In between my high-intensity Thursday, I did swear that when I got the time, I would write about this particular subject that day. Needless to say, the time either didn't present itself... or I didn't ALLOW myself that time to breathe. But what exactly made me change my original notebook-scheduled plan for that day? Finishing up a trade paperback collection written by Jason Aaron, with artwork by Simone Bianchi...
"Thanos Rising"... I'm going to give it some general good-will, due to the ALWAYS stunning artwork by Bianchi. Seriously, I think Bianchi is incapable of a bad illustration. However, my most glaring issue with the mini-series is the concept, itself. I don't want to knock Jason Aaron, since I'm not overly familiar with his work... but I KNOW he isn't on my short list of writers I go out of my way to avoid. I just ponder if the story of Thanos REALLY needed to be retold in this fashion. I also had a MAJOR pet peeve with this story, that I consider emblematic with modern comic book writers as a whole: the humanization of villains of all walks of life.
Growing up reading comics, Thanos was a character that I only knew the basics about. He was a nihilist, had a bizarre romantic relationship with "Death", killed his own mother and destroyed his home planet, and could NEVER finish a plan of conquest, because he subconsciously gave his plans an out for the heroes battling his schemes. Did he have a deeper level of depth than your average "planet conqueror"? I believe so. But did I NEED a story about Thanos having an idyllic childhood, in general, but because of his mommy issues, and his need for "love", he became the destroyer of present day? In a word, NO. Reading this story reminded me of the issues people had with Rob Zombie's "Halloween" remake. Sometimes a character should just be "pure evil" for evil's sake, because superhero comic books are... at their core... tales of absolute good battling absolute evil. And it's not just Thanos that undergone this sympathy "facelift".
I do so admire Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's collaboration on "The Killing Joke". Before this story, the Joker was only known as a guy who robbed a chemical plant in a red helmet and a cape, before a dunk into a vat of chemicals, turning him into a twisted clown. In "Killing Joke", Moore gave the character a background of desperation... wanting to succeed as a comedian, wanting to make a better life for his wife and forthcoming baby..., and because of some horrendous turns to his life, it broke the man, and created the Joker after the acid bath. Now this hasn't remained the definitive "origin" story for the Joker, because if there's ONE thing I totally agree about Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight", it's that the Joker should be impossible to pin down origins of. But it was a solid basis for creating a deeper Joker. However, it was this seed that caused some writers to want to try to create FURTHER sympathy for a homicidal killer. Case in point? The "Villains' Month" issue featuring the Clown Prince of Crime.
Y'know, for a "New 52" universe, it seems like some writers are quick to fall back on old tricks. This issue essentially served as a "Killing Joke" prequel, dealing with how the Joker suffered a horrible CHILDHOOD, as well. Geez... Really? Have we gotten to the point where in order for a villain to be a horrible person in comics, we have to travel back to a traumatic time in their youth? Do we, as readers, need the complete "serial killer background" tale for people we want to see receive their comeuppance from our heroes? ... Not only that, but the issue was bloody weird, with the Joker raising a baby ape to become a crime accomplice... and to serve as a surrogate child that he could raise as the Joker was failed as a child. Ugh... Cry me a river, Clown Prince... But let's talk about an on/off buddy of the Joker, and Metropolis' main thorn in its side!
For Lex Luthor, his origin was almost the opposite of Joker's, in that it STARTED with an innocent background... if not for a bad turn with Superboy and hair-loss. (Sad that Lexie existed in a day where bald wasn't considered beautiful. If the hair accident happened in this day and age, Lex would have been DROWNING in high school ladies, regardless of a bald pate!) But before that accident, Superman and Luthor were solid mates, giving one good turn to the other. It was after the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" that Lex's ties with Superman and Smallville were erased, and he just became the manipulative mogul of Metropolis on his own. And we were happy with just the corporate slimeball that messed with people because... well... he COULD. However, certain people decided to complicate that basis for their own creative purposes...
Normally I do support Brian Azzarello as a writer. I LOVED his run on "Wonder Woman", and "100 Bullets"... fogetabotit! MASTERPIECE! But... when he got into the head of Lex Luthor, I just didn't feel it. I don't buy that if it weren't for Superman's appearance, Lex Luthor would have become some sort of compassionate benefactor to Metropolis, concerned for its citizens. I also lay some blame at the feet of Mark Waid and his "Superman: Birthright" series, making sure that... in case you forgot the trend... Lex Luthor had an ABUSIVE FATHER that helped make him such a hardened person. ... Because, again, a person can't just be "evil" in a simple medium like comics. Heck, even DEITIES aren't safe from current "sob stories" explaining their evil!
Sigh... "Villains' Month", you were such a mixed bag. Another example is the "Darkseid" issue, which showcased Darkseid being an assistant to Highfather and Izaya. DARKSEID. LORD OF APOKOLIPS. UNREPENTANT EVIL TO THE CORE. And now even HE has to start off as an "innocent babe" before fate caused him to become possessed by an evil force? Compare this to issue seven of "New Gods", where we did see a younger Darkseid, but even as a younger being, he was still manipulative and power-hungry. It was entertaining to see a character that was so black in spirit that even as a "young pup", he only had power and his own self-interests in mind. Now, forget the fact that Darkseid appeared in a HORRENDOUS launching arc for the new "Justice League", but this "Villains' Month" issue just bugged the living heck out of me, because if we can't even keep an evil deity "evil" from the start... what a joke.
I only presented a few examples of this bothersome trend for me. Not EVERY SINGLE comic book villain needs a complicated backstory of the loss of innocence. If used sparingly, it can provide some genuine motivation for a being who has forsaken the path of righteousness. But as it seems to be OVERUSED in today's creative environment, it becomes maudlin and tiresome. (I won't EVEN go into Spider-Man's rogues gallery... I guess to become a foe for Peter Parker, you have to have as much emotional baggage as Spidey carries.) I am at least thankful that one of my all-time favorite villains has remained relatively unchanged in about 50 years of existence, and even he started off with a sympathetic background of "what if...", but again, HIS tragic background was refreshing, because it was brand new at his creation. That may explain the Monarch of Latveria's lasting appeal in my regards... I think you know him best by his official name, Doctor Doom.
No comments:
Post a Comment