Jonathan Hickman Hits THE SPLASH PAGE

This week, Chad and I decided to look at the Marvel work of Jonathan Hickman and try to figure out whether or not its a good start, or a sign of increasing mediocrity. Later in our conversation, we tackle the problem of great writers doing sub-par work on mainstream superheroes, and you may not exactly agree with our conclusions! (Or maybe you will, probably, sort of.)

Chad Nevett: This week, Jonathan Hickman had two Marvel comics come out, "Secret Warriors" #2 and "Dark Reign: Fantastic Four" #1. I've been a fan of Hickman's since reading the trade of "The Nightly News" and was curious to see how his style would translate over to the Marvel universe -- and I think I can say that it does quite well. Do you agree, Tim?

Tim Callahan: I don't feel the Hickman-ness at Marvel, yet. "Secret Warriors" is fine -- maybe my problems are on the art side, because I think it's a terribly ugly comic -- and "Dark Reign: Fantastic Four" is a step below "Secret Warriors" (with art that's not ugly, but isn't very good at all.) (For the record, I think Stefano Caselli is a good artist, but I think he's the wrong fit for "Secret Warriors," or maybe it's just Daniele Rudoni's garish colors I have a problem with, while Sean Chen isn't the right fit for anything.)

But we're here to talk about Hickman.

I, like you, really liked "The Nightly News," and, honestly, I haven't loved the rest of his work. His other Image comics seemed underdeveloped or more like outlines than real stories, and this Marvel stuff is merely okay. I highlighted him as a "creator to watch" in an early-2009 installment of "When Words Collide," so I'm certainly rooting for the guy to write great comics.

Maybe he needs to pick up some more momentum on both of these Marvel titles, because I definitely don't hate either one. I think they're worth reading. It's good stuff, just not great. And they don't seem to have much of a unique voice to them. If you said Dan Slott wrote these comics, I wouldn't say that you were wrong. I mean, you would be wrong, but you wouldn't feel wrong.

What is it that you like about Hickman, past and present?

CN: Well, with his Image work, I really like that his books are about ideas with characters secondary -- and that he makes that sort of story work. It's a really unique manner in which to construct a story, mostly because it goes against all common sense in writing. If you asked me about the characters in "Pax Romana," I would probably give a couple of vague impressions spaced out over a few dozen "Uh"s, "Um"s and "Er"s. But, if you asked me about the ideas behind the series, about the moral questions in time travel, in society-building, in governance, and what is right, I could go on and on. "The Nightly News" was the same way, as was "Transhuman." Also, if Hickman is doing the art, his unique design-driven work that emphasizes the overall look of the page and the placement of text and overload of information is more important than traditional page layouts. Really, there's no one else doing what he does (or, maybe there is and I just don't know about it, which is possible).

I liked "Secret Warriors" more than you, even the art, which I didn't like in previews, but doesn't bother me while reading the issues. I think Hickman is trying to shift from idea-centric writing to character-centric writing, but, thankfully, this book really allows for a lot of big concepts and big questions. Honestly, if he wanted to spend an issue of Nick Fury and Daisy discussing the moral ramifications of killing thousands of innocent people to stop Hydra, I think he could get away with it. In fact, my one complaint for that title is that he's not drawing upon his unique manner of writing enough and is trying to do things too traditionally. Which is definitely the problem with "Dark Reign: Fantastic Four" (besides Sean Chen's art). He does cookie cutter characterization of the group, not really getting it wrong, but falling very much into the typical FF ideas. Though, his plot involving Reed trying to fix the world is great, although I'm not sure how that will play out, because Reed obviously won't succeed, but failure doesn't seem an option. I'm not sure his Marvel work quite lives up to the promise of his creator-owned stuff, though. I do wonder if it's possible for Hickman to do his best work at Marvel since his style is so different from what's typically done at Marvel. Will he rise above that or begin to fit in?

TC: I like the idea-centric approach too, but it can go too far and become a polemic instead of a story. Or it can become too shallow and read like nothing more than junior high-style essay writing. That's not Hickman's problem, though. His problem is that he is working in the Marvel Universe now, and that universe -- that company -- has a history of character-based drama. This is an overly simplistic perspective, but DC is seen as the more idea-based company and Marvel is seen as character-based, right? So, does Hickman's approach fit well with what's expected from him at Marvel? Can he turn his idea-oriented drama into something that has enough characterization to make it work? Or will he end up doing neither thing very well, straddling the soft, doughy middle ground where good comic book writers go to die?

Let's take a minute to look at Hickman's use of characterization in his Marvel books. While his Nick Fury and Reed Richards have strong, distinct personalities, what about the rest of the characters. How many of the so-called "Secret Warriors" can you even name without looking back at the comic? How many of them have any kind of personality at all? And what about the rest of the Fantastic Four? Is there anything going on with them that's the least bit interesting?

Now I understand that we're talking about the VERY beginnings of two comic book series, and it's ridiculous to expect that Hickman would develop his characters fully in just 22 or 44 pages, but I think the success of his work may depend on it. Or maybe not. Maybe the ideas are good enough to pull him through.

Then again, what are the great ideas which drive these comics? That Hydra has controlled S.H.I.E.L.D. all along? That Reed Richards feels like he should be able to fix things? Are there bigger ideas in play here, other than just things that will drive the plots?

CN: I can name a bunch of the "Secret Warriors" cast: Alex, Yo-Yo, Sebastian, JT, Daisy, Stonewall... am I missing anyone? Now, what they're like is harder to tell, but I have some ideas about each. Although, honestly, that's partly due to the Bendis/Maleev "Mighty Avengers" issues that introduced the characters. Your point is well taken.

Hickman seems to be playing with big ideas like in his creator-owned work, but framing these ideas through characters rather than simply presenting them. Both of these series look like they'll expand on the ideas I mentioned for "Pax Romana," about society building and the morality of it. In "Secret Warriors," it will come down to who has the right to rule the world? It already seems implied (to me, at least) that the question Fury should be asking, if Hydra has, pretty much, ruled the world for years (or decades), isn't that the status quo he should be preserving? What makes one entity's claim to power more legitimate? "Dark Reign: Fantastic Four" looks like it will lead to a similar problem, probably with Reed figuring out how to "fix things," and then wondering if he should. Is it moral for him to alter the world on a large scale? Isn't that what caused all of these problems? Granted, these ideas were much more interesting in "Pax Romana" where there isn't the requisite third-grade morality of superhero comics -- "Secret Warriors" could rise above that, I think, but anything involving the Fantastic Four is stuck there.

One concern I have for Hickman working at Marvel is that this writer whose work I loved before Marvel will gradually change and I won't be reading anything he writes in a few years. It happened with Matt Fraction, a guy who went from "buy sight unseen" to "when is 'Casanova' coming back?" Your opinion of Fraction's Marvel work isn't as low as mine, but do you think that's a concern nonetheless? I can probably rhyme off a good dozen writers who do great work outside of Marvel or DC, but churn out mediocre crap because of the constraints of the companies. Do you see that happening to Hickman in the future -- or, has it already begun?

CONTINUED AT CHAD NEVETT'S BLOG...

What I'm Reading: Johnny Boo, Fantastic Four

James Kochalka's second "Johnny Boo" children's book arrived at the Geniusboy Firemelon household this week, much to the delight of the local children. We gathered the little ones out on our front porch, roasted mashmallows, made snow angels, carved ice sculptures of our favorite Bible scenes, and read excerpts of "Johnny Boo: Twinkle Power," followed by selections from "American Elf," the first three volumes of "Superf*ckers," and then sang and danced along to James Kochalka Superstar's "Bad Astronaut."

It was frolicksome.

Okay, maybe all that other stuff didn't happen, but I did read the new "Johnny Boo" book with my son last night, and at one point he laughed so hard that he couldn't read his part out loud. He was convulsed with joy at the hilarity of the Ice Cream Monster's wiggle power.

I don't know how many of you have young kids, but great children's books are surprisingly difficult to come by. Sure, you could probably name a dozen off the top of your head -- the stuff by Maurice Sendak, or Richard MacGuire, and, yeah, Dr. Seuss -- but even if you can name a dozen, or even twenty, that still leaves over 340 bedtimes in which to read some other, lesser, work of children's picture book literature.

James Kochalka's delightfully joyous picture books are much appreciated. Keep 'em coming!

I also finished up my long-delayed reading of all the "Fantastic Four Visionaries: John Byrne" volumes. I had read the first six last summer, and then I just never got around to Volumes 7 or 8. I have to say that Byrne's run does not end well at all. I had actually read the last eight (or so) of his stories when they originally came out -- along with a smattering of earlier issues, whenever our local general store's selection matched my desire to convince my parents to buy me a comic. So I knew that it kind of petered out at the end, although I forgot that Byrne left in the middle of a story arc -- to go off and do "Superman" from what I recall -- and Roger Stern and Jerry Ordway finished up a really terrible twisted-future-inside-a-bubble-tale for him. Maybe Byrne could have nailed the landing on that one, and his first installment was decent enough, but Stern and Ordway just turn it into an overlong, over-wordy lesson on how not to tell interesting comic book stories. And I like Stern and Ordway -- especially their work from the mid-1980s -- but their "Fantastic Four" work was not their best.

But I do still think that John Byrne, in his prime, is basically my Platonic ideal of a superhero artist. I prefer plenty of other artists these days, but when I think of pure superheroics, John Byrne comes to mind. I don't know if it's his clean design sense, his perfectly-paced action, or his deceptively simple character work, OR if it's just because his comics were some of the first I ever saw as a kid (or, more likely, a combination of all those things), but there's something soothing and comforting about Byrne's artwork. It's just plain pleasing.

The stories in Volumes 7 and 8 aren't so hot. Volume 7 is pretty terrible, actually, with the inclusion of an "Avengers Annual" that crosses over with an FF skrull story, and a whole section devoted to the revival of Jean Grey (even "X-Factor" #1 shows up in its entirety, a comic Byrne had absolutely nothing to do with). Volume 8 is an improvement, but ends with the weak Stern/Ordway issues, and then...that's it. Byrne's "Fantastic Four," which had plenty of memorable moments -- most of which involving Dr. Doom, who appears in the last two volumes just as part of a convoluted Beyonder sequence -- fades away in the end, never living up to its potential as an epic saga. The eight volumes (and I know there's a "Volume 0," but I'm ignoring that one) provide a few great individual stories, but nothing that rises above good mid-80s Marvel comics.

Still, John Byrne is one of the great superhero artists of all time, at least at Chateau Geniusboy Firemelon.

What are YOU reading?

Fantastic Four #563 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Fantastic Four #563, about which I write the following sentences: "We know that can't possibly last. Ben Grimm has a track record with heartbreak and misery. And his fiancée seems so lovely and innocent that we can only imagine the horrors Mark Millar has in store for her. She doesn't even seem to understand how much her life will change -- has changed -- alongside the Thing. She doesn't realize how soon she'll be playing the role of the typical comic book love interest: eternal victim."

Read the entire review HERE.

Fantastic Four Cosmic-Size Special #1

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Fantastic Four Cosmic-Size Special #1, about which I write the following sentences: "But there's a more sinister agent at work in the story, and as the house-bound heroes (and, importantly to the story, Franklin and Valeria Richards) begin turning on each other. It's a classic sci-fi set-up, with each character becoming increasingly paranoid and vengeful, but Bates provides excellent characterization and allows the members of the team to express their true thoughts about one another. There's nothing particularly surprising here, but Bates writes all of the characters well, and paces the story perfectly. It's far from the 'Cosmic' implied in the title, as it's a very inward, twisted family melodrama, but it's a good one."

Read the entire review HERE.

Fantastic Four #561 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Fantastic Four #561 about which I write the following sentences: "Between 'Kick-Ass,' 'Marvel 1985,' 'Wolverine: Old Man Logan,' and this 'Fantastic Four' series, Mark Millar is producing some of the best work of his career. Critics have complained that his recent stuff is too-high concept, too pandering, or too much flash and not enough substance. But I think that's when Millar is at his best. He's not going to be the one to write the subtle, touching story full of thematic ambiguity. He's going to give you the summer blockbuster in the pages of a comic book, but with his own slightly-skewed twist. And though his 'Fantastic Four' run started off with some rocky, tonally uneven moments, this 'New Defenders' (Or 'Nu Defenders') arc has been quite good, and this issue is probably the best yet."

Read the entire review HERE.

Fantastic Four: True Story #4 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Fantastic Four: True Story #4, about which I write the following sentences: "Paul Cornell is one of the most inventive writers working in the superhero genre today, and if you missed this series in single issues, consider picking up the inevitable trade paperback collection. It may not look like one of the best Fantastic Four story you've seen in years, but it sure reads like one."

Read the entire review HERE.

Fantastic Four #557 Hits THE SPLASH PAGE

I didn't feel like posting another image of Fantastic Four #557 here, since I just posted it along with a link to my CBR review. So here's FF #57 for your eye-pleasing delight. Giant Dr. Doom heads, surfing aliens, Wyatt Wingfoot?!? Now that's the Fantastic Four. So the question is: how good is this new Mark Millar/Bryan Hitch version? Why does Chad Nevett hate it so much? Why do I defend it? Does the final issue of the "Nu-World" story arc make any kind of sense? Are giant robots enough to make something friggin' awesome?

All of these questions and more, answered in the newest installment of THE SPLASH PAGE.

Sometimes people don't like clicking on the words, "The Splash Page." Maybe it's the ALL-CAPS scaring them away. If you're one of those people, you can read what Chad and I have to say about FF #557 by clicking here.