Daredevil Message Board

[NeoSpaz]

Hi all,
this is my first post in this board, after a couple of years lurking around...

I recently sat down and re-read Bendis’ complete Daredevil run, and got to thinking on how this run will be seen in a future perspective and why it was so controversial.
First, I have to say that I think that this run is a modern comic book classic, and perhaps the finest run on a Marvel title in recent decades – with this in mind, let me add that Brubaker’s run is a worthy successor\sequel and keeps the high caliber of quality on the DD monthly title.

Mostly, I think that Bendis (and Maleev) told two complete stories / arcs / “seasons”:
1. DD # 26-50 – Matt is caught in a whirlpool of lies and media attention as a result of his outing and slowly begins to reacts. In the end, he basically snaps and becomes the Kingpin, after defeating Fisk and announcing himself to the world (Hell’s Kitchen). In winning, Matt actually loses his “soul”, so to speak…
2. DD# 56-81 – One year later, the repercussions of Matt’s actions come back to haunt him and his friends, as in the end, he gives himself up, but helps spare his friends a similar fate. Also, Fisk is again defeated and actually goes to prison…

I think that many of the grievances readers and fans have with Bendis’ run, is the fact that it doesn’t have a closed “happy ending”. Sure, it is ironic in part, has a noir-quality, as well as being inevitable and poignant, but it is not the Happily Ever After ending we’ve been indoctrinated to demand. That in itself is cause for disdain for some readers, but I think that this “cliffhanger” ending is perfect for the 4+ years of stories Bendis told.
Like a good TV “season finale”, it (DD #81) bookends a central arc, while giving readers (“viewers”) cause to “tune in next season” – in this case, check out Brubaker’s first issue.

With that in mind, I think DD fans couldn’t have hoped for a better continuation than Brubaker’s. I read online that some fans claim that Brubaker’s ending nullifies Bendis’ run, and accuse Brubaker of resetting the DD saga. My response is – Brubaker could not have done anything else! Before sending matt off to new adventures, Brubaker needed to reset his status, as Bendis explored all the ramifications of Matt’s outing to its natural conclusion.


Comments?

[Acerbus]

Keen observations, there. I am a huge fan of the Bendis run as well, and I think The Murdock Papers by Bendis and Maleev was easily one of the greatest story arcs in all of Daredevil's history.

I love Brubaker's stuff, but I'm still not sold on his run being better than Bendis. For one, I don't think that Michael Lark is quite the artist that Maleev is, and the last three issues or so of Brubaker's DD seem to have been a tad slipshod and boring. It seems like when Brubaker could be throwing in some more plot, he instead shows Daredevil swashbuckling on rooftops or questioning criminals as a substitute. The Ryker's story arc seemed like it was a fan favorite only because readers were wondering what psychopathic killer was going to enter the prison next.

In terms of plot, with the exception of Foggy's stabbing (which was also eventually reversed), it was like eating cotton candy: It was really sweet at first, until I took a minute and realized that it was a whole lot of nothing. To be fair, I could probably say the same for Bendis' 'Decalogue' storyline. And again, I like Brubaker's stuff alot, it's just that I don't think his run has quite attained the status that Bendis' has, at least in my mind.

[Pete]

IMO you make some very good points NeoSpaz. To begin with, I agree with your general reading of the Bendis/ Maleev run. It can only be read as a kind of continuim ( for you, two large parts, for me, one long 4+ years woth of 'arc'.)

The trouble with collecting trades as opposed to the monthly book is the tendancy to see them as some kind of self-contained entity. Read 'Born Again' and it'll blow your mind. But it leaves out the groundwork laid out in preceeding issues by the likes of O'Neill and Miller himself. Read the Nocenti trade and you start with a partilcular issue (254?) and end where (263?). That hardly scapes the barrell of her sprawling narritive and the changes in Matts life. In fact, it probably leaves you gangling mid air.

Ditto Bendis/Maleev. Granted, its not so much of a problem now that Marvel reproduce (almost) every arc as a trade, but the perception of self-contained entities remains. Read 'Underboss' Great. But you have to read 'Out' to get the resolution to a major protagonists fate.

No, in reality, Bendis made one long, long story.

I also agree about the 'happy endings' thing. Who needs 'em. I should think that, compared to say 'Rom, Spaceknight', the readership of Daredevil have a reputation for being appreciative of a slightly more mature, sophisticated, sombre, realistic portrayal of superheroics. Matt being a superhero, and the consequences of that on him and those around him, sometimes leads to an 'unhappier ending'. We can handle that realism more than other readerships, simply because in the pages of this comic book these themes have been portrayed in a more realistic way by an ever increasing talented bunch of creators over many, many years

In that sense, Bru and any other guy or gal who steps up has a lot to live up to. At present, he's doing fine, but its still early days. Both Bendis and Maleev, however, more than did the book justice.

[Forrest]

Welcome, NeoSpaz.

Regarding Bendis's run, I completely agree with you that there are essentially two seasons to his run, divided after issue #50. Otherwise, I completely disagree with you.

This topic comes up once in a while. In other threads, I've expressed all my reasons for thinking that Bendis's second season was fairly mediocre and a disgrace to the character and lore. So, the brief points from me are:

1) Bendis NEVER really got the character of Matt Murdock/DD (even in his stellar earlier arcs). In fact, the best Matt/DD characterization I can recall from Bendis came in DD: Ninja.
(Issue #75 was a close second.)

2) The continuity errors were so terrible in Murdock Papers that I felt like he was trying to see how bad he could mess up and still get praise. (See previous threads about this arc.)

3) The copeout at the end of issue #58 (breakdown) left a bad taste in the rest of his tenure. Why play off one of DD's strongest proactive actions as a breakdown? Hardcore was a Bendis arc in which Matt/DD didn't come across as a relatively whiny wimp. So, Bendis took back Hardcore and denied readers the powerful hero we knew under better writers like Lee, Chichester, Kesel, Nocenti, etc. We then watched our hero act less like a bold hero (which Matt/DD is) and more like a helpless ship doomed out at sea [not because of the ending (Matt imprisoned) but how we got there]. (This point obviously loops back to my first point.)

4) Matt/DD generally felt like a guest star in his own book.

5) His work just got boring. Every issue started to fell more and more like an episode of the Sopranos, in which nothing happens. I felt like entire issues were created just for one cleaver moment. [E.g. the almost half year build up to the reveal at the end of issue #74 (Woo hoo, a character appearing in his own book! ), Widow trying to get with Matt, etc.] I remember George Lucas saying that ~"a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." Bendis's later years on DD were special effects without a real story (or continuity). Widow was selling sex. Golden Age was a let down. Decalogue bored me to death. Murdock Papers had so many errors it feels like a "What If?" story.

...ah, I got carried away. In any case, I loved Bendis's first season on DD. Five stars for that one. The second season? I can't stand 80% of it. Again, it's not the ending but the above points. I definitely think that any story can be told as long as it is written well. E.g. I have no problem with a writer putting Matt through all kinds of hell, provided the writing is quality. I didn't feel that Bendis's later DD was near "quality." That's my 2 cents.

Again, welcome to the board!
_________________
"Flash is back. Worlds will die again!"

[NeoSpaz]

thanks for the warm welcome

Regarding your points, Forrest - can't say I agree with the essence of what you said, but you do raise some interesting points. I'll be sure to check out previous threads on the board.

BTW, was Bendis "confronted" with some of your points (here or on his board) ?
I think getting his reaction and insights on some of the things you wrote would be nice (and quite illuminating)...


cheers

[Forrest]

[NeoSpaz]

van anyone point me towards some good articles \ essays or reviews of Bendis' run as a whole (I don't mean individual issue reviews)?

Thanks in advance!

[NeoSpaz]

Hi All,

One more thing I want to add to the discussion:

While Bendis is often criticized for writing a Matt Murdock story rather than a Daredevil story, it should be taken into consideration and context of the general "feel" of Marvel Comics circa 2001-2004.

From reading many Mravel books for years, I think that it can't be denied or overlooked that Marvel tried to go the "maskless" way during those years - showcasing the characters' "cilvilian identities" rather than their costumed aliases. Examples for this treatment are Grant Morrison's New X-Men, Bruce Jones' Hulk and of course Brian Michael Bendis' Daredevil.

I don't mean to tackle the issues of said approaches success or viability (though I think among the results were some of the best Marvel stories in years - even the first issues of Jones' Hulk were good reads..). I just meant to stress the enviroment that Bendis "operated in"...

I think that combining one's personal opinion of Bendis' DD with the knowledge of the editorial\general direction of Marvel brings a new dimension to reviewing the work in question. For the Bendis detractor\critic, it can provide a backdrop (and reason/s) for what may considered questionable story choices. For the Bendis fan (like myself), it can provide a new level of understanding and enjoying the work...

comments?

[pbblair]

It's interesting to compare the Bendis arc to its contemporaries. It was definitely a "maskless" phase in comics, which Bendis epitomized. I saw it as apologetic in tone, which I found mildly offensive. It was almost as if everyone suddenly felt like they had to prove they weren't just writing "superhero comics." At the end of the day, though, readers like superheros for a reason. If I wanted a story about regular life, well, I'd just spend more time at work.

[MercifulAvatar]

[Forrest]

[NeoSpaz]

I respectfully disagree - I didn't feel that Bendis was ashamed or apologetic in the least bit.
What I do feel Bendis was shooting for was spotlighting the noir \ pulp-themed flawed human being and characteristics at the core of the superhero - Matt Murdock, in this case.
I think Bendis' DD run nicely complements his Alias run and vice versa - showing the Hardcore (pun intended) Marvel Universe.

It's Bendis' work in the mainsream MU where I think he started off a bit weaker, but I digress...