When Style Becomes Shtick
Our pal Alex wrote the following about the latest issue of New Avengers, "It’s an amazing phenomenon that he can stretch a mood and technique that is so successful in DAREDEVIL into AVENGERS, where it doesn’t work at all."
It's a very interesting discussion...at what point exactly does a writer transcend from writing in a distinct style to writing shtick in his/her books?
What writers can you think of that you believe have made the movement from simply having a distinct style to just doing shtick (which I will define as "an entertainment routine or gimmick")?
I think that, based on the fact that New Avengers is vastly different in scope than every other book he writes but reads exactly the same, it is fairly safe to say that Brian Michael Bendis has crossed over into doing shtick on his books - the "talky" shtick (and in his Avengers work, he has even introduced a new trick, which is "reuse things I said in interviews about the comics verbatim in the comics themselves later).
Who else?
Christopher Priest is perilously close, I believe, as Captain America and the Falcon reads pretty damn similar to The Crew and Black Panther.
Mark Millar, I believe, is even slowly going past the realm of "style" and heading in the direction of "shtick." I do not believe that he is there yet, but when you can predict what will happen in his books not based on what is in the book itself, but rather, from what he has written on other books in the past, you are pretty close to having a routine.
What other writers can you think of that have gone over the edge into doing shtick?
Once you have thought of some writers that you feel have gone from having a style to having a shtick, the corollary question has to be asked...is shtick necessarily a bad thing?
Perhaps it may be cooler if a writer expanded his/her horizons...but if the product they are writing is still written well enough (and, like I've said before, I did like New Avengers #3), is shtick really all that bad?
It's a very interesting discussion...at what point exactly does a writer transcend from writing in a distinct style to writing shtick in his/her books?
What writers can you think of that you believe have made the movement from simply having a distinct style to just doing shtick (which I will define as "an entertainment routine or gimmick")?
I think that, based on the fact that New Avengers is vastly different in scope than every other book he writes but reads exactly the same, it is fairly safe to say that Brian Michael Bendis has crossed over into doing shtick on his books - the "talky" shtick (and in his Avengers work, he has even introduced a new trick, which is "reuse things I said in interviews about the comics verbatim in the comics themselves later).
Who else?
Christopher Priest is perilously close, I believe, as Captain America and the Falcon reads pretty damn similar to The Crew and Black Panther.
Mark Millar, I believe, is even slowly going past the realm of "style" and heading in the direction of "shtick." I do not believe that he is there yet, but when you can predict what will happen in his books not based on what is in the book itself, but rather, from what he has written on other books in the past, you are pretty close to having a routine.
What other writers can you think of that have gone over the edge into doing shtick?
Once you have thought of some writers that you feel have gone from having a style to having a shtick, the corollary question has to be asked...is shtick necessarily a bad thing?
Perhaps it may be cooler if a writer expanded his/her horizons...but if the product they are writing is still written well enough (and, like I've said before, I did like New Avengers #3), is shtick really all that bad?
posted by Brian Cronin at 2/06/2005 02:00:00 AM
14 Comments:
What do you think, David, about the question of whether writing shtick is automatically a negative thing?
I think "shtick" has too much of a negative connotation to ask if it's necessarily a bad thing, though it's secondary definition - one's special trait, interest, or activity - suggests it's not.
I think of Stephen King, someone who's written a bazillion novels, short stories, screenplays, etc. While he definitely has a shtick, I don't believe it's an inherently bad thing. Of course, he's stayed relatively focused in his choice of genre, and when he's strayed it's been with mixed results - ie: Tommyknockers, bad; Eyes of the Dragon, good.
With Bendis, I don't think his shtick is so much incompatible with something like the New Avengers as it is different from what most old-school Avengers fans are used to. As long as he can deliver the big action sequence every other issue, balanced with his signature character development, I think he'll be okay in the long run. A bit darker version of Johns' Teen Titans, perhaps
I see...so Guy, you would like it better if I were to restrict the use of the word "shtick" to just cases of writers who I feel that their routine is a negative to their work as a whole?
That seems to be a fair enough point.
Anyone else think that the term "shtick" is too overpowering (in a negative sense) of a word to be used in the context I was using it in?
Some writers have a style, or a flavor. Every book they write has a hint of that personality.
Others have one way that they are able to write, and that's it.
You can always tell a Grant Morrison book, but his JLA is worlds away from THE FILTH. That's because he's a man with talent, and a handle on his craft.
Bendis can write POWERS and ALIAS and they're great. But they're all the same book in many ways. Now AVENGERS is the same thing again. I have to wnder if his default setting is "moody, talky, slow". I don't think he's without talent- ULTIMATE SPIDEY has had moments of greatness, and for my money, his DAREDEVIL is the best the book has ever been. But I think when he gets lazy, it's very apparent. Amd I thing AVENGERS, SECRET WAR, the last few years of USM, the PULSE.... not boding well.
Frank Miller and Garth Ennis.
Bendis' DD the best the book has been?
Hmmm...I think you should write about that, Alex. That sounds like it would make for a very interesting discussion.
I think Miller's work is not at "shtick" status. What examples are you thinking of otherwise?
As for Ennis...you know what's an interesting thing about Ennis? His OUTPUT has been smaller recently. I mean, we really do not have all that much to compare his work to nowadays.
In any event, I think his Hellblazer was a far stetch different from his Punisher.
When I think of good schtick, I think of J.M. DeMatties. He's made a good career out of doing creepy, psychological thrillers disguised as superhero comics, and it worked, because he found a way to make it work with his characters.
When I think of bad schtick, I think of latter-day Claremont, who, if you'll notice, has written human slave trade stories and/or lesbians into almost every book he's written for the past 10 years or so.
He DOES love him the human slave stuff.
Hmmm...I think we're getting into a totally different (and equally interesting) subject.
Which is "go-to ideas" that writers use.
I think there's an entry there...then again, I think there's an entry everywhere.
So you, too, would agree that the word shtick carries too much of a negative connatation?
Because while I think he's basically using the same exact writing style on Captain America & The Falcon that he used on The Crew, I still enjoy Priest's work on the book.
Does Priest still do the "out of order story" thing? That got annoying REAL fast.
At least the first arc on Cap & Falcon had the out of order thing.
And the more annoying thing (for that book, at least), is that the only indication he gave that it WAS out of order was these little captions that gave the time.
Jim Starlin. Is like every comic book he writes is a rethread from Dreadstar. Even Cosmic Guard, his most recent work is nothing but a teenage Dreadstar: he even use the same designs to the alien races, the robots. His shtick is even visible on his drawings. What as Lord Papal but a Thanos wannabe?
You've got style and you've got shtick, and the two are different. Style has hard work behind it, an effort to get at something, a desire to use your voice to say something. Shtick is just laziness, it figures that repetition can be appealing all on its own. It's the act of buying your own bullshit, thinking what you do is cool just because it's you who's doing it. But without the writer being interested for himself in why Wally does this or that, what's the point in having him do anything at all? We all know he looks up to Barry. It's not enough to have him just look up to Barry. It's not enough to just have Cyclops and Marvel Girl and Wolverine in a love triangle, if no one cares what happens to them.
Post a Comment
<< Home