Blustering comics article du jour (I leave it to you to decide if that applies to the referenced piece, mine, or both.)
Over at Oni Press Jamie S. Rich is indulging (as is his right) in a rant about how the latest mainstream word is a rolling backwards, and how this is a bad thing.
My counter is that he's not stepping back far enough. It's a very broad industry in terms of themes and product, though I certainly agree that it's by and large a shrinking pool of readership.
When one gets to the heart of his complaints it appears to be that Marvel isn't doing and/or pushing manga, or whatever else might be considered "progressive", and that they aren't hell bent on permanently (as if there's ever any permanence in comics) pushing (in someone's idea of "ahead") into ever-new territory.
Beyond that, he seems to be battling with the very essence of comics as a business, venting his irritation that the fans aren't buying what he wants them to buy. Honestly, I feel his pain, as does anyone who's seen excellent material abandoned because it simply wasn't financially viable, and more lucrative avenues were calling. (For instance, I would dearly love to see Bill Loebs have the financial freedom to comfortably return to producing more Journey.) There have been times when the label "critically acclaimed" seemed to be tantamount to stamping "terminal" on a series. Still, the realities of the marketplace ultimately return to... the marketplace. Anyone who wants to see talented people aspire to making a living from their creator-owned and controlled work should be choosing those projects to hype. And that's not just hyping them to comics fans, but to everyone.
My view is that there's nothing in the least unusual or particularly damning about the current situation, where many aspiring talents have tripped to the idea that in a very real way the independent comics market has become the farm team from which the mainstream publishers draw new talent. If an artist or writer's aspiration is to work on Batman or Spider-man, I see no shame in that. If an artist or writer responds to "the call" as a means to establishing a broader name for himself, making more money from a one-year contract than he likely would have made in ten of working on an exclusively creator-owned, small press title, (presuming it wasn't simply a money pit) looking forward to when he has the financial resources to return to his dream, I don't see any shame in that either. A nice example of that is Erik Larsen, who worked on Marvel's comics for some years and then was able to get out into the marketplace in a more independent fashion, where he was able to bring out Savage Dragon, a character and series that is plainly very dear to him.
I suppose we have different idealized futures for the comics industry. Jamie Rich has the view that the worker's paradise, where all is owned by the creators and subject solely to their whim, is what the industry should be aspiring to. While I would like to see that end of things flourish, I would be lying if I were to say that I wanted to see the end of corporately-owned comics universes. The notion of what the 1960s comics scene would have been like with creator ownership and control... my fondest comics of the 60's and 70's wouldn't have happened. I saw what gyrations and, frankly, decline Jack Kirby's work went into as he "evolved", and the notion that Thor, the Fantastic Four, etc. might have been subject to his vision over all the subsequent years doesn't appeal to me.
Maybe it comes down to what one thinks of as "progressive", and whether or not one chooses to see it as a positive thing.
Sticking with Jack Kirby (not to pick on him, but it's difficult to think of anyone else who was so monumentally important to the history of comics, with work that spanned decades -- and I'm all too aware that I may be invoking the rain of fire that comes with doing anything to rouse the ire of the hardcore Kult of Kirby), I think he hit the peak of his output in the middle-1960s. 1967 or so. His style, and working collaboratively with Stan Lee, he helped produce runs of comics I still cherish. As he "progressed" towards doing more of his own work, alpha to omega, and his graphic style began to morph into, well, a self-parody. Also, he provided all of the dialogue without it going through the filter of someone with more of a writer's sensibilities. It worked to varied degrees on his early, new work for DC circa 1971 - he remained a creative dynamo and a fabulous font of exciting concepts - but once he started to touch existing characters... Eh. I still feel embarassment for when, upon seeing that Jack Kirby was going to be coming back to some of the Marvel titles in the mid-1970s, I waxed rhapsodic (well, as much as someone barely in his teens could) about his work to a friend I'd recently recruited to the ranks of comics readers... and then we saw his issues of Captain America. Especially coming relatively close on the heels of several years worth of innovative issues by the likes of writers such as Englehart and Gerber... "Disappointing" didn't really cover it.
That was likely a major digression.
The bottom line is that if someone feels there's work out there that's being ignored, don't whine about a lack of sophistication on the part of the existing market. The only progressive thing to do is to spread the word and help make such projects more commercially viable, more remunerative. To complain that stables of corporately-owned titles are ultimately going on minor variations on cycles is naive. To insist that all bridges, once crossed, must be burned, is selfish. Some people outgrow amusement parks, some don't, or perhaps they come to appreciate the same thing in different ways. Besides, it isn't always about you, or us. It has to be about the new people coming in, too. Also, to complain that a company is trying to recapture some success by, frankly, trying to give people what they've been asking for, is foolish.
Finally, as I mentioned way up near the top, one has to step back. Even with the X-Men stepping back into costume, getting out of their Matrix/clubbing gear, and Marvel aiming to reign the mainstream titles in under a single, interactive universe again (the latter in particular being one I, in my perhaps backwards way, heartily approve of), that's not the whole of the comics industry. (Even if Marvel's claims that "one of every two comics sold" is published by Marvel is somehow correct, even just in North America.) There's something out there for nearly any taste. Use your influence to grow an audience for what you feel is the best of it. If it's successful, you'll likely see more of it. If, instead, Marvel or DC buys the talent behind it out for a year or two at a shot, well... it is a business. Who does one complain to? The big company, simply for existing and trying to be profitable? The "talent," for selling out? The fans for buying the wrong things? Does complaining help?
I suppose it vents some frustration.
Over at Oni Press Jamie S. Rich is indulging (as is his right) in a rant about how the latest mainstream word is a rolling backwards, and how this is a bad thing.
My counter is that he's not stepping back far enough. It's a very broad industry in terms of themes and product, though I certainly agree that it's by and large a shrinking pool of readership.
When one gets to the heart of his complaints it appears to be that Marvel isn't doing and/or pushing manga, or whatever else might be considered "progressive", and that they aren't hell bent on permanently (as if there's ever any permanence in comics) pushing (in someone's idea of "ahead") into ever-new territory.
Beyond that, he seems to be battling with the very essence of comics as a business, venting his irritation that the fans aren't buying what he wants them to buy. Honestly, I feel his pain, as does anyone who's seen excellent material abandoned because it simply wasn't financially viable, and more lucrative avenues were calling. (For instance, I would dearly love to see Bill Loebs have the financial freedom to comfortably return to producing more Journey.) There have been times when the label "critically acclaimed" seemed to be tantamount to stamping "terminal" on a series. Still, the realities of the marketplace ultimately return to... the marketplace. Anyone who wants to see talented people aspire to making a living from their creator-owned and controlled work should be choosing those projects to hype. And that's not just hyping them to comics fans, but to everyone.
My view is that there's nothing in the least unusual or particularly damning about the current situation, where many aspiring talents have tripped to the idea that in a very real way the independent comics market has become the farm team from which the mainstream publishers draw new talent. If an artist or writer's aspiration is to work on Batman or Spider-man, I see no shame in that. If an artist or writer responds to "the call" as a means to establishing a broader name for himself, making more money from a one-year contract than he likely would have made in ten of working on an exclusively creator-owned, small press title, (presuming it wasn't simply a money pit) looking forward to when he has the financial resources to return to his dream, I don't see any shame in that either. A nice example of that is Erik Larsen, who worked on Marvel's comics for some years and then was able to get out into the marketplace in a more independent fashion, where he was able to bring out Savage Dragon, a character and series that is plainly very dear to him.
I suppose we have different idealized futures for the comics industry. Jamie Rich has the view that the worker's paradise, where all is owned by the creators and subject solely to their whim, is what the industry should be aspiring to. While I would like to see that end of things flourish, I would be lying if I were to say that I wanted to see the end of corporately-owned comics universes. The notion of what the 1960s comics scene would have been like with creator ownership and control... my fondest comics of the 60's and 70's wouldn't have happened. I saw what gyrations and, frankly, decline Jack Kirby's work went into as he "evolved", and the notion that Thor, the Fantastic Four, etc. might have been subject to his vision over all the subsequent years doesn't appeal to me.
Maybe it comes down to what one thinks of as "progressive", and whether or not one chooses to see it as a positive thing.
Sticking with Jack Kirby (not to pick on him, but it's difficult to think of anyone else who was so monumentally important to the history of comics, with work that spanned decades -- and I'm all too aware that I may be invoking the rain of fire that comes with doing anything to rouse the ire of the hardcore Kult of Kirby), I think he hit the peak of his output in the middle-1960s. 1967 or so. His style, and working collaboratively with Stan Lee, he helped produce runs of comics I still cherish. As he "progressed" towards doing more of his own work, alpha to omega, and his graphic style began to morph into, well, a self-parody. Also, he provided all of the dialogue without it going through the filter of someone with more of a writer's sensibilities. It worked to varied degrees on his early, new work for DC circa 1971 - he remained a creative dynamo and a fabulous font of exciting concepts - but once he started to touch existing characters... Eh. I still feel embarassment for when, upon seeing that Jack Kirby was going to be coming back to some of the Marvel titles in the mid-1970s, I waxed rhapsodic (well, as much as someone barely in his teens could) about his work to a friend I'd recently recruited to the ranks of comics readers... and then we saw his issues of Captain America. Especially coming relatively close on the heels of several years worth of innovative issues by the likes of writers such as Englehart and Gerber... "Disappointing" didn't really cover it.
That was likely a major digression.
The bottom line is that if someone feels there's work out there that's being ignored, don't whine about a lack of sophistication on the part of the existing market. The only progressive thing to do is to spread the word and help make such projects more commercially viable, more remunerative. To complain that stables of corporately-owned titles are ultimately going on minor variations on cycles is naive. To insist that all bridges, once crossed, must be burned, is selfish. Some people outgrow amusement parks, some don't, or perhaps they come to appreciate the same thing in different ways. Besides, it isn't always about you, or us. It has to be about the new people coming in, too. Also, to complain that a company is trying to recapture some success by, frankly, trying to give people what they've been asking for, is foolish.
Finally, as I mentioned way up near the top, one has to step back. Even with the X-Men stepping back into costume, getting out of their Matrix/clubbing gear, and Marvel aiming to reign the mainstream titles in under a single, interactive universe again (the latter in particular being one I, in my perhaps backwards way, heartily approve of), that's not the whole of the comics industry. (Even if Marvel's claims that "one of every two comics sold" is published by Marvel is somehow correct, even just in North America.) There's something out there for nearly any taste. Use your influence to grow an audience for what you feel is the best of it. If it's successful, you'll likely see more of it. If, instead, Marvel or DC buys the talent behind it out for a year or two at a shot, well... it is a business. Who does one complain to? The big company, simply for existing and trying to be profitable? The "talent," for selling out? The fans for buying the wrong things? Does complaining help?
I suppose it vents some frustration.
.png)
Comments