Here’s something that’s a fairly recent addition to the Big
Two’s comics; the caption as brand identity.
The most obvious use of this is in the establishing caption – a caption that
tell you where and possibly when the scene is taking place. Marvel and DC both have distinctive styles for these, with one very important difference. Here's an example of the caption as used in
DC comics.
.tiff)
This style of lettering and background was first used in the 52
series back in 2006, and it’s been the default style for DC captions since the New
52 reboot of the line in 2011.
There’s nothing wrong with the 52-style caption; it’s clear
and it’s legible and it gives a line-wide identity to DC’s product. As soon as
you see that style of caption, you know what you’re reading and can have a
reasonable expectation of the content you’re being presented with.
Over on the other side, there’s more of a variety on offer.
Establishing captions in Marvel books differ from the DC variety in that they vary depending on what you’re reading, on
who the writer is, or the editor. For example...
An typical caption from an Avengers title (it's actually from Avengers #3). It tells where the story's taking place, it gives you an idea of what's happening.
And here’s a Spider-Man caption, from Superior Spider-Man #2.
Captions are few and far between in the Spider-Man books,
mainly because the primary Superior Spider-Man title has a first-person
narrative structure going on which negates the need for establishing captions.
If there’s a need to say where the scene is happening, the Spider-Man character
says it.
The flip of this is that where ECs are used, they tend to be an extension of the first-person narrative line
and thus of the character. It's shown well in the 'Lunch' panel, with the use of 'the Watson woman' summing up the Spider-Man character's disdain in three words, and in this later sequence (truncated for space reasons, and also to prevent giving away the gag):
I rather enjoy the Marvel caption styles, preferring the
variety (and the variety of dramatic tones) presented by them to the generic
feel of the DC caps.
However, somebody’s throwing a spanner in the works.
Here’s a caption from Fearless Defenders #1 by Cullen Bunn
and Will Sliney. It’s your basic EC:
Nothing wrong there. If anything, it's a short-cut; it saves on a character
having to spout a bundle of exposition later in the sequence. It's also miles
away from the over-written captions you’d see up until fairly recently –
captions like this, from Defenders (the original run) #10, by Steve Englehart and Sal Buscema...
...which pretty much ignores the whole 'show, don't tell' rule by, well, telling (and telling exactly what's in the panel, too. Which saved me capturing the whole thing).
So far, Fearless Defenders, so good. But then this happens:
We’re moving along here from the caption as establisher of
place and time to the caption as establisher of person. Again, it’s not in itself a bad thing.
It introduces a character quickly and efficiently. This Annabelle Riggs is new
to me, and although I prefer show rather than tell, I can understand the
reasoning in giving over a great deal of detail about her in the form of a
caption.
Oh, but then this
happens:
This moves the role
of the caption into an entirely new realm. We’re going now into the caption as
establisher not of time or of place or of person, but of personality, of
character, certainly of sexual identity and possibly of motivation.
This caption –
although it’s entertainingly done and adds something of a comedic, bathetic air
to what could be a controversial sequence (though I dearly hope that in this 21st
century in which we’re living, nobody cares
who Annabelle Riggs likes) – is very much like the one from the 1970s Defenders comic in that it's very very much tell rather than show. It’s a pretty much redundant tell at that,
seeing as we’re witnessing a kiss between Riggs and Valkyrie, who doesn’t get a
‘likes girls’ caption of her own, or a ‘digs guys too’ or a ‘just caught up in
the heat of the moment’ or any other declaration of her sexuality. Nor does
Misty Knight, the book’s other lead. Nor does anybody else. It would have been
nice to see Riggs’ character grow and for the ‘likes girls’ aspect of her to be
a natural part of that growth, but instead there’s a "Lesbian Archaeologist" sign taped to her back the moment she hit the stage.
I’m sure that Bunn isn’t singling out a lesbian character
for special attention, and part of me feels that the caption is there
to make the character absolute, to prevent any future writer of the Riggs character from
retconning the “likes girls" part of her away. Look! There it is! It’s in a big
caption! SHE LIKES GIRLS! But another, opposing, part of me feels that kind of Broad Stroke
instant characterisation isn’t necessary or desirable.
Don’t let me put you off Fearless Defenders. It’s an
enjoyable book, it’s well-written, and it uses a bunch of Marvel’s female
characters to good effect. It’s pretty much stand-alone, without the security
of being part of the Avengers group or the X-Men group and as such it’ll have a
tougher time staying alive than a lot of other titles (the fact that a
Defenders title hasn’t made it past a year since the original run doesn’t bode
well, either). I actually looked forward to the second issue, which was as much fun as the first. Also, the book has the most entertaining covers.
So, in conclusion; good book, one not-entirely-necessary
caption. Fearless Defenders joins the list of titles that have made me
interested in Marvel comics for the first time in around twenty years. Result.
Now then, about the use of individual caption styles within the group style, as seen in Matt Fraction’s Fantastic
Four and FF…
(NOTE: In an interview published after this piece was written, Fearless Defenders writer Cullen Bunn has gone into 'The Kiss' and explained the whys and wherefores of the scene. Hunt it down, the guy knows what he's doing. Far more than I do.)
