Creativity in comics: Today vs. Yesteryear

Are comics today better than they weer during the height of the Silver Age???

What about the creativity?

I don't think there will be another time when so much happened in such a short span of time. From the creation of the entire Marvel Universe by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the other greats at Marvel... and also at DC who also experienced a rebirth when Flash was reintroduced in 1955. The ideas were flowing out at a crazy pace... setting the foundations for the next 40+ years.

I think the QUALITY of storytelling in both the writing and art have vastly improved over the decades to the high point we are at now. The cheesy inner monologues, the awkward art and bad dialogue (especially early on when the characters were finding their voice) was just plain bad, though it helped the reader get into the characters head... espcially solo guys like Spider-Man.

But what made the Silver Age (and the Golden before it) so special was the vast influx of NEW characters, new worlds, new stories... and the changing of the status quo.

But since about the mid-1970's there has been a real halt to the massive influx of new characters or character evolution.

But who's fault is this?

This is our fault. Yours, mine... 99% of comic fans are to blame!

People don't want evolution of the characters. They want the Spider-Man they grew up with. Whenever a character is replaced there's always complaints... look at HEAT and Hal Jordan... or all the houpla with the New Blue Beetle and new Atom.

It's also the fault of the creators. Look at Alex Ross... he won't do a story with Kyle Rayner because he's not Hal Jordan! Not the "real" Green Lantern... or, in other words, not the one HE grew up with.The mentality is to stick with what's familiar and safe... whenever there's a change to the status quo people FREAK.

Hell, at Newsarama Joe Quesada is saying Peter's marrage to Mary Jane ruined some potential of the character... but that was 19 YEARS AGO NOW! Cummon... move on... but people just can't let go. So we get the rehashes over and over again.

Quesada's attitude is quite silly in my opinion because as I write this there is an Ultimate Spider-Man that's single and in highschool, there's a Marvel Adventures Spider-Man who loves Mary Jane (but is still young and not married) and then there's a huge availability of reprint material of the single Spidey in the (horrible) Essentials and the (beautiful) Masterworks.

All that being said, I don't think you can fairly compare the creativity of the 1960's to today. When the 60's boom hit there was almost nothing in the way of superheroes... so for an entire generation it was brand spanking NEW and FRESH. For us it's 40+ years and counting of continuous publication, convoluted continuity and long histories.

Whereas superheroes went from 1938 until 1950-ish before they went on hiates for almost a decade when the only options and where Horror, Romance, Sci-Fi and Western comics were the only real options (I'm generalizing of course... but you get the idea... NO superheroes).

Today's comic industry is also a different beast than the 60's with corporate $$$ with things like movies and merchandising that wasn't an option or issue in the early 60's. It's beneficial to the companies to keep the characters the same with the ILLUSION of change... but no real change actually occuring. That's why you get so many "versions" of Spidey... but it's all still the same.

What was my point in all of this? I think I lost it somewhere... but regardless of my near-mad rantings I think comics are in great shape, and in my 22 years of collecting I can't think of a better time to enjoy great stories.

The death of Batman's rogues... Good or Bad?

I'm REALLY enjoying the One Year Later story by James Robinson that's currently running through Batman and Detective Comics... but I'm torn at the deathz of some of Batman's rogues.

Batman has some of the richest villains in comics... and probably the best gallery of bad guys. Even second and third teir villains have potential as Geoff Johns showed in The Flash.

The recent death of Magpie got a resounding... meh... from me as she wasn't even a Q-lister having appeared in one... maybe two stories since she was introduced in the 80's.

But then the KGBeast was offed. Now granted he's been a joke for a long time... but his introductory story was awesome and, while it may not be among the best Batman stories, it also introduced the NKVDemon (where Batman had to go to Russia!) which was a fun story. He's been relegated to 3rd rate hired thug for the last decade... and the collapse of the Soviet Union sure didn't help... but there was always underlying potential.

THEN Scarface/Ventriloquist was killed in Batman 652. Now that's a decided step up in the villain chain from KGBeast and a huge leap up from Magpie. And I know that Orca is possibly next... and she's another Magpie... but I think DC is making a mistake.

As I said, Johns proved ANY villain (Magpie excluded :p ) could become a legitimate threat and taking out 4 villains, one of the calibre of Scarface will, in the end, hurt the Bat rogues.... add to the fact Two-Face is "cured" you're down 4 villains. One of them is a BIGGIE, another is a dummy (literally! :D ) while two others aren't as big, but have/had potential!

The problem with death is that it eliminates a character from a lexicon that will not ever end. Since we all know Batman will be Bruce Wayne forever (maybe with the odd exception for a story purpose) the character will not age and cannot die.

BUT if that's the case, after 60+ YEARS of stories you start running out of good villains and stop someone else from potentially enjoying a good story. If they had kept the Joker dead the very first time they killed him, waaaaaaay back in Batman #1 he wouldn't have become the iconic villain he is today, would never have been on the TV show or in the movie and his death would have stopped all those cool Joker stories (read The Laughing Fish!) over the years.

If villains truely great were easy to create then there would be a bunch of Magneto's, Dr Dooms, Jokers... but in fact there aren't... because a good villain is (I believe) harder to create than a good hero.Those second and thrid string villains give the big ones a needed break now and then.

Normally I don't mind death in comics... Marvel used Scourge to kill a bunch of lameass villains in the mid-80's... and it appears DC is doing something similar now... but Batman is known for his villains... and DC is eliminating them one by one.

What about everyone else? Is this bothersome? Yay! Nay!! Go away Shadow? LOL
Comments??

The Jesus Dynasty - A book review

The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity
By Dr. James D. Tabor


Almost daily, religious scholars and historians propose a new way of understanding the life and impact of Jesus Christ. In his new book The Jesus Dynasty, Dr. James Tabor is the latest author to add his ideas to this hotly contested topic.

Given the dominance of Western culture, no single person has had as much impact on world history as Jesus Christ. Fantastic acts of kindness have been carried out in his name; miracles have been attributed to Him, as have wars and genocide. To many, He’s the son of God, sent to die for Christians so their sins will be forgiven, while to others he’s just a mortal prophet.

Tabor offers an alternative version of Christian origins, one that takes the reader closer than ever to the historical Jesus, His immediate family and His early followers. The story is surprising and controversial, but also a fascinating look into the lives of the people living during this tumultuous time in history.

Jesus, as most know, was the son of the virgin Mary, a young woman who became pregnant before her marriage to a man named Joseph. The Gospels tell us that Jesus had four brothers and two sisters, all of whom were probably the legitimate children of Joseph and Mary. That revelation goes against established Catholic beliefs as Tabor points out: "Catholic dogma holds that Mary remained a perpetual virgin her entire life." Tabor also delves into the possibility Jesus actually had a human father and it was only after Jesus’ death that the Holy Spirit and virgin birth were added to the story, thus ensuring Jesus’ divinity.

Tabor suggests Jesus’ brother James, John the Baptist and Jesus himself likely viewed themselves as faithful Jews. None of them believed that their movement was the start of a new religion. It was the apostle Paul, who, through his ministry, transformed both Jesus and his message, breaking with James and the other followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. Most interesting is how Paul’s message, based on his own revelations, defined what would eventually become Christianity while Jesus became a figure whose humanity was obscured; John became merely a forerunner of Jesus; and James along with the rest of Jesus’ extended family were all but forgotten.

Tabor sheds light on what it was like living during the first Century A.D. and the time of Jesus. From the Roman occupation of the region to life in places such as Nazareth and Galilee, Tabor immerses the reader in history, settings and the people. The most interesting information is offered on the historical Jesus himself. The book delves methodically into the life of Jesus from his birth to his death by throughly examining the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but also other unedited sources from the same time period. Tabor examines The Dead Sea Scrolls, which remained hidden until 1947, the Gnostic Gospels such as that of Thomas, which were edited out of the New Testament because they depicted a Jesus who was not divine.

Tabor delves into Jesus’ bloodline, his connection to King David and his legitimate claim to the throne of Israel. Tabor quotes the book of Samuel: "Shortly before David’s death God promised him that his throne would last forever and that only those of his seed could occupy it as rulers over the nation of Israel." Tabor then breaks down the traditional lineage on Joseph’s side. But if Jesus was not biologically related to Joseph and was in fact a step-son, how could he lay claim to the throne through his bloodline? Tabor answers this mystifying question by showing Jesus’ lineage from an unorthodox perspective, while offering a plausible theory on the scandal of Mary being pregnant before her marriage to Joseph.

And it’s with regard to Jesus’ family that Tabor levels his most controversial claim. Jesus had a father, a biological human father. Tabor even offers a potential name for the father of Jesus. Jesus is sometimes called ‘bar Pantera,’ or son of Pantera. There’s even documentation to back up Tabor’s radical claim in the form of an early Greek text by a philosopher named Kelsus. He says that Jesus was the son of a man named Pantera, who either was, or became, a Roman soldier.

In addition to Tabor’s claims that Jesus had an earthly father, his book also argues it was Jesus’ intention to build a dynasty on earth. Tabor says that it was Jesus’ half-brother James who was to inherit the title role of dynastical king after the prophesied crucifixion, though that’s mostly speculation on Tabor’s part.

The Jesus Dynasty is bound to raise many more questions than it answers while sparking furious debates among Christians and non-Christians alike. The conclusions Tabor offers are shocking, interesting and offer a fascinating glimpse into the past.

With Biblical archeology a popular conversation topic of late thanks to the discovery and subsequent publication of the Gospel of Judas after more than 1,700 years, more and more people are looking into the veracity of the canonical Gospels and searching for the historical Jesus. The argument about the historical Jesus will continue for now, without a definitive answer coming anytime soon, but Tabor’s book offers an interesting and fascinating new approach to the subject.