Laws of Comics: All Comics Weapons are Good; Hammers are the Best

Chekhov's dramaturgical imperative states “if you show a gun in the first act, you’d better use it by the third.” This is a great narrative practice, and it is as true in comic books as it is in other fiction. Of course, the idea works just as well for any weapon a character might use. It is a nice shortcut to be able to power-up or de-power your protagonist through possession of a weapon. That’s why the old Super Friends cartoon had Batman & Robin become powerless when they lost their utility belts!

Green Arrow and Hawkeye have neat trick arrows, Black Knight uses the Ebony Blade, and Cyclops has his visor. I'd argue that without their weapons, all those characters are pretty much taken off the super-heroic scale. Then there are all the characters who gain some, but not all of their powers through a focus. Black Panther’s vibranium claws, Elektra’s sai, and Daredevil’s billy club all enhance their other, main powers. How often over the years has Spider-Man’s web supply been a plot point? Taking away a character’s weapon or focus is easy, effective drama.

So, if we can accept that giving a character a focus for their power is a useful tool, what makes the hammer superior to all other tools? Captain America’s shield is a pretty great weapon, albeit a defensive one. Without Iron Man’s armor, what is he? A rich, smart guy? These guys get a ton of value out of their weapons, but I’d argue that even these central tools are not as cool as a hammer.

  

It all boils down to one central promise inherent in the narrative. If the hero is carrying a hammer, at some point in the conflict, he will smash his opponent with it. Thor is clearly the standard-bearer when it comes to hammer-wielders, but there are others. During Mark Schultz’s underrated run on Man of Steel, Steel routinely knocked baddies around with his hammer. What is better than Superman or Iron Man? Superman or Iron Man with a HAMMER. 

Look at Marvel’s recent Fear Itself crossover. In order to power up The Worthy, the Serpent’s chosen antagonists, each one received a gigantic, savage looking hammer. Strong characters like Hulk, Thing, or Attuma? They look even MORE intimidating when dragging around a hammer. A hammer is a great equalizer, too. The Grey Gargoyle is suddenly a very threatening presence when he’s got a hammer.

In addition, comics and movies constantly play down blunt trauma wounds. Hawkman’s mace and Thor’s hammer deliver devastating blows, but usually not a lot of blood. It is a lot harder for Black Knight to use the Ebony Blade, because there is only one way to really show the use of that weapon. You can only use the flat of the blade so long. With Mjolnir, Thor can smash away at his foe and never have to show any blood. Scorpion’s tail and Thunderball’s wrecking ball are other good examples of comics’ blunt damage weapons.

Mjolnir is clearly the best hammer in comics, since it not only smashes, but Thor actually flies by holding on to a leather strap when he throws it! It also has the best security system of any weapon in comics, only the worthy can lift the hammer! Factor in the ice-chip missiles from the first movie, and Thor gets a ranged attack out of it too! I’d argue that Ronan’s universal weapon is the 2nd best hammer in comics, since it is a hammer that can DO ANYTHING. (Technically, it is capable of various effects such as energy blasts, force fields, flight, and changing the structure of matter.) Now that is a hammer!

(Heck, I’d argue that Justin Hammer is one of Iron Man’s best villains, and he’s just got “hammer” in his name!!!)

So, in conclusion, the next time you see a comic with a hammer on the cover, pick it up. Because that cover promises some sweet, face-pulverizing action is inside. That’s what we all came for, right?

Heroes with hammers prove that comics are GOOD!

The Laws of Comics: I. Every Comic Book Needs a Physical Confrontation

I don't expect them to all be like this... 

The Laws of Comics 

With my almost 30 years of comics-reading experience, I have discovered that there are certain truths in comic books storytelling, and more importantly, in the enjoyment of comic books as entertainment. No doubt there are a few exceptions to these rules, but in nine times out of ten, these laws have proven to be true. Some of these are cause and effect relationships, some are merely rules that comics should follow. When these rules are followed and understood, all comics will be GOOD.

But either way, these laws provide insight into what all rational beings call “good comics.”

Law 1: Every Comic Book Needs a Physical Confrontation

This is particularly a problem in modern comics. Too often dialogue-heavy writers will go entire issues and not include any sort of real fighting. Comics are a visual medium, so having the entire conflict in an issue be dramatic or cerebral is a mistake. I think this has come about from writers “writing for the trade” figuring they could pad out a monthly (or bi-weekly) storyline with a bunch of pages with characters feeling rather than doing.

Who wants friendly dinosaurs?

Bendis, of course, has a habit of doing this, and I’m afraid the fact that his Avengers sold so well has led to Jonathan Hickman doing the same thing. The Ex Nihilo conflict in the current issues started off in with an intriguing confrontation, but now we are a dozen issues in without a follow up battle. I was in shock when a recent issue featured Thor and Hyperion sitting on a golden hillside discussing their feelings.

Grant Morrison started an odd habit during Final Crisis that he seemed to struggle with for a bit. In Final Crisis especially, he would set up a battle, then jump to the end of it. It makes no sense to rob the reader of the actual fight. This seemed to be a conscious choice, not a matter of writing for the trade. (Let’s not even get into Superman singing to save the universe. Songs don’t work so well in comics either.)

Comic book panels provide a freeze-frame view into what should be kinetic, bombastic action. I’m not debating the use of “BAM” or “KrakaDOOM,” I’m saying that comics should take advantage of the ability to blow a movie budget out of the water. Comic book pencillers are good at drawing emotions on characters faces, and comic book writers are the ones who make us care about the story with their words, so I’m not downplaying the writing. But each comic should show off the strength of the visual medium.

Characterization is tremendously important, of course, but for $3.99, a comic should be able to deliver both dialogue and a chance to see the character actually doing something. I also understand that by delaying the gratification of a battle, when the fight finally arrives, it really riles you up as a reader. But there has to be a way to balance that with getting some value for your money. 

Robert Kirkman is a master at letting his characters banter and build up to big confrontations, but still delivering a climactic, cinematic moment that at least gives the illusion of accomplishment in every issue.

While we can all appreciate different types of comics, what brought most of us to the dance was seeing larger than life characters solve their problems by hitting each other. There absolutely should be more to a comic than mindless slapping (see most mid 90’s Image comics), but there is a place the escapism of comics. These characters do what we can’t; they solve their problems by punching them. A comic without that? Wake me up when it’s over. It is a lot easier to forgive a single issue lacking a fight in a trade paperback, after all, there is no doubt one in the next issue. But for $3.99, I want a fight every month.