Anyway, the planned run for The Boys means maybe Garth has something more substantial planned for the long run.

The point of those examples was to demonstrate that Ennis has, in past, written any number of books with an “I hate superheroes” theme. You can flip flop it around, and say that he has an “empowering normal guys” theme, and while I won’t whole-heartedly agree with you on that, I will say that even if I did, the flipside of that argument is basically “and dis-empowering superheroes.”

As for Ennis being one of the sole voices out there… I’d argue that he’s part of the majority. Ellis is a vocal superhero-hater, and most of those currently writing superheroes, from Bendis to Millar to Meltzer, seem to take great joy in knocking them all down a few pegs and presenting them as flawed, even dangerous. Look at Civil War, Identity Crisis, much of 52… the big flagship books of the industry are all about how dangerous and irresponsible superheroes are.

Honestly, I don’t see The Boys as an evolution. It seems to me like Ennis has just been making the same points, over and over again. As a fan of his early writing, I was really hoping he was going to find new subject matter and new things to say. Look at War Stories, or Unknown Soldier, and you see that he’s got more in him than just “regular guys taking on superheroes” stories.

As for the argument about similarities between Frank Miller and Garth Ennis… I’d agree, but probably not in the same way you mean. I think both writers have gotten themselves stuck in a rut. Miller at least had Sin City and 300 before diving back into the same kind of thing he’d already done.

Miller’s take on Batman wasn’t definitive, it was ground-breaking. There’s a difference. In retrospect, Miller offered up a different take on Batman, a noir-ish crime style in Year One and a bombastic, larger-than-life style in Dark Knight Returns. Neither was particularly definitive, and increasing the bombastic, larger-than-life aspects just pushed the character into parody territory, which really isn’t what most fans want from a big mainstream book with Jim Lee on art.

In the same way, while Preacher and Hitman had plenty of outrageous humor and ultraviolence, that seems to be the aspect of his writing that Ennis has focused on, leaving behind the more interesting, adult themes of friendship, loyalty and testing such things. It’s like the more adolescent aspects of his writing have moved to the forefront, while the deeper aspects have gone by the wayside, unnecessary in the superhero genre in which he has decided to do most of his work, despite being no big fan of the genre in general.

I do think it’s unlikely this argument can go much further. You and I seem to be coming at it from completely different angles, and I suspect we’re basically seeing different things in the same writer. I should say that I think Garth Ennis is a talented writer, and I’ll admit that his craft remains solid.

Kiel, appreciate the support… I have to admit, Robertson on The Boys is also a source of frustration for me. He’s now committed for five years to a book I have no interest in following, which is a shame. But then, I haven’t been big on many of Robertson’s choice of books for a while now… I think Transmet was the last book he was on that I really enjoyed the writing on as much as I enjoyed his art.

Anyway, I really agree with you here Mr. Lander. I love Garth Ennis; he is certainly in my top five favorite writers of all time. Preacher is one of my favorite books, and his Punisher run is definitive and remains consistant. But I can’t help but feel that he has certainly let his intelligence be pushed into the background of his stories.

I’ve never read a story from him that wasn’t entertaining; but much of his recent work has not been as thought-provoking as it could be. The only ‘deep’ work he’s done recently has been The Punisher, especially the various minis and one-shots (The End, Born, The Cell, The Tyger, etc.).

I’ll continue to buy this book, because I enjoy it - but there certainly is some disappointment in the tone and subject matter, though.

Plus, this is Robertson at his best. He hasn’t done this well since Transmet, and this might even be better.

And, of course, we’re only two issues in. I think (hope?) Ennis will deliver down the line.

Though if I recall correctly Ennis has even admitted in the past that he doesn’t like superheroes.

__________________________________
*Punisher, wherein Spidey and Daredevil were both punked on a regular basis
*Punisher Kills the Marvel Universe
____________________________________

I believe that you are really nit-picking here. Punisher has a loveéhate respect and dislike for superheroes by virtue of his established character. Garth has only ever made it entertaining. And since he is writing Punishe, it is expected that Punisher would usually get the upper hand. But what you donèt see is Punisher exterminating heroes….

….. with the exception of the Marvel Univers bloodfest which was clearly tongue in cheek, geek fanboy stuff….. an imaginary tale for diehard Punisher buffs. And it illustrated Frank Castles hatred of the heroes based ona different origin, not the writers. If Garth succeeded in showing hate….. so be it.

____________________________________________________
*Hitman, where only Superman got a pass, but he still wandered off blithely unaware that Tommy killed a guy right behind him
____________________________________________________

Another example of Garth writing how ordinary guys as not all being stupid and heroes all perfect and all-knowing.

_________________________________________________________
*The Kev series in The Authority, where the whole point is how dangerous and unreliable superheroes are

___________________________________________________________

…. But a story that is not premised on the active fighting back of the common man against an over-populatrion of super-powred beings.

___________________________________________________________
*Fury, where Marvel’s top spymaster/hero was turned into a whoring, drinking ultraviolent has-been
___________________________________________________________

Honestly, was this characterization of Fury all that surprising. I always thought of him like that anyway. And again…. how does this suggest a dislike of heroes to you. It is more a question of how others view the heroes. Garth assumes….. and rightly so…. that not everybody is in love with super heroes and that they are as fallible as the rest of us. The boys will be the FIRST comic that is taking the concept to an extreme position. And you cant compare Stormwatch to it because Stormwatch itself were really a bunch of wannabe superheroes themselves…. which, IMHO was why the concept failed to resonate with most potentail fans. The boys is different.

And may I say that I agree with Shivaès analysis of how the (common man) perspective is often ignored by TPTB. The boys gets its strength by assuming that Joe Average is not the helpless idiot who always needs heroes around. NONE of the titles you mentioned even comes close to approaching the concept like the Boys does.

____________________________________________
*The Pro… superhero whore turns out to be smarter than the rest of the Justice League.
_________________________________________________________

I am surpised this obviously adult and deliberately satirical comic was included in your list. How does one compare this to the Boys. Both have sex in them, but making fun of superheroes is quite different than writing a hard nosed violent ultra-realistic take on what would happen should the superheroes become large enough to disregard human interest. The theme is a genral theme in Civil War….. but with Garth the answer will not be found by the super-people having a civil war….. it will be found within the human element imposing itself and demanding obedience.

In short….. The Boys is far more than the simplistic interpretation that you are giving it. By making the comparisons you do, you are, IMHO (whether you intend it or not) insulting the integrity and approach of the work.

I see The BOYS as the natural result of the evolution of Garths writing where he can now FINALLY address all the issues he may have (and that you claim he has) with super-powered beings. Garth is one of the sole voices out there who is not afraid to be blunt and address the issues and confront the meta-humans…. NOT with more meta-humans…. but with human, non-powered alternatives which include, among other things, humour, wit, irony, satire, sex and of course….. violence.

With respect…. I think that Garth deserves far more respect than what some critics seem to be giving him on this title.

The criticism is certainly not unprecedented. I note with irony that Frank Miller defined Batman for the last 20 years…. only to be criticised now for not only embracing his own interpretation… but for extending it to the next extreme. I find similarities in regard to Mr. Ennis.

*Punisher, wherein Spidey and Daredevil were both punked on a regular basis
*Punisher Kills the Marvel Universe
*Hitman, where only Superman got a pass, but he still wandered off blithely unaware that Tommy killed a guy right behind him
*The Kev series in The Authority, where the whole point is how dangerous and unreliable superheroes are
*Fury, where Marvel’s top spymaster/hero was turned into a whoring, drinking ultraviolent has-been
*The Pro… superhero whore turns out to be smarter than the rest of the Justice League.

And that’s not leaving aside his brutal takes on Spider-Man: Tangled Web of Hulk Smash.

Understand, I used to be a huge Ennis fan. Loved Hitman, loved Preacher, enjoyed about half of the books I wrote about above. Even find something to like in his Preacher stuff… but it seems to me that Ennis is doing a fair amount of repeating himself, rather than moving forward, these days. I’m disappointed not because I’m an Ennis hater, but because I was a fan, and I wanted to see him do something cool and different, instead of re-treading the ground he’s already covered time and time again.

It’s an easy target, and The Boys seems like another go-round of a talented writer and artist wasting their time making easy points, rather than taking on something more challenging.

Personally, I love this series so far. It is desperately needed….. especially with all the super hero comics out there that are so egotistical. All of Infinite Crisis is about how the entire universe focuses around Superman (actually EVERY universe)…. and very little evidence of a “human” factor in the equation. And Marvel’s “Civil War” is all about how meta humans are controlling the political agenda with all their infighting (although it is nice to see non-meta/mutant “human” voices expressed in the series).

I love super heroes but I must admit that I can’t wait to see many of them get their come-uppance from “The Boys”.

Even the name “The boys” is great. It is simple, straightforward and to the point. It is not meant to engender visions of spandex or great powerful beings. It is a name devoid of ego or inherent conceit. It does not concern itself with image or the worrisome marketting of a trade name. It is everything that a super-hero name is not. And that is what makes it perfect.

And the story so far is brilliantly played. The poor protagonist has tragically lost the love of his life. And he is just “Joe Average”… who by his own admission has no fighting skills or any other notable thing to contribute to the “Boys”. Yet apparently….. the leader of the “Boys” feels he can learn all that is necessary to contribute to the team…… thus reinforcing the appeal of the book…… i.e. that you don’t need super powers to ‘ take-on’ or ‘take-out’ meta-humans. To paraphrase a common saying: “

” The only thing necessary for super-powered beings to flourish…. is for ordinary men to do nothing.”

The “boys” are ordinary guys (and girls) not afraid to draw a line in the sand and stare down icons.

Great stuff. And might I say that I am not aware of any other comic that has approached this subject in quite the same manner, with quite the same level of bluntness and unapologetic honesty.

In short, I can easily see this series “out-preaching Preacher”.