Many times, comic-book stories go in directions that simply leave this reader scratching his head -- not because I do not understand what is happening on the page, but because I don't understand why anyone (sane) would write the story this way. For example, why would +DC Comics give Batman a new Robin, Bruce Wayne's son, only to kill him off in under two years? Why would DC reboot their universe to the point where they are re-telling Superman's origin, and the Justice League's origin, but not reboot Batman and Green Lantern? Why, after killing Jean Grey off, leaving her dead for years, and then bringing her back to life because they realized they needed the character around, would +Marvel Entertainment kill her off again? And why would the creators make a story-line that is a mega-tie in, crossing over an entire family of books, and then give it a plot that goes nowhere until the very final issue of the crossover sequence, in which the plot is abruptly and illogically resolved in a couple of pages? (I'm looking right at you, "H'el on Earth.")
All these, and many more, examples of head-scratching plotting decisions -- these story directions that make no sense to any reasonable person -- are written out by the writer of the comic. Traditionally, when head-scratchers like this are printed, the writer is blamed. After all, it was his plot, and his dialogue, that produced the poorly-thought-out plot element. There have, of course, always been editors, and we have always known that any plot point must be approved by the editor, so the editor was to blame as well. But traditionally, the editor was more of an "accomplice," with the writer being the actual perpetrator. Editors could, sometimes, alter the outcome of a story, but they rarely were directly involved in the plotting.
A great example of how it used to work comes from the first death of Jean Grey/Phoenix in Uncanny X-men #137. As originally plotted, writer Chris Claremont and artist (and co-plotter) John Byrne had scripted Jean's loss of her powers at the end of X-men #137. This story made it all the way to then-editor-in-chief Jim Shooter's desk, and had already been penciled, inked, and perhaps even colored by that point. However, Shooter, reading the story, decided that losing her powers was not sufficient punishment for Jean, who had, as "Dark" Phoenix, destroyed an entire world, killing hundreds of millions of innocent sentient beings. Shooter requested that the story be re-written so that Jean died for her crimes; it was the only fitting punishment.
This anecdote shows how influential an editor can be on the final product. However, it also shows how "hands off" most editors were at the time. Claremont and Byrne were allowed to tell the story they wanted, and they only got interference when there was disagreement over a large, important issue. Here again, the editors assisted with the story and had to agree to what was written and drawn, but generally, creative teams were given a free hand unless something peculiar happened.
If the M.O. I described for the Jean Grey story were still in effect, then I would lay the blame for all the idiotic plot and story decisions at the feet of writers and artists. However, at least in DC, it apears the writers and artists no longer control their stories. Indeed, it seems as if the plotting role has been turned completely over to editors, and the writer has been demoted to a "scripter" (writer of dialogue, not planner of plots). DC's editors are exerting more and more control, and the writers are starting to find their style so cramped that they are beginning to jump ship.
Probably the most significant recent example of this writer/editor conflict, and a perfect illustration of the iron control editors seem to have over plotlines, was the resignation of writer Joshua Hale Fialkov from DC's Green Lantern series. Original reports were that Fialkov resigned from the book over vague "creative differences" with the editorial team. However, recently confirmed reports now indicate that Josh resigned because the editors wanted him to kill off Green Lantern John Stewart, one of the most famous African American superheroes in comics lore, and Fialkov refused to write such a story. According to CBR, Fialkov seems to have had two main reasons for quitting the book. First, he didn't agree that Stewart should be killed off. And second, he didn't want the comic fans to blame him for killing off one of their favorite characters, and one of the only prominent minority characters in DC.
Leaving aside the utter stupidity of the "kill of John Stewart" idea in the first place, this incident clearly demonstrates that the editors are exerting far too much control over the plotlines in DC's comics. The editor should be there to assist, guide, and help the creative team tell the best story, but the editor should not be coming up with large plot elements all on his or her own. Editors should not be handing down plots and telling writers to script those stories. They should be letting the creative teams do their work, and stick to editing.
The evidence that the iron-clad editorial control is a disaster is all around them at DC. Book after book is being canceled. Writers and artists are coming and going from books like they're playing musical chairs. Other than one or two signature titles, hardly any series from DC has been able to really hold onto an audience -- most series are bleeding readers month by month. All these things are happening because DC's editors are trying to be plotters, and that is not their role. It's not what they are good at. It's not where their talent lies. Rather, the people with the talent for good storytelling are the writers and artists. The stories were clearly better when writers had a free hand. And in the few cases at DC where you can tell the writer does have a freer hand than most (such as the first year of Batgirl by Gail Simone, or Wonder Woman by Brian Azzarello), the stories and plots were clearly far superior to those books where the editors were micro-managing and interfering.
I've suspected since getting back to reading comics this past winter that the editors were strongly controlling everything in comics, but I had no direct evidence. Now I have proof, and now I can lay the blame for fiascoes like H'el on Earth squarely on the shoulders of the editors. It's not longer just enough to ask, "Why did the editor let the writer do this?" because writers are not the ones making the plots. The editors are not letting the writers produce these dumb plot elements -- they are making them produce these elements.
+DC Comics, if you ever read this blog (I know you won't; you don't care about fan feedback unless it's a +1 or a +like), take some advice. Go back to the days when you let the writers write, and the artists draw, and stop putting these people under the thumbs of the editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment