On the State of Superhero Comics

I realized during my most recent child-related break from comics that I didn't really miss the superhero comics.  I was worried that I'd accidentally read spoilers about "The Realm" or "The Weatherman," but I was only moderately concerned that I'd find out Kindred's identity from Bleeding Cool or Wikipedia.  Given my almost 40 years reading superhero comics, I wondered what the problem was.

Looking at Marvel's current line-up, it isn't hard to identify.  As of this post, Miles Morales is the newest character with an ongoing solo title (he debuted in 2011) followed by Cable (1993) and Eddie Brock as Venom (1988).  (The fact that the Cable of the current title is Kid Cable doesn't really feel like a creative win to me.)  The team comics are a little fresher, particularly after Jonathan Hickman's ingenious rebooting of the X-Men line.  That said, Savage Avengers is the only new team per se.  We've seen many iterations of the Avengers, Champions, Excalibur, Fantastic Four, Guardians of the Galaxy, Hellions, Marauders, New Mutants, Runaways, S.W.O.R.D., X-Factor, X-Force, and X-Men over the years.  With the exception of Champions, all these teams currently feature characters that we've seen on some team or another for the last 30-40 years.  ("Strange Academy" is new but also essentially "Wolverine and the X-Men.")

In other words, same old, same old.  "Champions" has become Marvel's dumping ground for teen superheroes, and they're on their fourth volume in five years.  The Young Avengers pop up every once in a while, but even Kelly Thompson's amazing "West Coast Avengers" couldn't find its footing in the market despite the fact that she provided a real vision of what the Avengers could be after the "Big Three."  Marvel's attempt to add young character doesn't necessarily mean introducing new ones, as they're now trotting out 20- or 30-year-old characters via Power Pack (1984), New Warriors (1989), and Runaways (2003).  Marvel famously attempted to make things younger and/or more diverse a few years ago when it replaced some of its marquee characters with different versions, but they wound up stumbling into the culture wars in so doing.

Even looking at the established characters, Marvel has largely wiped the slate clean of decades' worth of changes.  I'll admit that I've applauded some of those developments.  Nick Spencer has basically undone the excesses of the Joe Quesada and Dan Slott eras of Spider-Man, bringing back a much more familiar version of Peter Parker.  Ta'Nehisi Coates returned Steve Rogers to something reminiscent of the Nomad/Captain era, an appropriate response to the current political and social environment.  And Jonathan Hickman's reboot of the X-Men saved the line for me, as he wisely undid the endless cycle of death and rebirth by simply declaring no one can die now.

But, returning established characters to familiar version of themselves means that the line is all the less fresh.  It means that Marvel has had to sacrifice some of the best new characters of the last few years, such as Rick Remender's Ian Rogers and Jet Black.  (The members of the various "Wolverine and X-Men" lineups are now little more than bit players in the larger X-Men reboot.)  It also means new uses for established characters that reinvigorated them were also out the door, such as Nick Spencer turning Misty Knight and D-Man into Sam Wilson's support staff.  Bucky went from the Man on the Wall to Cap's sidekick yet again in "Invaders."

You'll notice that I haven't even mentioned DC.  I don't even know what to say there.  The only compelling character left in my book is Dick Grayson, and even then it's hard to call him "a" character.  He's been at least five different characters over the last few years, from circus owner to international spy to deadbeat amnesiac.  His amazing ass is basically the only way we're able to recognize him.  DC couldn't even commit to its own reboot, shunting "Doomsday Clock" outside continuity (even if they claim otherwise) before Johns had even finished it.

I understand that the editors and creators are working with the market they have not the market they want, as Marvel's attempts at diversity prove.  (Though, we also have enough evidence of inside resistance that you have to wonder how much support these efforts got.)  You got the sense that they really, really wanted "West Coast Avengers" to work.  But, it's also hard to believe that they're not trolling us at times.  As I've previously mentioned in one of these missives, the aborted marriages of Bruce and Selina and Kitty and Piotr took our hopes for change and dashed them on the rocks.  Yes, Gambit and Rogue got married and even managed a spin-off series, only to be reabsorbed into the X-Borg where they're yet again playing second fiddle to Jean and Scott.

In other words?  I'm not sure how long for the spandex set I am.  Even events like Annihilation - Scourge and Marvel 2099, which should've been right up my alley given my love for the characters, have left me cold.  How many reboots of 2099 can we have?  Also, is Marvel at some point going to trot out an octagenarian Annihilus just so his name can be in "Annihilation Wave - Scourge of the Conquestors:  Amplitude of Doom!"?  I'm giving Empyre a chance but I'm not sure why.

As such, I've decided as I face a year backlog of comics to prioritize non-superhero comics.  I'm bailing on "Batman:  Curse of the White Knight," "The Batman's Grave," and "Detective Comics," leaving "The Last God" as my only DC comic.  I'm down to six superhero comics at Marvel:  "Amazing Spider-Man," "Captain America," "Guardians of the Galaxy," "Marauders," "New Mutants," and "X-Men."  I'll give some limited series a try, but they'll mostly be related to these other series, like "Falcon and Winter Soldier" or "U.S.Agent."  Hopefully, it'll give Marvel sometime to figure out a path to a future that looks different from 1989.