« Best. Cover. EVER. | Main | Subway Reading: The Ultimates »
April 07, 2005
Subway Reading: Zatanna
Zatanna #1 - Just yesterday, I mentioned to my comic store cronies that I hadn't spotted any other comic readers on the subway in some time. Then, this morning, while reading the first issue of Zatanna, I turn around and see a guy reading an Alan Moore-era Swamp Thing trade! I shamefully admit that I have never read Swamp Thing. It wasn't until later that I understood the spooky coincidence that was afoot. According to Swamp Thing aficionado Mike Sterling, Zatanna contained more than one nod to Moore's legendary run! Whoa, dude. Whoa. Scary. Sort of.
As for the book itself, I have no complaints. Like the Seven Soldiers books that preceded it, Zatanna was a fairly straightforward comic book plot, filtered through the prism of Grant Morrison's singular writing style. Ryan Sook's artwork wears its influences on its sleeve, from the Tony Harris-like inks to the J.H. Williams-like panel layouts. Don't get me wrong: he does a great job of it. A lot of people try to ape Harris' style and more often than not the results are a spectacular failure. Sook avoids all the common traps by keeping things loose and dynamic. I found the art appealing, but it still kind of seemed like he was playing with other people's toys. All in all this book gets a solid 3.5 stars.
One thing that has been burning in the back of my mind (Ow! That's hot!) is the hypocrisy of bad-mouthing the Infinite Identity Crises while praising Seven Soldiers. Loyal Pickytarian Nevin elaborated on this in the comments the other day:
Your Infinite Crisis vs. Seven Soldiers dilemma is a good question. I think that the problem is that when people read a comic they don't like, they assume that there was something wrong with the storytelling devices or style, when it might just have been bad writing. There's nothing automatically wrong with "dark" or "realistic" stories, and epic crossovers are natural to superhero stories. Just because they were used poorly in Identity Crisis and Avengers Disassembled doesn't mean that we should be surprised that Grant Morrison can use the tools properly.I think the real test of the comics blogosphere will be Dan Slott's GLA. They're killing off a character in every issue. Sure, it's a self-aware joke about comic books, but I think they might still be telling the truth when they say that C-list characters will die. Will all the bloggers who hated Sue Dibney's death decide that it's ok if the character dies as a joke? Or will they turn against the beloved Dan Slott because killing characters is a sign of unimaginative storytelling?
Yeah, I know that Slott will probably make the issue moot by either undoing the deaths at the end or by discussing the issue so directly that there's no room for commentators to interpret for themselves. But I'm hoping I'll get to see some interesting reactions.
** ZATANNA SPOILERS ALERT **
Firstly, it's good to welcome back one of the most loyal Pickytarians of all to the comment page! I agree with his point about the execution being the biggest difference between Seven Soldiers (or GLA) and I.C. For me, it's not the fact that a character died that turned me off to I.C. In Zatanna, Morrison offs a half-dozen C-Listers for crying out loud. The difference is that it's Grant Morrison writing the story rather than a committee in a board room that's trying to figure out how to have the biggest-selling book of the year. The deaths in Zatanna feel like an organic, integral component of a cohesive, entertaining comic book story. It also helps that they weren't marketed to death as an event after which "Nothing In The DC Universe Will Ever Be The Same AGAIN!" I.C. was a story that was shoddily built around a marketing ploy. S.S. is also a marketing ploy, but at least it doesn't read like a secondary afterthought to a crass hype-machine.
Nevin also points out the second difference, which is the self-awareness factor. G.L.A. doesn't claim to be much more than an explicit parody of Avengers Disassembled. Unlike I.C., the laughs that it generates are intentional. Morrison may not be going for straight-up comedy with Seven Soldiers, but the #0 issue was loaded with commentary on the seemingly arbitrary nature of super-hero team-ups and cosmic events. A little self-awareness goes a long way with these kind of books. If the I.C. books weren't playing everything so melodramatically straight, they wouldn't cause nearly as much eye-rolling as they do.
Posted by jdonelson_nyc at April 7, 2005 11:20 AM
Comments
Wait, wait, wait. I'M one of YOUR cronies?
I was sure YOU were one of MY cronies...
Posted by: Peat at April 7, 2005 01:49 PM
I was wrestling with this very same realization after I read SS:Z- I couldn't understand how Max Lord popping a cap in Beetle's melon could be so offputting, but we get five deep-fried mystics in this comic and it's wholly acceptable. Now you've saved me the trouble! Like you said, it's all in the intent.
Posted by: Johnny Bacardi at April 7, 2005 02:30 PM
"five deep-fried mystics" - I like that. I'll take five deep-fried mystics and a large Coke to go, please.
And yes, Peat, I am the evil genius and you, Matt, and Jay are my henchmen. I thought that was obvious...?
Posted by: jdonelson_nyc at April 7, 2005 02:58 PM
Damn it! I was looking forward to a few months of comic-blog soul-searching, as everyone tried to figure out why they liked GLA, and then you had to go and ruin it with a perfectly reasonable explanation.
You're right, of course. The difference between a good and bad story is whether the author's main goal was to tell a good story. The comics business is not always going to be pushing big crossover events on us, but they'll always be pushing SOMETHING that was written for money instead of art. I don't think it would be any less insulting if, say, happy done-in-ones became the Next Big Thing.
I hope I didn't sound too insulting in the comment that's quoted above, but I was a little frustrated with the blogosphere when I wrote it. I identify with this community, of course, but we can spend as much time bitching about the way things should be as the "fanboys" do (hey -- do fanboys ever get together to make fun of us? Because we deserve it sometimes), and often for reasons that are just as silly. Let's spend less time claiming that "literary technique X" is always bad, and more time talking about the latest Street Angel.
Heh, I didn't intend to start a manifesto there, but I'll leave it up because I kinda like it. On a lighter note, have you read GLA yet? Wow...it exceeded all my expectations. It was both funnier than I expected (a lot), and DARKER than I expected (by A LOT). I'm now convinced that DC does still love the Giffen/DeMatteis-era Justice League, because if they really wanted to trash those old heroes, they would've hired Dan Slott to write Countdown.
Posted by: Nevin at April 7, 2005 10:12 PM
See, the deaths in Zatanna combined with the kinda-obvious Promethea pastiche/parody/whatever combined together to make this the most disappointing of the 7 Soldiers books so far for me. (Which isn't saying much - I've enjoyed every issue so far).
I agree that the intent is important - but when the mystics got "fried" I could only really pick up three possible intentions from Morrison. One was to allude to Zatanna's own father's death in the same place under similar circumstances. The second was to show how badass Gwydion is supposed to be. And the third was to show that Zatanna is now "cut off" from any mystical allies that she has because her friends are dead.
The first is acceptable, but seems excessive to me (all 5 of them die to give her a gruesome reminder of her father's death?) The second always strikes me as sloppy - like the writer can't think of a better way to show how tough a villain is so he has the villain kill a minor character. And the third (if actually an intent) doesn't really work because these guys were SO low tier that Zatanna should be able to call in the bigger guns without any problem if necessary.
And, really, how much effort would it take for a villain to kill these particular characters? We're not talking the Phantom Stranger or Dr. Fate here.
So, I was disappointed in this one. I hope the second issue is better.
Posted by: Jer at April 8, 2005 09:15 AM
Jer: I think that the reason for the fried mystics was partly reason #1 (allusion to Swamp Thing) and partly reason #4: Zatanna must deal with her failure to protect her friends. This is sort of the opposite of your reason #2. Instead of saying "Oh, the bad guy is so cool because he killed someone!" we say, "Oh, the good guy is in so much trouble because she got someone killed!" I prefer it this way. It also fits in with concept that Zatanna has low self-esteem and needs to find herself again. (That theme doesn't seem to fit in well with previous portrayals of her, but so far I'm happy with Morrison's take on it.)
Posted by: Nevin at April 8, 2005 04:59 PM