Why Before Watchmen is a bad idea

Besides the horrible title.

Over at Newsarama, Graeme McMillan wrote a blog post commenting that Before Watchmen may indeed be the project that rips the internet in half, as Brian Michael Bendis predicted "House of M" would.  McMillan points to the recent interview with Moore at Seraphemera and J. Michael Straczynski's interview at Aint' It Cool News. 

One point JMS, who is a creator I've admired for a long time (note: I haven't read any of his Spider-Man comics past those drawn by JRJr; I haven't read his recent Superman or Wonder Woman comics; and I've not read much, if any, of the work that has earned him such a bad reputation with fans and bloggers/critics), makes in his interview sits particularly poorly with me:

... neither Alan nor the detractors have the legal or the moral high ground here.

JMS argues a number of points leading up to this statement.  But, in signing on to this endeavor and in making the above statement, he - like a lot of other people - seems to completely miss the point at the heart of this argument.  Below is what I said in the comments section to McMillan's blog post:

I find it laughable and disappointing that JMS states Moore and his backers have no moral ground upon which to claim Watchmen 2 is a bad idea. I’ve been a fan of JMS ever since Babylon 5 ... but he, like so many others, seem to miss the point with this entire argument.

Neil Gaiman directly attributes his good working relationship vis-a-vis Sandman for DC/Vertigo with the way Alan Moore was treated and his vocal and strident response to that. Moore’s stance comes off as selfish to some, but at the heart of it, Moore is asking for these corporations to respect the creators, respect the work they do, and allow them the opportunity to work in an industry where writers and artists own that which they create like “real publishers” do. By signing the petition started by Frank Miller against labeling in the 80s along with the Creators’ Bill of Rights and being one of the handful of creators, if not the only one, who did not go back on his word, Moore has been at the forefront of creators’ rights in mainstream comic publishing.

By taking on Watchmen 2, despite all of his arguments, JMS is only propagating the status quo wherein Marvel and DC can leech off the writers and artists who work for them (will Marvel provide a bountiful pension to Bendis when his books no longer sell for them? it seems highly unlikely).

DC was smart to get high-profile creators to work on this. But, by agreeing, these “big names” have legitimized the outdated work practices at the Big Two. That is the moral issue at hand. and I find it depressing to think these people don’t see the problem here.

Ah, well. I’ll just go try to track down Saga, or get caught up on Wasteland, or pick up the new Fantagraphics or Top Shelf book. That, for me, is the good stuff anyway.

So, I won't be picking up any of these books.  Regardless of the moral stance I take in my response above, I found, when the story broke officially, that I was not interested in any of these books in the least.  I like many of the creators involved. But new stories with these characters just didn't excite me.  I got everything I needed in the original.

And - plug, plug - I'm blogging about that at my other site - ReadingWatchmen.com.  Check it out.  If you enjoyed the graphic novel, I think you might like what I'm doing there.

chris

Comics - Creator v. Character pt. 9

The final installment of my series looking at whether we should be loyal to the character or the creator when buying our comics. Initially run over at the In the Mouth of Dorkness blog - I want to thank Brad and Matt for letting me play in their sandbox. And I am looking forward to adding more to their site. They're on fire over there, posting way more than I can even imagine. Go check it out. It will definitely be worth your time.
And now, part 9, the finale.
Enjoy.

Comics – Creator or Character Part IX: Conclusion, part the 2nd

AND WE COME TO THE END:

Today, there are more opportunities for artists and writers working in North American comics to publish their own work while retaining ownership of the creation. Publishers like Oni Press, Top Shelf productions, Slave Labor Graphics, and Fantagraphics are only a handful of the rising tide of publishers offering homes for original works from talented creators.

There’s more than just superheroes!

And it seems to me that when a creator is afforded the opportunity of owning his or her own works – creations that otherwise would never have been published because the “artistic voice” of every writer and every artist is so unique unto him or herself – that work will be, in accordance with other factors such as talent and intelligence, far better than a narrative slung over a corporate entity. When one is personally invested in the creation and subsequent success of a story, then one is likely to put more time and effort into it.

Alan Moore has written some beautiful Superman stories. Grant Morrison became known in America after writing Animal Man. John Byrne made his name with X-Men. Warren Ellis wrote Thor. Kevin O’Neill did some early work with Green Lantern. And these stories all have a high level of craft and quality in them, and many of them are revered by fans and professionals alike. But, I would argue, those stories are not these creators’ most compelling, or most challenging, or most emotionally satisfying works.

Respectively, From Hell, the Invisibles, Next Men, Transmetropolitan, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, are all far more critically acclaimed than any of their superhero work. And, in my opinion, they are far, far better than the corporate comics these artists and writers have worked on. This is due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the pride one feels in the creation of something that is completely his or her own.

IT’S SUPER, MAN:

And the Big Two publishers – Marvel & DC – seem to understand, better than they ever have, the importance of the creators to the comics they publish. Certainly, it’s still not where it probably should be, but at least there have been steps taken toward a wider acknowledgement of the contribution these writers and artists bring to the stories they tell.

Just look at the prominence creators such as Geoff Johns now get (his name is larger than even Superman’s, and far more prominent than the other three writers, on the cover for the Ending Battle collection, in which he only wrote one-quarter of the storyline). DC is selling Geoff Johns’s name, which is a far cry from their marketing of even ten years ago. And the acclaim that artists and writers such as Johns or Ed Brubaker or George Perez receive is well-deserved. They sell books and they represent a certain artistic vision that is appealing to a lot of readers – whether that vision translates into good comics is a completely subjective and very different argument, but his impact cannot be debated.)

Others, like Jim Lee with his work on Batman: Hush or the team of Brian Michael Bendis & Alex Maleev on Daredevil, are more proof that the big companies are learning what it means to have a “name” creator on a book – sales! And they seem to be doing far more than they ever have to keep these creators happy and working for them.

In the past twenty years, we’ve seen imprints such as Vertigo at DC comics or, more recently, ICON at Marvel comics, be havens where big-name creators can go to make the comics they want to make while also retaining ownership. With the likes of Vertigo and ICON, DC and Marvel get to keep big-name talent such as Grant Morrison or Warren Ellis or Ed Brubaker working for them, both in the mainstream superhero universes and these boutique publishing imprints.

It is something that DC understood far earlier than Marvel and has allowed us fans to enjoy comics such as Sandman or Criminal that we might not have been able to enjoy otherwise. And for these creators who earn such an arrangement, it’s the best of both worlds. They get to play in the big “sandbox” while also writing and drawing their own books, all under a single publishing umbrella.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE:

Of course, this new understanding does not mean that the corporate philosophy doesn’t still reign supreme. Editorial edicts continue to be put forth, pushing creators into storylines they might not have even considered. And, for the most part, many of these incidents wreak of Marvel or DC snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Take, for example, J. Michael Straczynski’s tenure on Amazing Spider-Man. His run with John Romita, Jr. was, in the main, well regarded. Certainly, there were people who balked at the Spider totem and nit-picked as fans are wont to do. But, up to the point JRJr left the book, it was undoubtedly a success, critically and commercially.

Then editorial started sticking their noses in until fans got “One More Day,” a story loudly derided by fans and critics, and a story that JMS wished to take his name off – it having gone so far away from his ideas that it wasn’t truly his story anymore – but Straczynski relented out of respect for Joe Quesada and Marvel comics. As a result of such editorial interference – and, ultimately, not allowing the creator, JMS, who was hired to create Spider-Man stories – much of the latter half of Straczynski’s run on the book is looked upon quite poorly.

In fact, there were three storylines from this second half of his run that made their way onto a “worst comic stories ever” list last year, and all of those were editorially driven stories. I don’t find that surprising.

WHAT’S OLD IS NEW AGAIN:

And this heightened awareness of the creator as important to the success of a comic is not necessarily a new idea for DC or Marvel. Though loathe to admit it, I believe they have always harbored the fear that possibly these people who were writing and drawing the stories had something to do with the rise or fall of sales figures. But certainly, it was not something discussed openly, and I would hazard a guess that, if they admitted it at all, this acknowledgement was only held for a very few. And even those few would be considered replaceable if they were to step too far out of line – whether that meant asking for too much money or arguing too vehemently against editorial dictates.

When Jack Kirby left Marvel in 1970, and was summarily courted by Carmine Infantino to join DC, Kirby’s arrival was touted with house ads in DC’s line of books. They realized what a coup it was to wrest Kirby – one of the co-creators and the stylistic guide for Marvel comics – from their main competitor. It was a new day for DC, one that, I am sure they hoped, would herald an injection of excitement and passionv into their line of books similar in scope to what occurred when Kirby and Stan Lee, along with Ditko and others, started Marvel in 1961.

Contrary to the corporate mandate, Kirby was actively acknowledged as a creator worthy of respect through the advertisements of DC’s books – even if that respect was a promise unfulfilled.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Ultimately, I think it’s obvious where one’s loyalty should lie as a comic buyer. Yes, the characters in their flashy uniforms with their cool powers are the ones that, for most of us, got us into comics. But following the character, for no other reason than nostalgia, is not a smart decision. And ultimately, I don’t think it’s a healthy decision for the comic marketplace.

Look at the amazing books we get when artists and writers are allowed to make the stories they want:

Neil Gaiman’s Sandman

Alan Moore’s Marvelman and From Hell and V for Vendetta and Watchmen

Grant Morrison’s Animal Man and Doom Patrol and Invisibles

Greg Rucka’s Queen & County and Whiteout

Jeff Smith’s Bone

JMS’s run on Thor and The Brave and the Bold

Steve Ditko’s Mr. A

Warren Ellis on Planetary and Transmetropolitan

Los Bros Hernandez on Love & Rockets

Carla Speed McNeil on Finder

Art Spiegelman’s Maus

Brian Michael Bendis’s Torso

Eric Shanower’s Age of Bronze

the list goes on . . .

If you’re loyal to the character, then you will be the one still buying the book long after it’s become dreck, and that purchasing choice only reinforces the corporate mindset that it’s the characters that push the sales, not the creators.

Whereas, if you follow a creator, and it’s one who’s work you have enjoyed previously, there is a good chance you will not be disappointed. Certainly, a concept might not be to your liking, but if that concept is presented by a creator you respect, then at least you’ll get your money’s worth as far as artistic value. And then, if you wish, you can let the book go, because you don’t need to avert having a hole in your Green Lantern collection, you just need to worry about finding that next great comic you want to read.

It’s easy. Talent wins out every time for me. If you’re still chained to your corporate loyalties, you’re doing yourself a disservice. Stop collecting and start reading. I think you’ll get more satisfaction from your comics than you ever have before.

Thanks,

chris

Comics - Creator v. Character pt. 8

Here's the penultimate installment of my series on whether we should follow the creator or the character when buying and reading comics. This initially ran over at the In the Mouth of Dorkness blog, a blog worth checking out if you're into movies, gaming, comics, or anything else genre-based (read: geek chic). Check it out.
And, enjoy part 8 of Comics - Creator v. Character

Comics – Creator or Character Part VIII: Conclusion, part the 1st

IMAGE IS EVERYTHING:

In the late 80s, Marvel had a stable of superstar artists who were not only selling books, but also selling blue jeans with Spike Lee. It was a heady time for comic fans, feeling as if some “mainstream legitimacy” was finally transferring to our niche medium. (Yes, there was certainly the critical acclaim of Watchmen, Dark Knight, and Maus from 1986, but this was ON TELEVISION not just in the newspapers). Artists like Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane, Whilce Portacio, and Rob Liefeld received plum assignments, working on Spider-Man and the X-Men books, and even got the chance to write and draw their own books with the likes of Spider-Man and X-Force.

But, soon after they were given the keys to the kingdom, these artists, along with Marc Silvestri, Jim Valentino, and Erik Larsen, left Marvel to form their own comic company – one where they not only had the ability to draw and write the stories they wanted, but they would also own these new characters. It was a natural next step – one that Gil Kane took in 1968 with His Name is Savage and that Jack Kirby took in 1983 with Star Slayer through Pacific Comics. But, unlike these earlier attempts by mainstream comic artists to branch out into doing their own comics, the Image experiment was a success, and it ushered in a new age for comics publishing.

GIVE THE WRITERS A CHANCE:

Malibu comics distributed the Image books for the first year they were in business, affording the creators to learn the ropes of publishing with a bit of a safety net. But, once able, Image became its own entity, which left Malibu comics with a large hole to fill in their publication schedule. Malibu chose to try something similar to what Image did, and created their Ultraverse imprint with top-name creators such as Steve Gerber, Gerard Jones, and Steve Englehart, all of whom were notable for being writers, going against the template laid out by Image where, other than Valentino, the founding fathers were known mainly for being artists (thus, the company’s title).

There were other notable companies and imprints that flourished in the wake of Image comics – Valiant from Jim Shooter and Bob Layton, Milestone at DC from Dwayne McDuffie, Denys Cowan, et al., and Comics Greatest World from Dark Horse. To differing degrees, all of these imprints relied upon the creators involved as marketing tools and sales barometers. Certainly, Valiant’s elevator pitch would be the revival of the Gold Key heroes of decades past, but the line really thrived under Jim Shooter’s guidance and seemed to go off the rails when he was forced out. The Milestone imprint had characters who were direct reflections of their creators – minority characters (far too often overlooked or only played as cliched, wrong-headed stereotypes) created by minority creators. Without the guiding forces behind these books’ creations, they floundered, if they continued at all once the creators left or the imprints were shut down.

LEGENDS ARE BORN:

One of the more successful imprints from the day – despite the fact that the imprint folded – was the Legend imprint from Dark Horse comics. This was a loosely-based conglomeration of hugely talented and revered comic creators. Members included Frank Miller, John Byrne, Mike Mignola, Art Adams, Walt Simonson, Geof Darrow, and Mike Allred. It was truly a “heavy hitters” list of talent.

This imprint involved no shared-universe, and, with possibly few exceptions, did not have characters from one book guest starring in other books. Legend was really an umbrella publishing venture that signfied the high-quality stories and art consumers could expect when seeing that image on the cover. Sin City, Next Men, Hellboy, Star Slammers, and others were published through Dark Horse under the Legend imprint.

A number of these books are still being published today, if not under the Legend imprint. What was unique about this imprint was that, at any time, the creators – who owned their work – could conceivably take their titles and publish them elsewhere. It truly was a place where creators held the power and could do whatever they wished, however they desired.

It was a culmination, artistically speaking, of the promise shown by Will Eisner’s the Spirit and the steps taken by legends such as Kane and Kirby, when they worked to branch out on their own.

Next: the Finale

Comics - Creator v. Character pt. 7

We're forging ahead with the replay of my series I did at the In the Mouth of Dorkness blog looking at whether one should be loyal to the creator or the character when buying comics. Here's part 7. Enjoy.

Comics – Creator or Character Part VII: It’s Black and White To Me

PREVIOUSLY:

In the last installment, I discussed briefly the boom and bust of the comic industry in the 90s. It’s been far more deeply examined elsewhere, so we’ll just leave it at: some people thought they could make money off these comics that were selling millions of copies, somehow forgetting the foundation of economic theory – supply and demand. When these idiotic speculators left for some other new investment, the comics medium went into a tailspin as the bubble that had been expanding burst, leaving many retailers with no choice but to shutter their doors.

IT REALLY IS BLACK AND WHITE:

Despite the poor reputation of comics in the nineties, there were some great comics that came out during that time. Disappointingly, the collapse of the industry in this decade meant a lot of these books ended in the middle of storylines, and many have yet to be completed.

Of course, their publication might not have been possible without the boom that preceded the bust. Artists like James Owen and Colleen Doran and Don Lomax were finding an audience with their black and white books and were able to, if not make a living solely as a comic artist, at least continue publishing for quite some time. The comics Starchild, Wandering Star, A Distant Soil (the most recent and definitive edition), Thieves & Kings, Hepcats, and Bone all began in the early 90s.

All of these books hold a special place in my collection. I had been introduced to black and white comics through Don Lomax’s brilliant book, Vietnam Journal, and I’d certainly enjoyed much of Eclipse’s output, particularly Miracleman and Airboy, so independent comics weren’t alien to me. But with the critical acclaim many of these black and white books received, I jumped in head first and found most of these individual and very personal works rising to the top of my reading pile.

YOU’RE MEANT TO READ THEM:

The early 90s is certainly where my shift in collecting occurred. Sure, I was still reading a lot of books from the “big two,” particularly the Superman family of books and the Flash from DC, but I found my stack shifting more toward the back of the Previews catalog. The stories I found from these independent and self-publishers just resonated more with me. I appreciated that, because anything could happen, there was real tension. I liked that I could buy a single book and get a single story and not have to worry about whether my favorite character would be crossing over into some other title or, worse, having an event slide over into the middle of his own book.

In May, 1995, I dropped the Superman titles with issue 100 of the run begun by John Byrne. And in April, 1997, I dropped the Flash – my character – and started, almost exclusively, buying independent comics.

I wanted a story to read. I wanted that story to matter. I didn’t want an “event” or a cover that exclaimed “nothing would ever be the same!” Because I knew that it would all end up being the same, because these publishing companies can’t allow too much change, otherwise these characters would not be recognizable to the outside world and that could hurt merchandising sales.

Just take a look at Grant Morrison’s brilliant run on New X-Men and how quickly Marvel – which hired Morrison to write the damn book and knew what they were getting from him – reverted to type and disregarded everything Morrison had set up in his run. This was, to my mind, a brilliant run that reinvigorated the X-Men franchise in a way it had needed for a long time. And yet, the issue that followed Morrison’s final one, everything was back to square one.

But I digress.

We’ve all continued buying a series through inertia – wanting to keep the run complete, worried about holes in our collections – and picked up that next issue of Wonder Woman or Captain America, even though the story was forgettable and the art lackluster. It’s like going from having Todd McFarlane drawing Spider-Man (for all his faults, there was an energy and an excitement in those pages) to having Alex Saviuk drawing the book. Or having Tom DeFalco write anything. How can we tacitly support this dreck? And yet, we do, through our outmoded buying habits.

It’s our fanatical loyalty to these characters (buying that Don Heck Flash issue when we really want a Carmine Infantino one) that has proven to DC and Marvel it is the characters that matter and not the creators. We are the ones who have propagated the editorially-driven pablum that often professes to be high-quality storytelling (if you bother to believe the hype machines at the respective marketing departments).

And that’s sad.

Comics - Creator v. Character pt. 6

Here's part 6 of the series I did over at the In the Mouth of Dorkness blog. Should we follow characters or creators when making comic buying decisions?

Comics – Creator or Character Part VI: Boom & Bust

THE NINETIES:

The decade of the 90s is looked back upon with a lot of derision. And much of that is deserved. Wizard magazine hit the stands in 1991 and promptly latched on to the speculator market that was running rampant at this time. Providing a price guide while spotlighting “hot” artists and writers as well as back issues that were rising quickly in price, they fed into the frenzy surrounding the comics medium by those who wished to turn a profit by selling their books on the secondary market.

This energized base that viewed comics not as an entertainment medium but as an investment opportunity led to unprecedented sales in the marketplace – X-Men #1 by Chris Claremont and Jim Lee sold over 8 million copies while Todd McFarlane’s Spider-Man #1 sold 2.5 million copies. These, and other similar books, were interesting in that the sales were, on the one hand, driven by the high-profile creators on the book (a definite rebuke of Marvel’s and DC’s belief that the artists and writers were interchangeable), and it signaled, to readers at least, that possibly a sea-change was coming within the “big two.” Maybe Marvel and DC would finally start giving the respect due these creative people.

Of course, they didn’t.

The second thing driving the sales of these books, though, was the rise of the variant cover. Comics is a storytelling medium, one that melds art and words in a way that no other medium is able to do. And yet, these large publishing companies decided to market foil-embossed, die-cut images from big-name artists – often artists unable to manage a monthly deadline. X-Men #1 had five different covers – the images of the first four creating the gatefold cover of the fifth cover – and Spider-Man #1 had multiple covers as well – gold and silver inked ones - but they sold. And to this day, they continue to be produced, though on a thankfully smaller scale than in the 90s.

IT’S ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS:

The one economic point that many of these investors failed to take into account is the law of “supply and demand.” We’ve all seen the stories of Action Comics #1 selling for $1.5 million. And people believed if they bought these “hot” comics, they could cash in too.

Of course, the fact that there were 8 million copies of X-Men #1 meant there was the potential for 8 million copies to be put on the auction block. If there are that many copies of a single comic available (and even if only 1% of those copies were put up for auction, there would still be 80,000 copies available, more than most individual comics sell today), then there is no incentive for a buyer to bid a high price, because if he doesn’t get that one, there are still 7,999,999 other copies for him to try and buy.

There is also the disposable nature of comic books. Despite the upgrade in paper and printing over the past couple decades, they are still relatively fragile. If you crease a book, or tear it accidentally, or smudge the cover, or the pages go yellow from age, or they crinkle because of too much humidity, then the book you own is no longer in pristine, mint condition. That means you won’t be getting “primo bank” for your comic when you try to flip it.

It’s only recently – in a relative sense, with regard to the seventy-plus year history of North American comics – that the collectability of comics has become a factor. During its infancy, people did not regard comic books as valuable commodities. They bought them to read and to share with friends and family, and if they ended up in the bottom of a closet after being dog-eared and sullied with luncheon condiments, then so be it. That was the nature of the beast, and nobody really cared because the value had already been obtained through the reading of the comic and the joy and excitement that brought to the reader(s).

This is why high-grade copies of Action Comics #1 or Amazing Fantasy #15 go for such exorbitant prices, because people were not looking toward future investment with these comics and many of them were trashed or damaged to a point where they weren’t worth such a high price. But now, with mylar bags and acid-free backing boards, everyone who’s a collector is working hard to keep their collections in prime condition, in the hopes that one day they might be able to sell them for a mint. It’s too bad because I wonder if these people who are so focused on the collecting aren’t missing out on the enjoyment that comes from sitting down to read a cool comic.

This collector mentality, when it is at the expense of the reading experience of comics, really gets to me. I remember witnessing it first hand at my local comic shop. While browsing the new comics one Wednesday, a father and his young son came into the shop. The boy was very excited and was pulling down a lot of comics to check out. But his father made him put most of those back, instructing his son to only buy first issues because they’d be worth something someday. I couldn’t believe it. Here was an opportunity for this man to get his son into reading, and he squandered it for a useless chance to make money down the road. Money that would never be coming his way.

It was this stupidity and short-sightedness that led to the almost total collapse of the comic marketplace in the mid-90s, as hundreds of comic shops shuttered their businesses when these speculators finally realized there was no money to be gained from what they were doing.

Not even the foil and the holograms could stop the bubble from bursting.

Comics - Creator v. Character pt. 5

It's new comic Wednesday, which means it's time for the latest installment (re-run from the In the Mouth of Dorkness blog) of Comics - Creator vs. Character. Here's part 5.
Enjoy.

Comics – Creator or Character Part V: What’s an Artist to Do?

WHAT HAS COME BEFORE:

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV:

THE SPIRIT OF ARTISTIC INTEGRITY:

Through much of the history of the comics medium in North America, superheroes have been the dominant characters on the 4-color pages. From Superman in Action Comics #1 to Jonathan Hickman’s FF, it has been the genre that has defined the medium, and comics have tended to be the one medium where superheroes work best. It’s a rare, if not unique, confluence of medium and genre, and one that helped to stall the evolution of the form on this continent for too many years. The comics medium need not be confined to just this single story type. And, to be fair, for much of its history there has been a variety of stories being told through comics; it’s just that those lacking spandex and superpowers have been more difficult to find.

Today, many artists are following their own path, expanding the horizons of the medium as best they can, and doing it outside the confines of the “Big Two” publishers. Certainly, this isn’t new ground. Will Eisner, in 1940, managed to get it written into his contract for the Spirit that, although the character was copyrighted by Everett Arnold’s Quality Comics, it was Eisner’s property and would revert to him immediately upon any dissolution of their partnership. With that, the Spirit was born and made his way into the households of millions of readers in the Sunday sections of major newspapers of the forties and fifties. It was a shrewd business decision by Eisner that paid dividends for him for years to come.

Conversely, Gil Kane notably tried to break away from the large publishing houses by creating his own original works – His Name is Savage and Blackmark – two books that did not get the distribution that might have allowed Kane to branch out on his own. Imagine what might have happened if Kane had found the success that Eisner did, and done it on the newsstand beside the comics branded with the DC and Marvel logos. Things could have been far different.

Of course, these setbacks by artists such as Kane doubtless empowered the publishers even more. If an artist with the renown and talent of Kane needed to come back to DC and Marvel with head bowed, why would any others believe they would fare better? I am sure it had a chilling effect on artists seeking to champion creators’ rights while also firmly entrenching them within the bullpens of Marvel and DC.

AT A CROSSROADS:

The advent of the direct market, which began in the early 1970s but really came into its own around 1980, brought more publishing options to comic artists and writers – Pacific Comics, Fantagraphics, First Comics, Dark Horse, Eclipse, Valiant, Top Shelf, and, of course, Image. With these new publishing avenues, many creators set out to do their own work, to create stories they owned, to follow in the footsteps of Eisner and Kane and others. It was as much an artistic decision as an economic one.

There was an energy evident in the new titles that came from this shift – ones that could most likely be characterized as dream projects for the creators involved. Mike Grell did Jon Sable Freelance, John Ostrander and Tim Truman created Grimjack, two New Englanders – Peter Laird and Kevin Eastman – came up with a parody that would define a movement, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Alan Moore started his magnum opus, From Hell. All of these books began in the eighties, and all of these books were published by companies other than Marvel or DC, and sometimes that publisher was the creator himself.

It was an exciting time for readers, as highly regarded creators jumped ship for projects they found more fulfilling. The list of artists and writers at First Comics is still impressive – Mike Grell, Marc Hempel, John Ostrander, Tim Truman, Jim Starlin, Howard Chaykin, Alan Moore, Mike Baron, Steve Rude, Goseki Kojima, Kazuo Koike, and others. Comics being published through First included Badger, Nexus, Mars, and Lone Wolf & Cub, with stories running the gamut from space fantasy to historical Japanese drama to superheroes with a twist. And, since the creators owned these characters, they could take them in whatever direction they wished. There was real tension in these stories, because anything could happen.

MILESTONES:

The opportunity afforded these writers and artists through publishing avenues that were not available prior to the direct market gave us readers a wealth of fabulous new characters to enjoy, and, more importantly, gave us a chance to enjoy the work of quality storytellers unfettered and unrestricted. The stories were exciting, the artwork breathtaking, and often adventurous. Chaykin’s design sense in American Flagg and Mike Grell’s lush linework in Jon Sable was amazing to behold, and these stories still hold up today.

Many of today’s comic creators hold these books up as examples of what can be done with the medium. These are the comics that made them want to be comic writers and artists. These are the books that cemented the reputations of many of their creators. These are seminal works, and they are ones the creators own. And the fact that these artists and writers had a vested interest in these books shines through.

Despite what Marvel and DC might think, creators owning their work is a good thing.

Comics - Creator v. Character pt. 4

It's New Comics Wednesday, so here's a re-run of part 4 of my series that has been running at the In the Mouth of Dorkness blog.

Enjoy.

Comics – Creator or Character Part IV: What Really Sells?

That’s a tough question. But first:

A BRIEF RECAP:

Many of us who call ourselves comic fans start with the superheroes – Superman, Wolverine, Wonder Woman, the Fantastic Four – these characters we are already familiar with, whether through movies, cartoons, lunchboxes, or Halloween costumes. And during that introductory period, we are blinded by these spandex-clad uber-men (a combination of their newness and the more widespread availability of comics from the big two publishers, DC and Marvel), and we latch onto new characters on an almost weekly basis.

But at some point, we come to realize there are men and women behind the creation of these stories. And we start to recognize certain art styles and the fact that particular writers seem to create tales that speak more to us than others. We begin to follow these creators to different books, even if they are working with characters with which we might not have much interest. Our collecting shifts – at least for most of those who follow through with comic buying after middle school – and titles we bought religiously at age thirteen gather dust in the back of a longbox as we turn twenty-five and thirty.

And, if you read message boards dedicated to comics, it might seem there are only two types of readers – those who follow characters and those who follow creators. I expect the reality is that most readers who have been with this hobby as long as I have are hybrids of these two, but that doesn’t make for an interesting discussion. So let’s hold to this dichotomy and see which is better, to follow the character or the creator?

CREATORS COUNT:

When people think of the Fantastic Four or Green Lantern or the Flash or the X-Men, the characters may be the first images they see, but the creator most associated (in their minds) with those heroes is often the second thing that comes to the fore.

Walt Simonson’s Thor

Wolfman & Pérez on New Teen Titans

Chris Claremont on X-Men

Curt Swan drawing Superman

Norm Breyfogle on Batman

J.M. DeMatteis on Captain America

Todd McFarlane on Spider-Man

Moore/Bissette/Totleben on Swamp Thing

Frank Miller on Daredevil

Jim Aparo on the Phantom Stranger

Barry Windsor-Smith on Conan

These creators had seminal runs on these characters’ titles. They not only raised their own profile with their work on these books, they also raised the profile of these heroes. Frank Miller saved Daredevil, which was running bi-monthly when he came onto it. Moore saved Swamp Thing and made it a top-selling book. Claremont and Byrne ignited the juggernaut that became the X-Men, a title that, at one point, stopped publishing new work and only reprinted older stories, despite creators such as Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Neal Adams having worked on the book. These writers and artists are linked with these characters, for better or worse, and not because the characters were compelling characters, but because these creators made the characters compelling.

Dark Phoenix Saga

The Judas Contract

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?

The Trial of Galactus

Daredevil: Born Again

Batman: Year One

These are the stories that get talked about, that are remembered by fans, and are reprinted in multiple editions, because fans still want to be able to read them. They are the backbone - the core - of many of these four-color heroes.

And someone had to write them. And someone had to draw them.

CORPORATE MACHINATIONS:

And yet, the practice at DC and Marvel for so long, was to put the character above the creator. They had little interest in creators’ rights, and felt writers and artists were interchangeable.

And certainly, it can be argued that the publication of these characters’ books can weather a change in artist or writer with relative ease. There’s so much ancillary merchandise out there – not only keeping these heroes fresh in the minds of the general populace and, more importantly, in the faces of children, but also providing larger revenue streams than the comics ever could – that the publishing arms of these corporations are often little more than a minor note on the board of directors’ final tally sheet, there only to keep the copyright and trademark alive so that more shrinky dinks and plastic tumblers can be pumped out for the kids to buy.

For decades, these publishers continued to commit the same mistake, believing the creators to be disposable, when it was really their product that was disposable. The companies did not want to pay more for artists they deemed a dime a dozen. And creators left and went to work for the competition, which often meant the “other” of the Big Two since the options were few and far between when it came to creating comics through the first fifty years or so of the medium. Jack Kirby famously left Marvel in 1970 to work for DC. Neal Adams did the same. Barry Smith, Steve Ditko - the same.

Only in recent decades have there been so many more options for these writers and artists. Alan Moore launched his own publishing imprint and eventually moved to Top Shelf. Neil Gaiman has moved on to book publishing and movies, while Howard Chaykin and Gerry Conway have only recently – relatively speaking – returned to comics after lengthy tenures in Hollywood.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T:

Creators want to be respected. They want to be paid fairly, to have their work and contributions acknowledged, and - though I am dubious of this ever coming about - to own the work they create. They want to be compensated for reprints and for the use of their characters. In short, they wish to be treated like adults.

Comics - Creator v. Character pt. 3

A re-run of part 3 of my series over at In the Mouth of Dorkness. Enjoy.

Comics – Creator or Character Part III: You mean actual people write and draw these things?

IN OUR PREVIOUS EPISODE:

Like most kids, when I discovered comics, I gravitated to those characters with which I was already familiar. For me, that included the Flash, G.I. Joe, Star Wars (from Marvel), and the Fantastic Four. And from there, it snowballed, with more titles being added to my pile every week. It was all about these colorful characters and the newness of this storytelling medium that combines words and art. But eventually, we all grow up and discover that there are actual creators behind the stories we love.

“BYRNE”D:

The first comic I remember picking up because of the cover art – both the content and the style – was Legends #1.

I didn’t know who that figure in the background was. And the only characters I really recognized were Captain Marvel, known to me better as Shazam, and the Flash. It was the Flash that caught my eye because I’m pretty sure I was aware of his demise at this point. But it was the art that hooked me and made me want to look inside. And was I in for a treat, because the book was indeed drawn by the same artist – John Byrne. Though, I do know that it was years (at least, it seemed like years) until I realized that Byrne had drawn the cover.

Thankfully, the story inside was as enjoyable as that piece of art was tantalizing, and I was haunting my local bookstore for subsequent issues, waiting what seemed like an interminable months-long trial for that final, late issue. I still pull out Legends every once in a while to re-read and reminisce about what it was like to be young and discovering these new and exciting characters on an almost weekly basis.

GEORGE PÉREZ:

It was around this point, maybe a bit earlier, that I was also introduced to the work of George Pérez. I was ordering back issues from those ads in the comics, mostly from Mile High Comics, and perusing the catalogs that were included with each order. Through the examination of these catalogs, I discovered that the Flash – MY FLASH! – had died in issue #8 of a series titled Crisis on Infinite Earths.

So, of course, I ordered that issue, plus all the others that were available. When I got that shipment and had a chance to see this book, I knew then and there that Pérez was my guy.

To this day, he’s still my artist of choice, even with all the other talented creators that have come along since then. There’s something about the way he draws characters – all the detail, and his exceptional attention to the body language of these characters – that speaks to me. I’m sure a lot of it is nostalgia, but there’s also his high level of craft at work, as well. Pérez is a master storyteller who is able to give readers their money’s worth with all the minutiae he packs into the panels, while never making things cluttered. His work is clear, crisp, and beautiful, and he has continued to grow as an artist during these decades that he’s been working professionally. And for that, as much as for anything else, he remains at the top of my list.

CAN I HAVE “MOORE” PLEASE?:

These examinations of the back issue catalogs also introduced me to another influential creator – whose work I have avidly collected since that time – Alan Moore.

Arguably the greatest writer the comic medium has ever seen, his work is imbued with an intelligence and a poetry rarely seen in comics. This first collection of his Swamp Thing work was my introduction to the estimable scribe from Northampton. And the first story in there, the brilliant “Anatomy Lesson,” which completely re-imagined the reality of Alec Holland’s relationship to the Swamp Thing without invalidating any of the stories that had come before, opened my eyes and showed me that comics could be so much more.

FOLLOWING:

Once these creators were on my radar, I began to seek out other work they’d done – Pérez on New Teen Titans and Wonder Woman, Byrne on Superman and the Fantastic Four, Moore on Miracleman, V for Vendetta, the Killing Joke, and Watchmen. It was a magical time, and I still have longboxes dedicated to these creators.

I pored through my back issue catalogs, hunting for their names next to any entry. It was an obsession, as comic collecting so often becomes, and it afforded me an opportunity to read some of the best comics produced in the past thirty years, bar none. The characters were cool, but it was the creators that made these comic books so enjoyable for me.

A NEW GOLDEN AGE:

The 80s was a new golden age for comics. You had the British invasion at DC, led by Moore – though the door to American comics was opened by creators such as Chris Claremont, John Bolton, and Barry Windsor-Smith – with the likes of Grant Morrison, Garth Ennis, Chris Weston, Warren Ellis, and Neil Gaiman following him – a movement that birthed such seminal works as the Sandman, the Invisibles, Transmetropolitan, and Preacher. While at Marvel, landmark runs on the Fantastic Four, Thor, and Daredevil, were being created by luminaries John Byrne, Walter Simonson, and Frank Miller. It was a great time to be a comic fan, to be on the ground floor of important works that would influence writers and artists for years to come.

Creators were ascendant during the 80s, and it would result in a new way of approaching comics –for the creators more than the companies – which would give us readers some of the best work within the medium.

But that’s something to delve into next time.