PDA

View Full Version : Stuart Moore's A Thousand Flowers, part 18 - Relevance


MattBrady
05-20-2003, 09:30 AM
<center><a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Thousand_Flowers_index.htm"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/flowers_banner.jpg" width="475" height="75" border="0"></a></center>

<center>A THOUSAND FLOWERS</center><center>Comics, Pop Culture, and the World Outside</center><center>Installment 18</center><center>by Stuart Moore</center>

“There’s A Fine Country Out There Someplace”

If you read comics in 1972, you couldn’t avoid the word: relevance. For a couple of years, comics were hell-bent not just on reflecting the real world, but on hammering home hard-hitting social issues every month -- sometimes with a pretty blunt hammer. At DC in particular, everybody seemed to be trying on those new mod clothes and marching for civil rights.

The flagship title in this crusade was Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams’s Green Lantern/Green Arrow. The Green Lantern title had been floundering since the departures of John Broome and Gil Kane, and O’Neil and Adams took it in a radically different direction. They made Green Arrow a regular costar and challenged the title character’s faith in authority through a series of confrontations with social issues, as the two heroes road-tripped across America.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/glga79.jpg" width="250" height="381" align="right" alt="&quot;My Redskin Brothers?&quot; Yeeesh....">Sometimes the GL/GA stories were incisive and sensitive, and sometimes they missed their marks. But the series as a whole was radical, ever-changing, and boasted some of Adams’ finest-ever artwork, which is saying a hell of a lot. It was never a big seller, but it won awards and was a favorite among sophisticated fans and fellow creators. No wonder other DC books tried to imitate its trappings, usually with less success.

Marvel dealt with social issues too, largely in extended subplots like Steve Gerber’s Sons of the Serpent storyline in Defenders and, most famously, Steve Englehart’s Secret Empire story in Captain America, which climaxed with the suicide of (a never directly identified) Richard Nixon. This sight so disillusioned Captain America that he temporarily relinquished his costumed identity, wracked by doubts about his country. As a big, extended metaphor for America’s betrayal at the hands of its President, it carried a lot of weight.

But Marvel’s hearts were never in “relevance” the same way DC’s were. At first glance that seemed odd, considering that their books, in other ways, were much more closely tied to the real world. Maybe the less serial nature of the DC books made it easier for them to cover the “issue of the month,” as opposed to the Marvel books, which favored more extended storylines. Who would want to read about Spider-Man fighting pollution for eight friggin’ months in a row, anyway?

Or maybe DC was a little less embarrassed by the polemic nature of too many of these stories. Most of them had to stop dead at some point while the hero either (a) delivered a speech about a gravely serious social issue or (b) had such a speech delivered to him, usually by a poor but virtuous denizen of a ghetto neighborhood.

Both of these clichés came from Green Lantern/Green Arrow, where they were initially fresh. In the very first story [GL #76], an old black man famously asks Green Lantern what he’s done for “the black skins”; this scene is dramatically clunky, but it hit a real chord and is very well remembered. Elsewhere in the issue, Green Arrow first develops his trademark rants against injustice. There was something very believable about the Arrow’s character in particular -- he really seemed like the former rich capitalist who had “gotten religion,” moved in with the regular people, got himself a sexier costume and girlfriend, and took his crusades much more seriously than the other characters in the book.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/capnixon.jpg" width="300" height="224" align="left">Unfortunately, Green Arrow’s speechifying didn’t work so well when transferred to, say, Leo Dorfman’s Action Comics. But a new group of creators poured into the field in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s: Denny O’Neil, Steve Skeates, Neal Adams, Steve Gerber, Steve Englehart, Don McGregor, Barry Windsor-Smith, Frank Brunner, Jim Starlin, and others. And a lot of those writers and artists were young, ambitious, and committed to social causes.

As usual, mundane business reasons drove the influx of new blood, starting with the 1968 DC purge of its older-line writers chronicled in <a href="http://www.newsarama.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=00003 4" target="_blank"> Installment 13</a>, “Give Me Liberty.” Just a few years later, Marvel finally broke free of its distribution deal through DC, allowing the company to greatly expand its line. This made room for experimental comics like Killraven, Man-Thing, Warlock, and Master Of Kung Fu, where many of the new writers and artists spread their wings.

Like many areas of popular culture, comics embraced “relevance” as a way of catching up with the turbulent changes of the ‘60s. Most popular media were very conservative in the ‘60s, but as the political and sexual permissiveness of the counterculture seeped into the mainstream, things changed fast.

While a new vanguard of creators revolutionized comics in the ‘70s, a parallel shift was transforming the film industry. Dennis Hopper, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese, Robert Altman, Don Simpson, and the pre-Star Wars George Lucas, among others, came into that field with a fire and passion to make great, new, and (yes) relevant films. And as with comics, the doors opened for them partly because of behind-the-scenes changes at the studios.

The ‘60s had not been kind to the film industry. The old formula of expensive blockbusters wasn’t working anymore, and studios, in desperation, turned to cheaper works, which made way for a wider variety of idiosyncratic filmmakers. And a few successes made it seem worthwhile to throw a little money each at a lot of small films. Film historian Robert Sklar described it this way:

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/easyriderposter.jpg" width="250" height="362" align="right" alt="it all comes back to Fonda and Hopper"> “Easy Rider’s example, in the age-old Hollywood way, impelled others to copy its formula -- gather up a youthful cast and crew, give them a story about youthful alienation and struggles with a repressive know-nothing society, and you’ll bank a 2,500 percent profit, or thereabouts. A movie gold rush began anew in Hollywood for a few noncommercial filmmakers, television directors, free-lance screenwriters and off-Broadway performers. It lasted until the imitations of Easy Rider nearly all turned out to be box-office disasters.”

Relevance in comics was pretty much dead by 1975; it lingered on in movies a bit longer. That might be because comics have shorter lead times for production than films. In his fascinating book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, Peter Biskind put it this way: “Because movies are expensive and time-consuming to make, Hollywood is always the last to know, the slowest to respond, and in those years it was at least half a decade behind the other popular arts.”

It’s also possible that comics had so overdone relevance by 1973 that it was kind of embarrassing. DC in particular took the whole thing a little too far; the “women’s lib” stories in Lois Lane were simplistic, and I think we can all agree that writing Superboy stories on prison reform was taking the trend a little too far (though it wasn’t a bad story, as they went).

As the ‘70s wore on, both DC and Marvel also saw an influx of a new group of fans-turned-pros, less influenced by the hippie world and more inclined -- for better or worse -- to return to comics' pure entertainment roots. The older-line editors were happy to encourage this.

The film world changed, too, in the late ‘70s -- more dramatically, and more permanently, than comics did. And what film was cited as the turning point, the rallying cry for the new Hollywood?

A little thing called Star Wars.

More on that next time!

**

Bibliography:

Peter Biskind, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls (Simon & Schuster, 1998)
Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America (Vintage/Random House, 1975)

Stuart Moore has been a writer, a comics editor for Vertigo and Marvel Knights, a kitchen worker, a book editor, and the nighttime manager of the Lawrenceville, NJ Woolworth's curtain department. He has won the Will Eisner award for Best Editor 1996 and the Don Thompson Award for Favorite Editor 1999. Sadly, there’s no going back to Woolworth’s…but that hasn’t been a problem yet, because of…

My current comics work: Dark Horse’s Free Comic Book Day giveaway, ROCKET COMICS: IGNITE, featured a special 10-page stand-alone preview story of LONE, my entry into the new Rocket Comics line, along with two other great stories. More information at <a href="http://www.rocketcomics.net" target="_blank">http://www.rocketcomics.net</a> and <a href="http://www.newsarama.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000094" target="_blank">http://www.newsarama.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000094</a> . Also: The beautiful trade paperback collection of ZENDRA: HEART OF FIRE, my epic science fiction series from Penny-Farthing Press, is out now; ask for it by name! And coming soon: announcements about projects from three other companies -- keep an eye on my message board at <a href="http://www.joequesada.com." target="_blank">http://www.joequesada.com.</a> See you in 14 days…

Francis Barel
05-20-2003, 11:07 AM
Very interesting column, can't wait for the next one!!!
Did DC ever put up a SOFTCOVER of GL/GA? I know they put out an Archive, but a softcover?
As for the copies of Easy Rider, that's a good thing that no one remembers them!

Todd VerBeek
05-20-2003, 12:31 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Francis Barel:
<strong>Did DC ever put up a SOFTCOVER of GL/GA? I know they put out an Archive, but a softcover?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">DC has reprinted the O'Neil/Adams GL/GA three times so far: in a two-issues-per-installment mini-series in the early 1980's, a pair of paperback collections entitled "GL/GA: (More) Hard-Traveling Heroes" in the early 1990's, and a hardcover in the early 2000's. Expect a digital version in the early 2010's. {grin}

Johnny Triangles
05-20-2003, 02:19 PM
Oops, double post.

Johnny Triangles
05-20-2003, 02:23 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by World Famous J. Triangles:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
As the ‘70s wore on, both DC and Marvel also saw an influx of a new group of fans-turned-pros, less influenced by the hippie world and more inclined -- for better or worse -- to return to comics' pure entertainment roots. The older-line editors were happy to encourage this.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was having this conversaton the other day...it seems like comics always goes through this cycle of relevance versus escapism. Marvel started relevance in comics, not through preachiness, but having characters who were fallible, had moments of weakness, bickered, and had human problems. DC took this trend overboard with a lot of its books, as this article mentions. They got really preachy and sometimes depressing. This trend went even more overboard as Gerber, Englehart, O' Neil, and others mentioned went to town on social relevance stories. They seemed more interested in the real world than the particular characters' continuities and histories, and would often twist the characters to fit the story they wanted to tell, whether it was believable or not (i.e. Green Arrow turned radical hippie, Captain America as disillusioned hippie).

Then came the fans turned pros who reemphasized escapism and created continuity-heavy comics about comics catering to fanboys. The Wolfmans, Weins, etc. These writers you could tell read and knew nothing in their lives except comics, and it showed through their work. There was no point of reference for their stories outside of other comics. They were bad for the opposite reasons: no matter what happened, they wanted characters to come out unchanged and made their personalities too rigid, maybe because they were too loyal to continuity to experiment.

Then came the 80s and relevance struck again, as Miller, Moore, Chaykin, Shooter, Noncenti, and others stepped into the forefront with darker, more realistic stories. Old pros like O'Neil also regained prominence. This time social relevance took the form of extreme cynicism, ultraviolence, and grim and gritty comics. Like the previous era of social relevance, Marvel started it, but DC went to town on it, and once again Green Arrow and Green Lantern were their guinea pigs. They took grim and gritty so far with these two characters that it became depressing. Lantern's life was dark and out of control, Arrow was a deeply flawed unreliable womanizer, Black Canary was raped, sexually tortured and left barren, Hawkman was a drug-addicted psycho, Nightwing and all the other former sidekicks had no self-confidence, etc.

Then came the next wave of fans-turned pros, people whose only point of reference was other comics. The Image guys, the Waids, the Busieks, etc. Comics were once again about comics.

Now Marvel is returning to relevance. The trend is starting again. If history repeats itself, now that Marvel has reopened the door to relevant comics via Bendis, Millar, Morrison, Milligan, etc., DC should be flooding the market with over-the-top relavant product soon in an effort to "out-Marvel" Marvel. It's usually when DC pulls these overboard, oversaturation moves that each new comics trend dies.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Elayne Riggs
05-20-2003, 03:07 PM
I think one of the main reasons the GL/GA relevance stories are so fondly remembered where others of the era may not be is indeed the art, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't mention any artists on the other relevance stories you cited. Would those stories have had the same impact at all without the amazing Neal Adams drawing them? Somehow I doubt it. I think O'Neil has done a really nice job of examining pacifism in Azrael, particularly through the character of Leslie Tompkins, but you just don't hear that much about it because as good as the artists are they're no Neal Adams.

- Elayne

steveupson
05-20-2003, 03:10 PM
Interesting article, Stuart. Also something I've been thinking about, and so I ditto some of what World Famous said.

I've been thinking about comics relative to The Matrix. I don't want to start a discussion about the movie, but after seeing it it occurred to me how small comics can be--they just seemed weak to me in comparison. Not just in scope and spectacle, but in content and depth. I feel in a way as though the Matrix films have taken a germ from the superhero genre (among many other things), and done with it what comics rarely do (again, I don't want to start a discussion about the causality of Grant Morrison's Invisibles v. the Matrix ).

I hope that maybe comics creators will be inspired towards greater relevance, which doesn't have to mean sermons about ecology or drug addiction, but pointing to something more than, like World Famous mentioned, other comics.

And not to say that it isn't being done by many comics creators--it is, particularly by the ones who can see what kinds of stories the comics genre is particularly good at telling--but it doesn't seem characteristic of the industry as a whole, maybe. I don't know--someone can feel free to rebut me.

OM
05-20-2003, 04:15 PM
...And the attempts at "social relevancy" really started before the GL/GA run, although the seriousness wasn't prevailant. Brother Power, The Geek took a look at the Hippie counterculture through rose-colored glasses(*) and still managed to...well, at least it gave me a lesson that I didn't want to grow up to be a hippie :-)

...And Stuart, I'm a little surprised you didn't bring up that Superman story where the Guardians of Oa first put that "Prime Directive of Non-Interference Disguised As Don't Be Overprotective" into Clark's head. Great story, even if it's ridiculed these days by the Authority and Planetary fans as being too "behind the times".

(*) With a significant level of LSD, natch...

Zonker
05-21-2003, 03:00 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The flagship title in this crusade was Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams’s Green Lantern/Green Arrow. The Green Lantern title had been floundering since the departures of John Broome and Gil Kane, and O’Neil and Adams took it in a radically different direction.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just a correction: The O'Neil/Adams GL/GA began in GL #76. The preceeding issue, #75 was by John Broome and Gil Kane. Kane had indeed taken a furlough earlier, around issue 61, but was back in place for #68-75. So it wasn't the departure of Broome & Kane that made the title flounder-- after all, DC superheroes like Atom and Hawkman had all recently lost their books, and Aquaman would soon follow. It was probably Carmine Infantino's elevation to editorial director at DC that was responsible for most of the innovation from 1968-1974 at DC, for example the Big Change to Wonder Woman, House of Mystery, and later GL/GA, "Swanderson" Superman, the New/Old Batman, Kirby's 4th World, etc.

Cheers,
Z.

Stuart Moore
05-22-2003, 06:05 PM
Thanks for the correction, Z -- I was indeed thinking of Kane's earlier departure from GL. Did he do some Marvel work during that break? I know he went over there again after he left GL the second time, drawing WARLOCK, some SPIDER-MAN, and most of the line's covers.

Best,
Stuart