Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities Your Opinion on "Silver Age fanwank"

An often used term to describe writers, especially Geoff Johns, is "Silver Age fanwank", basically either taking obscure concepts from the Silver Age and expanding them or resurrecting Silver Age characters for nostalgia purposes. Most notably, works like Green Lantern: Rebirth, Flash: Rebirth, and even Legion of Three Worlds have been given this label.

What is your opinion on the writing style? Do you like it? Dislike it?

I loved Green Lantern: Rebirth when it first came out. It wasn't the Silver Age fetish that went on to bother me about Johns' later writing -- it was the ugly, mean-spirited intensity of the violence, the cavalier attitude towards previous characterizations, and the rigid paternalism. Combining cynical nostalgia with gratuitous gore is, in my opinion, a lose-lose proposition. What's sad is that I think Johns does have talent, but he's gradually let his talent devolve into something truly horrible.

Green Lantern: Rebirth and Legion of 3 Worlds were just fine, IMHO. I thought his Green Lantern theories were pretty brilliant and a great way to rehabilitate Hal Jordan without getting rid of Kyle Rayner, and I liked a lot of the characterization of his Legionnaires in Lo3W.

I also liked a lot of the cross-continuity that he used in his JSA series.

On the other hand, I hated Flash: Rebirth. Barry Allen had a good run (no pun intended) capped off by a noble sacrifice, and Wally West was an excellent replacement. I can't imagine who was clamoring for a return of Barry outside of Silver Age fanboys.

For the most part, it's really more late Bronze Age (from when he started reading comics) nostalgia that Johns trades in rather than Silver Age, per se. But Fickles and I are pretty much in agreement here.

There are writers who can do a great job of utilizing decades old ideas and making them seem fresh, as well as capturing the actual spirit of the Silver Age in terms of the wild and crazy inventiveness of it all. Morrison at his best, for example. And that sort of stuff I'm a huge fan of. Johns, not so much.

I've said before and I'll say it again, Johns is a good writer who's too given over to bad tendencies (The gore, the villain idolisation, etc.). I think when he was at his best (the height of the JSA), it was likely because he had good editors to reign in his excesses. The more clout he got, the more he tended to revel in ultra-violence, until it eclipsed what he was capable of with a little more restraint.

And if Johns shows less and less restraint, Didio is certainly his enabler. If people had seen Identity Crisis for the drek it was, instead of buying a bajillion copies, DC would be a much different place right now.

Johns is one of my favorite comic book writers. I found his work on Legion to be far better than Levitz's last run. He is not afraid to take Silver Age settings and look into how things would have been told without the comic book code. The only times his writing was a bit less than stellar was his brief run on the Avengers (he basically created a team of JLA analogs) and Hawkman (has there ever been a successful long-running Hawkman series?).

The main problem with his style is that it has been copied by other writers who also want to cash in on the nostalgia. It's kind of like when Watchmen came out, and comic books were suddenly filled with grit and grim. People who don't like it are calling it out because they see it everywhere.

I'm by no means a Silver Age era fanboy, but I loved the idea of Barry coming back and I liked(75% of) Flash:Rebirth. I just think Johns botched the execution with the dead mom origin and just screwed the chances of a Speedforce book when he did Flashpoint.

This is pretty much my opinion, as well. Johns has done some work I really like, albeit more on television than in comics (he wrote my favorite episode of Arrow). There are a lot of repeated features in his comics that I find a little off-putting (dismemberment is the obvious example). I'm tempted to say that beyond his choice of characters, I don't see much of the Silver Age in his comics, but Emily's comment about him filling in details that comic code elided has me rethinking that position.

I thought Silver-Age Fanwankery was all DC did anymore.

Look at Otto Binder: while working on Superman, he created Supergirl, Super-Horse, Super-Cat, Super-Monkey, Bizarro, Brainiac and the bottle-city of Kandor, fleshed out “The World of Krypton”, created and defined the multiple hues of Kryptonite idea, got Jimmy Olsen his own book, and originated the gag that Jimmy is always undergoing bizarre, accidental transformations, created the Legion of Super-Heroes…
OK, he had Beck and Plastino working with him, and this stuff was all Silver-Age silliness, but the gags just kept coming, and it made Superman’s world richer and deeper for the kiddies.

On the other hand, look at John Byrne. His “re-imagining” of the “Man of Steel” was not very imaginative: a “re-imagined” Luthor, Brainiac, Mxyzptlk, Bizarro, etc., etc. He set up some strict rules in the first few issues about what Superman’s powers and limitations were, then went on to break them indifferently.

Miller’s “Dark Knight” had one good idea, and was well-executed, but everyone’s been copying nothing else since then, and it’s been thirty-five years.

The only idea anyone has is “go darker”, that is, more violent, more gore, let’s see who the ‘hero’ can kill this time.

The concept of the “emotional spectrum” gave some new juice to Green Lantern—although there were already Red, Yellow, and Purple power-wielders extant—but it ended up transforming the entire GL Corps from cops to soldiers to assassins.

The cartoon stuff Paul Dini did with Superman, Batman and the Justice League in the 90’s and OO’s was, in my mind, far more creative than what was going on in the books. He fleshed out his heroes and villains as characters, not killing machines—look what he did with Aquaman, The Question, Brainiac and Ultra-Humanite. Look at the LSH cartoon that came later: Brainiac 5 is essentially a brand-new character, Bouncing Boy and Triplicate Girl have visually interesting powers, and are actually competent, and even formidable opponents. Nemesis Kid was also re-worked, and in a much more satisfying way.

I find the paper comics of the past twenty years sadly lacking in originality: not even the wacky, off-the-wall originality of the Silver Age.

I actually blame fans for unoriginal work. Fans hate change and sometimes they actually listen to fans. Every time they try to changing things, look at the outcry! New 52 for example. They tried changing things and some more than others and look at people went berserk! The titles that seemed to do well were ones where there was very little changed, Batman, Green Lantern are two of them. In fact some things made little sense because of it.

Completely agree with this. There are so many Silver Age concepts that can be used well. As Klar Ken cited, Bouncing Boy and Triplicate Girl in the Legion toon are examples. If a good writer can rejuvenate an old idea, why not?

What's most important to me is the spirit/atmosphere of the stories. I like the Silver Age because of the fun, light-hearted atmosphere and creative ideas. As with many others, the tendency towards gore and darkness is a turn off. I welcome new ideas, but I judge based on the execution.

As for Legion of 3 Worlds... Kinetix died in that story, so I will never be able to give an unbiased opinion of it.

I agree with Fanfie and Eryk basically.

The whole spirit of the Silver Age was about embracing an age of creativity: new characters, a new spirit to the age, new stories, new problems. What is referred to as "silver age fanwank" is only accomplishing the opposite--it's like the Anti-Silver Age or the Silver Age of Earth-3 given its lack of creativity.

I also agree that Johns is really stuck in the late 70's more than anything else. But there are enough wannabes aping the Silver Age fanwank approach to make that moniker fit, I think.

I don't really blame fans all that much though. I, for one, went out of my way to try all 52 new DC series when they relaunched. With an open mind, I wanted to sample them all. And man, what a sucker I was! Most of them were utter shit; oh, it took about 6 months to really see it, but the vast majority of DC's relaunch was complete and utter nonsense. How in the world can we support new series when the series is poorly written, editorially driven and full of graphic, violent art? I don’t think it was so much that fans resist change—they just resist crappy comics.

Klar Kent has another great point: Frank Miller told *one* good Batman story and creators have been copying it for 35 years. The same can be said for Johns, who has become so repetitive it borders on the absurd.

As a member participant in the Legion World Purity Network, I found the title of this thread offensive, and not one of my posts shall be spent typed towards it. Not one. Not even this post. Which isn't a post. It's a placard for moral outrage. Yes, that's what it is...

Actually, he told two.....

Yeah, but they're kind of book-ends to the same story, no? I think that's what Klar was implying (which is how I read it anyway, when I considered which of the two he might be talking about).

Here's his quote:



He seems to be talking exclusively about DKR and its imitators and it having..."one good idea". I'd be curious as to which one that was?

To your point, I can see how Year One and DKR are the beginning and twilight of Batman's career, but they are two very different tales, both thoroughly worthy of being discussed as their own thing. (The less said, however, about DKSA, the better....)

Well, both Year One and Dark Knight Returns have been two of my favorite stories since forever, so I can rave all day and night about how great they are (and how they are different). But I'll let Klar explain what he meant.

But I do think you can interpret both as a broader "Frank Miller Batman" moment in time (referring to just his mid 80's work). While the plots and characters may be different, it still hits on a certain tone, themes and message applicable to both. From a very broad umbrella perspective--which is what "silver age fanwank" would be--you can make a case for it all as one "thing".

I love silver age stuff and I rather they use old characters rather than make new ones but I agree if they don't use them right it doesn't really matter.

I totally agree about the violence. It's not needed at all! I wanted to get the new 52 Wonder Woman for my daughter and took one look at it and ended that idea. I swear there's almost nothing for kids anymore. Most of the things I see now would have shocked me when I was her age. It would have put me OFF comics!

I think I'm one of the few that didn't really like Dark Knight Returns. I never thought it was all that.

WangLung, you're far from the only person who feels that way about DKR. It was never my thing, and I'm not at all ashamed to say so.

The thing about DKR is that Frank Miller, whether at his best or worst, is such a highly stylized creator. In the history of comics, he's one of those guys whose work sits alone by itself rather than at the forefront of any "movement". Yet ever since Year One and DKR (and Killing Joke by Moore and Bolland), DC has gone through periods where the entirety of Batman is based upon those stories. They force the tone and characterization to adhere to what they think the spirit of those stories was, and almost always get it wrong anyway.

In addition to his great feats, Babe Ruth held the unfortunate record for most strike outs. Batman is similar: a character with so many phenomenal stories and yet, probably the character with the single greatest amount of absolute shit stories in comic book history.

I think it's like anything else - it can be done in a good way, or a bad way. It's no different than trying to reinvent a character to "wank" (or attract) new readers. I think the "silver age fanwank" was ultimately a reaction to "90's grim n' gritty fanwank" when it seemed everyone wanted their characters to have spikes and be more "dangerous." It's about targeting an audience and yes, trying to make them happy, which is how they make money, regardless of who they choose to target. There will always be trends.

^Looking at things the way Drake described them, I would say that Johns' writing from Infinite Crisis on is the worst of both worlds.

Ugh, I hated Infinite Crisis. Seeing great artists like Jimenez and Perez have to illustrate such a craptastic violent story pissed me off to no end.

The crux of "fanwank", Silver Age or otherwise, is that often it's a lose/lose situation if you do or you don't. If you are basically reproducing your favorite version of a character or team, people will criticize you heavily for being derivative and incapable of creating anything original. If you do tread new ground and eschew the past in favor of blazing new paths, the same people will probably hate it because they'll claim everything they love about the characters/concept has been scorched. In the case of the latter, low sales and cancellation are likely consequences more often than the former.

Where we're at now is keep the iconic versions going and maybe shake up things temporarily to give the illusion of change, typically in the form of a "death" event.

And apparently, plenty of ultra-violence on top of it all keeps them "edgy" and "relevant". This is despite the fact that all of the most successful films have very tasteful and non-graphic violence and make millions upon millions of dollars at the box office. Why comics have to have all that violence to apparently make them successful just doesn't compute.

That's where we're at with corporate-owned characters and a big reason why I buy so few of them on a regular basis. Unless the storytelling is just superb on all levels, why pay 4 bucks or more per issue to see the same old crap month after month?

^ sums it up pretty damn well.

It's like this recent "Falcon as the new Cap" thing. How can I get excited or upset or even feel the smallest hint of emotion about the news? I've seen them do this like 4 times already! And that's not even considering the entirety of the characters history. It's the same story done again and again, and anyone with a head on their shoulders knows it's not real change. I'd rather spend my time and money on something I think will be compelling and different.