The generational divide and how it maps into comic books feels a little too pat, but there is a lot of merit to the hypothesis.
Whatever the “Why” is, it’s the “What” that’s most important, and as you show, the elements of the superhero story got thrown out of whack. It wasn’t all bad—I’m rather fond of those 80s X-Men story arcs. But they were different, to be sure. Great analysis.
Finally, someone who knows who E. Nelson Bridwell is. When he was on his game (and had a good editor) he wrote some really great comics. In fact, I'm going to say it here for the record, his 70s "Super Friends" comic - yes, based on the Saturday morning cartoon, for you younger people reading this site - was better written, more imaginative, and more mature than most of the "realistic and complex' stories in most other comics of the time.
Yeah, you have to endure occasional plot contrivances so every character gets a chance to shine, and to make things clear for young readers, but overall it was great.
Wow, this was incredibly eye-opening. It explains my utter inability to get into modern comics, and just how ugly and overly busy they are. All of my complaints are Jim Shooter's complaints, too, and I feel vindicated. Now I won't feel guilty about packing in more romance and interpersonal drama in between the flashy fights in my own comic.
Never feel guilty about that. As I commented to Michael below, some of the most well-regarded Spider-Man stories were Classical Romance...leaning towards Modern Romance...but peppered heavily with Action and Adventure. Go forth and do likewise!
Wow, you are the biggest non-horrible-nerd comics historian I have ever read.
Incidentally it's remarkable how much this timeline lines up the Strauss-Howe 4 turnings model. The model mentions that the silent's portion of the turning is always skipped over for control of society - for example Biden is the only Silent to ever become President and even that's pretty sketchy if he had full agency in it - and it jumps straight from Greatest to Boomer in nearly all cases on all levels of society.
Under that model the 'return to Western Canon' is going to be through Millennials who have survived the hard times and lived interesting lives taking over storytelling, as the next incarnation of the Greatest Gen's portion of the turning. There's no hope for Baby Boomers reforming they just have to die and X'ers aren't terribly interested in managing an entire industry though, according to the model, they will be better skilled at it and necessary as teachers and leaders for the Mills.
Are Millennials interested in the romance leading the A plot against a backdrop of adventure and theme? If eastern comic reception is any indication it's a yes. Naruto's story started as an orphan who wanted acceptance, Spy X Family is a story about a family's growing pains much in the vein of Fantastic Four, Jojos tends to be driven by inter-character drama more than powers and adventure and so on. I imagine when the Boomers finally pass and Millennials take on control we're going to see a lot more of that in western comics.
Well, somebody else brought it up, which gives me license to sperg. Strauss and Howe defined the generations according to peer personality--shaped by common experience. Their definitions are what I use.
GI Generation (Hero archetype) born 1902-1924
Silent born (Artist archetype) 1925-42
Boom (Prophet archetype) born 1943-60
X/13th (Nomad archetype) born 1961-81
Millennial (Hero) born 1982-2004
Homelander (Artist) Born 2005-?
"Gen Y," "Zoomers," "Generation Jones," "Generation Alpha," etc. are mostly Internet inventions which are not recognized in Generational Theory.
That said, I think Atom's analysis still works. The Heroes and Prophets tend to be the culturally dominant ones every saeculum, so it's no surprise the GIs and Boomers dominated comics, too, largely skipping over the Silents and X. The Silents tended to be passive, indecisive, and conform to whatever the norms are. Nomads are the middle child of the generational family who get most of the negative attention and hardly any positive. X has been overlooked all its life. When we were kids, the focus of society was on adults (Boomers, Silents, GIs) and what they wanted. When we grew into adults, societal focus turned back to children (Millennials) and what was good for them. It's never our turn. And we accept that with a fatalistic shrug.
You can see the attitudes reflected in the comics, too. During the Golden and Silver Ages, the optimistic, confident, civic-minded GIs were at the helm. Starting in the late Silver and early Bronze ages, the Boomers came in, and took over. They are the navel-gazing "spiritual" narcissists who attack what their fathers (GI, mostly) built, rejecting every value they associate
with their fathers (family, Christianity, patriotism, traditional gender roles, etc.).
While the JD Cowan/Brian Niemeier Generations don't match Strauss and Howe, they were never meant to. Communication and entertainment shifted enough after WWII that there are older and younger "siblings" in each 20-year block. That's why you need to specify "temporal" or "cultural". Those people in a 20-year window are definitely not the same in the later half of the 20th Century and into the 21st.
I dunno if it meshes with the concept of cultural generations, but Strauss & Howe determine the birth year span based on peer personality. For instance, while the typical internet source will define the Boomers as born between 1946 & ‘64 (the range of that enormous birth spike), they define them as born between ‘43 & ‘60. The common experience of the cohorts born in that span led to shared attributes across the board (with exceptions, of course) such as cynicism, spiritualism, narcissism and “self actualization.”
Following Brian Niemeier, JD Cowan, and David V. Stewart's lead on GEN-Y (and them being Gen-Y), I think that the Ys will be the generation --or people from that generation-- who preserve the past for new generations to grab onto and build a new future, along with some aware Christian MILs. Us oldsters need to feed, clothe, and protect them and dump as much info on them as they can carry into that new world.
60s Marvel had much of the guts you see in Manga and Anime. Following a Manga path and loading Western Canon may be a viable path forward.
"60s Marvel had much of the guts you see in Manga and Anime"
You actually reminded me that the West did the big trends of Isekai better and earlier. Isekai is being whisked away to another world, usually through death or near death, or being reborn and using your abilities and knowledge to maximum advantage. It's big now in anime/manga but...
•John Carter of Mars: Book in 1917, comic 1977.
•Chronicles of Thomas Covenant 1977: Greatest scumbag character redemption Isekai I've ever read.
Miyazaki is C.S Lewis and Wizard of Oz, Re:Zero is HG Wells and Overlord doesn't even touch Nightland's shoes.
Incidentally reddit says, "It has been mentioned in other comments, but the term for traditional western isekai is "portal fantasy"."
This was eye opening. As a kid, I hated "romance" in comics and thought there was way too much of it because, as for example in X-Men or mid-90s Spider-Man, the "romance" was trashy Soap Opera style infidelity, drunken hook-ups, implausible mystery offspring/relatives, etc... It took my brain a long time to adjust to the idea that literature Romance actually meant something much more than this, and it took me even longer -- until this morning, literally -- to accept that it was OK for an adventure comic to put the Romance front and center. I often felt guilty putting personal relationships as the focus point in my own stories. In fact, I've written a lot more of than than I've published, as a lot of the scenes met the cutting room floor rather than 'spoil' the whizbang focus on fights and powers and fiendish plots.
As I alluded to in a comment in a previous post, the Lee/Romita issues of Spider-Man from about Issue 39 through about 70 have a Romance Comic base shot through with lots of Action and Adventure. Those were great Spidey stories, even though they were unlike the Lee/Ditko Adventure-based with heavy Romance injections.
Keeping the ultimate goal in mind for the story arc is critical to this. Once that character arc is completed, then it's likely time to step off the stage. But, the arc should include marriage, kids, and passing the mantle of the Hero. They they can step to the background character phase of their existance.
The generational divide and how it maps into comic books feels a little too pat, but there is a lot of merit to the hypothesis.
Whatever the “Why” is, it’s the “What” that’s most important, and as you show, the elements of the superhero story got thrown out of whack. It wasn’t all bad—I’m rather fond of those 80s X-Men story arcs. But they were different, to be sure. Great analysis.
Finally, someone who knows who E. Nelson Bridwell is. When he was on his game (and had a good editor) he wrote some really great comics. In fact, I'm going to say it here for the record, his 70s "Super Friends" comic - yes, based on the Saturday morning cartoon, for you younger people reading this site - was better written, more imaginative, and more mature than most of the "realistic and complex' stories in most other comics of the time.
Yeah, you have to endure occasional plot contrivances so every character gets a chance to shine, and to make things clear for young readers, but overall it was great.
Wow, this was incredibly eye-opening. It explains my utter inability to get into modern comics, and just how ugly and overly busy they are. All of my complaints are Jim Shooter's complaints, too, and I feel vindicated. Now I won't feel guilty about packing in more romance and interpersonal drama in between the flashy fights in my own comic.
Never feel guilty about that. As I commented to Michael below, some of the most well-regarded Spider-Man stories were Classical Romance...leaning towards Modern Romance...but peppered heavily with Action and Adventure. Go forth and do likewise!
Wow, you are the biggest non-horrible-nerd comics historian I have ever read.
Incidentally it's remarkable how much this timeline lines up the Strauss-Howe 4 turnings model. The model mentions that the silent's portion of the turning is always skipped over for control of society - for example Biden is the only Silent to ever become President and even that's pretty sketchy if he had full agency in it - and it jumps straight from Greatest to Boomer in nearly all cases on all levels of society.
Under that model the 'return to Western Canon' is going to be through Millennials who have survived the hard times and lived interesting lives taking over storytelling, as the next incarnation of the Greatest Gen's portion of the turning. There's no hope for Baby Boomers reforming they just have to die and X'ers aren't terribly interested in managing an entire industry though, according to the model, they will be better skilled at it and necessary as teachers and leaders for the Mills.
Are Millennials interested in the romance leading the A plot against a backdrop of adventure and theme? If eastern comic reception is any indication it's a yes. Naruto's story started as an orphan who wanted acceptance, Spy X Family is a story about a family's growing pains much in the vein of Fantastic Four, Jojos tends to be driven by inter-character drama more than powers and adventure and so on. I imagine when the Boomers finally pass and Millennials take on control we're going to see a lot more of that in western comics.
Well, somebody else brought it up, which gives me license to sperg. Strauss and Howe defined the generations according to peer personality--shaped by common experience. Their definitions are what I use.
GI Generation (Hero archetype) born 1902-1924
Silent born (Artist archetype) 1925-42
Boom (Prophet archetype) born 1943-60
X/13th (Nomad archetype) born 1961-81
Millennial (Hero) born 1982-2004
Homelander (Artist) Born 2005-?
"Gen Y," "Zoomers," "Generation Jones," "Generation Alpha," etc. are mostly Internet inventions which are not recognized in Generational Theory.
That said, I think Atom's analysis still works. The Heroes and Prophets tend to be the culturally dominant ones every saeculum, so it's no surprise the GIs and Boomers dominated comics, too, largely skipping over the Silents and X. The Silents tended to be passive, indecisive, and conform to whatever the norms are. Nomads are the middle child of the generational family who get most of the negative attention and hardly any positive. X has been overlooked all its life. When we were kids, the focus of society was on adults (Boomers, Silents, GIs) and what they wanted. When we grew into adults, societal focus turned back to children (Millennials) and what was good for them. It's never our turn. And we accept that with a fatalistic shrug.
You can see the attitudes reflected in the comics, too. During the Golden and Silver Ages, the optimistic, confident, civic-minded GIs were at the helm. Starting in the late Silver and early Bronze ages, the Boomers came in, and took over. They are the navel-gazing "spiritual" narcissists who attack what their fathers (GI, mostly) built, rejecting every value they associate
with their fathers (family, Christianity, patriotism, traditional gender roles, etc.).
Temporal Generations != Cultural Generations
While the JD Cowan/Brian Niemeier Generations don't match Strauss and Howe, they were never meant to. Communication and entertainment shifted enough after WWII that there are older and younger "siblings" in each 20-year block. That's why you need to specify "temporal" or "cultural". Those people in a 20-year window are definitely not the same in the later half of the 20th Century and into the 21st.
I dunno if it meshes with the concept of cultural generations, but Strauss & Howe determine the birth year span based on peer personality. For instance, while the typical internet source will define the Boomers as born between 1946 & ‘64 (the range of that enormous birth spike), they define them as born between ‘43 & ‘60. The common experience of the cohorts born in that span led to shared attributes across the board (with exceptions, of course) such as cynicism, spiritualism, narcissism and “self actualization.”
Thanks! Fine complement!
Following Brian Niemeier, JD Cowan, and David V. Stewart's lead on GEN-Y (and them being Gen-Y), I think that the Ys will be the generation --or people from that generation-- who preserve the past for new generations to grab onto and build a new future, along with some aware Christian MILs. Us oldsters need to feed, clothe, and protect them and dump as much info on them as they can carry into that new world.
60s Marvel had much of the guts you see in Manga and Anime. Following a Manga path and loading Western Canon may be a viable path forward.
"60s Marvel had much of the guts you see in Manga and Anime"
You actually reminded me that the West did the big trends of Isekai better and earlier. Isekai is being whisked away to another world, usually through death or near death, or being reborn and using your abilities and knowledge to maximum advantage. It's big now in anime/manga but...
•John Carter of Mars: Book in 1917, comic 1977.
•Chronicles of Thomas Covenant 1977: Greatest scumbag character redemption Isekai I've ever read.
Miyazaki is C.S Lewis and Wizard of Oz, Re:Zero is HG Wells and Overlord doesn't even touch Nightland's shoes.
Incidentally reddit says, "It has been mentioned in other comments, but the term for traditional western isekai is "portal fantasy"."
All pertinent points. Western and Eastern styles can feed and grow on one another in the future as they have in the past.
This was eye opening. As a kid, I hated "romance" in comics and thought there was way too much of it because, as for example in X-Men or mid-90s Spider-Man, the "romance" was trashy Soap Opera style infidelity, drunken hook-ups, implausible mystery offspring/relatives, etc... It took my brain a long time to adjust to the idea that literature Romance actually meant something much more than this, and it took me even longer -- until this morning, literally -- to accept that it was OK for an adventure comic to put the Romance front and center. I often felt guilty putting personal relationships as the focus point in my own stories. In fact, I've written a lot more of than than I've published, as a lot of the scenes met the cutting room floor rather than 'spoil' the whizbang focus on fights and powers and fiendish plots.
As I alluded to in a comment in a previous post, the Lee/Romita issues of Spider-Man from about Issue 39 through about 70 have a Romance Comic base shot through with lots of Action and Adventure. Those were great Spidey stories, even though they were unlike the Lee/Ditko Adventure-based with heavy Romance injections.
Keeping the ultimate goal in mind for the story arc is critical to this. Once that character arc is completed, then it's likely time to step off the stage. But, the arc should include marriage, kids, and passing the mantle of the Hero. They they can step to the background character phase of their existance.