Posted by Kevin on November 28, 1999 at 07:59:14:
In Reply to: Kevin Smith's Explanation of Karen's Death posted by mark on November 11, 1999 at 11:41:31:
: Well, I read Kevin Smith's article in which he discusses his stint on DD and explanation for killing off Karen Page. Can't say it went into much depth. His rationale seems to be, "well, she wasn't much of an important character at any point in the history of the comic, and I felt it fit with my story, so, bang, she's gone. What's the big deal?"
That's a pretty distilled and not exactly accurate version of what was said. Please - don't attribute quotes to me that I never said.
In all fairness, you're not even the harshest critic I have here. But you're one of the only ones who's maintaining I've said something I didn't. I don't mind a bunch of armchair writers attacking my stuff because it's not their cup of tea, but I draw the line at folks who insist upon telling people what I must've said or thought.
I recall the article you're paraphrasing, and that's not at all what was said. Also, bear in mind that you're reading an article that's not solely about DD. That means that there were probably things that I said that didn't see print in that piece. It was during a 'Dogma' interview, so we didn't do an hour on Daredevil.
: While I am not necessarily outraged at killing off Karen, I do think it was a drastic step, given that she has been part of DD's life from day 1. And, given the lame-ass resolution of Smith's story arc, which, while it was very strong in its development, definitely fell flat, in my opinion, in its climax and conclusion (although most of issue 8 was a nice wrap-up), to say that killing her was somehow integral to whatever he was trying to get across in his 8 issues is a stretch and then some.
I disagree, but that's neither here nor there.
: I don't see how, logically, he really needed to, or how the story benefited from doing it, I guess because I think the whole story, ultimately, did not accomplish whatever dramatic effect was intended, enhanced by Karen's death or not.
Well there's the rub, then. If you didn't appreciate the storyline, then you couldn't appreciate the reason she died.
: Regardless of what he says, my opinion is he still just did it out of pure literary license, and because he felt, since this was some special story arc written by the great Kevin Smith...
Again with you attributing something to me that I never said/felt/thought. Stop it.
I've never felt anything close to that. I do not feel I'm the great Kevin Smith. I'm just a guy who got to write Daredevil for awhile - no different or better than any other past writer of Daredevil.
: it HAD to have some big splash to it. It was a gimmick, just like the other ones they pulled out of the bag of tricks to market the new DD: for example, 3 variant covers in 8 issues, renumbering the series so you have a new number 1,
As to the first, Marvel offers alternate covers on all the current issue 2's (at least, they did then); and #5 had two covers because Joe thought Karen's death deserved a special cover all its own (a cover that was re-used for the trade paperback, by the by). As for the second: renumbering was not my idea, nor Joe's. Marvel demanded it. For proof of how little we wanted to do the renumbering, see Joe's inclusion of the old numbering (the so-called 'Vol. 1') on every cover, near his signature.
: Spider-Man/Black Widow crossovers, the list is incredible considering it was just 8 issues.
Since when does using characters from the Marvel Universe in a Marvel comic constitute being a gimmick? A gimmick would've dictated that not only did Spiderman pop up in our book, but that we had the story continue in one of the Spidey titles as well. Gimmicks are used to sell, and necessitating a read of another comic other than Daredevil would've accomplished that sales objective nicely. However, that's not what we did.
Good Lord, you people are fussy conspiracy theorists looking for malice and greed where there was none. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
: Not to bitch and moan endlessly, but I just can't believe he doesn't understand why long-time DD fans are upset at the manner in which, and the reasons for which, he sacrificed possibly the most important person in the life of our favorite comic character (mine anyway).
Do I understand people were upset with Karen's death? Absolutely. The fact that it wasn't shrugged off spoke volumes about fans' passion for her and the DD mythos. But I believed then (as I do now) that it was a good thing for the title and the character. Apparently, you (and others) don't. That means, when you guys write DD, you can bring her back.
There's no pleasing everyone. For as many bitchy complaints I've read, though, I've read far more folks appreciating the book. DD was on the verge of cancellation, and Marvel Knights made it a top ten book. That means more people are reading DD than when he belonged solely to you sanctimonious few who'd like to keep the character all to yourselves, and keep it stagnant and - dare I say - not very daring. At least our revamp was barely a revamp. We didn't simply throw a new costume on the same old character, or alter his powers or - even worse - put a new guy in the costume. We told a story; a good, strong story using the characters history honorably and respectfully, without pissing all over it with some 'everything you thought you knew was true about DD is wrong' bullshit Byrne approach. I'm content that I did DD justice.
And for all those who'd maintain I have no understanding of DD's past (and the zero who posted above - the one who's upset because DD is way stronger and a better fighter than we presented; that made me chuckle, as I felt like I was being talked-down-to by a fifth grader), I suggest you give the story another read. It's steeped in DD history. Just because Karen died during our eight issues doesn't mean I don't know nearly enough about/couldn't care less for Daredevil history.
Hey man - Frank Miller liked the story. That's enough of a nod for me any day.