Daredevil Message Board

[jumonji]

Fun to see this thread come back to life (even though listing least favorite writers is a tad negative, I admit). With Christmas Eve being the big deal in my country - people usually spend Christmas Day in a food-induced coma from the day before - I spent about an hour looking through the old archived writer showdowns and reading through what people had said. Very interesting reading, I must say. This book has certainly had some controversial writers that readers have felt very differently about. Chichester anyone? Though I prefer to divide him into two different writers, namely good Chichester and bad Chichester.

One interesting thing was that people seemed to be pretty unanimous in their liking of Ann Nocenti who happens to be one of my least favorite writers. I know lots of people started reading the book during her run and I suspect that might be one reason so many people like her (though I have some understanding for the other reasons as well, just not my cup of tea). The way I've read DD, basically from beginning to end within a year, I just can't help but feel that her run stands out - in a bad way. And I still think she's a good writer generally. She introduced lots of great characters and is certainly a very competent scripter, I just didn't care for her Matt Murdock at all. There's something about her characterization of him that sticks out like a sore thumb compared to how he's been portrayed before and since. Her DD is okay, though not very prominent, but I don't get her Matt at all. I'm not a big fan of Romita's art either which makes him look like that little alien on the cover of Whitley Strieber's book Communion (man, that was a creepy book).

I know I'm in the minority here, with most people holding her in very high regard, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone else feels the same way I do.
_________________
The Other Murdock Papers

[Francesco]

Nocenti's way of writing DD is certainly peculiar among the others exactly because of this. During her run, she has often shifted the focus from Matt Murdock/Daredevil to the comprimaries who are around him.
That, in my opinion isn't enough to qualify her as a bad DD writer, but I can understand why some may not like her.

[harryhausen]

I hear you, jumonji. Nocenti is a weird chapter in the history. I, too, read almost all the DD in a very short time, and Nocenti's run is ... weird. But I like it a lot.

First, I award her extra points for her social and political stances (with which I mostly agree and applaud her parading around in a comic).

Second, I feel that she presided over some stuff handed in from "Marvel" that was not her fault - like the ridiculous 'Inferno' business which mars a memorable part of her run. [Though she did some far-out, metaphorical stuff with it that I find cooler and cooler upon rereading.]

Last, I give her points for trying some offbeat stuff in the book. Even if it fails from time to time, she's one of the more idiosyncrtatic voices, least under the thumb of Miller. I'm the sort who finds that interesting in and of itself.

So, you see, I don't think she's one of the best, but she's one of my top two or three favorites. But, then, I'm just exactly her demographic ...

[jumonji]

The thing with Nocenti, for me, is not that she's not a good writer. She is. Without a doubt. I don't even have problems with her politics. I'm Swedish for crying out loud - a right-leaning one (which incidentally makes me a middle-of-the-road democrat by American standards), but still. Not a problem at all for me. The metaphysical stuff? I'm even borderline okay with that too. Some of the characters she created are really good, and there are individual stories of hers that I really like. I kind of think the whole amnesia arc is okay and the business with Rotgut and Bullet's kid is all fine by me. But her characterization of the main character of this book feels off, and there are many instances when both Matt and other characters are written in ways that feel weird to me. I think this may just be a matter of taste, because I agree that, technically, she is a very good writer. I just don't happen to like the particular flavor she brought to the book.
_________________
The Other Murdock Papers

[james castle]

I love Nocenti more than life itself. The great thing about her was that she wrote the book in a very off beat way. The great thing about Daredevil is that when it's written right it isn't just another Spider-Man type book.

In any case, Christine: is there something about her characterzation of Matt you didn't like? I thought she portrayed him as reserved and conflicted which I thought was fantastic and realistic. Do you have any specific complainants beyond "weird"?
_________________
JC

So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing?

[jumonji]

[Acerbus]

For me, it's J.M. DeMatteis. I didn't enjoy a single panel of his run. It was forced, gimmicky, and he was basically put on the book to do something rather than to tell a good story. Which is a lucky thing, because his writing was a special kind of terrible. I'd almost say his run was... Schwarzennegger in Commando look-back-on-it-and-laugh terrible, but without all the killer one-liners (ala Jeph Loeb).

Coming in a close second is Ann Nocenti - she's a paradox for me, because I love certain things she did, like the man or machine philosophy stuff she threw in on the Ultron / Inhumans arc. But she has even admitted since her run on the book that she was hiding behind her heavy-handed political philosophy on her first several arcs... and it shows. Once she settled in, I'd put her stuff against the greats, but prior to that... I'm sorry, I'd rather watch Michael Moore pick macaroni and cheese out of his neck beard than read another one of her topical diatribes about Alaskan oil drilling or the like.

[blacktyphoid]

[Pete]

[blacktyphoid]

[jumonji]

To Pete and blacktyphoid:

Great exchange of ideas! It's so much fun to read your respective opinions and both of you express them in such a clear and respectful way that I find myself feeling hopeful for the future of mankind. Jokes aside, I know that there are some threads on this board that are, *ahem*, lacking in this regard, but I enjoyed this a lot. Thank you for sharing your views with the rest of us!
_________________
The Other Murdock Papers

[jumonji]

Since I promised to get back to you – or, specifically, JC – regarding my lack of appreciation for Ann Nocenti’s writing generally, and her characterization of Matt in particular, here’s a two-part answer. The second part will have to go in its own thread since it would take this thread too far off-topic, but I’ll post links in between. And yes, both parts are entire essays, for which I apoligize, but I think it’s better to be as specific as possible, thus leaving less room for misunderstanding. Hopefully, we can have a nice civilized debate about it. And, for the record, I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who are fans of her work. I understand where you are coming from and that the aspects of her writing that are problematic for me might not be for you. *waves white flag preemptively*

Anyway, to start off on a positive note, here’s what I think she did well: She greated great villains and secondary characters and her writing was very experimental and creative. The latter was, in my opinion, a double-edged sword, but at least she had some guts. I also think that her writing was good from a strictly technical standpoint. There are occasional issues of hers that I enjoy, and there are some aspects of her work that has stood the test of time, but for the most part I simply can’t stand her. Here’s why:

The Michael Moore Syndrome
Okay, so that’s obviously not a real a syndrome, but let me illustrate this by taking an example. Three years ago, I was living in Seattle and went to see Fahrenheit 9-11 with about five of my co-workers. While I enjoyed some aspects of the film (and I really liked Bowling for Columbine), I was a little surprised by the reactions of my co-workers after the movie was over. They were all ecstatic and went on and on about it as if it were gospel. I didn’t feel that way. I certainly felt that the movie had some good points, and there were many things presented that I agreed with. But, and this is an important “but,” the presentation lacked subtlety and came across as hyperbolic propaganda. I appreciate complexity and don’t like being served an oversimplified version of the truth. Moore was trying to make a point, many points actually, and the fact that it was so ridiculously obvious which point he was trying to make took the edge off what could have been a more compelling movie. This is how I feel about Nocenti too. I know she’s trying to make a point, but whatever social and political commentary she wanted to present was so obvious as to come across as annoying and condescending. If you want to influence people, I think subtle is the way to go. Go ahead and wow me with your insight, but spare me the lecture.

The Swedish Actor Syndrome
Again, unlike the Stockholm Syndrome, not actually a real syndrome. Here’s what I mean: Whenever I (as a Swedish person) go to see a Swedish movie, I’m almost never able to let go of the feeling that I’m watching a movie. The actors feel like actors to me, and I’m starting to understand why the big movies of classic Swedish cinema (like Bergman) have been smash hits abroad. The advantage of coming to these movies as part of an international audience is that you don’t actually understand the lines as they are being spoken. I do, and my main complaint has always been that no one actually talks like that. Much of what is being said feels staged, and the actors speak their lines in an over-enunciated and unnatural way. It is af they are stage actors instead of movie actors. This is the same problem I have with Nocenti. She lets the characters speak, not as real people actually speak, but in order to deliver a message. Should writers abstain from delivering messages on serious issues and the human condition? Certainly not, but it doesn’t have to feel staged. I understand that others may disagree with me on this, but for me this feeling is hard to escape. Subtlety is the key, once again, and Nocenti’s dialogues don’t feel subtle to me. More importantly, they don’t feel genuine, and sometimes even out of character. I feel like she uses the characters as props. They don’t speak to her in their own voices, she instead gives them her voice. Here’s a quote from a fan of hers:

[james castle]

Sigh.
_________________
JC

So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing?