Busy Comic Week for Me

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Out this week by your humble host: X-Factor #220, In Keeping Secrets on Silent Earth #11, and The Dark Tower: The Battle of Tull #1.

PAD

25 comments on “Busy Comic Week for Me”

  1. You really outdid yourself on this issue. Superb work, and I’m so pleased to see you resolving the love triangle without the usual drama and hair-pulling. Over twenty issues later, and I’m still in awe of what you’ve managed to do with Shatterstar. And having Rahne back in the book just feels RIGHT, after her long absence.

    So what made you decide to throw in a certain someone? I have fond memories of their last major showdown (in your first X-Factor run) and it’ll be interesting to see the reactions from old comrades.

      1. I actually thought she was still dead (from that wacky Wolverine storyline)… forgot that she came back with Doug & Blank & etc.

        Really curious where that is going just because… I really have no idea. She’s one of the last characters I would ever expect someone to write into a comic with an actual speaking role and potential character development (beyond killing and un-killing, evidently) these days.

  2. In Keeping Secrets on Silent Earth #11? When did issues 1 – 10 come out?
    .
    And it’s from BOOM! Studios? So you’re not exclusive with Marvel any more?
    .
    Geez, when did this all happen?

    1. No, I’m still with Marvel. But they sometimes give me leave to do projects that are really important to me and for small publishers.
      .
      PAD

      1. I gotta say, I havent heard about this either. Can sum1 give a little background info on the plot.

  4. I only just recently learned about Coheed and Cambria and their book Amory Wars. How did you get involved with the book?

  5. X-factor never disappoints… And Paul davidson’s art was spectacular. I absolutely love Rahne wolfed out in regular clothes… It’s so fun. Kudos.

  6. Honest $0.02? The heavy-handed didacticism is starting to wear thin.

    It’s not that I have a problem with social issues being translated into fantastic narratives – if you want to raise awareness about particular problems through fictional characters, more power to you.

    But I can’t help feeling as though issues such as #217 (where the plot comes to a grinding halt so Monet and J. Jonah Jameson can deliver extended monologues on racism and intolerance) and this month’s shorter but no less frustrating discussion of religion are, in a sense, talking down to the reader.

    Purely in terms of implied authorship/readership, it’s like you’re hitting me over the head with anvils because you don’t think I’m capable of comprehending subtlety. These moments come across as forced, awkward and contrived; and despite the fact that I agree with what you’re saying I find myself slightly offended that you apparently feel the need to spell things out so blatantly.

    Have a bit more faith in your audience, Mr. David. A scalpel may be less forceful than a hammer, but I’m quite sure it cuts deeper.

    1. On a related note, I was a little confused by Shatterstar’s characterization in this issue. First, we are told that he has just discovered musicals. That fits with his general naivete about anything that isn’t gladiatorial combat, and his enthusiasm for exploring the wider range of human experience. But later, he seems to have developed a somewhat cynical view of Rahne’s faith.
      .
      Now, of course, there are plenty of real people who share Shatterstar’s sentiments. The perspective itself isn’t terribly surprising, and if it had come from, say, Rictor, I wouldn’t have thought much of it. But it was a little surprising coming from Shatterstar. That’s not to say that Shatterstar can’t grow as a character, or be more complex than just “the naive guy”. But I’d be curious how he came to have that perspective.
      .
      That said, I still very much appreciate that PAD’s characters think and talk about more than just how to find the MacGuffin du jour.

      1. That bit of characterization made sense to me. I think it was as simple as observation, and him pointing this out in the way he tends to. He knows her conflict is caused by religion, and yet she claims that she finds peace in religion. It seems contrary, especially for someone not familiar with religious beliefs.

        (Plus, we know Rictor is incredibly cynical about religion. No doubt some of that has rubbed off on Shatterstar.)

      2. On a related note, I was a little confused by Shatterstar’s characterization in this issue. First, we are told that he has just discovered musicals. That fits with his general naivete about anything that isn’t gladiatorial combat, and his enthusiasm for exploring the wider range of human experience. But later, he seems to have developed a somewhat cynical view of Rahne’s faith.
        .
        I figured he’d been studying up. Rahne was presenting herself as an opponent to him, and I thought he’d be studying up on all aspects of her in order to understand her. Since she is so fervent about religion, I figured he’d be studying up on that as well and what you were seeing was some of the conclusions he was drawing. It’s a standard literary trope, to have someone who is effectively an alien, an outsider, commenting on and trying make sense out of things that we take for granted.
        .
        It could be argued, of course, that Star should be a BIT more savvy than he is since he’s been here longer. But I would offer two counterarguments to that: first, thanks to the uneven flow of “Marvel time” we don’t really know how long he’s been here. And second, I’ve known grandparents who came here from the “old country” when they were in their twenties and now here they are, in their 70s, they still seem confused and uncomprehending of the world around them.
        .
        PAD

      3. Harostar: (Plus, we know Rictor is incredibly cynical about religion. No doubt some of that has rubbed off on Shatterstar.)
        .
        PAD: I figured he’d been studying up.
        .
        Thank you both for your comments. They helped clear things up immensely.
        .
        The fact that he was asking questions in general made perfect sense to me. But the observation/commentary (within a question) that religion teaches dogma, which was in turn the source of Rahne’s conflict, seemed more sophisticated (and at least a twinge cynical) than I expected, since he and Rahne wouldn’t have had an opportunity to discuss it before.
        .
        What I hadn’t allowed for initially is that Shatterstar would have spoken with Rictor (and possibly others) in an effort to understand where Rahne was coming from. But it makes perfect sense that he would have done exactly that, since he’s been clearly written as earnest and eager to learn, and since it could be viewed as preparation for battle. I feel a little silly for needing to have that spelled out, but I appreciate the help in getting me there!
        .
        PAD: It could be argued, of course, that Star should be a BIT more savvy than he is since he’s been here longer.
        .
        I, for one, would rather see the character go through that development than just have it taken for granted between the end of his last title and his arrival in X-Factor, simply on the basis of “he’s been around long enough”. So thanks for that!

    2. I find it odd that you would say that on a BBS considering that, around the Internet and even here, you see tons of the exact same sorts of discussions you see in “X-Factor” occurring between various people. I’m not entirely sure what makes what is the norm on a chat board somehow anvilesque in a comic book.
      .
      I’m not “spelling out” anything. I’m having intelligent characters discuss their points of view intelligently. Plus I was particularly flummoxed over people being upset about Jameson’s comments. The man’s been writing editorials since he first showed up. Now he’s a politician. I had a politician with a lifetime of editorial experience deliver an off the cuff speech. I showed the man doing his job. Why would anyone find that remotely strange?
      .
      PAD

      1. Do you really not see the difference between professional fiction writing and internet message board discussions?

      2. The difference between a chat board and a comic book is that chat boards aren’t narratives, and therefore aren’t bound by plot, characterization and so on.

        Here, in order for Jameson to make his (atypically calm and rational) speech, the story has to be put on hold in a very contrived way – again, my objection isn’t that the discussion is there, but that the discussion isn’t integrated into the plot.

        It actually reminded me of an issue of Ann Nocenti’s “Daredevil” run: the protagonist is fighting for his life in the streets, and suddenly a young woman approaches him and delivers a lecture on the dangers of dumping toxic waste. It’s obviously a soapbox moment for the author, but that moment is inserted into the text with all the subtlety of a crowbar, and it shows.

        What I find particularly frustrating, as someone who’s enjoyed your work since the late ’80s, is that I know you’ve done this sort of thing before without having it feel extraneous to the text. But with “X-Factor” #217, I feel that I could have skipped pages 13, 14 and 15 without compromising the plot. They’re literally three pages of discussion that could have been plucked out of the text without affecting the narrative.

        As an aside, another problem with the Jameson/Monet scene – and an example of how you’re spelling it out – is that it’s blatantly one-sided: again, I agree with the principles expressed here, but by depicting the opposing protesters as idiots who make blanket statements like “your kind brings death”, you’re forcing your readers to agree with Jameson and Monet by default. And it’s not necessary: by virtue of being named, recognized characters faced with an anonymous mob, the reader is already inclined to side with them. But instead of having a debate about Islamophobia that puts both sides on equal ground, in which the voices of tolerance emerge victorious, you created a scenario where it’s impossible not to side with Jameson and Monet, because the crowd speak Strawmanese (ie: “I heard all mutants want to take over the world!”)

      3. The difference between a chat board and a comic book is that chat boards aren’t narratives, and therefore aren’t bound by plot, characterization and so on.
        .
        …but that the discussion isn’t integrated into the plot.
        .
        As you say, narratives are more than just plot. Surely Jameson’s speechifying and Monet’s outburst come under characterization.

      4. Here, in order for Jameson to make his (atypically calm and rational) speech, the story has to be put on hold in a very contrived way – again, my objection isn’t that the discussion is there, but that the discussion isn’t integrated into the plot.
        .
        Well, obviously I disagree. At that point the plot involved Jameson going through his day with X-Factor tagging along, and in this case his day involved a sequence that was modeled on something that was actually happening in NYC. Moments later, all hëll breaks loose at the rally and we’re off to the races.
        .
        It’s really easy to second guess me on these sorts of things. For instance, I could have set the sequence at an ecology gathering and Jameson starts talking about how global warming isn’t established fact. And what happens? Readers would accuse me of taking the opportunity to make global warming deniers look bad because I’m lumping them in with Marvel’s biggest blowhard.
        .
        I also find it interesting when I’m accused of making the other side “look bad” simply by presenting them as they are. Almost all the quotes I put into the mouths of the protestors were actual quotes culled from newspaper articles and television coverage. This isn’t the first time I’ve encountered this. Years ago I wrote an issue of “Supergirl” in which I had Steel advocating that a known bigot shouldn’t be allowed to speak at Stanhope University. I used, word for word, arguments presented by learned African-American scholars and professors who were arguing against a known bigot being allowed to lecture at their own universities. And I was accused of skewing the argument to make the opposition look better with readers contending that “no educated black man would ever say the things Steel said.”
        .
        With all deference to Ann, whom I adore, I think there’s a world of difference between having a protagonist deliver a speech in the midst of a fight and a protagonist delivering a speech at a place where other people are making speeches.
        .
        PAD

      5. Readers would accuse me of taking the opportunity to make global warming deniers look bad because I’m lumping them in with Marvel’s biggest blowhard.

        Wouldn’t that depend entirely on the manner in which you presented the debate? If Jameson denies global warming by blaming the phenomenon on Spider-Man, then yes, he (and by extension, the faction he’s identified with) is going to look rather silly.

        But that’s not the only way to play this scenario. I’m thinking here of the debate between Jean Grey and Robert Kelly in the first X-Men movie: Kelly is a bigot and a fearmonger, but he presents his arguments within the context of “legitimate” concerns (ie: what hope would a “normal” person have against telepathic manipulation or phasing?) His solution is absolutely wrong, but the reader/viewer doesn’t need to be spoon-fed that conclusion.

        I also find it interesting when I’m accused of making the other side “look bad” simply by presenting them as they are. Almost all the quotes I put into the mouths of the protestors were actual quotes culled from newspaper articles and television coverage.

        But that’s precisely the imbalance I’m referring to. On the one hand you have assorted, fragmented quotes from various protesters which were transplanted into the text; on the other hand you have an extended, coherent and detailed rebuttal from Jameson and Monet. Rather than allow your readers to view both sides of the debate (and, hopefully, come to the more enlightened conclusion you espouse through the two protagonists), you stacked the deck in such a way that it’s a completely one-sided discussion.

        And that’s what I find so irritating: that you apparently don’t trust your audience to understand what’s being said here unless you make it absolutely impossible for them to have any interpretation that doesn’t parrot that of your characters.

        With all deference to Ann, whom I adore, I think there’s a world of difference between having a protagonist deliver a speech in the midst of a fight and a protagonist delivering a speech at a place where other people are making speeches.

        It’s not an issue of setting, but of theme. Nocenti’s story isn’t about the social and ecological dangers of dumping toxic waste, so when that soapbox moment comes, the plot has to be paused in an inherently clumsy manner so an unrelated point can be made. By the same token, the anti-Islam rally has no thematic connection to any of the subplots – the women hunting Jameson aren’t driven by racism or intolerance, and it’s not a moment of epiphany for Jameson because he’s represented as always having held these beliefs. The whole sequence is a soapbox moment, and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

        For comparison’s sake? Ulysses being a homophobic ŧwáŧ to Hector during the Pantheon Saga: it was quick, it was to-the-point, it gave voice to the popular misconceptions of the time regarding homosexuality, and – most importantly – we didn’t need page-long monologues to understand that Ulysses and the viewpoint he espoused was absolutely wrong.

    1. There were “under construction” signs the last time we were there but I was unaware the reopening was under way. I was never comfortable with the whole Iago/Zazu update; it might have seemed good in theory, but both characters were annoying to begin with, so there wasn’t much encouragement to spend excess time with them while on vacation.
      .
      PAD

Comments are closed.