I find the effort (or desire) to Improve Comics by removing
creators below a certain talent threshold misguided. You may disagree
with me (which is fine; in fact, it could lead to an interesting
discussion about the role and reach of criticism in any field) but I
just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here.
ADD wrote: |
I've
seen this ongoing, blog-and-message-board-spanning discussion of ours
described as a "tiff," and again, I hope I'm not coming off as uncivil.
I have no desire to insult you or do battle with you. |
Well, our discussion appeared on Fanboy Rampage, so it must be a tiff!
Seriously, I don't much mind if you take jabs at me. For one thing, I
think everyone knows that if you get into a disagreement with Alan
David Doane, you can expect some cutting remarks coming your way, so I
can't say that I didn't know the risks going in. For another thing, a
certain amount of conflict can make an otherwise dull debate lively and
engaging for other readers. (Plus, it gives me an excuse to indulge in
my own rhetorical flourishes.)
The only thing that does irk me is when you write things such as:
Quote: |
"If you honestly can't detect a qualitative difference between the work
of Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns,
then there's no point whatsoever in discussing this."
"I hadn't pegged you as one of those people who gets nervous and
defensive when someone like me states the truth passionately, John, and
I hope I'm wrong, because I like what you do."
"talking about the dichotomy allows a writer to compare and
contrast, which you may have heard is a valid technique in discussing
two elements that share similar properties"
"Here's a big revelation, John: EVERYTHING I WRITE IS MY OPINION.
Feel free to dismiss or embrace it as you like, as long as you are able
to understand it."
|
and then claim you've been nothing but civil all along. Again, I
don't mind you getting some barbs in, but at least be honest about it.
Your trying to play the wounded martyr in all this is the only thing
that does insult me.
Now on to the ways in which I've offended. I'm not sure how my
statement "I find it interesting that Mark Millar makes your list of
approved superhero comic book writers" was condescending. (A bit
sarcastic, yes, but condescending, no.) I thought the list of comic
book creators you mentioned positively was in contrast to those writers
whose work on superhero comics you disapprove of, so I referred to it
as "your list of approved superhero comic book writers."
You may say that you were only offering the list in an "informal
manner" but when you're contrasting that list with writers whose "true
destiny" is to work at Wendy's, writers whom you're eager to kick out
of the comic book industry, I think it's easy to see where readers
might get the impression that you view your personal list as more than
just some humble suggestion. No, you didn't refer to it as your list of
Officially Sanctioned Superhero Writers, but I thought the overall tone
of your post was going in that direction, so using the term "approved"
(which can mean either "thought of favorably" or, more strongly, "given
authoritative endorsement") struck me as an appropriate way to take
issue with the elitism I perceived in your post. Again, I don't mind
your rhetoric, but I do mind when you use it and later attempt to
disown it. And if I can't poke fun at your excesses, where's the sport
in that?
I know it's your opinion -- even when stated in such a grandiose
manner ("anyone looking for actual creative energy to be expended in
the creation of these sooperhero funnybook entertainments" will
likewise be bored by Johns'
soporific work, just as you were, otherwise they're obviously not
concerned with "actual creative energy") -- that's why I referred to it
as your list (not Wizard's or
The One True List). I just thought Mark Millar's inclusion on that list
was odd given your stated reasons for feeling Johns
was inappropriate for working on superhero comics. (It's also
interesting that one of the other creators on your list -- Darwyn Cooke
-- has expressed similar misgivings about Millar's
superhero work.)
So here's
where you mentioned your list of approved superhero writers. Do I get
the thousand bucks in one lump sum or in installments? ;)
ADD wrote: |
The only purely entry-level Millar
book I am aware of is Superman
Adventures, which is generally lauded for its all-ages appeal. |
Well, I'm not sure how a book is determined to be "purely entry-level,"
but let's stipulate for the moment that it has something to do with its
content and presentation. If that's the case, then isn't Johns'
FLASH just as demarcated as non-entry-level as Millar's ULTIMATES and
other books are? (Just as Jean's sleeping with Logan marked Millar's
ULTIMATE X-MEN as a title geared toward ages 12+, doesn't the peeling
of flesh and sewing of lips in FLASH signal to you that that book is
meant for a certain age-level?) And doesn't The Flash appear in DC's
Justice League tie-in comic, with an artistic style closely matching
that of the cartoon, so that you do have an entry-level comic featuring
The Flash for your son? (And I know you said you haven't read Millar's
SPIDER-MAN, but a recent issue I flipped through had the Vulture's face
being brutally disfigured by the Black Cat. But perhaps the Dodsons'
artistic style doesn't appeal to younger children; I don't know.)
ADD wrote: |
You
may not care for my technique, and that's fine; as you suggest to me,
if you're not enjoying it, move on. There's plenty of other stuff about
comics to read on "This, the comics internet." |
But you're one of those most widely-read online comics pundits! I have
to react to you! ;)
And even if I didn't enjoy reading your work, I would never suggest
that you should be removed from the comics opinionosphere. I might cry
into my beer, pitifully bemoaning the fact that I don't have anywhere
near the audience or influence you do, but I'd never wish for your
removal. How could I? When I disagree with you, it spawns fun monster
threads like this one!
ADD wrote: |
If you disagree with it, that's
great. If you feel it's really important that Geoff Johns
Stay in Comics, tell me why. Tell me why the industry wouldn't be
better if marginal hacks like him got the fuck out of the way for
people with an actual creative spark in their psyches. |
I don't think it's really important that Geoff Johns
Stay in Comics, just as I don't think it's really important that Geoff
Johns
Be Forcibly Removed from Comics, or that everyone be as clever and
innovative as Moore and Morrison. Perhaps it's a bit pessimistic of me
(I prefer to view it as pragmatic), but I don't think the comics medium
-- or any medium -- will ever be made artistically ideal (whatever that
would mean). Furthermore, I don't even know if that's a healthy goal,
thinking mainly in economic terms. Looking at other industries, crap
sells. Furthermore, one person's crap is another person's -- well, not
treasure, but enjoyable fluff at the very least. I know I'd much rather
read Johns'
JSA than anything by Bendis or Millar, but I don't think Bendis or
Millar should be banished from comics because of that. And even if we
could banish all the creators we disliked, I'm guessing they'd mostly
be replaced by other creators
we disliked, not creators who resonated with us 100% of the time.
Really, shouldn't you be happier that the market more closely reflects
your tastes than mine? After all, Bendis and Millar both write books
that outsell Johns's
work by a wide margin each month. You should be celebrating! I'm the
one who should be getting the U-Haul ready!
ADD wrote: |
The biggest threat facing comics is
not Geoff Johns.
He isn't even in the top 100 biggest threats facing comics. |
I'm sensing a fun new list for The Comics Journal to work on. ;)
ADD wrote: |
I
like what you do, and more to the point, to the degree that we've
interacted over "This, the comics internet," I like you personally. |
Aw, shucks, ya big lug. You had to go and get all mushy on me, dincha?
And I've enjoyed our interaction, too. Just because things may be
getting a little more heated between us than they have in the past
doesn't mean I'm getting ready to delete you from my blogroll or
anything. Heck, if impassioned arguments led to denouncing one's
sparring partners, then Chris Hunter and I would have parted ways long
ago. (HA HA HA! I love working in gratuitous jabs at Hunter!)
ADD wrote: |
So if you'd like to send the Flash
Archives volume for him, John, I'm not gonna say no. |
Will do! I'll email you off-forum to make sure I still have your
current address. I haven't read all the stories yet, so I can't
guarantee there are no scenes of people peeling the flesh off their own
faces or sewing their lips closed, but it's the Silver Age, so if there
are, I'm sure they're pretty tame by today's standards.
_________________
John Jakala
Grotesque Anatomy:
• The Blog • The Forum |
|
|
Graeme McMillan
Guest
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2004 10:45 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
John Jakala wrote: |
Well, our discussion appeared on
Fanboy Rampage, so it must be a tiff! |
It's a clash, goddammit.
And, ADD? You owe John some money, if you ask me. Because, saying this:
ADD wrote: |
...when
pointing out what IS good in superhero comics (Brubaker, Moore, Cooke,
Morrison, often Bendis, Ellis, Millar, occasionally even Joe Casey)... |
and naming names like you did looks suspiciously like that list of your
Approved Superhero Writers that you promised to pay John $1000.00 for,
if he pointed one out to you later in the same post. But if John
doesn't want the money, I'll happily take it. Hell, you could even
donate it to the CBLDF and I'll be happy. |
|
|
Chris Hunter
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 12
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:37 am
Post subject: |
|
|
That Scumbag,
Fight-Startin' Jakala wrote: |
Heck,
if impassioned arguments led to denouncing one's sparring partners,
then Chris Hunter and I would have parted ways long ago. (HA HA HA! I
love working in gratuitous jabs at Hunter!) |
Bastard.
_________________
http://panoramically.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Chris Hunter
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 12
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:34 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
ADD wrote: |
As
I have mentioned more than once, I'm most interested in the Flash as an
entry-level superhero for all ages, which is what he has been for 95
percent of his history. And mostly for my son, who would seriously love
some Flash comics that are fun and exciting and inventive and don't
have people peeling the flesh off their own faces and sewing their lips
closed. |
I have an honest question about this for you, Alan. I completely
understand your point about The Flash being entry level/all ages fun
and that the way that it's currently written, it's not that at all.
My question is this: do you feel that all of the blame for that should
rest on Johns?
I ask because, ultimately, The Flash is editorially mandated and I feel
that Johns
isn't completely to blame for the direction of the book. I think that
partial blame should rest on the shoulders of the editors as well.
What are your thoughts about that?
_________________
http://panoramically.blogspot.com/ |
|