DID I THINK THAT OUT LOUD?!? #37: DEFINING THE DEFINITIVE

[Jim Lemoine]

By Jim Lemoine, jimlemoine@comixfan.cjb.net

Defining The Definitive

So a friend of mine complained the other day that the Bruce Banner he's been reading for the past few years in Hulk is so out of character that he refuses to read the title anymore. Another friend told me that he can't stand the way Iceman's been written in Uncanny X-Men, thus providing me inspiration for my last column. Still another colleague lamented that Tony Stark hasn't really been himself since Kurt Busiek's run on Iron Man, and I've been known to complain that the Hawkeye currently appearing in Avengers doesn't act at all like he normally does (or as he does in the Avengers/Thunderbolts mini).

But as much as some might like to think otherwise, these are not real people, and there are no real set-in-stone universal truths about them. Marvel Comics owns the full rights to all of these properties, and if Marvel wanted Bruce Banner to become a psychotic with ice powers, or Bobby Drake to become a black man who wielded a mystic sword, they could. And we couldn't say, "That's not Bruce! That's not Bobby!", because they would be. Marvel can make these characters whatever they want. They don't even really have to explain it... indeed, in several cases, they haven't.

So when you're talking about a fictional character, one whose very essence can change completely on the whim of a corporately mandated editorial direction or a writer who just never liked the character... what makes one interpretation better than another? What makes one story of a hero canon, but another one best forgotten? Why is Tom DeFalco's story firmly entrenching Ben Reilly (the Spider-Clone) as the one true Spider-Man brushed under the table, while Howard Mackie's tale of Peter Parker's vindication is considered canon? Not to pick on Tom, but why has his courtship of Johnny Storm and Lyja the Skrull been completely forgotten and ignored by Marvel, while more recent writers have crafted a much more eternally-single Johnny (and readers have commented on how much better that is)? Why are the actions of Iron Man during the old Avengers crossover "The Crossing" seen as so out of character, while the more business-oriented runs by creators like Busiek or Tieri are considered so much better?

What makes one writer's interpretation of a character better than another? What makes one right and the other so very, very wrong?

As an outsider, we the fans can only wonder at Marvel's official answer to this question... an editorial guidebook? A writer's stylesheet? The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe?

But from our perspective, there seem to be two sources of character canon, listed in order of priority: the Definitive Run, and the Formative Character (i.e. the character's origin). If a title has no Definitive Run, it falls back to the Formative Character... and if a story can't gel with those, it won't be considered canon. At least, that's my take on it.

By "Definitive Run," I'm talking about the runs on the book that are widely accepted as the best, the ones that make careers for writers and that are collected in trades many, many years later. These are the runs that define who the characters are, that influence many future generations of writers. One of the criteria for a Run to be Definitive, I'd hypothesize, is that it has to be pretty much universally agreed upon to be Definitive. For instance, Captain America, in all its long years of existence, has had exactly one Definitive Run (although one split into two parts) - the run by Mark Waid. Just about everybody who's read Waid's Cap agrees that he presented the core of the character, and arguably wrote him better than anyone had since the Captain's origin. Meanwhile, there's another standout run on Captain America, one of the longest runs in comics: the tenure of Mark Gruenwald. But while the Gru crafted some really great and ambitious stories during his time with Steve Rogers, most of it was generally considered to be pretty basic comic book fare. There is argument about just how definitive that run really was, despite its massive length, and there are many moments within that are hard to qualify as "pure Cap." Did the Gru run substantially change the way writers wrote Cap, or the way that readers understood Cap? No, not really. That doesn't make it a bad run... it just prevents it from being considered "Definitive."

And a run has to be long enough to really leave its mark to be considered "Definitive." Still using Captain America as an example, the recent runs by John Ney Rieber and Robert Morales had everything needed to form another Definitive Run... but in both cases, the runs were cut short before the writer could bring his plans to fruition. There wasn't enough time to make us think differently about the character… so we didn't.

Just as Waid's Cap forever changed the way writers approached the character and readers understood the character, other books and heroes have been similarly affected by their best writers. Thor has also had exactly one Definitive Run: Walt Simonson's time with the God of Thunder made Thor who he is today. Iron Man has also had one and only one Definitive Run: David Michelinie and Bob Layton are responsible for Tony Stark as he currently exists in the Marvel Universe. Can the average fan name another Thor writer, other than Walt Simonson and the current writer? When you ask someone who's read comics for a while who the best writer of Iron Man was, whose names will pop up most often?

That, my friends, is what creates a Definitive Run. Of course, books like Cap, Iron Man, and Thor are easy to talk about, because they've been unlucky enough to have very few of these standouts Runs (although I would argue that Jurgens' current run on Thor will one day be considered to be in the same realm as Simonson's). Everyone agrees that Waid, Michelinie/Layton, and Simonson nailed the cores of their respective characters. But can a character or team have more than one Definitive Run? And when they do, can one supercede the other?

I'd argue that yes, they can, and no, they don't have to. Look at Daredevil. The Daredevil title has easily had no fewer than four Runs of this quality... runs created, chronologically, by Frank Miller, Ann Nocenti, Kevin Smith, and Brian Michael Bendis. Each of these runs was a masterpiece in its own right, each was a huge influence on future writers, and each alone could define the character of Matthew Murdock. But together, the runs show a logical progression of the character, from his true beginnings as a dark vigilante (Miller) to the ultimate tragic hero struggling more than ever to hold on to his sanity (Nocenti) to a vigilante seeking his peace with the strange directions his life had taken (Smith) to a man unable to cope with the tragedies of the heroic existence (Bendis). Each played into the other, building for its successors and respecting its ancestors. That, at its core, is why Daredevil is such a popular and powerful title. Similarly, it's logical progression like this that retained the strength of the Spider-Man franchise for thirty years (after which things kind of collapsed, although it's still a point of contention as to whether things collapsed during the Clone story, or immediately following it).

So if a Definitive Run, that Holy Grail for a comics writer, is a run that respects a franchise's origin, tells powerful stories, creates or enhances the foundation of the character for years to come, influences future writers, and is pretty much universally agreed upon, where does that leave other Marvel mainstays?

Fantastic Four has only really had one run that fit the bill: the original run by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Avengers, on the other hand, has had many: Englehart, Shooter, and Busiek at the very least, and perhaps Stern as well. Defenders never really had one at all, nor did Spider-Woman or Power Man & Iron Fist, which might explain why those titles aren't around these days. And the mutant books? Claremont's first run on Uncanny X-Men is absolutely a Definitive Run, almost a textbook case, and all the more impressive when you get into how long that run actually was. But beyond that, there isn't much for the X-Titles: David's X-Factor changed the way we looked at its characters forever, as did the Claremont/Davis Excalibur and the Claremont/Sienkiewicz New Mutants... you could probably throw in the Lobdell/Bachalo Generation X, too.

And it's not only the titles that have been around forever that can have Definitive Runs: you could easily make an argument for the Valentino Guardians of the Galaxy, Nicieza's New Warriors, Jenkins' Inhumans, or Gerber's Howard The Duck.

Look at these runs and ask yourself what they all have in common. One of the keys to creating one of these Definitive Runs seems to be respect for the core of the character. A writer doesn't necessarily have to take a franchise's origin 100% verbatim, but they have to make the best parts of it relevant, and they have to make it all work as an overall package. The reason Miller's Daredevil worked so well, even though it was completely different from the happy-go-lucky-just-like-Spider-Man DD that preceded it, was that Miller's take on the character made so much bloody sense based on Murdock's origin. Nocenti's DD was a far cry from Miller's, but based on what had happened to the character since then, it was a believable progression. On the other hand, D. G. Chichester's later take on Daredevil, in which the title character would abandon his Matt Murdock identity, pretend to be sighted, and become a darker hero more in the vein of Wolverine, is now considered a failure. Why doesn't Chichester's take on DD work when Nocenti's and Miller's did? Because Chichester didn't build on the origin or what had come before. Sure, his script was bold and ambitious, and it really wasn't a bad story in the slightest, but it wasn't true to what had been established as the core of Daredevil, and it was too far a deviation to form the basis for a new core.

The Definitive Run is respectful of a character's past in a way that other runs aren't. Claremont took Stan Lee's original "protecting a world that hates and fears us" premise much farther than Stan Lee or subsequent X-Men writers ever did, focusing on the all-too-real evils of prejudice and bigotry - bringing out the root (and to that point, ignored) strength of the X-Men revitalized the franchise. Simonson tore Thor away from day-to-day superheroics as usual to go back to the root mythology of the character. Mark Waid made the "America" matter for Cap with a present-day relevance that Steve Rogers had always lacked. In lieu of a Definitive Run, writers (the good ones, anyway) base their stories around the franchise's origin... the aforementioned "Formative Character." That's what the best runs build on, and attempting to contradict or ignore it almost always leads to disaster for creator and sales alike.

That's not saying that continuity has to be strictly and perfectly followed, mind you – it's the origin that's most important. Look at those three runs just mentioned, and you'll notice that one thing they have in common is that all three pretty much ignore the stories in the issues immediately preceding theirs, choosing instead to build something entirely new. They respect the origin, but they don't feel the need to slavishly continue the previous writer's vision. Issue #227 of a franchise is never as important as issue #1.

Easier said than done, but there's the formula for the best of the best, the Definitive Run: respect your origin, tell powerful stories, and enhance the foundation of the franchise for the future. So with that in mind, what modern stories will readers look back on in ten years as the best of the best? How's Marvel doing right now?

Waid's Fantastic Four will undoubtedly go down in history as that franchise's second Definitive Run. Jurgens' Thor will likely receive the same honor, as will Bendis' Daredevil. The Busiek/Perez JLA/Avengers certainly earns its spot, and so does the Bendis/Bagley Ultimate Spider-Man. Straczynski's Amazing Spider-Man has a shot at immortality, and so does David's Captain Marvel. Morrison's New X-Men will be seen as either a brilliant Definitive Run, or as a swept-under-the-rug Clone Saga... dependent, probably, on what the X-Men's fanbase looks like in ten years.

And there are other stories that individual readers may argue for, but to really fit the bill, to be universally agreed on... I'd argue that the titles listed in the paragraph above are pretty much it. But then, I could be wrong.

So in the last few years, we've seen (or are currently seeing) no fewer than eight of what could very well be the greatest Marvel runs ever... and that's not even counting stories a bit further back like Busiek's Avengers, the Busiek/Nicieza Thunderbolts, or Milligan's X-Force.

Maybe it's not such a bad time to be a Marvel Reader after all.

---

A few months ago, Jim Lemoine (ComiX-Fan's Columns Editor) completed the manuscript for his first book, an examination of business leadership. Oddly enough, his second book is being published this summer, while his first book is still delayed by guys in expensive suits. I like monkeys.

---

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of ComiX-Fan or its other staff in general.

[harlekein]

Just plain amazing Jim, great column.

[DarkCrisis]

I disagree.

By your beginning statements, Lucas should make any changes to Star Wars he pleases cause they are *his*.

As mentioned in a south park episode about this subject, movies/comic books/etc aren't just *yours*. They are *ours*.

We are the fans, we are the ones who love the characters. WE support them. With out us they and the company behind them are nothing.

So go ahead and change Bobby into a sword wielding black man, and watch us stopping supporting the *new character* with our voices and our money.

[psylockefan]

I loved this article...it was very well written.

I just want to put my vote in for Morrison having a definitive run. I LOVED HIS RUN!!

There's just so many good things i dont even kno where to start:

1) Cassandra Nova - Ingenius!!!
2) Feline Beast - if u have cat like agility..wouldnt it make sense to look like one?
3) Adding Emma to the team - after Gen X...she coulda sat in limbo...but GM took her and did wonderful things with her. She's more popular now, more than ever. I'd argue its cause of him that she has her own SOLO now!
4) The Special Class - How could u not like a mutant freakshow?!

I'd be thoroughly upset if all GM's wonderful creations were swept under the rug. Clone Saga was easy, it was just a story arc...SWEEP SWEEP. GM's run lasted a few years...(was it 2?). You cant sweep 2yrs away....

everything else about the article was totally on point! Claremont/definitive X. Busiek/defienitive Avengers. Miller, Bendis, & Smith = Daredevil. However, i think you missed a few that Id like to nominate.

1) Hama, Tieri = Wolverine
2) Sorry guys..I know im gonna be lambasted for this..but I enjoyed Claremont/Larrocca's run on FF. (if anything...just for introducing me to Larrocca's Art) Plus I like Valeria.

PS...just think, Austen could have definitive run... (i neither like nor dislike him)

[Alphabet Pet]

Good column Jim.

But I gotta ask... Was 227 a random number or is there some specific comic book you were thinking of when you wrote that?

[Merlin]

I so agree what a great article

[david r]

Oh come on!! "Daredevil" did NOT have Four definitive runs. Ann Nocenti??? WHAT?? Kevin Smith?? You call his hack work here definitive?? Frank Miller's run blows them all out of the water. Nobody will remember Kevin Smith or Brian Michael Bendis' work 10-15 years from now. The only reason Smith gets any notice here is because Daredevil was his first mainstream comics work.

"Avengers" runerhaps Stern as well?? PErhaps STERN AS WELL!! Roger Stern is one of the best writers on "Avengers" ever. And his run was far better than Kurt Busiek's IMO.

I think "Spider-Man"has had 4 True Definitive Runs. The early Stan Lee/Steve Ditko/John Romita era. The Roger Stern era of the mid-80s. The Todd McFarlane/David Michilenie time, and J. Michael Strazynski's current period. Though I still think that JMS stuff is not as good as the great periods of the past.

I agree on X-Men. Only Chris Claremont's blockbuster 17 year run really adds up to Definitive. But what about John Byrne's Definitive Run on "Fantastic Four"? That cannot be passed up.And WAS better than Waid's current run, hands down!!

And why are we only looking at Marvel? DC has longer runs on their books.

[mr. 983]

Originally posted by psylockefan

I'd be thoroughly upset if all GM's wonderful creations were swept under the rug. Clone Saga was easy, it was just a story arc...SWEEP SWEEP. GM's run lasted a few years...(was it 2?). You cant sweep 2yrs away....

[/B]

IIRC, the clone saga lasted about two years, versus GM's three year run on NXM. however, the clone saga sports over 4 times the amount of issues. so its very possible this could happen (though i hope not). i think the main reason this will stick around is that NXM had a build and direction and focus, whereas the clone saga became a mess that the writers and editor's could not contain.

anyway, another good one jim. keep 'em up!

[crozack]

Once again, Jim, you prove your column is the only one worth reading around here. Thought-provoking and detailed. Love it. But I always say that.

However, there was indeed more than one definitive run for the FF. John Byrne was truly a mastermind on that title.

Spider-Man as well. Lee/Ditko/Romita, and then McFarlane.

We should throw Byrne's Alpha Flight as being a definitive run. As well as David's Incredible Hulk but hey, we all know that right?

And kudos for throwing in Jurgens' Thor. Truly good stuff going on there, even if no one else is reading it.

Morrison's work on New X-Men would be considered definitive, if Marvel was willing to continue in the same vein that Morrison wrote in. Sure, no one can fill the shoes of Morrison, but in order for a run to be definitive, it must produce long lasting changes. Morrison's run ended so neatly, and then rushed into this "Reload" that I don't think Marvel is going that route.

[Martin Dudek]

Excelent job, Jim. These are really excelent reads, you present the ideas in a clear manner, getting your point accross, and educate well. Plus I find them enjoyable.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Alphabet Pet
Good column Jim.

But I gotta ask... Was 227 a random number or is there some specific comic book you were thinking of when you wrote that?

I imagine that he is referencing to Dardevil 227 which was the issue frank millar returned to Dardevil for his classic Born again saga

[Jim Lemoine]

Originally posted by Alphabet Pet
Good column Jim.

But I gotta ask... Was 227 a random number or is there some specific comic book you were thinking of when you wrote that?

Originally posted by Wolverine


I imagine that he is referencing to Dardevil 227 which was the issue frank millar returned to Dardevil for his classic Born again saga

Ummm... actually, no, it was just the first number that popped to mind. Although actually... #227 has always been a pretty good number for Marvel, if you ask me. A decent FF, a strong Avengers, a great Daredevil, a fantastic Uncanny X-men... there's lots of good 227's.

For the record, I did not seek to list ALL the definitive runs in this column... just to discuss the concept. If I were to try to list them all, things like David's Hulk and Byrne's Alpha Flight would be included. I wouldn't include Byrne's FF, though... although I liked it, I've met too many people who hated the run, and honestly, a lot of the ideas he brought forth in that run (not the core four, Johnny & Alicia, Reed & Sue can't have more kids, etc.) have long been abandoned.

And you didn't see any DC titles mentioned for the same reason you'll probably never see me write a DC column, or a Hulk column... because that's not my area of expertise at all, and I try not to write about things I know nothing about when I can help it.

And for the record, I do, as always, appreciate all the posts and e-mails I receive that call me an idiot for the unforgivable offense of having an opinion different from your own.

[trinh]

Originally posted by Jim Lemoine
Morrison's New X-Men will be seen as either a brilliant Definitive Run, or as a swept-under-the-rug Clone Saga... dependent, probably, on what the X-Men's fanbase looks like in ten years.

no, i don't think so.

whether you liked his run or hated it...and i LOVED his run...you cannot deny that he made the x-men interesting again. made them fresh after years of stagnation.

swept under the rug as another clone saga? please.

[Cable2x]

Great article. I believe this article explains why Soldier X was a faliure.

[Anand Khatri]

Great column. I completly agree.

[Anthony Lucynski]

Joe Kelly: Definitive Deadpool (ducks various objects thrown in general direction)

Just saying 'sall.

anthony L

[Lithera]

Originally posted by trinh


swept under the rug as another clone saga? please.

Okay. I'll get right on that since you asked so nicely.

*sweep sweep sweep*

[Justice Daye]

Great column as usual, Jim.

I disagree with the beginning Jim. These are fictional characters and can change at the whim of a stoic corporation. However, you cannot maintain a property by changing it repeatedly. All readers have to go on is what the characters have done in the past and how that adds up to who they are now. If it doesn't add up, you have a right to say that they "are out of character" simply because if characters don't have a stable, reliable core readers won't care or read. If that "core" is defied as it were, then there is a basis for a complaint. However, your friends seem to have been reading awhile after they felt that the property had changed. This likely only helped maintain the change that they disliked and felt wasn't true to the character. Their ability to put down that comic that's been changed beyond all recognition, is your power over that property. Though with this pov of yours, are discounting all of your columns of character study?

I do agree with you though that there can be more than one definitive run (as definitive as a run that doesn't define the character(s), but redifines ortakes them in a new direction can be). Also, your ideas of what makes a definitive run are very true. It's one reason why one of my favorite books, Cable, worked with Weinberg (at least for it's readers) and not with Soldier X. The sae goes for Wildcats and T-Bolts. They worked because, despite lasting and drastic changes, they were faithful to the core o the character(s).

I really don't see GM's run becoming definitive because he didn't define anything. CC had so much freedom as the x-men weren't properties then. No one's ever going to have that amount of freedom. Even if someone does, there isn't anyone to appeal to in the way that CC's run appeal to children and teens in that climate of social change. Besides, GM's run, whether liked or hated it, when boiled down to it's core didn't do much of anything new. If someone else had done that exact run (with changes in style, logic, allusions), it'd be seen as cliche. People, IMO, liked GM's run because of his style, his allusions, and his logic because that was what was new, not the events themselves which differs from Claremont's run (which the events were new though the style and dialogue broke no new boundaries, though he did deeper character study than usual at the time, IMO). His story and elements included therein weren't new in the x-men pantheon at least. GM's run would have to be longer and affect more of the core x-men characters (which include many). GM didn't have control over the entire x-universe which would've made his run definitive (maybe not well-liked by all) because it was the only expression of the x-u for 3 years. In essence, a long run, compressed. This happened with FF, Daredevil, and Avengers, IMO. Their prospective writers had complete control over the entire family of characters. This also happened with CC's first run.

[spam]

i just though i'd comment that uncanny x-men #227 really was BETTER and more influential than all x-title #1s to follow it.

there have been better non-#1's though.

just my 2 cents

[russbrett77]

Great column Jim.

But I would add Liefeld's New Mutants / X-Force to the defintive X-roster.

He took Sam, Tabitha, Rahne and Cable (not sure how much he should count) and sent them in a new direction while building off their histories. The characters they are today are completely reflective of Liefeld's work on them. Sounds like a defintive run to me.

As for Morrison's X-Men... my personal feelings for his run aside, the world in which the X-Men inhabit really didn't change much under his pen, nor the characters as a whole. But (provided Marvel runs with the idea), an argument could easily be made for some of the specific characters that were a part of his run.

Morrison's Emma could easily be seen as the definitive Emma. Same could be said for Cyclops (though I preferred Lobdell's post Apocalypse Scott to Morrison's). These characters were changed so much during Morrison's run that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for future writers to ignore them.

[roach]

Morrison's run is already being rewritten with Magneto already back and Xorn shown to not be Magneto.
...and as much as we like to believe we have some power over our characters let's remember that the worst story ever written(the Draco) was written by Austen and still fans kept buying his work because they didnt want to break their collections....and he is still writing Xmen.

[Justice Daye]

Originally posted by russbrett77
As for Morrison's X-Men... my personal feelings for his run aside, the world in which the X-Men inhabit really didn't change much under his pen, nor the characters as a whole. But (provided Marvel runs with the idea), an argument could easily be made for some of the specific characters that were a part of his run.

Morrison's Emma could easily be seen as the definitive Emma. Same could be said for Cyclops (though I preferred Lobdell's post Apocalypse Scott to Morrison's). These characters were changed so much during Morrison's run that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for future writers to ignore them.

I was thinking the same thing, at first. Then, I noticed every development he "created" was already apart of each characters development. GM gave readers a hyper condensed, hyper realized version of each characters pasts. Ema's emotional problem were covered over the entire span of Gen X and especially in the finall arc when she killed her sister.

Scott's development was a condensed version o his previous life as well (though somethings lacked complete motivation). Scott's development, IMO wasn't very definitive as GM only tackled stuff related to Jean, not stuff related to how Apocalypse had changed his morals, his strategies, and feelings for the x-men and much esle. The definitive, modern take on Cyke won't happen until they've broached how Apocalypse changed Cyke, not Cyke in relation to Jean.

[Alex Guillen]

great column, Jim.

For me definite runs are the creators that take a book and really add soemthing new to it and make the characters more interesting to the reader.
For example Claremont's uncanny x-men run (that's still back today), after 20 years he's got these characters down to a science and has given so much tot he characters and to the overall fan base of the book that it's one of the best. And in this case we can take a writer who injected soem fresh ideas into it by revamping some old fan faves, in this case Grant Morisson.
he brought back the school, Emma Frost into the team & brought the issues about mutations and ideas into the mix.

[Patrick James]

Amazing job, Jim. Now if only you'd mentioned that Lobdell's Iceman was the definitive characterization of him

[Dylan McKay]

I would disagree about Iron Man having a definative run. On another board where I was encouraging people to read "Best Defence" the topic came up as to what defined Iron Man, and while there were few events that changed him, dropping out of the military industrial complex, revealing his identity etc, there was no story which defined the character. Maybe we're all just ignorant on the characters history. But most comic fans know the definative runs, and alot of comic fans can't think of Iron Man ever having one.

Of course there is another side to this, does a definative run also hav to be concidered a "must read."