

Marvel Comics and the “most intricate fictional narrative in history” (2013) - drjohnson
http://theappendix.net/issues/2012/12/days-of-future-present-marvel-comics-and-the-most-intricate-fictional-narrative-in-the-history-of-the-world

======
vidarh
> For a short while, comics became insanely collectible, and Marvel figured
> out how to cash in.

This struck me. As a European, from one of the countries where comics stands
strongest (Norway), I remember as a child, be shocked at hearing that in the
US it was common, for the purposes of determining advertising reach, to count
multiple issues per reader at one point.

Because in Norway, it was normal to calculate 3-4 readers per comic for of the
most popular titles. Like (in the 80's; while still going, they've been
displaced by homegrown titles "at the top" as far as I understand) Donald Duck
& Co. and the Phantom, which both sold in the region of 150,000 to 200,000 per
issue through much of the 80's (every _week_ for Donald, and every two weeks
for the Phantom) in a country of then ca. 4 million people. So for Donald it
would not have been unreasonable for an issue to have been read by one in five
people, including a lot of adults.

Comics, as a culture here, was always about fun and sharing, not really
collecting (there _are_ certainly collectors too, but it's never been as big
as in the US).

Many Marvel and DC titles also sold more in translations in Scandinavia
(sometimes _each_ country in Scandinavia might outsell the US for certain
titles) than they did in the US, though their popularity has diminished since
the 80's.

Though it was not hard to see why "our" versions sold better when I saw my
first US comic: Thin slivers full of advertising. We expected 60+ page issues,
often expanded issues with up to 100 pages, and usually only 3 pages of
advertising or so (inner cover and back page); _maybe_ an advertising inlay.

My first exposure to Marvel (as had "always" been the case in Norway - we
never had the proliferation of titles following different aspects of a
character) was also far easier to digest (though it used to be more chaotic):

From 1983 onwards, a new publisher took over. Where the previous one had
published a mish-mash of stories from the different Marvel titles, out of
order, the new one followed a very simple format, coordinated throughout the
Scandinavian market: Spiderman, Hulk, Project X each got one title that weaved
together a single coherent-ish narrative for their title character from the
different Marvel titles + extra stories about the other Marvel characers. In
addition each title carried a single number scheme that placed them
chronologically relative to each other. Focus was on ensuring that you could
either follow one of the main titles or all of them in numbered order, and get
a narrative that was understandable, if necessary "filled in" by a "fact page"
or similar explaining the background of a "new" (to us) character that had to
be thrown into the mix for the narrative to make sense.

Especially relevant with the new X-Men movie: Project X lasted 13 issues on
its first run, and ended with Days of Future Past.

It got another 13 issue run again a couple of years later. Since then I
stopped following superhero comics for many years so I don't know if they
tried again, but superhero comics have never done particularly well in
Scandinavia, which to me makes the US comics market even stranger.

Because our market, is dominated by, well, _comedic_ comics, many of which
through the years have been series that only got newspaper strip treatment in
the US. The format is generally a main title, which gets the most pages
aggregated from new and classic strips, coupled with a number of rotating
sideshows. Examples includes Beetle Bailey (which has run continuously since
the 70's), Hagar the Horrible (currently not being published), Calvin and
Hobbes (which kept running for a few years after the new strips dried up),
Opus (/Outland/Bloom Country), Ernie, The Far Side.

Many of these will start as a side series in one of the titles, and then
"graduate" to a full series, and occasionally go back to being a side series
in another title once their popularity diminishes (or when new material dries
up - e.g. Calvin and Hobbes still show up).

In return, we've long had the bizarre situation where US comic artists that
are virtually unknown in the US, _tour_ Scandinavia and get large articles in
national newspapers about their book signings, and we get special stories
weaving the Scandinavia into stories. Some of them (Ernie for example) have
even snuck in their Scandinavian editors as characters in their series at
times.

These type of titles of course evades all of the narrative issues: Their
universes are if not static, then at least rarely bound by their story lines.

But the most popular comics today are homegrown comedic series. At least three
currently have regular (monthly) titles: The Collective (Kollektivet) - a
story about a group of badly mismatched friends that started out as a housing
collective, Pondus - a story that started out as a story about two soccer
crazy bus drivers -, and Nemi, which is the most internationally known of
them, thanks to being the least peculiarly Norwegian one of them...

All of these interestingly have in common that their universes evolve.
Particularly Pondus and Kollektivet. Pondus has for example evolved from a
simple series about two football-loving, beer drinking bus drivers getting
into bizarre situations involving ugly women (the artist claims a US
syndication deal stranded on his refusal to re-draw strips to make the women
that one of the main character constantly hits on less ugly), horrible
passengers etc. to a one of them buying a pub, and the perpetual bachelor
(with the ugly women) finding himself a nice woman, getting married, having a
child, and running a record-store with his dad. They escape the narrative
"nightmare" that Marvel and DC deals with by not sharing their universe with
anyone (the occasional friendly jabs between the different comic artists,
where they've made fun of each others characters in various ways, excluded).

Pondus and Nemi sell more than most Marvel and DC series do in the US on a
monthly basis in Norway alone, with their artists in full control and making
enough to tell the publishers where to stuff it if they get too much
interference. These magazines, and slots as side-series in other comedic
comics supports a relatively large number of other comic artists, though most
of them can not live full time of their series (one of the more popular
series, for example, is drawn by a high-school teacher). Compared to the US,
we have a market that does amazingly well in sales, despite far fewer _titles_
, but does not sustain as many artists. On the other hand, the stories are far
more diverse, and one of the reason we sustain fewer artists is that the
series are not "cookie-cutter" series managed project-managed by the
publishers.

To us, in many ways, when it comes to comics we are much closer to the Franco-
Belgian comic culture than to the US. French and Belgian series like Tintin,
Lucky Luke, Asterix, Spirou have always done exceptionally well in
Scandinavia, regularly getting reprinted in huge numbers.

~~~
runn1ng
There is a difference between the European and American comics.

US comics are more intricate and harder to follow, but it's potentionally more
rewarding. This, in turn, creates more passionate and more religiously
following fans.

On one hand, you can have a lot of customers; on the other hand, you can have
smaller, but more loyal customers.

US comics have chosen the second path, in approximately 1980s. And I, as a
European fan of US "Big 2" comics, don't really mind.

~~~
gillianseed
>US comics are more intricate and harder to follow, but it's potentionally
more rewarding.

I'm not sure that this generalisation holds, I grew up with comics like
Laureline and Valerian by Christin/Mezerieres, the work by Jean Giroud aka
Moebius, and I'm sure there are many of other european made comics I read back
in my youth which are quite advanced story-wise, there's more to european
comics than Tintin and The Smurfs :)

On contrast I've often found the formulaic superhero style stories dominating
US comics to be rather 'simple', but of course that's a generalisation as
well.

------
Discordian93
More like a narrative multiple train wreck. There have been so many retcons,
resurrections, inter-series crossovers and changes of characterization that
it's pretty much impossible to understand what's going on with marvel comics
if you haven't read the comics since the 80's. Even they line they started to
avoid that problem, ultimate marvel, recently got crossed over with the main
universe, after it had prevously dropped sharply in quality with the ultimatum
event. I never could get into the main continuity, and stopped reading
ultimate comics after ultimatum, honestly the only marvel narrative I care
about now is the cinematic universe, they've completely ruined comics as a
medium to tell marvel superhero stories, which is pretty sad.

~~~
GuiA
Agreed. I've found that as a casual comics aficionado, the sanest route is to
just stick to omnibus/one shots. I'd recommend that for anyone curious to get
deeper in the story lines but who doesn't want to enter the giant rabbit hole
that is the Marvel universe.

~~~
astrange
Personally, I recommend escaping the world of American comics and finding some
of them other countries to read books from. Historical accident might have
made it so all comics produced here are over-drawn cosmic nonsense about
superpowers and people wearing underwear outside their clothes, but obviously
you can imagine writing a story about something else, right?

I recommend comics about competitive wine tasting.

[http://www.vertical-inc.com/dropsofgod/](http://www.vertical-
inc.com/dropsofgod/)

~~~
Touche
That's a ridiculous generalization, there are many varieties of comics created
in the U.S., not just superhero comics.

~~~
mercurial
Absolutely. Try something like "Air" or "Scalped", for instance. That said,
you will also find some fantastic European comics outside of Lucky
Luke/Spirou/Tintin, like the French classics "Les sept vies de l'Épervier" (3)
(historical fiction with real character development) or "Les passagers du
vent" (4) (more historical fiction, well-researched and beautifully drawn).

1:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_(comics)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_\(comics\))

2:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalped_(comics)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalped_\(comics\))

3:
[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Sept_Vies_de_l%27%C3%89perv...](http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Sept_Vies_de_l%27%C3%89pervier)

4:
[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Passagers_du_vent](http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Passagers_du_vent)

------
soneca
I was expecting (and missed) the role of Watchmen in this narrative, as well
as the evolution of really mature comics (not only based on sex and violence).

I understand it is a story about Marvel, but their story was influenced by
these players also, not just DC. Anyway, great reading.

~~~
sampo
What was the role of Watchmen? (This is a genuine question.)

~~~
vidarh
I didn't actually read Watchmen until after seeing the movie, despite very
well remembering seeing it in my local stores when I was a kid, and
remembering what a splash it made. At the time, it did not appeal to me for
exactly the reasons it is great and stands out: It gave superheros a grown up
treatment.

Reading it now, it stands out to me first and foremost as a symbol of typical
British deadpan satire, applied to superhero stories, just as the "normal"
superhero stories themselves were more out there than ever.

While the shops were full of series with superheros in costumes trying to beat
each other in most ridiculous abuse of colour and spandex (incidentally, I
think the moment it became truly clear how ridiculous many of these costumes
were, was as Hollywood started trying to give them bigger budget treatments,
only to find out how _incredibly hard_ it is to put them on a movie screen
without making it comical), saving the world with more and more ridiculous
deus-ex-machina and bizarre powers, there was a series about a bunch of semi-
retiree "superheros" without powers, full of moral issues and _drenched_ in
cold war seriousness. (Sure, the cold war was everywhere in comics, up to and
including playing central roles in origin stories, but rarely given a grown up
treatment).

While X-Men, for example, issue after issue had characters whine about how
they could not justify killing without ever getting into the meat of the issue
(despite the occasional fantastic story line like Days of Future Past), here
was a series where someone who had been presented as one of the heroes was
prepared to go to that kind of length to re-make the world in a way he thought
better. Where one of the "heroes" dies in the first issue, only to have his
image ripped to pieces bit by bit. Where all of the heroes are deeply human
and flawed, and not necessarily in ways that made you like them more for it.
And the eventual-antagonist wasn't stopped at the last minute, with the
countdown on a doomsday device at 1, and there was no great save.

It also different in presentation: Readers were treated as grown ups with more
than 5 minute attention spans, while if you read X-Men from there period, the
amount of unnecessary exposition is tedious to the extreme. I'm actually re-
reading those issues now, and it is fascinating to see how much I've
"supressed" from my childhood. E.g. the amount of times the saw it as
necessary to explain the powers of every single member of the team, or have
characters carry out de-facto silent soliloquys rather than trust that the
reader would be able to figure things out for themselves, is just bizarre seen
with modern eyes.

Note that Watchmen was not the only series to do better there, by far. Phantom
for example, amongst many, did not have nearly the amount of exposition, to
name another "superhero" without special powers. And more serious literary
treatment was also not new (including Alan Moore's fantastic run on Swamp
Thing), but it stands out for its combination.

It was "superheroes" in the real world given a serious literary treatment
against a dark and serious backdrop, handling moral issues seriously. And it
was a clever caricature and satire over a genre that itself largely is a
caricature, but that very often is not very _clever_ caricature.

~~~
mercurial
> While X-Men, for example, issue after issue had characters whine about how
> they could not justify killing without ever getting into the meat of the
> issue (despite the occasional fantastic story line like Days of Future
> Past), here was a series where someone who had been presented as one of the
> heroes was prepared to go to that kind of length to re-make the world in a
> way he thought better. Where one of the "heroes" dies in the first issue,
> only to have his image ripped to pieces bit by bit. Where all of the heroes
> are deeply human and flawed, and not necessarily in ways that made you like
> them more for it. And the eventual-antagonist wasn't stopped at the last
> minute, with the countdown on a doomsday device at 1, and there was no great
> save.

You're probably right, but as someone growing up in an objectively racist
household, I can say with certainty that the X-Men titles had much more effect
on my outlook than Watchmen ever will. Sure, they were really far from
perfect, but I always found that Marvel never hesitated to touch real-world
issues in a way that DC rarely did. Take Rachel Summers for instance.
Introducing a teenage mutant with survivor's guilt, after being forced to
track fellow mutants in the future, this was pretty grownup for a medium often
dismissed as mindless entertainment.

Of course, it had plenty of crappy moments too (how many times did Xavier
regain and then lose the ability to walk?), but I'll always have fond memories
of them. Not to say that Watchmen, Sandman or V for Vendetta are not
masterpieces, because they are.

------
manachar
The Stan Lee / Jack Kirby duo reminds me some of other "business savvy" and
"creative genius" duos. Seems like a common combination that works best when
the business and creative learn they need each other and respect each other
immensely.

------
virtualwhys
Wow, X-men #142, have that and the piercingly beautiful and tragic Dark
Phoenix series sitting in mylar in a box (with other keepers) at my parents
place.

Was absolutely hooked until John Byrne left (soon thereafter). He and Tony
Perez on the DC comics side were for me comic creating legends.

Edit: George (not Tony) Perez. Could of sworn it was Tony, but it has been
nearly 3 decades ;-)

------
zipwitch
While I certainly enjoy my comics, "most intricate fictional narrative in
history"? I think not.

~~~
mathattack
What's more intricate? Perhaps Lord of the Rings?

This narrative spans 50+ years of writing across many (hundreds of?) titles.
It combines comic books, regular books, TV and movies.

~~~
thaumasiotes
But 50 years is nothing at all. Consider Egyptian mythology, which evolved to
reflect changing political realities across hundreds and hundreds of years.
Consider the relatively minor knight of King Arthur, Sir Kay. Why did Arthur
have a knight by that name? Because originally Cai was a great Welsh hero.
That kind of thing is absolutely the norm for any mythology -- Marvel is a
fairly piddling effort by comparison. Or if you want to go by number of
official published works... consider any modern fanfiction website.

~~~
tlarkworthy
Or the more accessible Greek mythology.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Very true; I picked Egyptian mythology for its very long record and well-
understood "character developments" over the period. But that's an artifact of
features of Egypt that make its history comparatively easy to read; any
traditional mythology or modern focus of fanfiction will dwarf the output of
Marvel, for the simple reason that a publishing company is not able to devote
the same level of effort to storymaking as the group "anyone interested" is.

------
nicwolff
> But who rescues someone from Heaven?

Willow Rosenberg?

