Although I have always been an avowed
partisan of DC Comics, I inevitably go through my phases of reading
and even collecting various Marvel Comics – most notably from about
1975 through the early 1980s when I was as rabid an “X-Fan” as
you'll ever find, and in more recent years acquired a deepening
fascination with the wild innovation of the first decade or so of
“Silver-Age” Marvel in the 1960s – and I have a
more-than-passing familiarity with the basic continuity of that comics
Universe itself as well as the history of the comics company
throughout its now seventy-plus years. But I'd never, until now, read
such a systematic, albeit idiosyncratic, narrative of the full
history from beginning until virtually the present as appears here.
Howe writes a fascinating story that strips away many of the myths,
digging beneath the facade of the “Merry Marvel Bullpen” (to whom
he dedicates his work) to reveal the usually less-than-attractive
reality of competing creative personalities and interests as Marvel
has come back repeatedly from disastrous implosions of its own making
and recently transformed into an explosion of multimedia domination.
Inevitably, the most intriguing part of Howe's account for me is the period that I most directly experienced, coinciding roughly with the heart of the “Bronze Age” of the 1970s through mid 1980s, when my enthusiasm for the “All-New, All-Different” X-Men led me into many other corners of the Marvel Universe. The latter half of that period coincided with the first half or so of Jim Shooter's controversial tenure as Editor-in-Chief, giving Howe his title for the middle part of his book (the third part of five), “Trouble Shooter.” My interest in this period was rekindled in the past couple of years by my regular reading (until it went more or less inactive about a year or so ago) of Shooter's own blog (link). I figure it is a testament to Howe's objective presentation that I cannot decide if his treatment is pro- or anti-Shooter. Were I forced to take a stand, I would say “anti-,” but that probably just reflects the massive and acrimonious criticism and very personal hatred (no, that is not too strong a word!) that Shooter drew and upon which Howe's account is based.
Continuing to highlight nuggets that
struck me as particularly interesting, I found it amazing how many of
the Marvel stories that I read and, of course, perceived only the
surface of, could also be read as allegorical accounts of
editor-writer-artist interaction. Most notably, “The Korvac Saga”
in The Avengers:
“'His position was unique,' the
captions in Avengers #175 confided to the
reader. 'He would be free to make subtle alternations in the fabric
of reality, eventually taking control – and correcting the chaos,
healing the injustice that civilization had heaped upon a battered
universe.'
“But the suspicious Avengers
attacked Korvac, tragically preventing his more eradicating the
world's cruelties. 'I was in the unique position to alter that, to
bring all of existence under my sane and benevolent rule,' he told
the super-team. 'I am a God! And I was going to be your savior!'
Where others saw megalomania, Jim Shooter saw a beleaguered hero who
only wanted to bring order to the galaxy” (p. 214).
… as Shooter had, indisputably, brought
order to the Marvel Bullpen – and earned their hatred for it.
Jumping out at me since I heard Chris
Claremont's account of his final days on X-Men back in the
early 1990s (in his answer to my friend's question at Comicpalooza
[link]), was a decidedly different tone conveyed by the rather
cursory account given here. Perhaps the passage of time has cooled
what comes across here as the culmination of a growing hostility
between his editors and the long-time writer of Marvel mutantkind who
had understandably developed quite a proprietary sentiment toward
“his” characters.
In the penultimate “Part IV: Boom and
Bust,” as corporate interests increasingly outweighed creativity,
corporate and editorial control coupled with the gimmicks of the
early 1990s read hauntingly similar to what is going on currently at
DC Comics, and I fear that the ultimate result will be much the same.
Due attention is given to DC's “Death of Superman” event of
1992-1993 bursting the “Collector Bubble,” but it seems clear
from Howe's account that Marvel Comics and the maverick artists who broke
away to create Image Comics were instrumental in creating the bubble
in the first place. Many of the same names appear as are now in
charge of DC Comics, most notably Bob Harras who oversaw the
disastrous “Heroes Reborn” to which the “New 52” DC
“nottaboot” is oft compared. Harras is nonetheless portrayed as
a victim of higher corporate forces beyond his control.
There is much else of interest throughout
this book, including the long-running disputes over who exactly
“created” the core Marvel characters who exploded upon the world
in the early 1960s, and here as in other comics histories Stan Lee
comes across as very different from the ebullient enthusiast for
Marvel Comics and the medium in general that is his public persona.
It's ironic that, save for a black-and-white reproduction of a
Golden-Age (ca. 1940) announcement of Marvel Comics “Now on
Sale 10¢,” which appears opposite the
title page, the single illustration within the pages of this
book is a small black-and-white photograph of smiling “Stan Lee and Jack
Kirby in 1965” that appears opposite the last page of text. By that point,
even the reader who may have started this book with no knowledge of
comics history knows how staged and ultimately false was the facade
of the “Merry Marvel Bullpen” to whom Howe devoted his book.
No comments:
Post a Comment