1. "Long As My Ammo Holds, Anyway"
I. Reverse-engineering a comic book in order to discern the writers intention when creating it is, as we've discussed here before, a dubious proposition. (*1) But in the absence of the opportunity to grill key writers for a day or three on the minutiae of their working methods, and with few interviews at hand that cover the topic on discussion, reverse-engineering is the only method a curious blogger can employ. Of course, the advantage of such a method is that it nearly always arrives at an answer, even if it isn't the one that the author concerned would actually have given themselves. (Stare hard enough at a comic book and ask "how was that done?" for long few minutes or so and a solution of some kind will come to mind, which is better than none at all, I suppose, even if it bears no relation to any real-world knowledge ever applied.) And so, for the curious, there's no avoiding the interrogating of the comic book's pages in order to wring from them just a few of their secrets.
II. It's a terrible shame that so many of the key aspects of writing for mainstream comics aren't covered by the various text books and articles which have become so ubiquitous in the past ten years or so. For, yes, the curious amateur writer certainly needs to know again about character, script formats and the virtues of the three and five act structures in comparison with each other, but there remain so many problems specific to the superhero
comic which no-one ever seems to talk about. For example, how can a writer maintain interest in a character when they can't fundamentally change her or his nature or situation? And what can be done month-in and month-out with a super-villain such as Deadshot, to take but one example, who at any moment might be called away from the Secret Six in order to star as a familiar villain-of-the-month in the pages of Batman or the Justice League?
How, if those toys have to go back into the common toy-box in the shape that they were found in, can anything be done with them that matters?
*1 - As in "Scandal, Gail Simone & The Secret Six", to be found in the June Archive
2. "But Somethin' Tells Me You're Yankin' My Chain"
I. There's a much-discussed editorial meeting held, or perhaps not held, by Stan Lee in the early 1970s at Marvel, where he allegedly stated that his companies superheroes must no longer be permitted to change in fundamental ways. We might not have realised that these superheroes were going to be such big business when I invented them, said Mr Lee, or so the legend is printed, but we know it now, and we mustn't ruin our heroes by messing with the successful formula that's made them what they are. From now on, he's reported to have said, and has denied ever saying, we'll permit the illusion of change for the characters in our books, but not change itself. Peter Parker might, as an example, discuss graduating from University, and even slave over an exam or two, but come next issue, he'll still be living off a thin grant and learning hyper-physics from a super-villain or two disguised as science professors.
Perhaps that meeting happened, and perhaps it didn't. Opinions are divided. But the issue that it was allegedly concerned with is one which has remained central to the business of writing superheroes ever since. How is it possible to retain an audience's interest in a book and a character which is purposefully locked into a particular status quo? And yet how is it possible for a superhero publisher to allow its properties to be radically changed over the years without running the risk of distorting and even destroying the very characters upon which its wealth is founded?
II. And how can it be done? How is it possible to manage change so that it doesn't undermine a character's longterm appeal, or to even create an illusion of change which will still engage an audience that's seen everything before, and probably at least twice?
And are either of those approaches options which Gail Simone is taking, for example, with characters such as Deadshot in "Secret Six"?
3. "I Make It A Point To Never Laugh At An Expert Knife Man With His Hands Full"
Well, what is Gail Simone doing by taking the approach she has with writing the character of Deadshot?
Well, I don't know.
But I can reverse-engineer what might be a spurious answer, and then we can work forwards again from there.
4. "Just Get Us To Vegas 'Fore My Ass Gives Out"
I. Deadshot may not be a front-line, book-headlining character on today's comic-book shop shelves, but he's definitely been established as one of the most popular super-villains in the DCU by the fine work of creators such as Steve Engelhart and Marshal Rogers, John Ostrander and Kim Yale, and Gail Simone, along with a host of other gifted artists and writers. And no doubt a
substantial part of the character's appeal to many of the creators who've so ably developed him over the past 35 years or so has been the fact that he's not a marquee lead, that he's had but two mini-series of his own, and that he's rarely going to be starring in any other book beyond the one they're writing this month. More secure from the homogenising effects of great success than many of his fellow super-villains, Deadshot has developed as an idiosyncratic and rather disturbing figure, his personality defined in greater depth than many of his fellows while his fundamental role remains constant; Deadshot is the psychologically damaged super-assassin for hire who'll pursue his quarry to the very end in order to fulfil any contract he's taken.
And that's how Deadshot presumably needs to remain after any appearance in a particular creator's book, for chances are that somebody else will have a need for such a super-villain next month, and they may not have time to scrape off the ticks and twists that have been "artistically" added to him. For exorcising his demons and convincingly showing him taking up a new life in a Franciscan Monastery may produce a truly touching individual story, but it won't help the editor of the Justice League line when he needs a fearsome bad guy to accept a contract to kill off the Atom, or whoever.
But if very little can change with Deadshot, why should anybody care about his appearances in "Secret Six", or anywhere else for that matter? Who could be concerned with a super-villain who's exactly the same at the end of a string of comic-book appearances as he was at the beginning?
5. "That's Why I Have A Personal Policy Not To Give A Crap About Anything Or Anyone"
I. Yet it seems obvious to me that Ms Simone has managed the trick of both fundamentally changing Deadshot while staying true to the established parameters that the character has always existed in. As a consequence, Deadshot has developed in unexpected and innovative ways, but he still remains quite recognisable as the individual, and as the super-villain, that he was before. In terms of the character's utility, therefore, he can be used in pretty much the same context as he always was in the past, and yet he's a noticeably different man by degree if not in kind.
He's still a killer. He still wears that costume and fires off those guns. He's still mostly, if not exclusively, true to his word where a contract is concerned, and he's certainly not reformed or become transformed by some moral or spiritual enlightenment.
But he's different all the same, and the way that that's been achieved, if our reverse-engineering is at all to be trusted, is well-worth examining, because it's a trick that's rarely carried off well, and all such skillful tricks deserve a second look, and more.
II. As we've regularly discussed on this blog before, the business of "stewardship"(*2) , the importance of not carelessly changing a franchise character so completely that they become something quite different to what was originally successful, is of vital concern. (Where franchises are concerned, why change a existing and established character without an exceptionally good reason when a new one can be created?) And if, as we began to discuss above, Ms Simone is perhaps pulling off the trick of both changing and yet not-changing Deadshot, then shouldn't this be a skill that others are paying a more formal attention and respect to?
Well, obviously I think so.
And perhaps they all are, and I've just missed the fact.
*2 - See "Leave It Alone: Jack Kirby's New Gods" in the April 2010 folder.
6. "Odds Are He's Dead Already, Sis. I Say We Get Gone"
I. The arc of Deadshot's development over the three consecutive "Secret Six" TPBs that I've acquired (*3) reads as a deliberate and substantial one. Any myth of an illusion of change where the results of that arc are concerned can certainly be discredited, for Floyd Lawton has undergone a major if not fundamental change between the beginning of "Six Degrees Of Devastation" and and the closure of "Depths". And perhaps the fact that this change is indeed considerable but not mold-breaking is the first clue we might discern about how to make a franchise character bend and adapt without breaking. For Deadshot's basic psychological make-up remains constant through these three collections, and his development occurs strictly within the bounds of what his established character could be legitimately expected to do. In essence, Ms Simone doesn't provide her readers with a "new" Deadshot, but with the same "old" Deadshot who's adapted and changed in response to the events that he's experienced.
And so, rather than the re-set button being pushed after every climax, something more subtle and interesting has occurred.
II. The psychological limitations of Deadshot's character were in substantial part laid down before Ms Simone was commissioned to write the Secret Six. Floyd Lawton was, in brief, a man traumatised by his youth and as a consequence unable to believe that his life was worth engaging with. Carrying not a whit if he lived or died, Deadshot evolved an essentially passive personality where his life's direction was concerned. A contract to murder, for example, was adopted with absolute fidelity to its terms, because it gave his life both boundaries and meaning. And since the everyday business of living had proven so utterly unlikely to reward good intentions and efforts with anything other than horror, Deadshot's existence was marked by immediate gratifications and a purposeless drift between murderous assignments. Into this grimmest of existential crisis occasionally drifted an odd kind of attachment felt for alpha males who emotionally evoked memories of his dead brother, but beyond that, Floyd Lawton was a dead man walking, waiting for the hour of his own end with neither anticipation or horror.
And that, as much as the more obvious and showy features of his villainous modus operandi such as his costumes and weapons, was surely such a productive premise for a super-assassin that it was not to be significantly messed with. Whatever change that a creator might consider applying to Deadshot would by necessity have to operate within the limits of the above, or run the risk of being soon discarded as unnecessary and counterproductive by a metaphorical stroke of the editor's mythical red pen.
Which means that one more constraint applies to the freedom of the writer such as Ms Simone who takes on the responsibility of shepherding a character such as Deadshot. Not only does the surface, the flash and powder, of the figure have to be maintained, the sharp uniform, the sharp-shooting. But the good work of previous writers in creating a personality and a psyche needs to respected too.
And so it's a wonder that anything but a constant repetition of previous adventures ever occurs where a well-defined character like Deadshot is concerned. There's a lot to loose by well-meaning and careless innovation, and the degree to which change can occur is limited anyhow.
Some creators must consider that the whole business is hardly worth the bother.
*3 - "Six Degrees Of Devastation", "Unhinged", and "Depths", one of which I had to buy twice because of my own carelessness in losing my first copy, and one which I had to buy twice because the first book dealer did a runner with my dosh, and his prices were unreasonably high too! I mean, honestly! This piece of reverse-engineering has cost me a fortune a relative fortune!
III. Yet, in a subtle and persistent way, Ms Simone can indeed be seen to have been innovating with Deadshot from the very first of the issues that I've read, and presumably the process began long before. For beneath his recognisably laconic and sarcastic exterior, Deadshot is soon to be seen behaving in subtly affectionate, if often unobtrusive, ways in "Six Degrees Of Devastation", breaking with the traditions of long years where the expression of his feelings are concerned. And the fondness and consideration for his allies in the Six that he begins to express there eventually reaches a point where it threatens to destabilise his own personality, rooted as it is in disaffection and distance. If there is a more obvious example of Ms Simone choosing to develop a character which others might have been happy to re-cycle over and over again, I've not seen it yet.
This slow and affecting process of change is often quietly expressed in apparently throw-away lines. Deadshot's "freak" companion Ragdoll's endless wittering concerning his unique sexual perversity is consistently met, for example, not with aggressive put-downs, but with quiet pleas to take such distracting nastiness elsewhere. It's as if Deadshot can't bring himself to engage with the unhinged Ragdoll, but he doesn't want to think badly of him, or even offend him, either. And by the pages of "Unhinged", Deadshot has grown in fondness for Ragdoll to the point at which he actively apologises for considering whether or not to shoot the latter's sister, an act which under the circumstances would have been utterly defensible. This is hardly the dismissive and contemptuous Floyd Lawton that his readers were used to seeing. Indeed, if Deadshot's tenure on the "Suicide Squad" before had been marked by a mixture of compulsion and his compulsive commitment to a given task, then his membership of the Secret Six seems to have been consistently characterised by a baffled and bemused warmth and kindness. (He even gives his team-mates pool-hall affectionate nicknames: "Sis" for Scandal Savage, for example, and "Furballs" for Cat-Man.)
And given that Lawton's life was no longer immediately in danger from the end of "Six Degrees Of Devastation" onwards, and given that it'd been established that his earnings had already assured his daughter entrance to Harvard "a hundred times over", why is he in the Six at all?
After all, it isn't as if Deadshot can't make his way alone as an assasin-for-hire. What is he doing with these people?
IV: On those occasions in these collections when Deadshot appears to be behaving as the Lawton from "Suicide Squad" would, it's because his basic drives and compulsions have been delieberately and carefully kept intact by Ms Simone. And so though he may be seen to be developing a long-fallow capacity for tolerating, and even appreciating, a measure of intimacy, he still possesses a lack of interest in his own welfare, and places himself without apparent concern into the likes of, for example, Korean death camps. Yet despite that pitiful ostrasicism from his own life, he stills acts to kill Pistolera, noticeably without contract or pressing need, because of his concern for Scandal Savage's welfare, and his act of stealing Neron's get-out-of-hell card after so unconvincingly declaring to himself that "Caring is for idiots" was, as Tarantula recognised, motivated largely if not solely by his concern for his team-mates.
Deadshot has become, without seeming to, something of a team-player.
In fact, Lawton's development while a member of the Six has involved a gradual and yet on-reflection shocking assumption of responsibility for the well-being of his colleagues. (At times he almost seems to fighting adopting the role of Daddy Deadshot, protecting his teamates from themselves and the world.) When Scandal and Savage come to blows, for example, it's rather strangely Deadshot who separates them, declaring to her that "...Sis. He didn't mean it.", while demanding of him that "And what the hell is wrong with you, Blake? Not cool, sport." Surely such peacemaking in such circumstances would have been impossible to believe of the Deasdshot on Amanda Waller's watch? And, similarly, what is Deadshot doing organising a prostitute for the broken-hearted Scandal Savage? Emptionally illiterate the act might have been, but it was still motivated by concern and kindness for "Sis".
This is Deadshot?
V: And finally, when faced with the choice of shooting dead his lover Jeanette and breaking his contract with his Slaver employers in "Depths", Deadshot chooses to violate the one meaningful and constant principle in his deeply-wounded "adult" existence, namely the sanctity of his killer's oath. Though the act of abandoning his word itself was accompanied by nothing more than a deadpan "Oh, screw it!", the immensity of the act is hard to conceive and consequently exceptionally difficult to describe. To not kill when hired to do so must have been to Lawton on some unconscious level the mental equivalent of Batman taking a .357 Magnum to the heads of the inmates of Arkham. (*4) There has been no more fundamental and yet well-prepared-for act of transformation in any major comic-book character of substance for as long as I can remember. (*5)
And so, when asking how Gail Simone has kept her characters so interesting, and successful in a market so unwelcoming to second-string costumed players, the answer might be that she has changed them in unexpected, significant, and yet quite-consistent ways.
*4 - Or at least it can be read so in the light of his past. Just because he's not been shown immediately fracturing doesn't mean that there'll be no consequences of his breaking that oath. Whatever, the key point is that some aspect of "family" got between Lawton and his oath.
*5 - I can of course think of lots of surprising developments which marked a crossing of the Rubicon for a host of comic-book characters, but none as convincing or well-prepared for as this.
7. "But You Go Ahead And Keep Running Your Mouth If It Makes You Happy"
I. One of the most considerate advantages to how Ms Simone has developed Deadshot is that the changes he's been put through can be explained far more in situational than dispositional terms. Or, to put it another way, Deadshot has been changing in response to the specific individuals within the Secret Six rather than altering his opinions concerning the people of the wider world "outside". His empathy isn't stirring in such a way as he feels a kinship with the folks he drives past in the street, but he's certainly drawn fondly to his comrades. And if that's so, then one way to convincingly "re-set" his character back to where it stood before Ms Simone placed him within the Six is to either remove the team from his life, or perhaps have them betray him. For the fact that Lawton hasn't warmed to his responsibilities to the common man and woman is a constant throughout these tales. He's happy in himself to leave "two defenceless potential witnesses with a gang of humiliated scumbags" behind in an off-license, to take but one example, although he cares enough for Catman's conscience to warn him that somebodies going to get hurt if he doesn't act. And he happily votes to leave Bane behind to his death, explaining that he's only known him for "An hour and a half". For where Deadshot's affections are concerned, it's not a common humanity he's aligned to, or even membership of the Six. Instead, he's only fond of his team-mates who fought together with him against the Secret Society Of Super-Villains, for reasons which we may discuss in the future.
Remove those survivors from the first Secret Six that Deadshot belonged to, or have them abandon their loyalty to him, and it'd be easy to convincingly return him to his role as a cold and nearly-entirely twisted super-villain. Which means, obviously I know, that Ms Simone has provided her fellow creators at DC with a simple means for re-setting Deadshot back to what he was before she undertook to change him.
And if there was a text-book on these matters, surely that'd be worth a paragraph or four in it?
II. And yet it's noticeable that Ms Simone is continuing to push the envelope where Deadshot's affections are concerned in "Depths", the latest TPB to appear. For there Deadshot displays affection and regret for Jeanette, a woman, or rather a banshee, he's known for just a while. Admittedly, most typical people would feel affection for a lover, and feel regret for shooting her too, but Floyd Lawton isn't typical in any way at all, and though the degree of emotional intimacy he's beginning to display may be stunted in the context of most folk's life, for him his feelings are threatening in their force and potentially life-changing.
8. "Just Bein' The Scorpion, Sis"
If Deadshot's transformation into an only-mostly emotionally crippled human being can be easily reversed by turning the Six against him, or he against them, then there's also a second strategy which could be used if and when necessary to restore Floyd Lawton's previous status quo. For Ms Simone is always careful to avoid the tradition of Chris Claremont-like declarations of emotional self-knowledge in her stories, leaving her character's motivations open to the reader's interpretation. (*6) (Indeed, the reader is rarely even lent a glimpse of her character's thoughts, and the rare and relatively-extended narration by Deadshot in "Twilight Of Sorrow" exists only because of the need to set the context for his coming-apparent betrayal of his team-mates.)
Allied to that is her apparent habit of leaving the possibility of a second or even third explanation for her character's behaviour hanging in her stories. Does Deadshot beat up his comrades and steal Neron's card to save them or because he's gripped by a desire to die a spectacular death? Does he abandon his contract with Smyth because he's reluctant to kill his colleagues or because he's been abandoned even by Ragdoll, leaving him alone to pragmatically choose the better part of valour? Does he help purchase Liana's time because he's concerned for Scandal's wellbeing or because he needs her to set him missions and organise the distribution of his earnings?Abandoning Deadshot's development under Ms Simone would therefore be a simple matter of having the character confirm the very worst interpretations of his actions. A writer who wants his readers to believe that the polar ice cap inside Lawton had never begun to melt could call on the character to lend weight to the most regressive interpretations available for his actions across Ms Simone's reign. While that might not entirely convince the reader who'd carefully followed Ms Simone's "Secret Six" scripts from the beginning, it would have the virtue of a measure of an internal consistency with previous tales, and as an explanation of why a character might not have been all as they appeared, it would certainly beat team-travel, the transfer of brains between clones or assassin-affecting red Kryptonite.
*6 - I in no way mean to imply that Ms Simone lacks respect for Mr Claremont and his work. I merely state that her methods are rather different.
9. "I Answer That Question With A Question, Dollface"
I. So, in a sense, if reverse-engineering these stories has been of any use to us at all, the solution to the "change vs no-change" debate which is provided by Ms Simone's work is to do the first while providing for the possibility that the second might be necessary at some time in the future. For Deadshot has undergone considerable, and indeed touching, development during Ms Simone's stewardship, and yet his evolution could be convincingly reversed by;
- his estrangement from the Six, or;
- a declaration that the basest explanations for his actions are the correct ones, meaning that he never really changed at all
10. "If There's One Thing I Hate, It's A Guy Who Ain't Got Any Commitment"
What's the worth of all this pseudo-reverse-engineering? Do I really think that Ms Simone has constructed her scripts to allow the possibility that the changes that she's undertaken might be more easily reversed when she's gone?
Well, to be honest and hang myself, I will say that I do suspect that Ms Simone has provided "reversible situational changes" in her work as a deliberate policy. It would make sense, since it'd be a method that would allow her the freedom to play with the companies' toys while ensuring that they get returned intact at the end of her tenure on the book.
But I don't know. And I'm not claiming to. I'm just suggesting that it's all well-worth thinking about, and so I tried to do so.
nb: added 3/8/10 - Josh Reynolds has written extremely well about Deadshot's passivity as a character on his "It's Clobberin' Time" time, and I'd highly recommend getting there via the "USA Comic Book Blog Of Honour" list to the right of this piece. I say this not because he's said kind things about the above blog entry, but because it's really is a fascinating article he's written. In truth, I had to wrestle to not let the whole business of Deadshot's "passivity" take over the above, but Josh has written about it in a far better fashion than I could, so everything's worked out for the best. And if you do pop over, as Stan used to say, tell him who sent you! (Or, don't. It's your choice.)
My traditional and sincere thanks are offered to all who've made it down to the foot of the page here. I'm sure you've noticed great black holes in this piece, so please do help me put my thinking right by lobbing in an idea or two into the comments box. And I hope you're having a splendid day as well, another traditional sentiment on this blog, but another one sincerely meant too.
.
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét