In My Honest Opinion...

STORY VS. ART

Hope you guys didn't miss me while I was gone. The convention season has left me scrambling, and--admittedly--I've been spending a little too much time on my new message board on the net. But I'm back now, and this column's topic is..."Story vs. Art." Along with my own message board, I've also been perusing other comic-related message boards posing such questions as: "Why do you read comics?", "What's more important: story or art?", "What type of underwear do you have on?" Questions like that. And I've been getting a LOT of insightful and rewarding responses to my questions. For instance, did you know that Brandon Peterson DOESN'T wear underwear?! Just kidding, Commando Brando! But seriously, I've been having really great "discussions" on these boards, and they've become the impetus for this column.
Personally, I don't think the Story vs. Art war will ever be won in this medium. Tragic, since it doesn't need to be a war. Comics is a collaborative medium. Or, as I say, an "All systems go" medium. A weak story will drag a book down just as fast as weak art ("art" being the finished product of three *different* job titles: penciller, inker and colorist). To paraphrase the screenwriting guru William Goldman (and apply it to comics), the creation of a comic is like a relay race, each runner passes the baton to the next. The race is the next runner's as soon as the baton is passed. Bottom line: *each* creative element is necessary, and hopefully compliments the other. It's painfully obvious when one element runs cross-grain with the other.
I became very aware of this when I dialoged DV8 #7 & #8 over Warren Ellis's plots. As everyone knows, Ellis writes about a billion comics a month. He was wrapping up his run on DV8, but didn't have time to write "full-script" like he normally does. In short, he wrote an outline of scenes for the artists, then let the artists go nuts. I was brought in to dialog. It didn't seem like a big deal when I started, but since the artists were off on tangents I had to pull the story *into* a story with nothing but *dialog*. The element of dialog in a comic is almost a seperate and distinct element of the writing process. I never realize it until I had to piece a story together out of loose plots and random art. If my dialog didn't compliment the sequential art that was laid before me the stories would have collapsed. All systems would not have been GO.
Regardless of my marvelously thoughtout--and well worded--opinions above, what the debate often boiled down to was if you had to choose, art OR story, what would it be? Fantastic art, but shallow, soulless stories? Or faboulously entertaining and thought provoking stories with average or sub-par art? The majority went for the story. Those who prefered art over story (if it came down to it) were, no surprise, aspiring artists! Now hold on! I'm not changing my thesis statement. I'm polarizing opinions to illustrate a point. What's my point, you ask? This: comics are entertainment. Like a movie or tv show (the closest mediums to comics, IMHO). What's a movie without direction? Without camera men? Without scripts, actors, make-up men? Each element MUST compliment the next and each element is essential.
Fantastic art, but shallow, soulless stories work for short-term sales. But after a couple issues, readers will walk. Jim Lee summed it up best when he said, "I feel strong art pulls in the readers, catches their attention and is largly responsible for short term sales; however, it is only a good story which can keep the readers there long-term. That's why it's important to have both strong scripts and solid art," (eg, All systems GO). Thanks for making my point, Jim.
Take it from one of the few living legends of the industry: you need both! Comics are the finished product of many different job titles, all pulled together into a single unit of entertainment. For the uninitiated, it's hard to discern these seemingly intangible elements once a comic is in our hands. Unless one of the elements isn't holding up its end of the bargain.

SCB

Email GimmickAge@juno.com to order your "I Survived the Gimmick Age of Comics, 1989-1993" T-Shirts. 100% cotton crew necks available in Large (14.99) and XLarge (15.99). Large typeset with comic book quality fonts.
Join the craze!
Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.




THE ECONOMICS OF CREATING

For those of you who read my last column--and retained what you read--I off-handedly mentioned that this issue's topic would be on the retail side of the comics industry. Well, it's not. Something the illustrious Comic Club editor Brad Cook wrote in the last installment of this newsletter really struck a chord deep within me. Not one to buck inspiration, I quickly changed topics. You retail guys will get yours soon.
Now, what inspired me so much about the illustrious Brad Cook's editorial was when he challenged us all to look at comics not as an industry, but as a *medium.* He challenged us to quit "...bemoaning the state of the industry," and to start "...looking at what *we* [readers, retailers, publishers and creators] can do to stoke the fires of ingenuity and come up with ideas which can revitalize the economics of creating, buying and selling comic books." Great! Let's do it! But how? To continue adding to my word count and to further illustrate my motives for writing this column, Brad followed the above remarks by saying, "If you're an aspiring creator, maybe you should be thinking about establishing your own voice instead of following the trends and trying to ape whatever's hot this month." There it is. The answer.
You up-coming creators (and I put myself in this boat) need to blaze some new trails. Hone the craft of comics (and it is a craft, like screenwriting or building furniture, that takes talent and technical skill) whether you're writing, penciling, or lettering; know your medium, your genre and yourself. What do YOU want to tell, or show, the reader. If you don't know what your saying, and just want to show the Hulk punching Batman around, your work will be hollow. If you're just blindly piggy-backing off other's successes, your work will be equally hollow.
Brad talked about revitalizing comics in one of three ways. The one that I thought was very sharp--and that I am now going to swipe and turn into my own thing--was the ECONOMICS OF CREATING. I'm singling this out because as an expressive medium, an artistic medium, this phrase seems to be an oxymoron. "Economics" implies making money off something. "Creating" implies goateed latte drinkers who live in lofts and can't make the rent because they're too concerned with expressing themselves. Roll this phrase around in your head a couple times: Economics...of...*Creating.* Seemingly juxtaposed at first glance, there is something deeply profound in this phrase. At least to me.
To some, the ECONOMICS OF CREATING might be taken literally. Economics-- meaning financial, commercial or marketable--might translate into creators needing to produce something commercial to sell to a market. How do you judge what will sell? By the past circulation of like products. So, to those who take this phrase literally--and the mainstream marked is chalk full of 'em--comics must be cheap carbon copies of past successes. At least that's the end result of this surface-oriented mass-production method of spewing out comics. Problem with this method is that carbon copies start loosing cohesion after repeated duplication. In other words, they become *hollow.*
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a great artist. Right now, we're in the middle of developing a creator-owned project, but when we first decided to work together I asked him, "My writing interests are pretty broad, what do you want to draw?" ...(silence on the other end of the phone), then he said, "I don't know. I mean, what sells right now?" My response to this very common question was, "Let's not worry about that. Let's do what we enjoy. By the time we produce this thing something else will be 'hot.'" Now this really great artist and very great person isn't to blame for his comment, and it doesn't mean he's an intellectual sellout. The "What sells?" question is probably asked thousands of times a day in every publishing house across the globe, and editors--the gatekeepers of what is published--pound variants of this maxim into creators, repeatedly. But my point to him was that if we lovingly develop a comic that we care for--whether it ends up being utterly unique or the "next" X-Men--the readers will see that we cared about what we created, and we aren't trying to ram regurgitated, incestuous carbon copies down their throats. They'll hear our "voice." This is the side of the ECONOMICS OF CREATING that I find so profound.
So what we creators need to do is not produce the *next* Double Impact meets Spawn, with a Gen-13 twist, but to dig *deeper* into ourselves (or, at the very least, pull our ideas from deeper wells than comics [like Mythology, History, Religion, current scientific advancements, etc.]) and pull out something that has meaning behind it, in it and around it. Even if it only has meaning to the creator, the work will be relevant. Readers will hold it up above the myriad of Wolverine carbon copy #4373 meets Femme Fatale carbon copy #837.
This other, less obvious, side of creating comics is an inside-out process that involves knowing yourself, what you want to tell, or show, the reader and leading with your "voice." This side of creating involves throwing out the question "What Sells?" and ignoring that "economics" implies generating money. A frightening proposition for many, but needed in order for *us* to "stoke the fires of ingenuity." And as was Brad's point, "us" is the reader, retailer, publisher and creator. All of us. Together.

SCB



IT'S NOT MY FAULT!

Comic conventions are great when it comes to feeling the "pulse" of the industry. They're a place where all the principals collide. Creators. Collectors. Publishers. And retailers. Recently signing at a convention one thing became very apparent: finger pointing is abound in the comic industry today. Everyone knows the comic market is in a long rut--and it's everyone else's fault!
Publishers tell me no one's buying. Collectors tell me publishers charge too much. Retailers tell me the customers are fed up with sifting through all the junk. And the creators? They whine about not having enough work. Personally, I've caught myself grumbling about each of these things. I've grumbled about them, repeatedly, because every single point is correct--and ultimately intertwined. Which points the blame right smack dab at *all* of us.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that comics is a basic supply/demand dynamic. Sure, that entertainment angle throws us off sometimes, but once you boil it down there it is: Supply & Demand. The rub of it is, demand isn't what it was in the early-nineties and supply--it seems--is stacking up like fire wood in front of Lumber Jack's cabin.
The reason is simple. Publishers are trying to recapture that Bull Market of aforementioned early-nineties when a certain number of really commercial creators spun off from their success at one major publishing house to form their own house. This move--and a strong speculator market--sold more comics then any other time in the industry. Millions! No one had ever seen figures like that before, but they sure were going to try to repeat it. And everyone else was going to try to cash in on it. Comics, cards, toy lines, movie deals... Look out!
Marvel began their "Everything but the kitchen sink" publishing policy. DC killed Supes, then Green Lantern, Green Arrow, et al. Chromium-, Dayglow- and poly-baged, special card inserted Gatefold-covers ruled the shelves. And the Gimmick-Age of comics began. And fans got sick of it. Quick. Publishers, please poke yourself in the chest right now. Assume responsibility. You too collectors. You guys that buy multiple number ones and gobble up the gimmick covers, never reading a poly-baged page, *you* spurred on the junk bond market. The publishing houses were just trying to meet your demand--and the investors expectations.
But like I said, collectors got real sick of variant-, fire-proof-, hologram-covers, jacked up cover prices, and consistently rushed comics--that sometimes hit the shelves weeks late anyway. When the demand started to dip, investors pulled out, leaving publishers high-and-dry and scrambling to get back on that bull. But now the bulls a bear.
Creators are scratching their heads wondering why the editors aren't calling anymore. But wonder no more! Greed--and surface over substance--is the reason behind it all. The greed of demanding consumers who wanted to get rich off comics (of all things); the greed of publishers who wanted to supply the goods, which in turn created a demand for more creators (which isn't there now) and more comic shops (my next column is on you guys). Now publishers are churning out anything to see what will stick, putting even more stuff on the shelves that doesn't move. But the readers ain't buying it anymore--literally. Now they just want something that justifies the $2.50 they pay for a comic.


SCB


Email me at SCBury@Juno.com to order your "I Survived the Gimmick-Age of Comics" T-Shirt!