1) It was late
2) had too many fill-in artists

Final Crisis is a jumble of talent. I was browsing through a copy of the HC at my LCS, and there has to be like 20 or so artists credited. 20!

You can say what you like about Secret Invasion being boring or not thought-provoking, but at least it had a stable creative team and was shipped on time (a two week delay doesn’t count).

And at least SI lead to a new and exciting status-quo.

In your words, this is a book that “isn’t for everyone” marketed TO everyone and their grandparents. The people who don’t like this sort of book feel forced into buying it, and they have every right to feel that way. It happened.”

In most situations, I would agree with this. Maybe a typical line-wide event should cater to everyone and be as straightforward as possible, or whatever the argument is.

However, Final Crisis was not that. DC has changed their publishing strategy lately, going from linewide events to franchise-focused events. It was a decision made shortly after Amazons Attack and the Sinestro Corps. War concluded to drastically different results, and DC, learning from that lesson, has altered their event models accordingly.

Final Crisis is not a line-wide event–instead, it is the event of the Crisis franchise, dealing with plot threads involving the multiverse, the Monitors, and the concept of dealing with every character in DC’s stable.

Meanwhile, the other franchises have had their own events–Superman’s Braniac and New Krypton, Batman’s RIP and Battle for the Cowl, Wonder Woman’s Rise of the Olympian, Green Lantern’s War of Light (leading into the Blackest Night), the Justice Society’s Kingdom Come sequel, and more. It has been made very clear that you could pick and choose which titles you wanted to follow, and that events would be largely self-contained to their respective franchises.

Will there be some crossover? Of course–that’s one of the perks, and prices, of a shared universe, so yes, there will be some spill-over from Final Crisis into other books, just as there will be spill-over from New Krypton and Battle for the Cowl and whatever else, but in no way are any of those the traditional line-wide event that everyone must read.

If Final Crisis followed the traditional event model, the way Secret Invasion did, then I could absolutely understand the complaint–it certainly was not a traditional event, and for those expecting it to be, yes, I can understand that disappointment. However, Final Crisis wasn’t designed as an event–it was designed as a story. Many eventful things happen in it, sure–you can’t argue that it isn’t an event, but I think you can make a very important distinction about what kind of event it is, and judge it accordingly.

“Event” books don’t mean very much to me. Neither does “marketing.”

Read a comic. Don’t read a comic. Whatever.

Judge the book on the book and the experience involving the work. Or don’t.

My only bias is for things I like.

For example: I hate asparagus. It’s terrible, awful. Smells bad. The Department of Agriculture says that I have to eat asparagus. EVERYONE (in all caps) should eat asparagus.

I tried asparagus. I didn’t like it. Should I be angry because of the way it’s “hyped?”

Pass the broccoli.

Sorry, Richard.

I fall on the pro-Final Crisis side, but (in this instance) this argument is crap. The vitriol against FC is deserved.

Final Crisis is an EVENT BOOK. DC did absolutely everything they could to strong arm readers into picking up this book.

In your words, this is a book that “isn’t for everyone” marketed TO everyone and their grandparents. The people who don’t like this sort of book feel forced into buying it, and they have every right to feel that way. It happened.

Yes, FC wasn’t for everyone. Unfortunately, it was heavily promoted by DC as a book that “EVERYONE MUST READ OR DIE!!!!!”

Seven Soldiers — which is alternately more and less sensical and has many direct ties to FC — never engendered this kind of vitriol because it never received the same level of promotion.

Likewise, few individuals are saber rattling in SS’s defense; this is not because they didn’t like it and don’t think it deserved more exposure. This is simply because no one is running around going “GAWD, SEVEN SOLDIERS SUX SEVEN SWEATY BALLS!?#”

The people who liked SS found it. The people who hated SS walked away.

It is harder to walk away from an event book in a universe you like even if you hate the story.

“And looking at the brilliant annotations by Wolk, Uzumeri and others, and the comments they engendered, there are many people who enjoyed FC’s meta- and sub-textual writing (and art). Others prefer things to be a bit more obvious (Face Front, True Believers!)”

Obvious is not bad. Brilliant is not bad, either. Your bias is showing.

The truth lies somewhere in between. Yes, I enjoyed FC. Do I think it did its duty as an “event” book? Not even close.

For all of their flaws (and some would argue mediocrity) Civil War and Secret Invasion both do what needs to be done. They set up larger conflicts, expand those conflicts into the universe at large in an ACCESSIBLE way, and conclude with a new and clearly established status quo.

FC fails on ALL of these fronts. That doesn’t make it a bad story necessarily. But, likewise, it did not help expand DC’s overall line market share nor did it increase DC’s bottom line to the degree it could have or should have.

It was, in short, not the moneymaker it ought to have been.

Unfortunately, no product exists in a vacuum. The (original) Producers is a riot today. That doesn’t mean it would have played to hoots in an Auschwitz barracks. Likewise, an event book exists in the context of its promotion, its stated intention, its reception, and — lastly — its execution.

As I said, FC wasn’t for everyone, obviously, and that’s fine.

No need to be angry. It wasn’t for you.

Some people like vanilla, some like strawberry and some like chocolate.

No worries.

Eat (and read) what you like.

The sheer level of HATEHATEHATE is just baffling, though, even considering this is the Internet. Particularly how focused it is on Grant Morrison and to a lesser extent his fans.

You say meta and subtextual, I say ‘cutesy self referential bullshit’.

Potato, tomato.

I want my story to be about the characters, and the ideas, not about kickass Grant Morrison is and how he can work his voodoo on a generation of readers who are convinced he’s better than Alan Moore (which he ain’t, whatever Moore’s insane process and stylistic flourishes were, he always told stories that worked simply as stories) or that his stories make sense because they make sense if you spend hours researching his obscure references and read every word that dribbles out of his mouth.

The work itself is the work, if it does not make sense on it’s surface, the writer and artist have FAILED. Have all the subtext you want, if the TEXT makes NO SENSE, if the story does not flow, does not have any cohesion, does not, I repeat, MAKE SENSE, then why bother with subtext?

Morrison has been doing comics bass ackwards for ten years now. He’s created a cult of personality that is convinced themselves that even if a comic doesn’t make sense on the first read, if you waste enough time eventually you will puzzle it together.

F*ck that sh*t. I refuse to re-read anything that does not satisfy me the first time through. Why bother? If I eat a meal and it SUCKS, I’m not going back to the same restaurant and order the same damned meal that sucked before just to see if I can taste something NEW. My life is too damned short to waste time reading things that don’t work as stories because of meta-fictional subtext.

Story first, subtext second, I thought everyone understood that. It was the lesson Moore taught us all with Watchmen, not that super heroes can be dicks, but that you can tell an interesting, gripping, thoroughly realized story using these characters and include commentary that sinks in upon second and third readings.

Personally, I could care less about metal and subtext, it’s too cute by half.

Tell me a story, and tell it well.

Morrison has been unable to do that for about a decade.

You say meta and subtextual, I say ‘cutesy self referential bullshit’.

Potato, tomato.

I want my story to be about the characters, and the ideas, not about kickass Grant Morrison is and how he can work his voodoo on a generation of readers who are convinced he’s better than Alan Moore (which he ain’t, whatever Moore’s insane process and stylistic flourishes were, he always told stories that worked simply as stories) or that his stories make sense because they make sense if you spend hours researching his obscure references and read every word that dribbles out of his mouth.

The work itself is the work, if it does not make sense on it’s surface, the writer and artist have FAILED. Have all the subtext you want, if the TEXT makes NO SENSE, if the story does not flow, does not have any cohesion, does not, I repeat, MAKE SENSE, then why bother with subtext?

Morrison has been doing comics bass ackwards for ten years now. He’s created a cult of personality that is convinced themselves that even if a comic doesn’t make sense on the first read, if you waste enough time eventually you will puzzle it together.

F*ck that sh*t. I refuse to re-read anything that does not satisfy me the first time through. Why bother? If I eat a meal and it SUCKS, I’m not going back to the same restaurant and order the same damned meal that sucked before just to see if I can taste something NEW. My life is too damned short to waste time reading things that don’t work as stories because of meta-fictional subtext.

Story first, subtext second, I thought everyone understood that. It was the lesson Moore taught us all with Watchmen, not that super heroes can be dicks, but that you can tell an interesting, gripping, thoroughly realized story using these characters and include commentary that sinks in upon second and third readings.

Personally, I could care less about metal and subtext, it’s too cute by half.

Tell me a story, and tell it well.

More has been unable to do that for about a decade.

But much of the anger and criticism seems to have been about how the series was “hyped” or promoted, rather than about the story itself.

And looking at the brilliant annotations by Wolk, Uzumeri and others, and the comments they engendered, there are many people who enjoyed FC’s meta- and sub-textual writing (and art). Others prefer things to be a bit more obvious (Face Front, True Believers!)

I thought it was a challenging, thoughtful and prodigious accomplishment.

Flawed? Sure, but give Grant full credit for making the effort and achieving most of what he set out to do.

I’ve decided to re-read it from start to finish, in the order Morrison suggested in his Newsarama interview. I suspect I’ll render my final judgment once I’ve done that.