Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:19:02 -0500 
From: Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Oz Squad panned...

>About Oz Squad...
> 
>aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Anatole Wilson) writes:
> 
>>    As for whether it's satire or a reflection of a hatred of '90's
>>society, I'm not sure there's much of a difference. Naturally, for
>>satire to be effective, it's got to tear down the wrongs it is
>>satirizing. However, I don't think this is *good* satire, nor do I think
>>satire is their main goal.
> 
>I don't think Oz Squad is at all satirical, and I'm not even sure why
>that came up.  It's not making fun of anything.  I don't think it
>reflects a hatred of modern society, either, any more than a cyberpunk
>novel reflects a hatred of technology.

The post I was responding to called it satire, and "nasty funny." I
agree with you--it's NOT satire, satire isn't their goal, nor are they
reflecting a hatred of modern society.  What they are doing is creating
a morality play, in which good and innocence vs. evil and maturity, and
nobody wins. Like I said, I think it's the story they haven't yet told
that's more interesting than the story they have told.

> 
>I think it's sort of like Milk & Cheese, but with some ``history''
>behind it.
> 
>>    It strikes me that this comic is more on a nihilistic bent of taking
>>the surface innocence of the Wonderland stories and stepping on it,
>>corrupting it purely for the sake of corrupting it. It's a way of saying
>>"I'm not innocent anymore, your'e not innocent anymore, so let's destroy
>>the 'lie' of innocence." 
>>It's a destructive compulsion that--rather than act as satire to point
>>out fualts in the human condition and hopefully improve society, life,
>>or whatever--simply tears everything down as ugly, violent, and stupid. 
> 
>If this is all you read in the series, I think you're really missing a
>lot.  The creators clearly have a lot of respect and admiration for
>the original Oz stories.  They are not in the least tearing everything
>down.  The good Oz characters are trying to do the right thing, albeit
>in a universe that is morally more complex, and more violent, than
>that of the original books.

I disagree with you here. I don't think the writer has a hatred or a
deep-felt need to dstroy these characters, but I haven't gotten the
impression there's much respect there, either. A lot of it had to do
with the Oz characters going into public domain last year, open for
anyone's use. Still, I guess I shouldn't try to read the mind of someone
I don't know. 

The artist, whom I do know, hasn't expressed a particular fondness for
the characters, and I may be basing my assumptions on the character of
the book on our *limited* discussions about the book. 

Still, knowing him and hearing how the book has been produced and
reading that Comic Reader interview, their idea of "respect" for a
character differs greatly from mine. As I said, I don't object to taking
old, established characters and turning them inside-out and upside-down
for effect, or to make a point. 
I've just been feeling from the execution of this book, that turning the
characters upside-down IS the point. 

> 
>>    Unfortunately, this appears to be a driving force in the comics and
>>movies of today. Think about the Punisher, or Batman's current psychotic
>>attitude, or the popularity of Lobo, where violent killing is half the
>>fun. Look at any movie made in the past twenty or so years that portrays
>>a future society--Blade Runner, Freejack, etc.  
> 
>Blade Runner was a moderately complex film, and to describe it as
>tearing everything down is, again, to miss a lot.  In fact, it's
>missing the entire film.  I assume you're exaggerating for effect.

I should have made the movie references separate from the comics. I
meant films like Blade Runner presented a bleak, nearly hopeless view of
the future. Yes, there is much more to the film than that. But I still
maintain that any movie made today that protrayed at least an attempt at
a Utopian society today would be scorned as a fantasyland. (If you think
about it, the role of the hero(ine)s of these films is usually to bring
the society back to the sensibilities of our times.) 

> 
>>    Star Trek: New Generation aside, everyone's given up on the idea of
>>a utopian society. Sometimes I'm afraid that this constant barrage of
>>nihilistic thinking and literature will sap the will of people to even
>>try. That's why the death of Superman depresses me.
> 
>Popular comic books, and mass media in general, don't set these kinds
>of trends.  They reflect them.  

Absolutely. Couldn't agree with you more. But you'll certainly agree
that literature, even comic books, also has an effect on its audience as
well. It's a circle, or, these days, a spiral downward.  

>Reading the daily paper is enough to
>give up on the idea of a utopian society.

Gee, I hope not. In my own view, the reality of the present should never
destroy the dreams of the future.  You're definitely not going to get me
to read past Calvin and Hobbes this way. :)

> 
>Would you prefer that our comics and movies be unremittingly happy and
>cheerful?

No, absolutely not. Never. Reality is important. I love deep, dark
satire or expository writing that portrays and/or exposes the evils of
society. There's not room in every story for a happy ending. But, like
in the fable of Pandora's Box, I would like to see Hope peek out the
keyhole once in a while. 

My point is that our fictional heroes today have become amoral (I don't
mean family values-type stuff). They've given up on improving society,
and settle for revenge instead of higher ideals of justice, or improving
the system. And when we stretch that trend to established fictional
characters like the Oz crew, and bring them to to a realistic, violent
level, we should have a damn good reason for doing so. Otherwise, we're
just taking out the frustrations we had when we found out Santa Claus
wasn't real. "We can't be sentimental about the old characters," as the
quote goes. 


> 
>Incidentally, I was a dedicated Oz reader in my youth.  I've read all
>but two or three of the books (by which I mean I've read all the
>Baum's and Thompson's, and most of the others written by various
>random people).  I still like them, though I haven't read them for a
>while.  I enjoyed Eric Shanower's Oz books, and I enjoy Oz Squad.

I have to admit that my knowledge of the Oz books is pretty much limited
to the movies. That should tell you that I'm not standing on my soapbox
because the favorite characters of my youth are being trampled upon. 

Maybe if I didn't feel they were trying to squish the characters into a
traditional action/adventrure comic book mode, and maybe if inordinate
amounts of time hadn't been spent throwing babies off a roof, or if the
characterizations were stronger and more developed, or if they delved
more into the background they've obviously developed but only hinted at,
I'd feel like they were honestly trying to tell a decent, fascinating
story, and I wouldn't mind so much.

As it is, it still strikes me as innocence-bashing for its own sake. And
I don't particulalry like it. But that's just MY opinion, and everyone
else is entitled to share it. :)




Anatole Wilson                  "If anyone objects to anything I say,
-----------------                I am prepared not only to retract it,
                                 But to deny under oath that I ever said it
                                 in the first place."