Why is Brian Michael Bendis a bad writer?

[K-Box]

Brian Michael Bendis discusses Dark Avengers, in which Norman Osborn, a.k.a. the Green Goblin, and his team of fellow unrepentantly, irredeemably evil supervillains become the official, government-sanctioned Avengers:

Explaining it All: Brian Bendis Talks Dark Avengers #1

Norman is the hero of his story, and everyone on his team is the hero of their story. Yes, they have vendettas, and absolutely, they want to stick it to the man and let everyone have it. But how they're doing it is through this idea of being the hero of their own story.

And maybe they're better at it! Maybe Wolverine's kid is a better, younger Wolverine. Maybe Venom actually would be a better Spider-Man if you got him under control. Maybe you'd get more accomplished because they don't have the same piles of neuroses and moral quandaries that our "heroes" wrestle with. Maybe they'll be more effective Avengers.

Steven Grant, I seem to recall that you had some thoughts on a similar subject?

The problem has been the desire of talent, editors and publishers alike for their good guys to unrepentantly behave like bad guys – let's face it, ultraviolence sells – and still have audiences accept them as unambiguously good guys. No questions need apply.

This is not a sophisticated use of the medium. In its way it's already a reversion to the unambiguous Silver Age superhero, just replacing kneejerk "traditional values" with kneejerk sadism in the name of traditional values, and the "let's all wink and look the other way" ethos behind it is as much a drag on superhero comics as the self-complacent '50s autohero ever was, and these days certainly moreso 'cause there ain't a lot of the latter around anymore except in nostalgia-ridden fanboy fever dreams.

... I will never get tired of reposting that quote.

Also in the above-linked interview, Bendis actually names Joseph McCarthy and Dick Cheney as specific examples of how he plans to characterize Norman Osborn.

Especially after eight years of Dick Cheney as vice president, anyone who could still argue that the ultimate solution to national security is simply to be more brutal than our enemies ... well, such a hypothetical person would not only qualify as incurably stupid, but also as unconscionably evil, because REAL LIFE HAS ALREADY PROVEN THAT THOSE METHODS DO NOT WORK.

In fact, you know what, fuck it, I'm invoking Godwin, and I don't give a shit, because at this point in our nation's history, being any sort of apologist for the strategy of USING terror to FIGHT terror is easily on a par with being an apologist for either the ideologies or the practices of Nazi Germany, in the wake of World War II.

Oh, and for added lulz from Bendis?

I know there are some people who are reading this or who are reading Dark Avengers who are like, "Wait. Didn't he murder people?" All of this will be addressed very, very soon. Of course it will be addressed. Yes, I am aware of the history of Norman Osborn. Please. Don't start with that. Of course I know. Come on. I've been writing Spider-Man for nine years and I've seen the movie, you know?

Right, because it's not like you're a lying hack whose ego and propensity for careless retcons both rival those of John Byrne, and it's certainly not like you've overlooked and/or butchered several crucial, memorable and/or well-loved aspects of continuity established by previous writers of the books that you've written, and it's definitely not like you've created irrevocable continuity clusterfucks between books like Ultimate Spider-Man and Ultimate Origins, BOTH OF WHICH YOU YOURSELF HAVE BEEN THE SOLE WRITER FOR, BENDIS YOU HUGE GIGANTIC DOUCHETARD.

[Anders]

Not to defend Bendis' Marvel work (since I haven't read it), but I think you're heavily misrepresenting that quote.

"Norman is the hero of his story" is the correct emphasis, I believe. He's specifically not saying Norman is a hero, but that Norman views himself as a hero, and likewise for the others.

And, though badly phrased, the second part of it ("maybe they're better at it") is actually about redemption. Maybe, if you give them the chance, they can be heroes - even great heroes.

I'm not saying the execution will bear this out, but using that quote to bash him is completely off base.

[K-Box]

Here are the problems with that, Anders:

Bendis puts quotes around "heroes" when referring to Spider-Man and Wolverine, which would tend to indicate that he doesn't see THEM as "heroic." This is further borne out by the part of his quote that YOU overlooked, which is that Osborn and Venom and Wolverine's son will be better "heroes" BECAUSE they have LESS morals than Spider-Man and Wolverine. No matter how much he tries to dress this up as a potential tale of redemption, Bendis has already flatly stated that Osborn and company's LACK of heroism is what he believes will make them BETTER "heroes."

Another problem with Bendis' claims of exploring the more complex side of "bad guys" is that, while Bendis' villains don't actually say, "I'm the bad guy," they are nonetheless among the most mono-dimensional villains I've ever encountered in all of superhero comics, because every single villain he's ever written is either Just Plain An Asshole or else Just Plain Crazy. He talks about how "every bad guy has an agenda," but NONE of his villains have EVER had an agenda, beyond either serving themselves or being insane. Bendis got his start writing in the noir genre, and it shows, because he somehow managed to inherit all of that genre's cynical fatalism without also inheriting any of its dramatic complexity - all of his "heroes" are naive, deluded fools whose blinding incompetence ensures that they ALWAYS do more harm than good, regardless of their intentions, and no matter how much he tries to claim that his "bad guys" see themselves as the heroes "of their own stories," there's no way that they possibly could, because Bendis consistently shows them committing acts that THEY THEMSELVES KNOW TO BE EVIL, for no other reason than "I'm greedy" or "I don't give a fuck."

Which, once again, makes Bendis the living embodiment of Steven Grant's quote.

[Anders]

Using "heroes" in quotes when referring to "normal" heroes in this context doesn't necessarily point to some nefarious agenda based on them not being heroic, as it can just as easily be a way to distinguish them from the (potential) heroes the discussion is focused on, and since he uses "hero" in the normal sense without the quotes in the rest of the interview about regular heroes I don't see any basis for your interpretation.

And you're (intentionally or not) misreading the part about being heroic. What he says is that they "don't have the same piles of ... moral quandaries that our 'heroes' wrestle with". That's not saying they don't have morals or will be less heroic; it's saying they have a more clear-cut view of morality. More Batman, less Spiderman.

Again, not defending BMB in general, just trying to point out that you're trying to read this in the worst possible way. But considering the groupthink around here I'm starting to think this place really needs someone who actually likes the current crop of mainstream comics because the hating is getting really old.

[michaelpaciocco]

Jan 24, 2009 4:45:04 GMT -8 Anders said:

Again, not defending BMB in general, just trying to point out that you're trying to read this in the worst possible way. But considering the groupthink around here I'm starting to think this place really needs someone who actually likes the current crop of mainstream comics because the hating is getting really old.

Or, a better plan (which is what I'm working on): Start reading comics that are actually good, and that have nothing to do with Marvel and DC, and leave these comic companies to their fates as the trashbins of history.

Michael

[Anders]

That's what I've been saying, but nobody seems to listen to me.

[michaelpaciocco]

Oh, I'm moving on mostly, but A) it's far quicker and easier to write a hate-filled mini-rant than to praise something good (i.e. Matt Wagner's rocking Zorro comic, or the first issue of Farscape, which manages to pass the basic tests I'd expect of such a comic; or of course, PS238), and B) I'm a bit busy with RL concerns, but I occassionally will drop by and fire off a quick shot.

[K-Box]

Jan 24, 2009 4:45:04 GMT -8 Anders said:

That's not saying they don't have morals or will be less heroic; it's saying they have a more clear-cut view of morality. More Batman, less Spiderman.

Except that Bendis' own words prove you wrong:

And the other thing I like about it is that Norman is fulfilling a role as the dastard world leader. Everyone knows he's an asshole. He's not hiding that he's an asshole. But every once in awhile our society, and other cultures too, love that there's an asshole in charge. People used that with Bill Clinton too. "Oh, we know he's up to shenanigans; we just like the way he's doing it." People use that with Cheney, although a lot of people don't like him. But some people love him to this day, you know? He's their kind of asshole. And it's this attitude where, as long as I'm safe and I get to watch TV and my X-Box works and you're keeping the problems away from me, go be an asshole, man. I don't care. People feel that way about their own lawyers. They say, "I know he's an asshole. I need an asshole!"

I'm reminded of Joe McCarthy who, for awhile, was very, very popular. That's why he got so popular. And there's an arc there where sometimes they overshoot. And the asshole-ness that got them into power is the same kind of personality that knocks them out of power. They push the limit. I know some comic book publishers who are very similar. [laughs] You know. So there are a lot of people who are like this.

This is NOT the story of a villain becoming heroic; this is the story of the villain being a "better hero" than the hero BECAUSE he's a villain. He couldn't possibly state his intentions any more plainly.

Jan 24, 2009 4:45:04 GMT -8 Anders said:

But considering the groupthink around here I'm starting to think this place really needs someone who actually likes the current crop of mainstream comics because the hating is getting really old.

As long as they deserve the hate, we shouldn't stop hating. These are still the best-selling, most popular and most dominant types of books on the market, and they still suck, so it's still a problem, and while none of you all are under any obligation to do the same - this is your forum as well - I basically feel like, from my perspective, it's almost morally wrong to stop hating things that deserve the hatred.

[Anders]

And, as I originally said, all I was pointing out was that the quote you used didn't say what you said it said.

If you're going to use a quote to bash someone for what's in the quote, then make sure what you want to bash them for is actually in the quote.

Anyway, as to your moral obligation to hate crappy mainstream comics, it's bullshit. If you put half the energy you devote to tearing them down into promoting stuff that's actually good you'd both hurt them more and help those deserving it.

[jarddavis]

Sorry Kirk. Anders has a perfectly valid point and I'll explain why.

I stopped buying Marvel at the end of WWH. Just cut it right off at the knees. Why? Because it didn't matter what little good was being done, the bad simply outweighed it and quite frankly, I don't have the money to spend on crap these days. Nor the inclination to read something that insults my intelligence or basicially insinuates that because I care about little things such as, oh, continuity, or you know, characterization, or, you know passing off making a deal with Satan as somehow being better than Divorce... Well. You get the idea.

And pretty much everyone on this board feels the same way.
Okay. Solution obvious. Stop buying Marvel. Read something else.

A year and a half later however, and the most popular and frequesntly updated thread on the board is the OMD/BND thread, which in fact calls itself... The thread that will never die. You all hate it. You proclaim that loudly all the time.

You're still buying it.

Congratulations, keep feeding the Bendis/Marvel machine.

Or conversely, you can let go of the anger, accept that Bendis and Quesada are going to drive Marvel headfirst into the ground, and look for something else to read which you know, you actually enjoy. And instead of kvetching about Marvel, you can praise how much you like what DC's been doing the last few years, or not, or Dark Horse, or not...or you know, IDW or not.

The point is, after a year and a half of it sucking the life out of you and pissing you off and whatever, the only conclusion is that you somehow actually like the nu-Marvel or that your sole reason for existence on the board is Bendis bashing.

[michaelpaciocco]

Feb 18, 2009 12:31:04 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

A year and a half later however, and the most popular and frequesntly updated thread on the board is the OMD/BND thread, which in fact calls itself... The thread that will never die. You all hate it. You proclaim that loudly all the time.

Yes, and the next most popular threads are:
-The Doctor Who Thread
-Oddsmaking thread
-The BSG Thread
-52 Books in 2008
-Nerdglee 2008

So...it's hard to say that it's ALL Negative (btw, why isn't there a 2009 thread for some of these?) . Now, with some of the others (Doctor Who in particular) are hampered by dint of not having much to update ON.

I'm for a mix of positive and negative myself; because it is worth commenting on the negative aspects. But you are right in that there can and should be postive commentary. I'm glad Anders is doing his bit, and I'm trying to do mine. Now if we all pitch in, just imagine.

Michael

[K-Box]

Feb 18, 2009 12:31:04 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

You're still buying it.

Congratulations, keep feeding the Bendis/Marvel machine.

Except that I'm not buying it - I'm not spending any amount of money on it - and I haven't been for coming up on two years now, and to judge from the recent sales drop that Marvel suffered LINE-WIDE in January, which saw 27 of its titles fall off the Top 300 since December (as opposed to only ONE of DC's titles doing the same), I can confidently say that I'm no longer alone in this regard.

Aside from that, I'll simply echo Mike's response to your post.

[jensaltmann]

Feb 18, 2009 13:12:35 GMT -8 michaelpaciocco said:

-52 Books in 2008
-Nerdglee 2008
(btw, why isn't there a 2009 thread for some of these?)

I started the 52 books thread the last couple of years, and since I'm not reading all that much I didn't feel like starting one this year. I figured, if there's demand, someone will. That nobody started a 52 books thread indicates a lack of interest in the challenge this year.

[michaelpaciocco]

Fair enough. I don't have nearly enough time for the challenge this year because of my thesis, but I was curious.

[jensaltmann]

The challenge is up on the new SA, though, if anyone's interested.

sanityassassinations.proboards104.com/index.cgi