This also comes from Tom Spurgeon's Comics Reporter, this time from Spurgeon himself: a review of the new Booster Gold #1 which captures quite well many of the complaints even we hard-core, drenched-in-spandex readers have with a certain type of bad superhero comic:
What it isn't is fun, at least not this first issue, I think mostly because the narrative resembles an editorial meeting rather than an action-adventure story. An opening fight with the Royal Flush Gang (who deserve better on the basis of their killer design alone) is more significant for the fact that it allows some superhero to subsequently pull out a bit of Booster Gold trivia than for any drama inherent within the tussle itself. You see where this is going. I felt more like I was sitting through somebody's barely-disguised seminar about recent superhero plot developments than something that was its own comic with drama and meaning. Booster Gold feels so tied into recent DC comics events that one can imagine copies ceasing to exist if walked 200 yards away from other comics. It frequently seems comics like this exist to supply the two or three sentences of plot description that are part of the real entertainment -- tracking the convoluted plot of the wider, fictional universe.
I've long had a rubric of "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" continuity. "Inclusive" continuity makes a reader feel like the story she is reading is part of a rich, sprawling work; "exclusive" continuity makes the reader feel like the story she is reading doesn't stand on its own. I think that one of the hallmarks of exclusive continuity is that the story at hand either doesn't have enough event independent of the continuity, or the events of the story don't have significance except when viewed in conjunction with events from other stories the reader might not have seen. An excellent "inclusive" story makes you want to read more; a bad "exclusive" story makes you feel like you've failed by not reading something else first.
Geoff Johns has, regrettably, taken the crown of King of Exclusive Continuity away from Roy Thomas. If you're looking for reasons why DC is decaying, there's one right there.
Posted by Kevin J. Maroney at August 26, 2007 5:53 PM
Haven't read it yet, but I will, and will confirm if Spurgeon's assessment is correct. That being said, the previews didn't have any of what he mentions, and the previews seemed to have potential. Geoff Johns is an odd duck -- he's relatively competent in terms of writing, and scores the occasional victory with me, but is just as capable of collapsing under the weight of "Wouldn't It Be Neat"-ism.
My favourite example of a comic that would vanish if it walked away from other stories is Titans #25: "Who is Troia", which was a story which was incomprehensible, didn't need to be told, and nobody cared about and based around a continuity problem that people would have rather ignored. That example's getting a little long in the tooth, though, and I probably need a newer one.
Eh, I don't know, the only bits of continuity that Booster Gold #1 is really that tied to is the work of the creators involved-- Johns's Infinite Crisis and 52 and Jurgens's original Booster Gold series*. Would Spurgeon have a problem with an indy comic expecting some familiarity with the creators' past work?
*The arguable exception to this would be Booster's friendship with Ted Kord as it developed in JLA over two decades, but beyond the idea that Booster had a friend, there's not much a connection there.
I liked Booster Gold #1- sort of. What stuck in my craw was the idea that BG has to make himself look like a jerk and a screwup all the time- I tire of the endless inadequacy issues Johns keeps shoving down readers' throats. Yes, he's really saving the world, but No One Can Know... bleah. Can't I have fun for once, Geoff? Can you do that? Do you even know HOW?
I'd also argue with Tom's assertion that BG#1 isn't fun. I thought it was a lot of fun--as did most of the people I've read reviewing it. Obviously, tastes differ, but I didn't think it was all that old continuity-heavy (compared to some other DC books these days, anyway) either, and what older continuity references there were were the "good" kind; the stuff where you don't have to know what they're referring to, but it makes the story a bit richer if you do. There were lots of references to newer stuff--especially 52--but those references were also explained. You weren't just supposed to know what things meant. (i.e., instead of simply having a panel with Daniel Carter as Supernova, we got a brief explanation of who he is, what the Supernova costume is and their significance. As opposed to some other books where we're just supposed to get it from a quick mention or visual.) And, of course, there's the throw-away joke that implies that the book won't be part of "Countdown," which will probably help keep things more understandable.
I can't judge for sure whether this is a book accessible to new readers, obviously, since I'm not one of them, but I think it was one of DC's better books last month. And it was, in my opinion, a lot of fun. But, as I said, tastes do differ.
I had no intention of picking up this comic when I walked into my comics store last week, but I picked it up out of curiosity. Although the issue itself wasn't amazing, it did seem to be setting up a fun time travel/time paradox series that had promise, so I figured I'd give it a try.
It didn't bother me that Booster has to keep his ineffective image. That's just a different take on the classic secret identity set up. Clark Kent has to look like an idiot so no one will think he's Superman. Peter Parker is a dweeb to deflect suspicion that he's Spider-Man. Booster Gold doesn't have a separate identity to protect, but his role in protecting the time stream fills the same purpose.
I agree with Jonathan - I thought it was a fun, entertaining comic that was relatively accessible, and I'm someone who can't stand Johns' writing normally for all the reasons Spurgeon mentions. There's no 'exclusive continuity' in there - if anything, it goes too far towards the other direction. The specific section Spurgeon complains about is (after a perfunctory fight during which Booster calls the JLA for assistance):
Hal Jordan: "Booster Gold. Royal Flush Gang. Sounds familiar"
Black Canary: "It should, Hal. That's exactly how Booster got the League's attention in the first place. He hired the gang to take a fall in order to ingratiate himself with us."
Booster Gold: "In all fairness, that was Maxwell Lord that pulled the strings there. And we *all* know what a 'good-guy' he turned out to be."
Followed by more dialogue about why some members of the JLA don't want him back in the league (Batman and Superman the only two to support him at all).
Now, this isn't *good* dialogue, by any stretch of the imagination, but what it does do is set up very clearly that Booster used to be in the League, that he isn't now, that last time he joined by trickery, and that most of the league are wary of him now.
The fight with the Royal Flush Gang was equivalent to the fights in 70s Superman issues where he'd fight Toyman on one page for the sake of having a 'fight scene' in an otherwise character-oriented issue.
The actual conflict in the issue is a moral one - between Booster's wish for fame, glory and the approbation of his peers and his desire to do the right thing. Everything you need to understand that conflict is spelled out very clearly.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I normally wouldn't touch a Johns-written comic with someone else's bargepole. It's not a great classic or anything, but it's one of the better superhero titles of the month, and I'm looking forward to the next issue...
Tom Spurgeon doesn't like a modern mainstream superhero comic! Stop the presses!
Jason: Actually, on the same page, he has a thoughtful, not dismissive, and lukewarm review of World War Hulk.
Andrew: The difference between "inclusive" and "exclusive" continuity is not in the amount of information present on the page. The dialog you quote is, as you say, not good dialog, and it's "not good" for a variety of reasons. It makes me feel like I've just suffered through a Cliffs Notes infodump of a bunch of bad stories just so that I can have the minimal information necessary to make sense of the comic I actually have in front of me. It in no way inclines me to seek out those earlier stories.
Don't think of the difference in terms of "can I follow this story"--any storyteller who can't accomplish that shouldn't be working, let alone working in something as tricky as a continuity. The real difference is, does this story "evoke a larger reality that makes me want to learn more" or "make me feel like I came in late and shouldn't bother catching up"? Obviously, the precise answer is going to vary from person to person--I know readers who claim that they can't stand any sense that there's a story beyond the pages of what they have in their hands. But for those reasons, "subtext" is too challenging.
Yeah, like I said, that particular bit of dialogue, the bit singled out by Spurgeon, is clunky as hell. That's true of a lot of the dialogue in the first few pages - it at times reads almost like Dave Sim's parody of Secret Wars - "Srange to think that mere hours ago I, Booster Gold, turned down membership of the Justice League, the organisation to which I have longed for more than a year to return, at the behest of Rip Hunter, Time Master." (NB this is not actual dialogue)
But after the first few pages get you up to speed on the status of the character, the comic becomes very enjoyable. It honestly, truly, isn't at all bad. It's all set-up, and a lot of it is exposition, letting people know why Booster is in the position he's in, but if that *wasn't* included it would face the criticism that it expects people to have read 52...
SPOILERS for the latest issue...
OH the irony! Booster prevented Guy from becoming Green Lantern! Guy being an asshole IS ALL BOOSTER'S FAULT!
Fuck off, Johns.