I count The Terrifics as a Jeff Lemire book, but I grant you that there are two types of Jeff Lemire books: creator-owned and corporate-owned. Creator-owned Jeff Lemire books are, by and large, excellent, and at their worst above average. Corporate-owned Jeff Lemire books are occasionally excellent (see Moon Knight), typically above average (see Hawkeye and Old Man Logan), and at their worst average. From my perspective, his DC work tends to be on the lower end of that scale for whatever reasons, so while I wasn’t expecting an excellent series, I was at least hoping for an above average series. But it sounds like (again, I haven’t read it) the consensus is it's pretty average, and pretty average won’t make my pull list.
Hmm, interesting. Lemire’s Moon Knight series is the only stuff of his I’ve read. I found it to be horrible. It’s essential the next to last straw of why I stopped reading the character.
I think you found it horrible for the same reason you find a lot of Batman projects horrible: you have a very specific idea of how you want those characters to be written and don't really want to read anything that strays outside of those parameters. For me, I've always enjoyed the concept of Moon Knight more than how it's usually executed. I enjoy the fantasy aspect with the Egyptian gods. I like for there to be a struggle between "is he crazy or is he sane?" which I know you don't care for. In other words Lemire wrote exactly the kind of Moon Knight story I want to read, and did so in a cool and interesting way (such as incorporating a different artist for each of his personalities).
Isn’t that pretty much the mindset of a fan? If a single, “Parker luck”, near poverty Spider-man is the version you’re a fan of, would you be a fan of an involved, successful, wealthy Spider-man be interesting if that’s become the character norm?
What about if the Walter West version of the Flash became THE version of Flash?
I enjoyed the ambiguity of whether or not Specter died & was resurrected by Khonshu. I enjoyed the ambiguity of the supernatural aspect. If needing him to be written like the character instead of switching to something different, then yes.
When the noted number one Moon Knight fan stopped reading during the Lemire because “this isn’t Moon Knight,” I can’t be that far off.
This goes back to the Batman discussion we had some time back. I am a fan of several different versions of Batman—the ’66 TV show version, the gallavanting world-travelling adventurer Bob Haney/B&tB version, the calculating-almost-to-the-point-of-paranoia Grant Morrison version, the goofy Dick Sprang-era version, etc. They all work for me, because they’re all written and drawn well and make for fun and interesting stories, and because I have a broader idea of what makes Batman Batman than many other fans of Batman. As you say, many fans have a particular version they like to the exclusion of most, if not all, other versions, and they won’t like a story that doesn’t fit inside that mold regardless of how well-crafted the story is. To each their own.
Yeah, the down on his luck, always scrounging for a buck version of Spider-Man is the one I grew up with, and the one I was a fan of, but that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy seeing him finally catch a break and make it big, and seeing how the creators handle the character in a new enviroment with new parameters. As far as I'm concerned, it’s the same character I grew up with, he just has different challenges to face now that he’s gotten older—I can relate to that. The reason I'm not reading Spider-Man has nothing to do with the writing, or what version of the character is in the book, but has everything to do with editorially mandated crossovers. The reason I'm not reading Flash has nothing to do with who's in the suit, but everything to do with the quality of the writing and artwork. The reason I highly enjoyed Lemire/Smallwood’s Moon Knight was because it highlighted the aspects of the character I find the most interesting, but mostly because of the quality of the writing and artwork.
But, hey, who am I to argue with the noted number one Moon Knight fan? :smiley:
I count The Terrifics as a Jeff Lemire book, but I grant you that there are two types of Jeff Lemire books: creator-owned and corporate-owned. Creator-owned Jeff Lemire books are, by and large, excellent, and at their worst above average. Corporate-owned Jeff Lemire books are occasionally excellent (see Moon Knight), typically above average (see Hawkeye and Old Man Logan), and at their worst average. From my perspective, his DC work tends to be on the lower end of that scale for whatever reasons, so while I wasn’t expecting an excellent series, I was at least hoping for an above average series. But it sounds like (again, I haven’t read it) the consensus is it's pretty average, and pretty average won’t make my pull list.
Hmm, interesting. Lemire’s Moon Knight series is the only stuff of his I’ve read. I found it to be horrible. It’s essential the next to last straw of why I stopped reading the character.
I think you found it horrible for the same reason you find a lot of Batman projects horrible: you have a very specific idea of how you want those characters to be written and don't really want to read anything that strays outside of those parameters. For me, I've always enjoyed the concept of Moon Knight more than how it's usually executed. I enjoy the fantasy aspect with the Egyptian gods. I like for there to be a struggle between "is he crazy or is he sane?" which I know you don't care for. In other words Lemire wrote exactly the kind of Moon Knight story I want to read, and did so in a cool and interesting way (such as incorporating a different artist for each of his personalities).
Isn’t that pretty much the mindset of a fan? If a single, “Parker luck”, near poverty Spider-man is the version you’re a fan of, would you be a fan of an involved, successful, wealthy Spider-man be interesting if that’s become the character norm?
What about if the Walter West version of the Flash became THE version of Flash?
I enjoyed the ambiguity of whether or not Specter died & was resurrected by Khonshu. I enjoyed the ambiguity of the supernatural aspect. If needing him to be written like the character instead of switching to something different, then yes.
When the noted number one Moon Knight fan stopped reading during the Lemire because “this isn’t Moon Knight,” I can’t be that far off.
This goes back to the Batman discussion we had some time back. I am a fan of several different versions of Batman—the ’66 TV show version, the gallavanting world-travelling adventurer Bob Haney/B&tB version, the calculating-almost-to-the-point-of-paranoia Grant Morrison version, the goofy Dick Sprang-era version, etc. They all work for me, because they’re all written and drawn well and make for fun and interesting stories, and because I have a broader idea of what makes Batman Batman than many other fans of Batman. As you say, many fans have a particular version they like to the exclusion of most, if not all, other versions, and they won’t like a story that doesn’t fit inside that mold regardless of how well-crafted the story is. To each their own.
Yeah, the down on his luck, always scrounging for a buck version of Spider-Man is the one I grew up with, and the one I was a fan of, but that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy seeing him finally catch a break and make it big, and seeing how the creators handle the character in a new enviroment with new parameters. As far as I'm concerned, it’s the same character I grew up with, he just has different challenges to face now that he’s gotten older—I can relate to that. The reason I'm not reading Spider-Man has nothing to do with the writing, or what version of the character is in the book, but has everything to do with editorially mandated crossovers. The reason I'm not reading Flash has nothing to do with who's in the suit, but everything to do with the quality of the writing and artwork. The reason I highly enjoyed Lemire/Smallwood’s Moon Knight was because it highlighted the aspects of the character I find the most interesting, but mostly because of the quality of the writing and artwork.
But, hey, who am I to argue with the noted number one Moon Knight fan? :smiley:
What aspect of the writing from Lemire’s run was interesting? The dialogue, the story, the use of the revamp characterization? Even aside from this new angle Huston introduced in 2006 (only getting farther off the reservation in the last 12 years), but I thought the story wasn’t very original. Reading a recent bit with Specter getting recruited as a new Midnight Son runs with notion he’s not taken seriously because “he crazy.”
It’s like if the JMS notion of totems became Parker’s origin instead of the radioactive spider. Even focusing on the crappy idea Specter was of “hellbent” blood didn’t reduce him to a joke.
What makes Batman “Batman” is pretty subjective. I have my opinion, obviously, but I wouldn’t say that’s more or less what makes the character to someone who prefers the more jovial version. I think what defines “a fan” (especially a “true fan”) is pretty subjective in general.
What aspect of the writing from Lemire’s run was interesting? The dialogue, the story, the use of the revamp characterization? Even aside from this new angle Huston introduced in 2006 (only getting farther off the reservation in the last 12 years), but I thought the story wasn’t very original. Reading a recent bit with Specter getting recruited as a new Midnight Son runs with notion he’s not taken seriously because “he crazy.”
Like I said above, I like the concept of Moon Knight more than I like a lot of his actual stories—I didn’t read that Huston run because I couldn’t stand the artwork. And Lemire played with the concepts of Moon Knight that make me like the character. You say the story wasn’t very original. Maybe, but I can say the same thing about 99.9% of every comic ever produced. For me it’s more about how you tell that story, and I think Lemire, Smallwood, Bellaire, Francavilla, Stokoe, and Torres did an excellent job in telling this story (and you can tell that this was a very collaborative effort). From the scratchy dream sequences in the hall of Konshu that evoke Sienkiewicz’s work, to the inventive layouts that aren’t just interesting to look at, but masterfully control the pacing of the story, to the use of color as a storytelling tool, to (as mentioned earlier) the use of different artists illustrating the various personalities’ sequences—each artist perfectly matched to their respective personality—to the final resolution of Spector’s acceptance of whatever it is going on in his head, I enjoyed pretty much everything about it. I loved how they turned the Werewolf by Night stuff into this crazy future Moon Knight-versus-space-werewolves story. I liked the flashbacks to his childhood. And, sorry, but I find a Moon Knight who is mentally ill more interesting than one who is not. It was the possibility that he might have a multiple personality disorder that attracted me to the character in the first place.
Now, I do think the first and second issue dragged a bit, and there were a couple of other very minor nitpicks I could make, but all in all, I was very impressed with the storytelling. It was a story that took full advantage of the comic book format, and I love that. So many comics these days feel like someone's unproduced screenplay, and this was about as comic book-y as comic books get. In a lot of ways, it digs in the same ground Tom King and Mitch Gerads are mining in Mister Miracle.
What aspect of the writing from Lemire’s run was interesting? The dialogue, the story, the use of the revamp characterization? Even aside from this new angle Huston introduced in 2006 (only getting farther off the reservation in the last 12 years), but I thought the story wasn’t very original. Reading a recent bit with Specter getting recruited as a new Midnight Son runs with notion he’s not taken seriously because “he crazy.”
Like I said above, I like the concept of Moon Knight more than I like a lot of his actual stories—I didn’t read that Huston run because I couldn’t stand the artwork.
The story was worse than the art so you didn't miss anything. it really is a fantastic must read and for $10.00 + shipping I'll send you the entire series. It's totally worth reading, and I can't recommend it any higher.
What aspect of the writing from Lemire’s run was interesting? The dialogue, the story, the use of the revamp characterization? Even aside from this new angle Huston introduced in 2006 (only getting farther off the reservation in the last 12 years), but I thought the story wasn’t very original. Reading a recent bit with Specter getting recruited as a new Midnight Son runs with notion he’s not taken seriously because “he crazy.”
Like I said above, I like the concept of Moon Knight more than I like a lot of his actual stories—I didn’t read that Huston run because I couldn’t stand the artwork.
The story was worse than the art so you didn't miss anything. it really is a fantastic must read and for $10.00 + shipping I'll send you the entire series. It's totally worth reading, and I can't recommend it any higher.
I appreciate the offer, but I currently have about 250 comics and 30-40 trades and OGNs sitting in my to-read pile, with artists whose work I do like. I’ll get back to you if I ever get caught up. :smile:
there are two types of Jeff Lemire books: creator-owned and corporate-owned.
I very much agree with this point and think this would be an excellent topic of discussion for an episode of CGS or a forum thread of it's own. Jonathan Hickman had some interesting things to say on his creator-owned material versus his Marvel material years ago on an early episode of The Comics Alternative.
Recently, I found myself re-evaluating my opinion of Rick Remender's work after reading Tokyo Ghost, Deadly Class and a short he had published in an anthology. Initially, I didn't care for his writing because I had only read his Marvel work. Now he's one of my new favorite writers.
I remember an interview with Lemire a number of years back when, IIRC, the interviewer asked him if he'd ever draw a book for DC (who he was exclusive with at the time, I believe) and his answer was -- and this is probably a bad paraphrase -- that it took too much passion to do both writing and drawing and he wanted to reserve that for his creator-owned material.
That interview has always skewed my view of Lemire. Because it seems so true. If I see Lemire's name on a DC/Marvel book it doesn't really mean anything to me. But if I see him releasing a new Image title I'm probably buying it.
It's a shame, and probably the main reason why creator owned books are so much better. I'd really love it if someone like Lemire or whoever would pour the kind of love into a Superman book that they put into their own stuff. But I can't really blame them for not.
What aspect of the writing from Lemire’s run was interesting? The dialogue, the story, the use of the revamp characterization? Even aside from this new angle Huston introduced in 2006 (only getting farther off the reservation in the last 12 years), but I thought the story wasn’t very original. Reading a recent bit with Specter getting recruited as a new Midnight Son runs with notion he’s not taken seriously because “he crazy.”
Like I said above, I like the concept of Moon Knight more than I like a lot of his actual stories...And Lemire played with the concepts of Moon Knight that make me like the character...It was the possibility that he might have a multiple personality disorder that attracted me to the character in the first place.
I’m going to regret going all Alice here, but when would you say this was first put out there for you? What pushed it from having cover identities like his covert op days to having a personality disorder?
I’ve got to admit, I’ve never read the character as being “crazy” until Huston & never really multiple personalities until Bendis.
I’m going to regret going all Alice here, but when would you say this was first put out there for you? What pushed it from having cover identities like his covert op days to having a personality disorder?
I’ve got to admit, I’ve never read the character as being “crazy” until Huston & never really multiple personalities until Bendis.
Yeah, you probably will regret it. :smiley: Keep in mind that the key word I used was “possibility”. The first time I saw Moon Knight was in a house ad when I was a kid—must’ve been the very early ’80s. I’ve been trying to find it, but it was something like “Who is Moon Knight?”, and it went through all his different identities. Something about the way it was worded made me think that Moon Knight himself was confused about who he really was, and I thought that was a pretty cool idea for a superhero. It was probably eight or nine years after that before I ever actually read a Moon Knight story. I don't even remember what that was, but I was reading it with the preconception that he had multiple personalities. And that story—again, I don't remember what it was—didn’t really contradict that idea. It didn’t confirm it, but it didn’t contradict it either.
That went on for a while, so when I finally got around to reading more, it was kind of a letdown. I still enjoyed certain things—some of the Moench/Sienkiewicz stuff, the DeMatteis/Garney Stained Glass Scarlett story—but he became a far less interesting character to me. Basically Lemire & Co. created the kind of Moon Knight story I’ve been wanting to read, expecting to read, since I was a kid.
I’m going to regret going all Alice here, but when would you say this was first put out there for you? What pushed it from having cover identities like his covert op days to having a personality disorder?
I’ve got to admit, I’ve never read the character as being “crazy” until Huston & never really multiple personalities until Bendis.
Yeah, you probably will regret it. :smiley: Keep in mind that the key word I used was “possibility”. The first time I saw Moon Knight was in a house ad when I was a kid—must’ve been the very early ’80s. I’ve been trying to find it, but it was something like “Who is Moon Knight?”, and it went through all his different identities. Something about the way it was worded made me think that Moon Knight himself was confused about who he really was, and I thought that was a pretty cool idea for a superhero. It was probably eight or nine years after that before I ever actually read a Moon Knight story. I don't even remember what that was, but I was reading it with the preconception that he had multiple personalities. And that story—again, I don't remember what it was—didn’t really contradict that idea. It didn’t confirm it, but it didn’t contradict it either.
That went on for a while, so when I finally got around to reading more, it was kind of a letdown. I still enjoyed certain things—some of the Moench/Sienkiewicz stuff, the DeMatteis/Garney Stained Glass Scarlett story—but he became a far less interesting character to me. Basically Lemire & Co. created the kind of Moon Knight story I’ve been wanting to read, expecting to read, since I was a kid.
Actually, I don’t regret it. I got a clearer understanding of where you’re coming from. When you say “I like the concept of Moon Knight” you really meant “your concept” of Moon Knight. Bendis just happened to take the baton from Huston’s “I’m crazy” idea and ran more toward your direction. Lemire (and I guess the current writer) just did the extra couple laps with it.
That actually clears up everything for me. I still contend that’s not the actual concept, but I see why Bendis & writers moving forward tickle your soft spots.
Reminds me of when I went to see Batman & Robin with a non-comic book reading buddy. His concept of Batman was the Adam West version, so he thought it was spot on. I thought it blew chunks & pissed I had three more theatric views of the movie.
I’m going to regret going all Alice here, but when would you say this was first put out there for you? What pushed it from having cover identities like his covert op days to having a personality disorder?
I’ve got to admit, I’ve never read the character as being “crazy” until Huston & never really multiple personalities until Bendis.
Yeah, you probably will regret it. :smiley: Keep in mind that the key word I used was “possibility”. The first time I saw Moon Knight was in a house ad when I was a kid—must’ve been the very early ’80s. I’ve been trying to find it, but it was something like “Who is Moon Knight?”, and it went through all his different identities. Something about the way it was worded made me think that Moon Knight himself was confused about who he really was, and I thought that was a pretty cool idea for a superhero. It was probably eight or nine years after that before I ever actually read a Moon Knight story. I don't even remember what that was, but I was reading it with the preconception that he had multiple personalities. And that story—again, I don't remember what it was—didn’t really contradict that idea. It didn’t confirm it, but it didn’t contradict it either.
That went on for a while, so when I finally got around to reading more, it was kind of a letdown. I still enjoyed certain things—some of the Moench/Sienkiewicz stuff, the DeMatteis/Garney Stained Glass Scarlett story—but he became a far less interesting character to me. Basically Lemire & Co. created the kind of Moon Knight story I’ve been wanting to read, expecting to read, since I was a kid.
Actually, I don’t regret it. I got a clearer understanding of where you’re coming from. When you say “I like the concept of Moon Knight” you really meant “your concept” of Moon Knight. Bendis just happened to take the baton from Huston’s “I’m crazy” idea and ran more toward your direction. Lemire (and I guess the current writer) just did the extra couple laps with it.
That actually clears up everything for me. I still contend that’s not the actual concept, but I see why Bendis & writers moving forward tickle your soft spots.
Maybe it’s not the original concept, but the mental illness aspect has now been around to some degree or other for about a dozen years—more than a quarter of the character’s existence. Before long it will be the only concept most comic readers know, assuming Marvel sticks with it.
I’m going to regret going all Alice here, but when would you say this was first put out there for you? What pushed it from having cover identities like his covert op days to having a personality disorder?
I’ve got to admit, I’ve never read the character as being “crazy” until Huston & never really multiple personalities until Bendis.
Yeah, you probably will regret it. :smiley: Keep in mind that the key word I used was “possibility”. The first time I saw Moon Knight was in a house ad when I was a kid—must’ve been the very early ’80s. I’ve been trying to find it, but it was something like “Who is Moon Knight?”, and it went through all his different identities. Something about the way it was worded made me think that Moon Knight himself was confused about who he really was, and I thought that was a pretty cool idea for a superhero. It was probably eight or nine years after that before I ever actually read a Moon Knight story. I don't even remember what that was, but I was reading it with the preconception that he had multiple personalities. And that story—again, I don't remember what it was—didn’t really contradict that idea. It didn’t confirm it, but it didn’t contradict it either.
That went on for a while, so when I finally got around to reading more, it was kind of a letdown. I still enjoyed certain things—some of the Moench/Sienkiewicz stuff, the DeMatteis/Garney Stained Glass Scarlett story—but he became a far less interesting character to me. Basically Lemire & Co. created the kind of Moon Knight story I’ve been wanting to read, expecting to read, since I was a kid.
Actually, I don’t regret it. I got a clearer understanding of where you’re coming from. When you say “I like the concept of Moon Knight” you really meant “your concept” of Moon Knight. Bendis just happened to take the baton from Huston’s “I’m crazy” idea and ran more toward your direction. Lemire (and I guess the current writer) just did the extra couple laps with it.
That actually clears up everything for me. I still contend that’s not the actual concept, but I see why Bendis & writers moving forward tickle your soft spots.
Maybe it’s not the original concept, but the mental illness aspect has now been around to some degree or other for about a dozen years—more than a quarter of the character’s existence. Before long it will be the only concept most comic readers know, assuming Marvel sticks with it.
Yup, just like people think he’s always worn a white costume. Marvel wants that as its narrative, so it’s here to stay. Marvel is trying to distance the character from the “Batman ripoff” misconception. The white suit, mental issues, living in a rundown apartment, having a daughter, etc. all ways they’re going to retool the character.
Eh, let ‘em. I find zero interest in reading this character as “crazy” or with mental issues (its diagnosis has altered somewhat with each writer) or this retooled version. Maybe if it’d be sprinkled in, but for 12 years, the mental issues have been the only thing Marvel wants to centralize the character on. I hope it continues. It’s saving me money & time moving forward.
Maybe all this leads to another Moench “Resurrection” mini-series.
@Matt@nweathington Does any character written by a series of different writers over the span of 40+ years still embody their "original concept?"
Depends on what you consider their “original concept.”
Let’s not complicate this with vagaries. I think it's pretty straightforward. Comic book characters, especially from the ’70s on back, were very much created on the fly out of necessity because of the monthly schedule. They evolved or were abandoned as the creators found what worked and what didn’t work, and what the audience responded to. Moon Knight, for example, was originally conceived as a one-off villain/anti-hero to face off against Werewolf by Night. If Marv Wolfman hadn’t seen potential with the character and asked Moench to come up with a two-part story for Marvel Spotlight, that’s all Moon Knight would have ever been.
These days we rarely get to know the “original concept” of anything. Concepts are developed, revised, improved, fleshed out, etc., before we get to see anything—we only see the fully developed product. Ideas (for corporate-owned IPs at any rate) rarely are born whole cloth. In the comics of 40+ years ago, all of that development played out “live” in front of the audience for all to see. In the case of Moon Knight, it played out in Marvel Spotlight and in the Hulk magazine backups, and didn’t really come fully into focus until the launch of his solo title.
All that said, Moon Knight’s “original concept” is, going by Doug Moench’s recounting: Moon-themed mercenary hired to hunt Werewolf by Night. What we see in Moon Knight vol. 1, #1 is Moench’s fully developed concept of Moon Knight as a leading character.
So I think a better question might be, at what point is a comic book character fully developed? Or are they in a constant state of development?
@Matt@nweathington Does any character written by a series of different writers over the span of 40+ years still embody their "original concept?"
Depends on what you consider their “original concept.”
Let’s not complicate this with vagaries. I think it's pretty straightforward. Comic book characters, especially from the ’70s on back, were very much created on the fly out of necessity because of the monthly schedule. They evolved or were abandoned as the creators found what worked and what didn’t work, and what the audience responded to. Moon Knight, for example, was originally conceived as a one-off villain/anti-hero to face off against Werewolf by Night. If Marv Wolfman hadn’t seen potential with the character and asked Moench to come up with a two-part story for Marvel Spotlight, that’s all Moon Knight would have ever been.
These days we rarely get to know the “original concept” of anything. Concepts are developed, revised, improved, fleshed out, etc., before we get to see anything—we only see the fully developed product. Ideas (for corporate-owned IPs at any rate) rarely are born whole cloth. In the comics of 40+ years ago, all of that development played out “live” in front of the audience for all to see. In the case of Moon Knight, it played out in Marvel Spotlight and in the Hulk magazine backups, and didn’t really come fully into focus until the launch of his solo title.
All that said, Moon Knight’s “original concept” is, going by Doug Moench’s recounting: Moon-themed mercenary hired to hunt Werewolf by Night. What we see in Moon Knight vol. 1, #1 is Moench’s fully developed concept of Moon Knight as a leading character.
So I think a better question might be, at what point is a comic book character fully developed? Or are they in a constant state of development?
Depends on what’s the original concept. Is it what First appears in print or the initial idea of the character:
Bob Kane’s initial idea for Batman had red, no gloves, a domino mask, & stiff wings inspired by Da Vinci's sketch of an ornithopter & based on pulp characters.
Lee’s initial idea for Spidey was a person who could climb walls.
Are Detective Comics #27 & Amazing Fantasy #15 the original concept or the initial thought balloon of the creator?
Depends on what’s the original concept. Is it what First appears in print or the initial idea of the character:
Okay, first of all, “original concept” is a makeshift term, and it's getting in the way, so let’s drop it. Instead, let’s start using terms that are actually used when discussing the writing process. In writing, “concept” basically boils down to “an idea that has been developed to the point where a story becomes possible”. A “premise” is “a concept that involves a character”.
Using Batman as an example, first there was the idea of a man dressing up as a bat and fighting crime. Then there was the concept of “Why would a man dress up as a bat to fight crime?” Then there was the premise of “What if a young boy witnesses the murder of his parents, then grows up wanting to fight crime in some way, and after being scared by a bat that crashes through a window decides to dress as a bat to scare the criminals he hunts down?”
I think what you’re really talking about, Matt, is characterization—which is defined as the author’s expression of a character’s personality through the use of action, dialogue, thought, or commentary—and premise. What you don’t like about Lemire’s story boils down to his premise—“What if Marc Spector came to grips with his dissociative identity disorder?”—because it's an extrapolation based off of the premises of Huston and Bendis: “What if Spector’s various secret identities were actually manifestations of a dissociative identity disorder?” That premise, in turn, leads to a characterization of Spector which doesn’t completely line up with the characterization established by Moench and the other early writers.
For my part, I'm not bothered by the discrepencies in Lemire’s characterization for the reasons I've already stated. And so I can see Lemire & Co.’s effort for what it is: a well-told story based off one of the (granted, relatively recently) established premises of the character—a premise I just happen to have once assumed was there all along.
Depends on what’s the original concept. Is it what First appears in print or the initial idea of the character:
Okay, first of all, “original concept” is a makeshift term, and it's getting in the way, so let’s drop it. Instead, let’s start using terms that are actually used when discussing the writing process. In writing, “concept” basically boils down to “an idea that has been developed to the point where a story becomes possible”. A “premise” is “a concept that involves a character”.
Using Batman as an example, first there was the idea of a man dressing up as a bat and fighting crime. Then there was the concept of “Why would a man dress up as a bat to fight crime?” Then there was the premise of “What if a young boy witnesses the murder of his parents, then grows up wanting to fight crime in some way, and after being scared by a bat that crashes through a window decides to dress as a bat to scare the criminals he hunts down?”
I think what you’re really talking about, Matt, is characterization—which is defined as the author’s expression of a character’s personality through the use of action, dialogue, thought, or commentary—and premise. What you don’t like about Lemire’s story boils down to his premise—“What if Marc Spector came to grips with his dissociative identity disorder?”—because it's an extrapolation based off of the premises of Huston and Bendis: “What if Spector’s various secret identities were actually manifestations of a dissociative identity disorder?” That premise, in turn, leads to a characterization of Spector which doesn’t completely line up with the characterization established by Moench and the other early writers.
For my part, I'm not bothered by the discrepencies in Lemire’s characterization for the reasons I've already stated. And so I can see Lemire & Co.’s effort for what it is: a well-told story based off one of the (granted, relatively recently) established premises of the character—a premise I just happen to have once assumed was there all along.
Okay, but if that’s how @Evening639 was establishing his initial question. I see that’s how you interpreted it, but I’d like more parameters to truly answer the question.
And it’s not strictly because of how Lemire interpreted the character why I didn’t care for it. The FoK series focused on the supernatural aspect. The MS:MK focused on just being a generic Batman-type character. I didn’t really care for either of those, but there was some interesting issues.
The “he’s got mental issues” is just another (albeit new) single trick view of the character. Ellis used aspects of that in his run, but the issues were interesting. I just didn’t find Lemire’s run anything really interesting enough to make me want to read the next issue right away. The “mental issues” angle was part of the reason, not the singular. For all the bravado I’ve heard about Lemire, I finished each issue thinking “this is the guy I’ve hear stellar things about?!”
I’m not a fan of the “Batman is the mask” notion, but aside from a throw away line in the first one, the Nolan Batman trilogy is a Bruce Wayne story. Despite disagreeing with that interpretation of the character (and use of firearms) I contend it’s the best live-action version of the character. To the extent I have no desire to see another theatric version of the character for a long time.
The “he’s got mental issues” is just another (albeit new) single trick view of the character. Ellis used aspects of that in his run, but the issues were interesting. I just didn’t find Lemire’s run anything really interesting enough to make me want to read the next issue right away. The “mental issues” angle was part of the reason, not the singular. For all the bravado I’ve heard about Lemire, I finished each issue thinking “this is the guy I’ve hear stellar things about?!”
Okay. Well I liked the Ellis/Shalvey run too. There are a few major differences between Ellis’ and Lemire’s stories. Ellis was telling one-and-done stories. There was continuity between them, but there was a resolution of conflict at the end of each issue. Lemire was telling one long, sprawling epic. You went fourteen issues before you had any real sense of conflict resolution. Also, Ellis’ stories had physical villains—new characters who provided new challenges for Moon Knight to face. In Lemire’s story the villain was Marc Spector’s mental illness. It manifested itself in the form of Khonshu throughout the story, but it was not a truly physical threat.
I don’t know what you were expecting from Lemire, but he started out writing/drawing graphic novels (he had done several before finally doing any serialized work), and I think that’s where his natural inclinations lie, in telling long-form stories which allow him to move at a leisurely pace and which give him the room to let his stories breathe. He’s generally a quieter type of writer, who focuses more on internal conflict than external conflict. I think it’s telling that David Lynch is one of his big influences.
Ellis, on the other hand, is typically a more visceral type of writer, more in your face. I think he’s probably a bit more versatile than Lemire, though that doesn’t mean he’s any more talented.
Thinking it over, I don’t think there is really anything Lemire has done (keeping in mind I haven't read that much of his corporate-owned work) that I would recommend to you. Although you might like Gideon Falls, which just started up. Only one issue has been released so far, so I can't say that with absolute confidence, but you might want to look into it.
I have no qualms about how Moon Knight is interpreted, and I also thought Lemire's Moon Knight was lacklustre and gave up before the first arc finished. Like his other Marvel work it was like wading through molasses, this time with prettier pictures.
People should have taken more from the form of the storytelling that Ellis & Shalvey's short run used, rather than the story it was telling.
Even though I enjoyed Bemis & Burrows' 1st arc far more than Lemire's, it was still pretty flabby in terms of its story telling.
I do think the first four issues of Lemire’s story should have been condensed down to two, but I had no problems with the pacing from that point on. Though I think it would have been done differently, and better, if his story had been done as a 200-page graphic novel where he wouldn’t have to worry about issue breaks. From my perspective, that 14-issue story was just one long arc anyway.
I do wish more comics took a one-and-done approach though. Or mix in a two-issue arc, or a three-issue arc once in a while at the very least.
Okay, but if that’s how @Evening639 was establishing his initial question. I see that’s how you interpreted it, but I’d like more parameters to truly answer the question.
I've been trying to figure out how to rephrase that question, and the best I can come up with is: Does any character written by a series of different writers over the span of 40+ years still carry the same characterization, the same premises, and the same themes as they did when originally presented?
Comments
Yeah, the down on his luck, always scrounging for a buck version of Spider-Man is the one I grew up with, and the one I was a fan of, but that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy seeing him finally catch a break and make it big, and seeing how the creators handle the character in a new enviroment with new parameters. As far as I'm concerned, it’s the same character I grew up with, he just has different challenges to face now that he’s gotten older—I can relate to that. The reason I'm not reading Spider-Man has nothing to do with the writing, or what version of the character is in the book, but has everything to do with editorially mandated crossovers. The reason I'm not reading Flash has nothing to do with who's in the suit, but everything to do with the quality of the writing and artwork. The reason I highly enjoyed Lemire/Smallwood’s Moon Knight was because it highlighted the aspects of the character I find the most interesting, but mostly because of the quality of the writing and artwork.
But, hey, who am I to argue with the noted number one Moon Knight fan? :smiley:
It’s like if the JMS notion of totems became Parker’s origin instead of the radioactive spider. Even focusing on the crappy idea Specter was of “hellbent” blood didn’t reduce him to a joke.
What makes Batman “Batman” is pretty subjective. I have my opinion, obviously, but I wouldn’t say that’s more or less what makes the character to someone who prefers the more jovial version. I think what defines “a fan” (especially a “true fan”) is pretty subjective in general.
Now, I do think the first and second issue dragged a bit, and there were a couple of other very minor nitpicks I could make, but all in all, I was very impressed with the storytelling. It was a story that took full advantage of the comic book format, and I love that. So many comics these days feel like someone's unproduced screenplay, and this was about as comic book-y as comic books get. In a lot of ways, it digs in the same ground Tom King and Mitch Gerads are mining in Mister Miracle.
The story was worse than the art so you didn't miss anything.it really is a fantastic must read and for $10.00 + shipping I'll send you the entire series. It's totally worth reading, and I can't recommend it any higher.That interview has always skewed my view of Lemire. Because it seems so true. If I see Lemire's name on a DC/Marvel book it doesn't really mean anything to me. But if I see him releasing a new Image title I'm probably buying it.
It's a shame, and probably the main reason why creator owned books are so much better. I'd really love it if someone like Lemire or whoever would pour the kind of love into a Superman book that they put into their own stuff. But I can't really blame them for not.
fulesome.Hudlin did his dangest to top the terrible art.
I know people don't set out to make garbage comics, but sometimes I wonder how team of creators (and editors) can miss the bad comics mark by so much.
I’ve got to admit, I’ve never read the character as being “crazy” until Huston & never really multiple personalities until Bendis.
That went on for a while, so when I finally got around to reading more, it was kind of a letdown. I still enjoyed certain things—some of the Moench/Sienkiewicz stuff, the DeMatteis/Garney Stained Glass Scarlett story—but he became a far less interesting character to me. Basically Lemire & Co. created the kind of Moon Knight story I’ve been wanting to read, expecting to read, since I was a kid.
That actually clears up everything for me. I still contend that’s not the actual concept, but I see why Bendis & writers moving forward tickle your soft spots.
Reminds me of when I went to see Batman & Robin with a non-comic book reading buddy. His concept of Batman was the Adam West version, so he thought it was spot on. I thought it blew chunks & pissed I had three more theatric views of the movie.
Eh, let ‘em. I find zero interest in reading this character as “crazy” or with mental issues (its diagnosis has altered somewhat with each writer) or this retooled version. Maybe if it’d be sprinkled in, but for 12 years, the mental issues have been the only thing Marvel wants to centralize the character on. I hope it continues. It’s saving me money & time moving forward.
Maybe all this leads to another Moench “Resurrection” mini-series.
These days we rarely get to know the “original concept” of anything. Concepts are developed, revised, improved, fleshed out, etc., before we get to see anything—we only see the fully developed product. Ideas (for corporate-owned IPs at any rate) rarely are born whole cloth. In the comics of 40+ years ago, all of that development played out “live” in front of the audience for all to see. In the case of Moon Knight, it played out in Marvel Spotlight and in the Hulk magazine backups, and didn’t really come fully into focus until the launch of his solo title.
All that said, Moon Knight’s “original concept” is, going by Doug Moench’s recounting: Moon-themed mercenary hired to hunt Werewolf by Night. What we see in Moon Knight vol. 1, #1 is Moench’s fully developed concept of Moon Knight as a leading character.
So I think a better question might be, at what point is a comic book character fully developed? Or are they in a constant state of development?
Bob Kane’s initial idea for Batman had red, no gloves, a domino mask, & stiff wings inspired by Da Vinci's sketch of an ornithopter & based on pulp characters.
Lee’s initial idea for Spidey was a person who could climb walls.
Are Detective Comics #27 & Amazing Fantasy #15 the original concept or the initial thought balloon of the creator?
Using Batman as an example, first there was the idea of a man dressing up as a bat and fighting crime. Then there was the concept of “Why would a man dress up as a bat to fight crime?” Then there was the premise of “What if a young boy witnesses the murder of his parents, then grows up wanting to fight crime in some way, and after being scared by a bat that crashes through a window decides to dress as a bat to scare the criminals he hunts down?”
I think what you’re really talking about, Matt, is characterization—which is defined as the author’s expression of a character’s personality through the use of action, dialogue, thought, or commentary—and premise. What you don’t like about Lemire’s story boils down to his premise—“What if Marc Spector came to grips with his dissociative identity disorder?”—because it's an extrapolation based off of the premises of Huston and Bendis: “What if Spector’s various secret identities were actually manifestations of a dissociative identity disorder?” That premise, in turn, leads to a characterization of Spector which doesn’t completely line up with the characterization established by Moench and the other early writers.
For my part, I'm not bothered by the discrepencies in Lemire’s characterization for the reasons I've already stated. And so I can see Lemire & Co.’s effort for what it is: a well-told story based off one of the (granted, relatively recently) established premises of the character—a premise I just happen to have once assumed was there all along.
And it’s not strictly because of how Lemire interpreted the character why I didn’t care for it. The FoK series focused on the supernatural aspect. The MS:MK focused on just being a generic Batman-type character. I didn’t really care for either of those, but there was some interesting issues.
The “he’s got mental issues” is just another (albeit new) single trick view of the character. Ellis used aspects of that in his run, but the issues were interesting. I just didn’t find Lemire’s run anything really interesting enough to make me want to read the next issue right away. The “mental issues” angle was part of the reason, not the singular. For all the bravado I’ve heard about Lemire, I finished each issue thinking “this is the guy I’ve hear stellar things about?!”
I’m not a fan of the “Batman is the mask” notion, but aside from a throw away line in the first one, the Nolan Batman trilogy is a Bruce Wayne story. Despite disagreeing with that interpretation of the character (and use of firearms) I contend it’s the best live-action version of the character. To the extent I have no desire to see another theatric version of the character for a long time.
I don’t know what you were expecting from Lemire, but he started out writing/drawing graphic novels (he had done several before finally doing any serialized work), and I think that’s where his natural inclinations lie, in telling long-form stories which allow him to move at a leisurely pace and which give him the room to let his stories breathe. He’s generally a quieter type of writer, who focuses more on internal conflict than external conflict. I think it’s telling that David Lynch is one of his big influences.
Ellis, on the other hand, is typically a more visceral type of writer, more in your face. I think he’s probably a bit more versatile than Lemire, though that doesn’t mean he’s any more talented.
Thinking it over, I don’t think there is really anything Lemire has done (keeping in mind I haven't read that much of his corporate-owned work) that I would recommend to you. Although you might like Gideon Falls, which just started up. Only one issue has been released so far, so I can't say that with absolute confidence, but you might want to look into it.
People should have taken more from the form of the storytelling that Ellis & Shalvey's short run used, rather than the story it was telling.
Even though I enjoyed Bemis & Burrows' 1st arc far more than Lemire's, it was still pretty flabby in terms of its story telling.
I do wish more comics took a one-and-done approach though. Or mix in a two-issue arc, or a three-issue arc once in a while at the very least.
Does that sound about right?