In his engaging book Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud discusses the form of comics as a visual medium, as an art form, and as a method of storytelling. \u00a0He explores the graphic construction of panels, the types of transitions between them, the use of negative space, and what happens in the gutters. \u00a0All this and more are brought to bear in his attempt to place ‘sequential art’ on a firm theoretical foundation. This is certainly all well and good, and I support it, and McCloud’s desire to lift both the medium and the human creators behind it to a respected position is\u00a0laudable. His focus is on the visual component of the art form, the fun part of capturing emotion and action and drama in shape and line and color.<\/p>\n
But there is something lacking when visuals are all that is being discussed. \u00a0There must also be a focus on the mental aspects of storytelling in addition to the physical and the emotional. \u00a0Words and images can be both artfully designed and incredibly evocative, and yet the underlying story can be pure nonsense when the situations stretch logic and when the character’s motivations and psychology are not genuine. \u00a0Too often this is the case in comics, as there is an emphasis on how to tell the story but not on what story is actually being told and why. \u00a0A comic, by its very nature, is ‘episodic storytelling’ in addition to being ‘sequential art’. Story chunks are produced one at a time and, much like in ongoing television series, there is a tendency to start publishing without necessarily having a full story to tell.<\/p>\n
And even if there is a well thought-out plot guided by a single mind, the story can wander off, running the narrative aground if frequent sightings of the course aren’t taken. \u00a0The situation is exacerbated when the storytelling is also the creator’s livelihood and, of course, the situation becomes even more chaotic when there are multiple creative voices and competing agendas. \u00a0There is a reason why retcon and stetcon have\u00a0entered into our vocabulary.<\/p>\n
In this post, I am going to identify the three largest threats to keeping the story headed in the right direction from least dangerous to most.<\/p>\n
In third place:\u00a0<\/strong>Alternate realities<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n There are several ironies associated with alternate realities appearing on the list. \u00a0The first is that the notion of many worlds is a common concept in the foundations of quantum mechanics and in quantum cosmology. \u00a0It is a valid avenue of scientific research and speculation. \u00a0It is also a psychologically appealing concept where our imagined ‘what if’ thoughts can be played out. \u00a0So, on the surface, this concept seems to be logically legitimate and a fertile ground for good drama. \u00a0And I agree, …in principle. \u00a0In practice, it is almost always used incorrectly and indiscriminately. \u00a0Characters move effortlessly between worlds, get switched with each other or left behind as doppelgangers, and so on. \u00a0Eventually, much like multiple copies of the same file with slightly different edits and changes, the whole situation becomes hopelessly cluttered leading to crisis on as many earths as possible as the logical underpinning frays.<\/p>\n There are\u00a0also deep psychological issues. \u00a0More often than not, the copy character is much flatter than the original. \u00a0Not only are the motivations of the copy not as carefully considered, but the mere presence of the copy undercuts our emotional involvement with the original. \u00a0The use of multiple versions cheapens each of them much like a common item like a penny is\u00a0tossed aside without much regard whereas a rare item like a pearl is guarded. \u00a0It’s simply human nature that we value that which is rare more than that which is common, and that which is unique more than that which is rare.<\/p>\n One final note: all of the above applies to the use of clones as well. \u00a0Simply replace the phrases ‘many worlds’ with ‘many clones’ and ‘quantum mechanics’ with ‘modern medicine’ and the same applies. \u00a0And we all know how well things turned out for a clone story (or is it saga) involving a certain wall-crawling fellow.<\/p>\n In second place:<\/strong> \u00a0Magic<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The dangers here are easily an order of magnitude higher than those associated with alternate realities. \u00a0Magic at its most pure form simply becomes a new method for introducing the old deus ex machina concept. When anything is possible all of the ingredients for good drama go out the window. \u00a0Without limitations and frustrations, there are no joys and no triumphs. \u00a0Accomplishments become simply one damn event after another. \u00a0As a result, most writers attempt to limit or cap magical ability. \u00a0But they rarely succeed. \u00a0The story lines in these comics become either stagnant or they result in an arms race.<\/p>\n As an example, consider a childhood favorite of mine: Doctor Strange. \u00a0Very few of the stories involving the good doctor during his long publication career have avoided these pitfalls. \u00a0Certainly the early days of Lee & Ditko were revolutionary and mind-blowing, but looked at dispassionately, the charm of their stories flowed from three sources – each with a limited shelf life. \u00a0The first was the incredibly surreal presentation of the magical landscape brought about by Steve Ditko’s eye for fluid forms, missing horizons, and colorful shapes. The second was the novel territory we were invited to explore where entities such as Watoomb, Agamotto, and Dormammu held sway. \u00a0The third was the tension that resulted from the escalation from small farcas with Baron Mordo to the final face-to-face meeting with Eternity. \u00a0But where do you go when the imagery becomes commonplace, the novelty of new, strange-sounding names wears off, and when one of your characters is the universe itself (or at least some modality of it)? \u00a0Into cancellation is where!<\/p>\n One final note: all of the above applies to the use of mutants and super-science as well. \u00a0Where does the vast amounts of energy that Storm yields or Rogue expends come from? \u00a0Do they really have any limits? \u00a0I don’t see them eating way more food than everyone else so I guess that when they dig down deep in a crisis it is into magicland. \u00a0Interestingly, this unexplained source of energy could actually be placed on a really interesting and physically sound footing that would really drive tension and drama but that is a topic for another day.<\/p>\n And the winner is:<\/strong> \u00a0Time Travel<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n If alternate realities correspond to a limited military intervention, and magic to a regional conflict, then time travel is the global thermonuclear war of this list. \u00a0No other fictional trope is used as often with such bad results as time travel. \u00a0Why do we tolerate it at all? Well, at the heart of our acceptance of this plague is either curiosity or regret. \u00a0Our curiosity drives our desire to see what the future holds or to experience vicariously what living in the past was like. \u00a0Our regret demands us to replay that one moment that we would like to have back asking what choice could have been made that would have made things turn out differently. \u00a0I get that, and I respect those fundamental human longings to relate to the people around us even if they are removed from us by years or by choice.<\/p>\n But time travel is not the way to explore that. \u00a0Far better to use the alternate realities concept (occasionally and with restraint) than to indulge in this abomination. \u00a0Alternate timelines and journeys to the past and future shred causality and our logic with it. They belittle our ability to think and solve problems because we can always reload a saved state and replay instead of figuring it out. They erode character motivation because choices no longer matter (things have to turn out all right; I’ve seen the future).<\/p>\n By now the astute (or patient) reader may be raising two objections. \u00a0First is that the medium of comics is entertainment and therefore it doesn’t need to make sense. \u00a0There is some truth in this perspective and, in fact, a form of time travel is employed every Sunday night on Fox in the form of the Simpsons. \u00a0This family has essentially relived the same year for the last quarter century with no scars due to their lack of continuity. \u00a0Each week the situation is reset, much like reloading a saved state, and new hijinks\u00a0ensue, only to be canceled out in the next episode. There is nothing wrong with this and, in fact, I endorse it because as an audience we know the rules going in. \u00a0But modern comics try to be more, and so must be held to a higher standard. \u00a0The second objection is that a comic creator can’t pick and choose if he works for a large company. \u00a0Suppose he works for Marvel and the powers-that-be ask for a Kang story line. \u00a0He can’t just refuse and still keep his job. \u00a0I agree that in this case there is no escaping the need for time travel. \u00a0But its use can be limited, and a clever writer may be able to make it work one of two ways. \u00a0Either by actually diving in with a well-defined set of rules (with a well constructed exposition) and strictly sticking to it (something like the movie Primer but better contrived) or with a great deal of humor. \u00a0After all, the only time travel movie that actually gets it pretty much correctly is the highly comical (and intelligently written) ‘Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure’.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"