From: khale@camilla.Eng.Sun.COM (Abhijit Khale)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Legion of Super-Heroes...
Date: 5 Nov 1992 07:28:24 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: camilla-50

In article <1992Nov3.005332.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Nearer My Elmo to Thee) writes:

>I do not recall seeing any pro-LSH posts which get specific.

Well, to be specific, I like the more mature adult style of writing. I like
the more complex characterization very much, I like all the references to 
past legion history. As far as plot goes, I like the intricacies  : for 
instance, how many people noticed that the diskless dominator had turned up
in the earlier Starfinger story ? Or the comment by baby Saturn Girl that 
young Lightning lad was more like he used to be ( a clear indication that hes
not Proty) ? 

Certainly there are several weaknesses with the story and plot, but for me
currently the positive outweighs the negative. 

>	Such as blowing away Blok with precious little buildup, ceremony, or
>followup.  Used to be whacking a Legionnaire was a big production.  Now it's
>commonplace.  But that's a cheap shot.

Excluding batch SW 6 for the moment (and there are good reasons why it
should be excluded) there was one Legionnaire death in issue # 3 and one
probable death in issue # 36. How does this make legion death commonplace ? 
And you certainly cant say that there was no buildup to Dirk's apparent death.
As far as Blok goes, yes there was no explicit ceremony, but there was a brief
acknowledgement of his death in LSH #3, as well as comments about him from
Shvaughn and the White Witch. True it was more subtle than most. Also, in the
past Invisible Kid and Karate Kid died with no apparent ceremonies (until
much later or by individual legionnaries). I actually think the death of Blok
was definitely important for several reasons : to build up suspense when
Jo Nah vanished later as to whether he had been killed or not. 

>By "inconsistent", I meant specifically the very fundamental continuity
>problems inherent in claiming that Garth = Proty.

No argument there. If I had to pick two things that tick me off about the
series, this would be one, the second being the the absence of Wildfire.

>	I disagree with your assessment of Levitz.  He was IMPO terrific at
>character -development-, and pretty good at telling adventure stories on the
>side.  Easy to follow != shallow, as well; check the Pre-Joycean Fellowship
>manifesto.
>	And I strongly disagree that the characters were shallow.  Levitz's
>Legion's greatest worth was in his soap opera stylings, which depend heavily
>on providing characters with depth.
>	I will gladly admit that greater depth is a good thing, and that v4 is
>headed that way, but the LSH of Levitz was hardly the LSH of Shooter's first 
>run.  

You wont catch me knocking Levitz. I liked most of his stuff. Note though that
he started mostly from a clean slate as far as characterization goes. The only
real characterization he inherited and made use of was Wildfire = hot head
and Timber Wolf = loner. Almost all other characters from Sun Boy = womanizer
to Jan Arrah = nonviolent was his doing. That means he had a lot of freedom
with what to do with characters. I'm mentioning this merely to point out that
Levitz changed some of the characters as much as T & M have done. And it was
Levitz who did the first major retcon in LSH history (the elimination of the
Adult Legion). 

Levitz (and Giffen !!) were definitely much better at plot management and plot
closure, and using most characters (not all, does the word Tyroc ring a bell).
Levitz seemed to be lucky in having a much better editor as well ( karen
berger). Levitz's characterization was good, but IMHO inferior to the current
legion. I wouldnt say it was shallow, but I think the current characterization
is better in most cases. 

However, theres no doubt that he was running out of steam towards the end. And
my one major complaint with him is the one thing he didnt do : he couldnt 
bring himself to cross the rubicon and make the legion grow up. T & M and
Giffen did that and more power to them for that !!

The final point I would like to mention is that a number of people (not
you Elmo) talk of how the current creative team have frittered away the 
readership Levitz had built up. That is not correct. By the time Levitz left,
Legion was already way down from its highs in the early 80s. I would guess the
current readership is close to what it was in the later Levitz period.

>	They were doing that under Levitz as well.  Some of them do
>talk/think/act much the same as they did before, modulo their various traumas
>(Jo, Rokk, Vi, Thom, Garth, Imra, etc, are well done).  Some do not (Nura is
>the most flagrant example).  The problem is that I like some continuity in
>how characters change; I like to see them change, I like for those changes
>to be in response to events I can see, touch, feel.  And I don't get too
>much of that from v4.  

Thats a pretty good point. I personally think that characters change a lot in
the space of 5-6 years and in most cases I have not found anything inconsiste-
nt with that. On the other hand, it is good to see what made a character
change, rather than being extremely cute in referring to it via flashbacks
or word bites. 

>	Certainly, the makers etc. have the right/ownership/permission,
>whatever, to do whatever they want with their characters.  IMPO, they have an
>moral obligation, of sorts, to the readers, fans, etc. to do appropriate
>stories, stories which make the best use of the characters.  I think the v4
>creative team is not using the characters in the best way.

I dont have any disagreement with that, but I think they're not using then too
badly either. And I have more sympathy for the creative team when I heard
of some of the editorial interference they've faced ; for instance, Eury
described some of the problems they faced with the new legionnaries series a
while back in a lettercol. 

Abhijit