Scan barcode
A review by unladylike
New Mutants Epic Collection Vol. 1: Renewal by Paul Smith, Ron Frenz, Frank Miller, John Buscema, Bill Mantlo, Bob McLeod, Sal Buscema, Chris Claremont
2.0
1.5 stars - the best stuff being the first and final stories, and their significance in introducing these characters
I started this book because I so thoroughly loved the first two seasons of the show Legion, which springs out of the pages of these Chris Claremont New Mutants comics from the early '80s. Nearly 500 pages in, the Legion character has not surfaced, and his existence only alluded to as the secret son of Professor X.
But I want to use this massive collection to talk about different methods of storytelling in comics. The main drag about getting through this thing is not the fault of Chris Claremont - who is a fine writer - but of the scripting style of most comic books until the last 15 years or so (notable exceptions being some of my first and all-time favorites, from the '80s and '90s, by Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, Alan Moore, et al, largely under the editorial guidance of more progressive thinkers within the industry such as Karen Berger, founder of DC's Vertigo imprint).
Specifically, the thing I *most hate* about reading "classic" superhero comics is the retelling of so many plot points OVER. AND OVER. Each issue will have characters awkwardly explain part of their origin, or what their power set is and how it works, in the middle of action, ad nauseum. I believe this is because publishers knew, or assumed, that readers would be picking up random issues of different titles, and needed to be told bits of backstory from the previous issues. That is a valid point, but one that is much better dealt with by having an intro page dedicated to The Story So Far...
Publishers now give readers more credit for being able to follow a storyline from beginning to end without constantly interrupting it with boring exposition, but it's still an issue that crops up from time to time. But something in these stories that makes the retrospective exposition problem even worse is when the writer contradicts themself, thereby drastically changing the canon from one issue to the next.
An example of this I just came across: in one issue of the 4-issue miniseries Magik, the title character, Illyana Rasputin, briefly travels back in time and space to witness [a version of] Storm/Ororo doing battle with a demon lord who has captured them in his Limbo world. Illyana immediately notes that Ororo is at her prime - the peak of her powers as a sorceress - and that the villain stands no chance against her in this state. Skip ahead to the very next issue, Illyana (as narrator) contradicts that real power dynamic by saying, "Ororo ... in her prime, she was no match for him -- doomed from the start." I've seen this happen multiple times while reading this Epic Collection - Claremont, through his characters, drastically changing the events that had happened through retelling them merely for the sake of catching up readers. This goes beyond the "unreliable narrator" technique of storytelling, and is instead misinforming readers through gaslighting. Why show us a character being *absorbed* into another in an interesting way that preserves their living essence and potential influence, if you're just going to flatly claim in subsequent issues that they died? I don't think this serves the purpose of building suspense and shock so much as it reveals inconsistencies within a narrative, claiming that the most recent assertion is "how it's always been."
I started this book because I so thoroughly loved the first two seasons of the show Legion, which springs out of the pages of these Chris Claremont New Mutants comics from the early '80s. Nearly 500 pages in, the Legion character has not surfaced, and his existence only alluded to as the secret son of Professor X.
But I want to use this massive collection to talk about different methods of storytelling in comics. The main drag about getting through this thing is not the fault of Chris Claremont - who is a fine writer - but of the scripting style of most comic books until the last 15 years or so (notable exceptions being some of my first and all-time favorites, from the '80s and '90s, by Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, Alan Moore, et al, largely under the editorial guidance of more progressive thinkers within the industry such as Karen Berger, founder of DC's Vertigo imprint).
Specifically, the thing I *most hate* about reading "classic" superhero comics is the retelling of so many plot points OVER. AND OVER. Each issue will have characters awkwardly explain part of their origin, or what their power set is and how it works, in the middle of action, ad nauseum. I believe this is because publishers knew, or assumed, that readers would be picking up random issues of different titles, and needed to be told bits of backstory from the previous issues. That is a valid point, but one that is much better dealt with by having an intro page dedicated to The Story So Far...
Publishers now give readers more credit for being able to follow a storyline from beginning to end without constantly interrupting it with boring exposition, but it's still an issue that crops up from time to time. But something in these stories that makes the retrospective exposition problem even worse is when the writer contradicts themself, thereby drastically changing the canon from one issue to the next.
An example of this I just came across: in one issue of the 4-issue miniseries Magik, the title character, Illyana Rasputin, briefly travels back in time and space to witness [a version of] Storm/Ororo doing battle with a demon lord who has captured them in his Limbo world. Illyana immediately notes that Ororo is at her prime - the peak of her powers as a sorceress - and that the villain stands no chance against her in this state. Skip ahead to the very next issue, Illyana (as narrator) contradicts that real power dynamic by saying, "Ororo ... in her prime, she was no match for him -- doomed from the start." I've seen this happen multiple times while reading this Epic Collection - Claremont, through his characters, drastically changing the events that had happened through retelling them merely for the sake of catching up readers. This goes beyond the "unreliable narrator" technique of storytelling, and is instead misinforming readers through gaslighting. Why show us a character being *absorbed* into another in an interesting way that preserves their living essence and potential influence, if you're just going to flatly claim in subsequent issues that they died? I don't think this serves the purpose of building suspense and shock so much as it reveals inconsistencies within a narrative, claiming that the most recent assertion is "how it's always been."