As a non-fiction writer, i.e. writing internet reviews, articles and opinion columns such as this one, it is always my goal to write to "no one". Wait, that's not true. I ALWAYS write for myself first. It sounds selfish I'm sure, but there's no other purpose for a writer to write other than to get his thoughts "on paper". With the internet, writers like me can share their work, cuz hey, why not? But as far as my "voice" is concerned, I've always tried to write as if I was talking to someone, but no one in particular. My target was an invisible audience, which is really what the internet, and anyone who reads a written work is if you think about it, as far as any author is concerned. While columns and reviews are opinionated, and I've never tried to hide my feelings on subjects, my voice was not directed at anyone, not responding to any questions or statements. I write FOR myself, not TO myself. That's going to change, at least in this particular column.

As you may have noticed above, this is "for Ed". Who's Ed you ask? Ed (a.k.a. Ace the Bathound), a fellow Toon Zone member, replied to my previous Captain's Log, and my response back to him developed into what you're reading now. I decided on a whim just create a new column, so here we are. I'll be prattling on about other subjects, but also referring back to a few of Ed's comments, so bear with me. I want to talk a little about me, my intentions, my goals and various other things.

This "Captain's Log" idea is something I've wanted to do for some time. It all started a few years back when my place of employment sent me and several coworkers to a "7 Habits" seminar, based on Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. It was mandatory for all new-hires to go through this and I, like most of my colleagues, were less than enthusiastic about sitting though any sort of lecture, especially one that would be telling us how to be better people and function more effectively as a "team". I like myself just the way I am dammit and I'm not about to change for anyone, especially not some Lex Luthor-lookalike who enjoys hypnotizing people with big fancy words.

I'm just kidding. Covey is a great man, one who has influenced the lives of thousands in a positive way. "Covey Training", as it was called, was an event I dreaded at first...then learned to enjoy, and ultimately cherish as a turning point in my stalled career as a writer. You heard me right -- it was a 100% positive experience, and all of my fears, doubts and stubborn behavior were for naught. If you can find a seminar, whether through your employer or on your own, I sincerely recommend attending. At the very least I recommend reading Covey's book.

Anyway, one crucial step along Stephen Covey's road to a more effective life involved creating a "Personal Mission Statement". This was not necessarily a written statement, although it could be, but it is more or less a series of ideas and comments one would make regarding your life, goals and what it takes to get there. There is no wrong way to create a mission statement, and being a writer I decided to scribble a few notes just for grins and giggles. It began to snowball from there, and long-story-short, I began writing an essay, chronicling my own growth as a writer. An autobiographical journey, dating back to when I was a wee lad and first discovered comic books, then novels, and then my love for drawing and writing. It's still a work in progress, something I'm constantly tweaking to reflect my ever-changing perspectives. Within this essay, I wouldn't be telling people how to do anything; I would definitely NOT be telling people how to write, because there is no "right way"; "There's no 'right' way to 'write'". Heh, that's a pretty catchy motto. Ahem...I'd just be sharing my own views on a writer's goals, MY goals in particular, and the magical world that books have to offer. I believe books have the power to change lives. They've certainly changed mine.

The goal of this "mission statement", (I wouldn't call it that then when published of course), was simply to share my journey as a writer/artist. I talk a lot about my own comic book saga, fifteen years in the making. I talk a lot about the stories that shaped me as a child and as an adult. I talk about the creators and teachers who have influenced my own craft. I site specific examples of stories, from Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces to Larry McMurtrys Lonesome Dove to M.J. Engh's Arslan.

Much of the material from that essay could be divided up, and would make excellent material for future "Captain's Logs", which brings us to where we are today. I may use some of my ongoing "mission statement" in columns like this. They don't all focus on comic books, but I figure since comics are the backbone of my own "writer's journey", it's all relative. For example, I have an chapter on why David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross is one of the most well-written (and well acted) movies of all time. Does that essay have anything to do with comic books? No. But GGR is a story that has helped to shape me as a writer. And it's just a damn good movie, period.

Another topic which may fit into my "Captain's Log" scheme is tentatively titled: "Pointless Nostalgia", where I dig out a comic book from my youth and reexamine it. Similar in vein to the reviews I used to write, but not nearly as critical. "PN" will be fun exercise, more to reminisce than anything else. Looking ahead, future "Captain's Logs" will examine things such as the comic book "Homage"; why books like Authority, Supreme Power, and of course, Miracleman can be so much better than the real deal.

Basically, I feel I need to get all these ideas out of my head. Writing for me is a wonderful outlet; it's therapeutic and relaxing, and it helps me to function better in everyday life. It's kind of like on the Seinfeld episode "The Abstinence", when George stopped having sex. I feel better, I think more clearly, and it gives me a supreme sense of satisfaction. Similarly, for me NOT writing is like when Elaine stopped having sex. "--it's like a garbage strike. The bags are piling up in your head. The sidewalk is blocked. Nothing's getting through! You're stupid!" - Jerry

Moving on...

Steven Grant wrote a great column (Master Of The Obvious #114), but I've never thought of myself as a "critic" or a "reviewer" Frankly, I've never wanted to be either. I see myself as a writer. "Storyteller" is my preferred title, since fiction writing is my number one hobby and what I plan on doing for the rest of my life, regardless of whether I get paid for it (although I'd really like to be ;) ).

I've had several teachers over the years, a few that I would go so far as to call mentors, and they taught me that it is the mission of a writer to entertain and enlighten your readers. Sometimes you can do one, sometimes the other. And unfortunately, sometimes you can do neither. But if a writer can achieve both, then it's a magical thing. It's the power to change a life. To make a person think. To feel, to hope, to believe...to read. That's power of stories. THAT is magic my friend.

Having said that, in non-fiction I never set out with an objective to overanalyze anything. I never try to tell people what to think, what to buy, or what to read. I just write. Even those reviews I used to do on TZ weren't following any sort of guidelines. True, I had the "Issue Synopsis" and "Thoughts & Reactions" sections, but within those were just random thoughts and feelings. I just wrote what was one my mind. And that's what I always do. When it comes to fiction writing, I always have structure. I "begin with the end in mind", to quote a Covey phrase. It's different with non-fiction.

"Do it from the heart, or don't bother doing it at all". Someone great once said that to me, I only wish I could remember who...

Regarding my last "Captain's Log"; If you actually go out and buy Daredevil and read it, (regardless of whether you enjoy it, that's trivial), the fact that you've read MY words here, taken them to heart and made an honest decision to try something new, well...my work is done. I've achieved both my goals. I've done what a good writer should; I've entertained you, however briefly, and I've enlightened you. Good god man, that's tremendous! While we're on the subject, I recommend the Daredevil: Volume Two Hardcover, but I'd imagine that a decision has been made on DD by now. (Sorry for this late reply.)

Getting back to Daredevil;

I never said that Daredevil WAS a more marketable character. He's NOT, but I think he should be. Possibly some reason for this are the deeply religious aspects of the character and of course, the title: "DareDEVIL". Most people see the demonic aspects in the name first, not the fearless acrobat connotations that the name is truly referring to. Daredevil the movie was renamed in several countries when it was released, and the upcoming Hellboy motion picture is undergoing similar scrutiny. Personally, I find spiders to be much more repulsive than demons, but that's just me. For the record, I am NOT a religious man. Matt Murdock's faith is a powerful ally. It has aided him on numerous occasions; it even brought him closer to his long-lost mother.

The two characters of DD and Spider-Man are very much alike. Matt does what he does out of a sworn duty to his slain father, while similarly Peter does what HE does out of a sworn duty to his slain uncle. However, Daredevil is more of a tortured soul, whereas Spider-man is much more of a carefree spirit, and Peter's greatest ally is his uncle's sense of humor. Fighting crime is a JOB to Matt. A twenty-four hour job. For Peter, it's more of a diversion. An important diversion, but a diversion nonetheless. Peter fights crime because he made a promise and because it's the "right thing" to do, but you know there are really other things he'd rather be doing. With Matt, there's nothing he'd rather be doing. And therein lies the marketability factor. Peter is fun to be around. Matt's depressing. Peter's the kind of guy you'd like to spend time with, while Matt is probably not. Does that make one character a "better" hero than the other? No. In the end, they're both doing the "right thing", and we're content to leave it at that. Unless we want to discuss the current happenings in the pages of Daredevil, that's another story altogether.

A good thread was brought up last time. I had wanted to participate in that one, but I never got around to it. It's just as well, since much of what I was going to say there would make excellent material for a future "Captain's Log".

Suffice to say I feel the characters will always be bigger than the creators. PERIOD. Yes, a bad creator can ruin the greatest character, and yes, a great creator can make you truly care about some no-name schmoe. But in the end, the characters will always outlive and outlast the creators. It's the characters that tend to spring to mind when we think about stories, good or bad. The writers and artists come second. May the Comic Book Gods forgive me, but as bad a Judd Winick's Green Lantern was, the truly awfulness of the storylines is what sticks in my mind, not Judd's presence. I think of KYLE more than Judd, even though Judd was directly responsible for the badness. It's wrong of me to do so, I won't argue with that. It's not fair to Kyle. I've always disliked Kyle, but that's beside the point. The point is, I reflect on Judd's GL as a bad era for Green Lantern, not as a low point in Judd Winick's career as a comic book writer.

Maybe that's a testament to the immortality and vitality of these characters. They can handle anything we throw at them. They'll keep on truckin', no matter what. In all honesty, that's why I love them. They're bigger than we are. Much, much bigger.

When a great talent, like a Moore or a Dini or a Busiek gets their hands on a character, we tend to forget we're reading a story. The actions, the dialogue, it's all REAL and we overlook the knowledge that someone is putting words in Superman's mouth. We become personally invested in the story. Again, that's the magic of writing. Also, I believe a writer should be intimidated by these characters. Any writer who fails to be humbled by legends like Superman and Captain America does not deserve to be writing them, in my honest opinion. I'm currently working on a few projects involving some big-name characters and I'm scared to death every step of the way. Am I good enough? Am I worthy of telling these characters' stories? Is anyone really worthy nowadays?

But of course this brings up the question of whether or not only "fans" should be allowed to write certain characters. You need to ask yourself which is more important: A writer's respect for the character and his/her past continuity, or a fresh, easily accessible take on a given hero that only an uninitiated scribe can bring? With Superman, you can have beautiful love-letters from "fans" like Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and Joe Kelly's "What's so Funny 'Bout Truth, Justice and the American Way?"...or you can have newbie disasters like Steven Seagle's entire run. And I can't seem to go two paragraphs without bringing up Judd Winick. Fanboy writers are a double-edged sword...and a topic for another day. Next month perhaps?