Well ADD doesn't seem like he's too big into Superhero books as it is anyway. I like Johns and I'm not ashamed. I like a lot of stuff. Like what you want to like and forgert what everyone else thinks.
Shane | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 1:15 pm | #

thats forget...stupid keyboard.
Shane | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 1:16 pm | #

The thing that bewilders me is that Johns is such a normal comic book writer, so why such a reaction? Everything I've read from him gives me the impression that he's no better or worse than your average superhero scribe. Oh well, who knows?
Ian Brill | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 1:19 pm | #

I can't speak for ADD, but what little of Johns's stuff I've read...well, it's tough to tell you what I thought because it just never made an impression. I read some of his post-Busiek Avengers stuff, that Thing mini, and a few issues of JSA. I just kind of thought, "Oh, okay. Guys with suits, some punching, okay, that passes."

I'm not trying to debate those who like Johns's work, but for me, it just seems like the guys is just doing the minimum. He's got solid storytelling skills, but it's formulaic and not very exciting.

And in the meantime, tons of fans sing the guy's praises, and you might even recall before EPIC met its inevitable fate, Marvel put some scripts up on its website as examples of what all aspiring funnybook writers should aim for, including the script for the first issue of Johns's "Red Zone" arc on Avengers. Now, hey, you like the guy's stories? Great. Whatever tickles your nipple. But holding him up as one of the pinnacles of comic book writing talent? Come on.

So, while I can't speak for ADD, I think considering that the deification of the truly mediocre vs. the neglect of the truly was one of the themses of the conversation, I don't think the anti-Johns comments were surprising.
Mick Martin | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 1:55 pm | #

"neglect for the truly great" is what I meant to write, btw.
Mick Martin | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 1:57 pm | #

My biggest peeves with Johns of late have been the artificiality of his cliffhangers and the gruesomeness of some of his story content.
David | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 2:00 pm | #

Oh my God, I can't believe I wrote "themeses."

Forget everything I said before and just shoot me.
Mick Martin | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 2:02 pm | #

I guess I've missed the deification of mediocre writers that ADD is reacting to. Unless you're talking about the praise that's lavished on Bendis and Millar, but ADD seems to like those writers.
John Jakala | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 2:04 pm | #

Well, there's the aforementioned examples with Johns, and how about Bruce Jones? Every other reviewer on the net was praising his Hulk run like it was the next best thing since Virgin birth practically before he even wrote a script, and only now are realizing the guy had ONE story to tell, and he wanted to take the length of an undergraduate college career to tell the thing.
Mick Martin | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 2:17 pm | #

Hmm. Perhaps it's just that my comics radar is slightly differently attuned than others'. Bendis and Millar are my personal examples for overhyped creators. I've never read Bruce Jones' run on HULK so maybe I wasn't paying attention to the reaction with that, but I thought even early on there were critics who were panning it as a ripoff of the old Hulk TV show?

It'll be interesting to see if Jones sticks with the same formula now that he's moving over to DC. (Personally, I think Bendis and Millar rely on repeating their own routines -- faux-snappy dialogue and empty shock -- but they seem to get away with it fine.)
John Jakala | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 2:35 pm | #

Bendis has always been kind of hit-and-miss with me. I liked his stuff on DD, didn't care for Alias, and at first I didn't care for Powers, but I just re-read the first arc and liked it a bit more. I haven't read as much of Millar's stuff; only Ultimates and Wanted. I don't really care that much for Wanted, though Ultimates had some aspects I liked, along with some stuff that annoyed the hell out of me.

Very early on in Jones's Hulk run, I got the impression that the story he was telling was originally something he conceived for TV or film, couldn't sell it, and so he wedged the awkwardly wedged the Hulk into the storyline.

I predict DC may be very disappointed with Jones. As far as I know, very little outside of his work on Hulk has gone anywhere, and I think his success on that book came from the hype and nothing else.
Mick Martin | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 2:51 pm | #

I thought that the Geoff Johns issue of Tom Strong was pretty great, actually. Not great enough to make me seek out any of his other work, mind you, but fun and an interesting concept.

That said, his Hank Pym/Janet van Dyne sexcapades page is among the low points of comics this year. Not to mention, just...weird...
Matt Maxwell | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 3:29 pm | #

Matt, I think the self-induced eye-gouging in Titans trumps the creepy spelunking.
David | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 3:42 pm | #

Wow. I'm glad I missed that one.

But was it at least funny and Wertham-invoking injury to the eye?
Matt Maxwell | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 4:04 pm | #

Or, hoping against hope, a Greek tragic, Oedipus-invoking-and-not-in-THAT-way injury to the eye?

-- Ed
Edward Liu | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 - 5:11 pm | #

Well to be fair to Johns he made his name on Flash not JSA, The Thing, or Avengers. You want to read his best stuff, read that. Particularly his resuscitation of Flash's Rogues Gallery.
Shane | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 12:15 am | #

John,

Clearly you're just a little bruised that ADD hates someone you kinda like, at least judging from the potshots at Bendis and Millar, neither of whom ADD has lavished praise on, or at least he's only lavished praise on specific works while being less effusive and even negative about others. Do the research. As far as Terra Obscura, you may find it lousy, but it was certainly coherent, and I resent the implication that it "gets a pass simply because it's part of the Alan Moore ABC imprint." Yep, that's what we do here, just rubber stamp shit with reputable names on the cover. Deathblow: Byblows--BRILLIANT! Badrock--FUCKING MASTERPIECE! Now, what I will grant you is that Johns is not outright terrible, but, fair or not, he probably takes a bigger hit from ADD because he's mediocre and yet bewilderingly successful right now, despite producing absolutely nothing that will endure beyond a lunch hour. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and we should be discussing other visionaries on Johns' level. How 'bout the films of Jonathan Frakes? The acting of Christopher Atkins? Boy, that Steve Perry could write some lyrics, huh? As always, it you're going to criticize, at least bring the funny.
Chris Allen | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 12:48 am | #

The eye-gouging was definitely of the Oedipal variety. Deathstroke's brainwashed daughter poked her eye out because daddy was disappointed that she wouldn't kill people.
David | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 3:05 am | #

"Mediocre hacks like Geoff Johns [later referred to as an 'industry leech' and 'shit-peddler'] ...really ought to be thrown out of comics by any means necessary"

"As always, it you're going to criticize, at least bring the funny."
Shane | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 8:32 am | #

Chris -

Huh? No, I don't even read anything by Johns anymore, so this isn't a case of ADD or you dissing my favorite creator. And I didn't think I was taking "potshots" at Bendis or Millar -- just offering up what I see as better examples of creators praised disproportionately to their talent. I never said ADD lavished praise on them, just that he seems to like them to some degree. The lavishing of praise was my impression of how the nebulous Comic Book Fan views those two.

Your closing zinger is a classic false dilemma: Surely there's some middle ground between mediocre hack and brilliant visionary. Just because I don't view Johns as being the former doesn't mean I see him as the latter. And the whole point of my post was my bewilderment that ADD seems to think that Johns' failure to achieve the latter means he must be categorized as the former.
John Jakala | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 9:28 am | #

John,

"...this isn't a case of ADD or you dissing my favorite creator."

I didn't say he was your favorite, but if you don't read Johns' stuff, my mistake.

"And I didn't think I was taking "potshots" at Bendis or Millar -- just offering up what I see as better examples of creators praised disproportionately to their talent. I never said ADD lavished praise on them, just that he seems to like them to some degree. The lavishing of praise was my impression of how the nebulous Comic Book Fan views those two."

Understood, but why do you feel the need to do this? It's like you're taking issue with ADD picking on Johns and then substituting two guys you feel it's more appropriate to pick on. I would agree this Conversation piece might be stronger if it focused only on Moore and Morrison and didn't name their lessers, but I guess it was a little disappointing that you found that bit the one worth commenting on rather than anything on Morrison or Moore. But it's your show, so no problem.

"Your closing zinger is a classic false dilemma: Surely there's some middle ground between mediocre hack and brilliant visionary. Just because I don't view Johns as being the former doesn't mean I see him as the latter. And the whole point of my post was my bewilderment that ADD seems to think that Johns' failure to achieve the latter means he must be categorized as the former."

I wasn't implying that you think of Johns as a visionary, but again, I was (over)reacting to the fact you reduced what was for the most part a love letter to Morrison and Moore and the question of how they don't get the support they deserve, to what seemed a kind of defense of Geoff Johns. I shouldn't have let it get to me, of course. As for ADD's opinion of Johns, I'd guess he really thinks he's a mediocre hack, as quoted, but that he does recognize there's a middle ground between that and visionary. Today's Conversation covers just this question, actually.

Chris
Chris Allen | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 11:53 am | #

"I guess it was a little disappointing that you found that bit the one worth commenting on rather than anything on Morrison or Moore."

I see comments like this a lot and have received a few myself, and it always seems strange to me not that people are sad that they don't get the comments they desired but that they then complain about someone acutally talking about something they said. Yes, of course The Conversation was about Moore & Morrison, but what's wrong with pointing out that the frequent harping on Johns was bizarre or (and I'm surprised no one has brought this up) that saying "sooperheroes" to mock those who read them seems dorky at best?

I don't really expect an answer and I realize I'm sidetracking things, but this sort of reaction always surprises me.
Rose | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 2:03 pm | #

Chris -

I should point out that it wasn't just ADD's description of Johns in this piece that motivated me to respond. It was more of a cumulative effect: Johns seems to have been ADD's preferred whipping boy for a while now; this was just the event that made me voice my question instead of wondering about it silently. (I didn't comment on the rest of the piece because I didn't have much to say about it. Yeah, Morrison and Moore, both top-notch writers. Not much to add there.)

I guess my post is a (passive) defense of Johns, but only because I think ADD's response is so out-of-proportion to Johns' status in the industry. (Although I may be wrong; I'll admit I don't keep up with Wizard and other sources, so perhaps there is a move afoot to lionize Johns that I'm unaware of.) More than anything, the suggestion that Johns should be forcibly removed from the industry "by any means necessary" is what got to me. Yeah, as a critic ADD is of course going to share his thoughts on writers perceived as "hot"; but even then shouldn't the discussion be limited to the work? Saying that someone should be drummed out of the business seems to be taking things a little too far. I mean, I'm happy to discuss the writers whose work I generally dislike and offer reasons for that opinion, but I'd never suggest that Bendis or Millar -- or even Austen -- should be run out of the industry on a rail. For one thing, I know that there are people who enjoy the work those creators produce, just as there is a segment of the comic-buying populace that enjoys Johns' work. How does it harm me if there's work out there I dislike? There's still good stuff for me to read and discuss.

Maybe I'm taking Alan's statement much too literally. It also occurs to me that this isn't the best way to find out his thoughts on this, so perhaps I'll pop over to the new CBG forum to discuss the matter with him directly. But thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts - I appreciate it.
John Jakala | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 3:12 pm | #

Maybe Geoff Johns made fun of one of ADD's "glare into the camera" logos, and now it's on.
Jim Treacher | Email | Homepage | 08.05.04 - 7:03 pm | #

"More than anything, the suggestion that Johns should be forcibly removed from the industry "by any means necessary" is what got to me. Yeah, as a critic ADD is of course going to share his thoughts on writers perceived as "hot"; but even then shouldn't the discussion be limited to the work?"

Uh, John, his WORK is the reason he shouldn't be in the industry. I'm sure he's a lovely fellow and I'd wish him well if he wasn't Harming Comics.

ADD
ADD | Email | Homepage | 08.06.04 - 1:05 am | #

Rose,

I'm not sure why you would be surprised that I or anyone would be a little disappointed to write a piece and then have more people comment on one stray comment in the piece than the main thrust of it, but now that the cat's out of the bag, it seems odd to me that for all the defense of Johns, no one has anything good to say about his comics other than that he resuscitated Flash's Rogues Gallery, which one would assume was practically an editorial mandate, anyway. If he wrote a story that made anyone cry or jump up and cheer, I'd love to hear about it. If someone wants to argue ADD's point that his take on iconic characters is inappropriate for children (people ripping their faces in The Flash, the aforementioned "Pym job"), I'd like to hear that as well. I'm not interested in throwing the guy out of the industry, but I think it's entirely fair to turn a critical spotlight on the guy's work to see if it measures up. If it's forgettable and harmful to beloved characters, let's point that out, and try to effect some change to get someone better in place. Comics readers are too often accepting of substandard work as long as it hits the expected story beats. The writers of Yes, Dear are probably more talented than half the writers in the comics industry, so why don't we demand better? Look how we congratulate ourselves: "I liked JSA until it became one big "arc" after another." When was that, the second arc? It's a superhero book, they all work in one arc after another. The format isn't the problem, the content is. It's just not interesting enough. It's not about visionaries vs. hacks, it's simply about not enough creators striving to their fullest to be interesting and real and passionate, and not enough readers and critics demanding that they be so. Another minute spent on Geoff Johns is a minute not spent on Los Bros. Hernandez or Carl Barks or Ware or even a solid, no-bullshit pro like John Wagner. Better to be a Millar who can fly gloriously off the rails into abominable failure than the Disneyland kiddie car comics creators putt-putting around the track with the governor on the accelerator and the metal rail in the middle to keep them from breaking away from the pack. What was the question? :-)
Chris Allen | Email | Homepage | 08.06.04 - 2:16 am | #

Jesus, Chris, I don't know where that came from, but, bravo.
ADD | Email | Homepage | 08.06.04 - 4:28 am | #

Chris -

I'm not sure how saying "I liked JSA until it became one big 'arc' after another" is self-congratulatory, but perhaps I'm just chronically unable to parse complex and challenging prose.

"Another minute spent on Geoff Johns is a minute not spent on Los Bros. Hernandez or Carl Barks or Ware or even a solid, no-bullshit pro like John Wagner."

To which I say: I agree, so why not spend your time reading and writing about Los Bros. Hernandez or Carl Barks or Ware or even a solid, no-bullshit pro like John Wagner? Why waste your time reading and ranting about Johns if you know you don't like his work? Even if you were able to send Johns packing, do you really believe that would be the end of comic writers who you think are sub-standard? The hope that bitching loudly enough will somehow transform comics into a utopian medium of Only Good Work strikes me as hopelessly naive. [NOTE: 'Your' should be understood as referring to ADD above, since he's the one who wants Johns evicted from comics.]

"I'm not interested in throwing the guy out of the industry, but I think it's entirely fair to turn a critical spotlight on the guy's work to see if it measures up."

Hey, I completely agree with you here. Why are we arguing again? :-)
John Jakala | Email | Homepage | 08.06.04 - 11:04 am | #

John,

I thought your "one arc after another" comment was bizarrely funny, and it was the closest at hand, so it got swept up in my tirade not as a personal attack, but just a convenient example of, well, goofiness (sorry!). But as far as the pointlessness of continuing the Johns argument, I think it's now become just as much about explaining or defending ourselves (more ADD than me) than about whether Johns is any damn good and should be allowed to keep scripting the adventures of the Coke-Lines-On-A-Mirror-Master. Maybe we started off too harsh to create a healthy debate, I dunno. It happens. The piece was 90% a love letter to Morrison and Moore but within it a bit of a scolding to the vox populi that marginalize their contributions. I appreciate these and other creators who push the envelope a bit, and who introduce new ideas, characters and concepts into comics, and who aren't afraid to put their emotions into it and try to stretch themselves. I think that should be celebrated. I think guys who are demonstrably trying to improve themselves, like Brian Wood, Patrick Neighly and others, should be supported and encouraged. I don't expect a comics utopia, because in any medium, the crappy and mediocre will outnumber the good, but I don't see anything wrong with making a little noise about it, you know?
Chris Allen | Email | Homepage | 08.06.04 - 12:01 pm | #

"I appreciate these and other creators who push the envelope a bit, and who introduce new ideas, characters and concepts into comics, and who aren't afraid to put their emotions into it and try to stretch themselves. I think that should be celebrated. I think guys who are demonstrably trying to improve themselves, like Brian Wood, Patrick Neighly and others, should be supported and encouraged."

I agree with that, but in this case that 10% time that was spent on the negative overshadowed the positive. Maybe it should have been a seperate discussion? Hindsight is 20/20 though. Anyway I and just about everyone else still read the reviews and such, so you guys are doing something right. :)
Shane | Email | Homepage | 08.06.04 - 2:22 pm | #

Chris -

The "one arc after another" line does sound funny, I'll admit, because I'm sure every issue of JSA has been packaged as "Part 1 of X!" in some artificially-delineated eye-toward-the-trade arc. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd just written that I liked the "quieter" issues between the "official" arcs where there was more down-time interaction among the characters, or the issues spotlighting one or two characters (like the Wildcat vs. the Injustice Society), or the issues where they were building toward the Big Threat but hadn't actually gotten there yet. (Sub-plots are fun! Big, drawn-out mono-plots are dull.) But who knows? I think Goyer was co-writer on most of the JSA issues I liked, so perhaps everything I enjoyed came from him, not Johns.
John Jakala | Email | Homepage | 08.06.04 - 3:20 pm | #

Shane,

Sure, in hindsight, actually naming sub-Mooreison writers was an unnecessary distraction. Not even in hindsight, really, but I wanted the piece to be conversational and without edits, so I just reacted to what ADD was throwing down. It wasn't the discussion we were looking for, but interesting nonetheless.

Best,

Chris
Chris Allen | Email | Homepage | 08.09.04 - 6:46 pm | #