DO AS I SAY... #1: DEATH OF COMICS? YOU DECIDE.

[Emily Morgan]

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/logos/daislogo.jpg" align=left border=0 alt="Do As I Say logo">By Emily Morgan, ermorgan@hotmail.com

Death of Comics? You Decide.

I hate to agree with a fancy pants elitist, but I believe Bill Maher is correct in his assumption that Victory Begins at Home. There isn’t a day that goes by without an online columnist, message board poster, or some other so-called expert giving their two cents on today’s “failing” market, and wouldn’t you know it, they have a plan that’ll turn the industry around. They tell of a glorious land of sunshine and happiness where everyone frolics in candy cane fields while wearing velvet gowns and eating delicious ambrosia. Oh how I long for the day this marvelous dream becomes a reality. As luck would have it, we can achieve it if only we follow the simple guidelines of their plans. I think I can even hear birds chirping over my blissful sigh. It’s so simple. They’re so wise. Why don’t we just listen?

Seriously, there’s one problem with these plans of act (or lack thereof), they’re bull jive. 100% B.S. from a cow’s anus far, far away. The truth of the matter is comics are the strongest they’ve been since the turn of the decade. You’re probably thinking I’m crazy. That’s not what I heard Ms. Morgan. I know, it’s hard to get the news without all the negative spin. In my experiences, there are three areas where most online pundits go off track: the creative front, cultural representation, and finances.

1. Creatively, not only does there exist a wide range of product to satisfy any audience, but daring moves are being made. Recently we’ve seen a revamp of the Superman and X-Men franchises. Upcoming, June’s Identity Crisis will reshape the DC Universe, July’s Avengers Disassembled will do the same with the Marvel U, and the Batbooks will receive a shakeup in August with War Games. Although these events will overhaul some of the industry’s biggest properties, not everything has to have an Earth shattering conclusion (that isn’t feasible). Not all heroes have to be unmasked or die to add a sense of drama. This dark and gritty wave is far too superficial. Deep down, the types of changes this faction wants are very hollow, in spite of their opinions.

As you can tell, there seems to be a double standard in this community. It’s funny that the liberal comics community, for lack of a better term, is opposed to Reload because it retcons some of Grant Morrison’s work, yet they won’t admit Morrison did much of the same concerning the 90’s X-Men. That decade was a period met with little opposition at the time, yet now, serves as the crux for any argument condemning mainstream comics. Funnily enough, there are those who will admit to liking it then, but hating it now. Again, take note of the left hand washing the right.

2. Culturally, comics are slowly deviating from the stigma of middle-age single men still living in their parent’s basement. Characters like Spider-Man, the X-Men, Batman, and Superman are becoming viable franchises due to successful movies and T.V. programs. Distinguished periodicals not normally associated with the medium, such as Entertainment Weekly, are covering comic books in their review sections. There is a rise in the number of women readers, and not because of manga or Sandman (frankly, I can’t stand either). We like superheroes too if they are well written. I grew up on old Teen Titans, and Uncanny X-Men, and they still appeal to me now. Does this mean I’m not as intelligent as people my age who don’t read superhero comic books? No. Comics are a form of escapist literature. A reality many, both in and outside the community, fail to grasp.

3. Financially, sells numbers are on a sharp incline (Astonishing X-Men #1, for example, is estimated at selling 225,000 copies, while Superman #204 sold roughly 231,000 copies). Though I do agree that there needs to be a decrease in prices. Call me old school, but I remember a time when $3 bought you three or four comics, not one. Is there a reason they’re this high? I don’t see anything that warrants the high price tag, yet I don’t think there are going to be blind fans that’ll support a book no matter the price. You don’t have to buy everything, and contrary to popular belief, the “fanboys” don’t. I keep hearing the argument if you don’t like it, then don’t buy it. The trouble with this is weeks later, when these people hear of a book they like being cancelled, like say, oh Wildcats, they denounce the community for not buying it despite them telling everyone they don’t buy Amazing Spider-Man because it didn’t appeal to them. Like they did with Spidey, I read Wildcats and didn’t like it (what happened to the old Jim Lee crew?), thus I dropped it. How does that make me unsophisticated, yet not tarnish their image?

Measures need to be taken, not against a “self-destructive” industry, rather against the irrational counterculture. Actually, they aren’t even a counterculture. When I see people cautioning a comics apocalypse, I’m reminded of the fable The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Judging from the classics ineptitude of the elitists, I’ll summarize the story for them. Basically there was this boy who was in charge of watching over a flock of sheep far away from his village (near the neighboring woods). The boy became very lonely and devised a plan to get the townspeople’s attention. He ran into the small village yelling “Wolf! Wolf!” It worked. The villagers came rushing out. The boy laughed at the sight. Pleased with the outcome, the boy tried it again the next day, and the next, and so on, each with successful results. Finally the day came where a wolf actually came out of the woods. The boy rushed into the town yelling “Wolf! Wolf!” Only this time, thinking it was another joke, they paid him no attention, and the wolf soon ate the boy’s flock.

I believe these people too are merely doing this for attention. Where Aesop’s fable differs from the comics debate is the industry’s end of days isn’t on the horizon. Let’s for a moment assume we do hit a wall. How are we to take these cries serious? They’re only leading their own flocks down a slippery slope. They follow their shepherd not realizing he’s a snake charmer.

The hypocrisy dripping from their allegations is downright laughable. These people will condemn fan fiction, yet orchestrate these grand games of fantasy comics (think fantasy football). They come up with new streamlined proposals for each of the Big Two. This usually translates to the elimination of everything they don’t like, i.e. every piece of traditionalism. One X-title. One Spider-Man. One Batman. One Superman. One every other superhero. Gone are the iconic characters that built this industry, and any creators who believe in continuity. In come mods like Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, and Garth Ennis—creators who have expressed their disinterest in certain aspects of superheroes (if not all aspects in the case of Ellis). They say the market should be more diverse, yet their plans eliminate all sign of this.

This establishment of double standards is a growing trend by the intimidating, self-described intellectual superior. These are what I term the “Do as I Sayers”—people who take the intellectual high ground and preach tolerance when someone bashes something they like, yet don’t return the favor when the roles are reversed. You’ve seen it, I’ve seen it, and I’ve given numerous examples above. They’re the people who get mad when you don’t shower the mod creators with praises, but feel vindicated when they tear into Claremont, or Austen. I ask you, is that right? To me, it sounds like they don’t practice what they preach.

This brings me to the here and now. I believe current online comic columns have a very biased perception of the market. Often times they condemn what they call fanboys. I’ve never been keen on that term, but if having respect for the hard work of creators such as Stan Lee, Jack “The King” Kirby, Chris Claremont, Marv Wolfman, and George Perez, and not having radically changing opinions depending on what’s the flavor of the month, then I guess I am a fanboy. I prefer the term traditionalist, but no matter our name, we are the ignored fans.

I’ve been a lurker for two years. Like Peter Finch says in Network, “I’m mad as heck, and I’m not going to take this anymore.” I’m very nervous about coming onboard as a columnist, but I look forward to talking about this medium I adore with the rest of staff, and community I’ve come to know from a distance. At the same time, I won’t back down in defending and explaining the actions of traditionalists. I hope I will do an efficient job giving this neglected faction its much needed voice.

Looking back, it appears I too was wrong about one thing. Unlike my opponents, I apologize. I’m sorry, victory does not begin at home, victory has already been met. The mission in creating a viable market has been accomplished. The protractors’ arguments have no ground. In a word, what they’re perpetrating is slander. We cannot allow these people to lead comic fans down the wrong track. Straight ahead is the only way to go, a direction they claim they’re leading, but in reality, is a hypocritical creed. Their words are nothing more than ego stroking.

I ask everyone out there who shares in my beliefs to not let your opinions and true love of comics be swept under the rug in favor of a streamlined medium purged of comic book traditionalism. There is a void in online opinions. We are being force feed a feast of lies. The truth shall be heard. Both sides will be represented. Throughout the course of this column, I look to continue to discuss comic’s double standards while presenting a traditional comic book analysis. Although the topics of discussion will primarily pertain to characters, titles, creators, and news, online behavior will be an ever-present element. Unlike current online pundits, my aim is not to sway naysayers to my side. I only wish to highlight the traditionalist principles I feel our being overlooked by the Do as I Sayers, and as a result, the online community. My goal is create a better understanding of the outcasts of the outcasts (comic book fans). It is up to the individual whether or not they take my words to heart.

Thank you,

Emily Morgan

<center><hr width=75%></center>

Emily Morgan started reading comics when she was six and hasn’t looked back. Well she's looked back. Frankly, it'd be stupid not to. I mean there could be dogs chasing her or something. She just hasn't quit reading comics at any time.

<center><hr width=75%></center>

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of ComiX-Fan or its other staff in general.

[Lithera]

While I don't agree with all of it, I /like/ the current WildCATS, I think you have some great points. I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say.

[dopplegager]

Great article i agree with some but not all. I do agree that prices should go down though. Like all books at about $1.99-$2.25 would be great.

[Post]

As much as I like it to happen I do not think the price is going to go down. Cost is going up on comics. The paper they use is much higher quality then it was. Also it seems that the secene is getting more competitive between publishers. Do you think DC had to pay the "normal" price to lock up all of those exclusives?

[Seeker]

I-im-impossible! A girl, an actual female reader of American comic books, defending mainstream traditional American superhero comics?! The specific genre in the industry that has not only always alienated female readers, but whose overwhelming dominance of the mainstream American comic industry is what caused it to become by and large unhospitable for female readers in the first place! For a female reader to do something such as this would be equivalent to a Jew defending Nazism. It's just so unthinkable! I would never have expected it in...in well, forever! Of course there's Wonder Woman and the whole bevy of solo female superheroes, but I always thought that women hated them for being more of oedipal male sexual fantasies of female domination than actual accurate portrayals of real female psychology. What's next, Alan Moore writing Fantastic Four?!

[OcCaM]

While it WOULD be nice to see comics go down to a more reasonable $2 I don't see it happenning.

It's just not economically feasible. There are many websites out there where you can check the rising costs of items. I based inflation vs. such common items as the Hershey candy bar and other stuff like that and I get a rough estimate that my beloved 20 cent comics (well they were just beginning to turn .25!) should be around $2 today!

The problem though is that we'd be comparing a $2 comic of today with it's higher production values, better paper and with the cheap 4 color, newsprint comics of yesterday. Also, have to factor in the dwindling readership compared to that time (early 70's) and there is NO WAY in hell that comics will be $2. Frankly, while I hate $3 it's fair for what you get! Comics like the ultimate line, spidey, xmen etc. stay at $2.25 because they have a higher readership and can support it. I have to presume Astonishing X-Men doesn't go for a cheaper price because it probably costs more to get someone like Whedon on board!

Enough on that, what I actually wanted was to address the supposed high numbers of Astonishing X-Men. I think it's pretty easy to pick a #1 issue with many variants and state how well the industry is doing. I think a more accurate reflection of the industry is take at least a 2 issue or so with no variants. And I know full well just from my last trip to the local comic store that there are still speculators out there. I grabbed one copy of Astonishing and there were at least 3 people in the few minutes I was at the store grabbing both variants that were on the racks! (Was there more than 2, not including that special painted variant that's hard to get? I can't keep track of such nonsense!)

Anyway, while I'm sure that Astonishing will probably sell around the 100K mark after a few issues (hey it managed to pull me back to the X-titles after Casey/morrisson made me run off screaming about what drek it was!) there aren't really any titles realistically doing above 100K generall speaking. So to cite the odd number out makes your arguement look very weak!

I don't believe that the 100K mark is all doom and gloom. Just the fact that so few books break above the 25K is disheartening! (just look at the top 100!) Still, creatively we have such nice, diverse choices I don't really worry about whether the sky is falling anymore or not! If it does, ah well there's other entertainment, meanwhile, what a great ride and time it is to be a reader of comics! (Esp. when you can get such nice trades as Walking Dead for $10!!!!!!!! Rush and buy this one folks, you won't be disappointed!)

I'm baffled though as to why anyone wouldn't like Sandman? Sounds almost blasphemous! :) (Although we all have our own tastes, I love Fables but the only launch around that time Y the Last Man has to be the worst drivel I've ever read. Well-written or not!)

Anyway, look forward to more of these, it was a refreshing change of pace! :)

[Alex Guillen]

Emily, welcome to Comixfan first of all. How ya doing? ;)

well the death of comics as we know them? it could be but as long as there's still enough comic fans out there to keep buying the prodcut on the market even with higher prices then it's never going to die. And especially with allt he media hype on superheroes now and the next generation of kids will get to know these heroes as we did, that's the legacy of comics: always keep reloading with new talent and new ways to tell stories about extraordinary people in an ordinary world.

[DiamondPaladinX]

Yeah, and Joss Whedon writing X-Men?! How's THAT going to happen? *sees Astonishing X-Men to his left* Uh huh...well, weirder things have happen.

Very interestng, though from what I gather, you seem to constantly get the idea that many of the columnists are enforcing their beliefs to naysayers. Frankly, since I've read most of the columns, there's a good amount of writers who have to defend their necks being hung. I apprenciate your point in regards to columns that are truly saying "I found the Holy Grail, and the industry needs it too" and the acknowledgement of that issue. Yet you steer way too close to the very thing you criticize...

Yet Ms. Morgan, wonderful job on your first column. I do hope your next one is just as...interestingly observative.

[ugaryan526]

Maybe I'm weird as a comic fan, but I just go with the flow. To elaborate (and paradoxically simplify), I like X-Men. I like 60-70's X-Men. I like Claremont X-Men. I like 90's X-Men. I like Morrison and Austen X-Men. I do love the characters and I love seeing nods to the past and the rich X-history (like the Reloaded Uncanny). I also like seeing new character developments and relationships (like Angel/Husk, Cyclops/WhiteQueen). Of course changes (like those from Austen and Morrison) have limits, but honestly there is so much gray area in personality. Are people really holding Bobby Drake to the way he acted in the 60's? Or even X-Factor? Do you really know people that react predictably to every situation the same way? I'm just tired of seeing "I hate *creator* because *character* would never say/do that!" because real 3D people have moods, slips of personality, and sometimes are just not themselves. Anyway, I think this problem comes from the nature of comic book reading. Before the internet, reading was a very solitary action. Veteran comic readers have crafted their versions of the X-World in their head and no writer will ever ever ever make the characters fit every fan's specific X-World. Does my go with the flow outlook make me opinionless? No, there are some stories/eras that like better than others, but it does mean that the most intense negative emotion i have ever had while reading a comic was boredom. I don't get mad, i don't threaten creators, i just enjoy. If I suck because I like X-Men regardless of who Nightcrawler's father is or that Magneto acted crazy in Planet X, then that's fine. Comics make me happy. That's the only reason I read them.

[Ryan Day]

You know, if you're going to write a column that basically says "these people are saying this, and they're wrong", it would be a good idea to actually show what "these people" are saying. Quotes, sources and references are your friend; it helps to make it look like you're actually arguing against specifics, as opposed to some vague amalgam of people you don't like.

It’s funny that the liberal comics community, for lack of a better term, is opposed to Reload because it retcons some of Grant Morrison’s work, yet they won’t admit Morrison did much of the same concerning the 90’s X-Men.

It's not a question of who's retconning who. Morrison's run was popular with many people because it represented a change in the status quo that had grown stale and inbred in the past decade. It's the idea of going back to the past that incenses many people, not some notion that Marvel is tampering with the Greatest Thing Ever.

That decade was a period met with little opposition at the time, yet now, serves as the crux for any argument condemning mainstream comics. Funnily enough, there are those who will admit to liking it then, but hating it now. Again, take note of the left hand washing the right.

I will happily admit to watching The A-Team when I was a kid. I loved it. It was my favourite show. I've caught a few episodes in recent years and find myself cringing at the cheesy dialogue and horrid acting. The A-Team, contrary to the opinions of my 7 year-old self, was not very good. There's nothing hypocritical about it; time is good for developing perspective. Mind you, my perspective then was much the same as it is now; there's a reason I hardly bought any comics for several years.

How, by the way, do you wash your right hand without using your left hand?

Gone are the iconic characters that built this industry, and any creators who believe in continuity. In come mods like Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, and Garth Ennis—creators who have expressed their disinterest in certain aspects of superheroes (if not all aspects in the case of Ellis).

If not for creators who believed there were certain aspects of superhero comics that needed to be changed, we wouldn't have Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four. Those who rally to the battle cry of "Tradition!" forget how much of that tradition was tossed in the 1960s. Stan Lee changed the dynamic of the superhero; they had real lives, real personalities, not simply mild-mannered alter-egos. DC tossed the Golden Age versions of Green Lantern & The Flash in favour of more modern variations.

Both the Golden & Silver Ages of comics were founded on new ideas and change. Now, the industry is based on the status quo. Few, if any, people seriously advocate cancelling all X or Spider books. All we ask for is diversity, which is key to any market surviving.

[Elder Raven]

Welcome aboard as a columnist, Ms. Morgan. It is a hard road to travel when you are the leader. And what else would you be when you are willing to stick your view out for all the readers to denounce or acclaim. Thick skin and an open mind should be your shield and sword. Just remember that, when you speak, to place them aside. I guess that's enough for the metaphors. I look forward to reading your column.

[Drew Shirley]

The problem with your argument is the fact that it's, more or less, the same argument people have been making for years now. And while it's a perfectly fine argument, there's a problem-

There's no substantial evidence to back up that the market is improving in any sort of noticeable way. Not in the way any of us want to believe, anyway.

Yes, there's a far greater variety of material out there than ever before. The great majority of it also doesn't sell very much at all.

Yes, Astonishing is posting big sales. Just like Jim Lee on Batman posted big sales.We've seen that these are anomalous one time spikes, and in short order things will return to the status quo. And, as was said earlier, the problem is exactly that- Status Quo. What we're seeing in the comics industry is short term hype and gimmicks used to boost immediate prescence and there are no long term plans being forumlated and no real chances being taken on trying to massively overhaul the industry.

And I'll tell you what I find ESPECIALLY worriesome. You're right when you say that Comics are going through a period of more positive social awareness than ever before. That's absolutely true.

Now, with that in mind, look at the market.

Has it improved? Yes, some. But the industry has been getting mainstream press like never before, there are big budget movies being made, and whatever else. But despite this, the industry is still largely stagnant and niche.

So my question is, once this hype dies down, and the fairweather fans pack up and head home, what happens then? Are we setting ourselves up for another crash? More importantly, can the industry SURVIVE another crash? It came damn close to collapsing the last time, and sales still haven't recovered.

[raul grau]

Welcome aboard, Emily, and your column makes for an interesting read, despite the fact that I disagree with nearly every single point you make in it. :)

Yes, there are some big 'storylines' on the horizon, but it is naive to assume that any sort of lasting changes will result from them... even Crisis has been all but reconned away these days. You can't say that comics are escapist, any more than you can say that all TV shows have to be truly fanciful. Lastly, while sales are certainly better now than they have been lately, I recall the days when sales of 100K were grounds for cancellation (and I could get 3 comcs for less than $2).

I know I have become one of those elitists you rally against. I do judge others by the comics they read, in the same way I judge people by the music they listen to, the clothes they wear, and the grammar they use. However, I understand your main point... yes, no opinion is any more valid than any other, and there is always a need for people who disagree to voice that disagreement. Therefore, I look forward to disagreeing with your next column as well. :)

- Raul

[Alex Groff]

Emily, have you been reading Ann Coulter? Slander is a strong term, and I personally dislike it. I found this column to be more inflammatory rhetoric than content, and the last this the industry needs is rhetoric replacing dialogue.

I think that there is a place for traditionalism as well as a place for the aestheticism. (And that elitism is as insulting as the term fan boy.) Its nice to have a healthy balance of the two. But that generally involves not insulting the other. There was a column probably a year ago that talked about how 'elitists' criticize superhero fans and then wonder why those fans aren't interested in reading non-superhero books. Which is true. But isn't this the reverse? The problem is, we look at this as if there are two sides: right vs wrong.

I read Astonishing X-Men, Ultimates, X-Statix, Planetary, Superman, 4, and until recently Green Arrow and Batman. (Afraid I'm not a Winnick fan.) At the same time, I also read Sandman, Top Shelf and Oni Press graphic novels, Wildcats v3.0, and Optic Nerve. I enjoy superheroes and Vertigo titles and slice of life stories. The only thing I ask for are quality stories.

Comics can be escapism, just as film or books can be escapism. But comics, just like film or books, can also be a form of art. I respect that some people didn't enjoy Wildcats version 3.0, but what I would complain about was the fact that many stores never stocked the book, which helped to guarentee its failure. As Ryan pointed out, no one is advocating tearing down the X-Franchise and forcing people to read Daniel Clowes' Ghost World. What many aestheticists want is simply diversity.

There is no reason for rhetoric pro or against traditionalists, pro or against aestheticism. What we need, more than anything else, is a discussion, and the realization that there is room for many genres within the comics industry.

[Anthony Lucynski]

I find myself agreeing with Alex on this. Fighting fire with fire will lead to..nothing.

Entertaining column, nonetheless ;)

Anthony L

[ugaryan526]

Yeesh, the Ann Coulter comment was a little mean...I mean, I don't know Ms. Morgan, but I can assume she's not a crazy eyed close minded conspiracy theorist :-).

[Molotov]

Entertaining, insightful, and very true column. Definately looking forward to reading more.

[Justice Daye]

Wow. I agree with nearly evrything you said. I hope your next column is a little more balanced, showing that the usual tirade against "the fanboy" (afraid of change and arrested development) is a falsehood.

[Emily Morgan]

Originally posted by Ryan Day
You know, if you're going to write a column that basically says &quot;these people are saying this, and they're wrong&quot;, it would be a good idea to actually show what &quot;these people&quot; are saying. Quotes, sources and references are your friend; it helps to make it look like you're actually arguing against specifics, as opposed to some vague amalgam of people you don't like.

I'll take that under consideration. It's just I often find people getting upset when you quote them.

How, by the way, do you wash your right hand without using your left hand?

It's a turn on an old colloquialism. You know, one hand washes the other.

If not for creators who believed there were certain aspects of superhero comics that needed to be changed, we wouldn't have Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four. Those who rally to the battle cry of &quot;Tradition!&quot; forget how much of that tradition was tossed in the 1960s. Stan Lee changed the dynamic of the superhero; they had real lives, real personalities, not simply mild-mannered alter-egos. DC tossed the Golden Age versions of Green Lantern &amp; The Flash in favour of more modern variations.

On the same hand (what is with that body part today?), those who rally the battle cry "Change!" forget how different the circumstances are. The 60's retooling of superhero dynamics was to create more human characters. Lee, Kirby, Ditko and crew made characters everyone could relate to who were different from the bland troop that came before. Many of the so-called changes being made today are only creating cold, unrealistic personalities. The darker, grittier movement is expanding the medium in image alone, not the heart. It's change for the sake of change rather than, to risk sounding like a gum commercial, change for the sake of creating a deep, long-lasting characterization. To be blunt, they're shock tactics, not development.

Originally posted by Zooming Monkey Fire Blast
The problem with your argument is the fact that it's, more or less, the same argument people have been making for years now. And while it's a perfectly fine argument, there's a problem-

There's no substantial evidence to back up that the market is improving in any sort of noticeable way. Not in the way any of us want to believe, anyway.

Nor is there much evidence proving that a collapse is inevitable.

Yes, Astonishing is posting big sales. Just like Jim Lee on Batman posted big sales.We've seen that these are anomalous one time spikes, and in short order things will return to the status quo. And, as was said earlier, the problem is exactly that- Status Quo. What we're seeing in the comics industry is short term hype and gimmicks used to boost immediate prescence and there are no long term plans being forumlated and no real chances being taken on trying to massively overhaul the industry.

I disagree. Let me first discuss the Loeb/Lee Batman. PreHush Batman was a very low selling title. Sure the numbers aren't currently as high, but it's now a regular Top 20 title; something many wouldn't believe possible five years back. The funny thing about it, this happened without resorting to a massive overhaul. Loeb and Lee did this by utilizing some of the more classic elements of Batman, and not being another ripoff of Frank Miller's work. Batman is a dark character capable of taking out the entire DC Universe, we get it already. Heh. It's funny how the regurgitate faux pas doesn't apply to immitating Frank Miller as it concerns Batman and Daredevil.

Originally posted by jcknite
Welcome aboard, Emily, and your column makes for an interesting read, despite the fact that I disagree with nearly every single point you make in it. :)

Yes, there are some big 'storylines' on the horizon, but it is naive to assume that any sort of lasting changes will result from them... even Crisis has been all but reconned away these days. You can't say that comics are escapist, any more than you can say that all TV shows have to be truly fanciful. Lastly, while sales are certainly better now than they have been lately, I recall the days when sales of 100K were grounds for cancellation (and I could get 3 comcs for less than $2).

I believe much of this is due to many creators being unable to work within continuty. Everyone wants to do their own thing, and usually complicate matters as you can see with the slowly retconning of Crisis (the posterchild for uncomplicating matters).

I know I have become one of those elitists you rally against. I do judge others by the comics they read, in the same way I judge people by the music they listen to, the clothes they wear, and the grammar they use. However, I understand your main point... yes, no opinion is any more valid than any other, and there is always a need for people who disagree to voice that disagreement. Therefore, I look forward to disagreeing with your next column as well. :)

- Raul

Umm...thanks?

Originally posted by Alex Groff
Emily, have you been reading Ann Coulter? Slander is a strong term, and I personally dislike it. I found this column to be more inflammatory rhetoric than content, and the last this the industry needs is rhetoric replacing dialogue.

Harsh yes, but I think I made my point. There seem to be a lot of backflips in comics talk. In any event, you're right, its print so it's technically liable.

I think that there is a place for traditionalism as well as a place for the aestheticism. (And that elitism is as insulting as the term fan boy.) Its nice to have a healthy balance of the two. But that generally involves not insulting the other. There was a column probably a year ago that talked about how 'elitists' criticize superhero fans and then wonder why those fans aren't interested in reading non-superhero books. Which is true. But isn't this the reverse? The problem is, we look at this as if there are two sides: right vs wrong.

I agree, there is no right side. Opinions are just that: opinions. There is a fine line between defending your stance and trying to force your beliefs on someone else. A line I feel some shouldn't tread.

Comics can be escapism, just as film or books can be escapism. But comics, just like film or books, can also be a form of art. I respect that some people didn't enjoy Wildcats version 3.0, but what I would complain about was the fact that many stores never stocked the book, which helped to guarentee its failure. As Ryan pointed out, no one is advocating tearing down the X-Franchise and forcing people to read Daniel Clowes' Ghost World. What many aestheticists want is simply diversity.

Then why is there so much condemnation or comics that appeal to the "fanboys"? Why do these "aestheticists" keep asking for the cancellation of half the X-line (to stick with your example). The current X-line has often been boasted as one of the most diverse franchises thanks to such books as the espoinage thriller Mystique, the off-beat X-Statics, the traditional X-Treme X-Men (and now Uncanny), the "visionary" New X-Men (and now Astonishing), and younger aimed New Mutants (now Academy X). I thought they only wanted diversity. I didn't know that only meant the diversity they like. I'm all right with the argument if you don't like it, then don't buy it (I find myself using it sometimes too), but there isn't much follow up. It's slowly getting to the point where I laugh when I see it.

There is no reason for rhetoric pro or against traditionalists, pro or against aestheticism. What we need, more than anything else, is a discussion, and the realization that there is room for many genres within the comics industry.

Hopefully I'll be able to stimulate more comics discussion in the future.

['zel-J]

Oooh, interesting column, great debate!

Originally posted by Alex Groff

IComics can be escapism, just as film or books can be escapism. But comics, just like film or books, can also be a form of art.... I respect that some people didn't enjoy Wildcats version 3.0, but what I would complain about was the fact that many stores never stocked the book, which helped to guarentee its failure.

So true, and not just a problem with comics. How many wonderful novels vanish into out-of-print oblivion due to lack of reviews and no shelf space. It's a vicious circle (did I spell that right?)- retailers won't stock what they don't think will sell, but people won't try/ask for a book if they haven't heard of or seen it.

But why shouldn't a comic be art and escapism in one? Some of the best pictures hanging in galleries are painted purely to look pretty, not make a statement. Are they any the less "Art"?:?

[Dylan McKay]

Yes, they are.

true art captures something, be it the times we lived in at the time of it's creation. A clear message. An emotion. It doesn't matter, art captures something. And if art fails in that regard, its artistic merit is put in question.

[Alex Groff]

Emily,

I read your comments elsewhere, and I feel that your logic, the idea that there is a double standard is true. I agree with that. However, your article seems to target anyone who is not a traditionalist. If you want to convince me that aestheticists are using a double standard, then persuade me instead of chastising me. Provide evidence. For example:

I find it ironic that you call the current dark and gritty style is "shock tactics, not development," but at the same time praise crossovers such as "War Games." Crossovers have a history of being shock tactics designed to force readers to pick up a wide range of titles to follow a specific story on the basis that they may enjoy and continue to read some of the titles they tried. However, what crossovers have created lasting effects? X- Cutioner's Song killed Cable, Stryfe and Apocalyse, only they all returned for the most part, unscathed. I loved X-Cutioner's Song, and I do think there is a right way to do a crossover (Onslaught being an example of the wrong way), but historically, cross-overs are gimmicks, not pinnacles of comics evolution. Again, I agree that too many comics have picked up on this dark and gritty trend just as too many comics have picked up on this decompressed storytelling trend but I don't see any real evidence/clarification that helps me see the difference between the two.

Similarly, you point out that there is no evidence that the comic industry is doing poorly, but there are a number of examples. First, Fantagraphics recently faced bankruptcy, and were only able to save themselves by asking readers and concerned parties to either donate or buy books on the spot in order to raise thousands of dollars. Similarly, we have Crossgen's ongoing crisis, which has been a downward spiral for months now with no clear sign of improvement. Third, many comic shops are closing or in a position where they cannot order anything outside of the status quo because they cannot chance taking a loss. When I say outside of the status quo, I'm not only referring to books like Wildcats V3.0. I'm also referring to stores ordering extra copies of New X-Men #1 for Reload or Robin #? for the War Games crossover. When stores are crunched by the current economic model, they do not have a lot of freedom to improve or expand, because those things require extra capital/the ability to take changes. Finally, a number of self-published creators are in a position where Diamond will not carry them because they do not sell well enough. One can argue about quality, yes. In isolated instances, I would agree. In isolated instances, any of these problems could be written off, but en masse, they are a sign that something is wrong.

Conversely, what evidence is there that the industry is healthy? Films? Films are great for the companies and image, but they have not as of yet translated into a sizable increase in comic sales. An anecdotal example: my best friend liked both the Hulk and X-Men 2, but I still can't get her to read a comic book. Again, this would be meaningless, except that the overall sales numbers back up that story. Similarly, crossovers and #1's are not a sign of a healthy market, and the most obvious proof of that is the number of new titles canceled before they were off the ground. I wouldn't describe the comics industry as dying. I would describe it as any industry that is still trying to get back on its feet. If anything, it is slowly improving. But to claim that it is healthy and that there is nothing wrong with it would be a mistake.

I do want to comment on diversity, the X-line, industry glut and the issue of inaccessibility (which actually has nothing to do with continuity, oddly enough), but I have to phrase it correctly. I'll get back to you on that. In the end, my biggest problem with your column is not that I disagree with your opinion. I disagree with Joel more often than not and I still respect his opinion. What I'm not seeing in your article or your response is the evidence that supports your opinions.

Alex

[russbrett77]

Originally posted by Alex Groff
Conversely, what evidence is there that the industry is healthy? Films? Films are great for the companies and image, but they have not as of yet translated into a sizable increase in comic sales. An anecdotal example: my best friend liked both the Hulk and X-Men 2, but I still can't get her to read a comic book. Again, this would be meaningless, except that the overall sales numbers back up that story. Similarly, crossovers and #1's are not a sign of a healthy market, and the most obvious proof of that is the number of new titles canceled before they were off the ground. I wouldn't describe the comics industry as dying. I would describe it as any industry that is still trying to get back on its feet. If anything, it is slowly improving. But to claim that it is healthy and that there is nothing wrong with it would be a mistake.


Even as a traditionalist, I still have to agree with Alex on his point of the health of the comic industry (though not with the use of the term aesthetic. I think progressive would be a more appropriate term, and it is a more proper foil to the word traditional; but that's just semantics).

Take a look at the comic book industry from the 30s through to the present. Comic book sales are at a historical low. Perhaps not this year, but for the current era.

First, the industry lost a MAJOR demographic: children. Modern comic books are written with 13-23 year old boys in mind. And with the proliferation of the internet and video games, children are not a likely (or easy) demographic to get back.

Second, the industry lost their marketplace. Comic books shops are a creation of the 80s. Prior to that the majority of comic sales were made off newsstands (supermarkets, pharmacies, actual newsstands, etc...). Today, nearly 80% of all comic book sales are made in the direct market, and 10% are from subscriptions. How are people supposed to buy the books when they can't find them?

Third, there used to be a HUGE diversity of genres among comic books (there was a time in the 40s when Romance comics were the most popular sellers). Take a look at any top 100 sellers list and it's clear to see that an overwhelming majority of comic books are super-hero titles.

What this all adds up to is an industry supported by a very specific, and non-growing fan base (one that was even shrinking 4 years ago). That's not healthy.

But it's far from dead.

Just the opposite. The industry is actually making a tremendous comeback (though it is only the beginning, it's far from being close to healthy).

Publishers have managed to stop the exodus of comic fans from their books (mostly by concentrating on quality once again). And by utilizing the talents of more progressive creators, they are even managing to bring back those who had quit comics (or at least quit mainstream comics). And Publishers have even begun to reach out to other demographics as well (though how well this effort will be received has yet to be determined).

Publishers are also expanding their market back into the retail sector. More and more bookstores carry TPBs and monthlies, and comics are appearing in Wal-Mart and Target. Sales from retail are small, but again, this is an important first step.

And finally, publishers are at least trying to put out more than just super-hero comics (this is the weakest of the intitiatives though).

Although I disagree with the assessment that the comic book industry is healthy, it is certainly not as bleak as many would point out. At the very least, the industry is on a shaky road to recovery.

[Cabbit]

I always thought of a "fan boy" as someone who geeks out when ever the word comic book is mentioned. These people deserve the term.
People who follow comics aren't necessarily fan boys or girls, just fans.

[Dylan McKay]

One thought I'd make, I see the two major schools as classical and post modern, but that may just be me.

[Ryan Day]

Originally posted by Emily Morgan

Many of the so-called changes being made today are only creating cold, unrealistic personalities. The darker, grittier movement is expanding the medium in image alone, not the heart.

Today? The Dark & Gritty movement has been going on for 20 years, at least since Watchmen & Dark Knight. And if, as you imply, you're such a fan of the 1990s, you should realize that decade, above all others, was all about Dark & Gritty. Or did all of those Punisher & Wolverine titles have a light-hearted and optimistic message at their core?

Your examples don't really back up your case. Warren Ellis & Garth Ennis write very few superhero books. I'd hardly characterize Morrison as being particularly dark or realistic; if anything, he's one of the most imaginative and absurd writers in the business. (That's not neccessarily a ringing endorsement, mind you) And Mark Millar writes several of the best-selling superhero books on the market, so I can't imagine too many people have a problem with him.

It's funny how the regurgitate faux pas doesn't apply to immitating Frank Miller as it concerns Batman and Daredevil.

Sure it does. Lots of people write a crappy Miller-lite Batman and get called on it. The biggest problem with the industry is the copycats who don't understand what it was they're copying. So Dark Knight was just about Batman being mean. Writers copy Bendis' story structure without understanding why the story structure works for Bendis. Dozens of artists copy Jim Lee's style, thinking "Flashy" is the same as "good".


The current X-line has often been boasted as one of the most diverse franchises thanks to such books as the espoinage thriller Mystique, the off-beat X-Statics, the traditional X-Treme X-Men (and now Uncanny), the &quot;visionary&quot; New X-Men (and now Astonishing), and younger aimed New Mutants (now Academy X).

I think you make the point quite well. X-Statix is ending, for all intents and purposes to be replaced with Liefeld's X-Force. New X-Men is no more. Is there a significant difference in the directions of Astonishing, Uncanny, and Adjective-less? Execution, yes, but are they saying anything different? They used to, and that's what dismays some people.

['zel-J]

Originally posted by Nalyd Psycho
Yes, they are.

true art captures something, be it the times we lived in at the time of it's creation. A clear message. An emotion. It doesn't matter, art captures something. And if art fails in that regard, its artistic merit is put in question.

Sure, but that can apply to escapist comics. They can reflect the times in which they were created very well. Remember that in times of stress people are more likely to turn to escapist art and literature etc. The emotion that such works can capture can be the desire to be "anywhere but here/now", the craving for life to be less complicated.

I'm not saying they're better or more important than more "serious" comics; just that a well-crafted comic can have merit and purpose even if it doesn't aspire to change/comment on the world or the way we think. Sometimes people just want to be entertained, full stop. Sometimes people want to read something that doesn't educate, inform, challenge or in any way seek to improve them. Nothing wrong with that- there's room for all sorts of entertainment in this world (or at least I'd like to think so).

[Anthony Lucynski]

I think you make the point quite well. X-Statix is ending, for all intents and purposes to be replaced with Liefeld's X-Force.

Couldnt be that it's ending because the creative team has nothing else to say or low sales or anything like that.

Anthony L

[Ryan Day]

Originally posted by Anthony Lucynski


Couldnt be that it's ending because the creative team has nothing else to say or low sales or anything like that.


Oh, of course it is. My point isn't that X-Statix ending is a bad thing, it's that a unique and intelligent book is being replaced with a formulaic 90s revival.

[Anthony Lucynski]

I dont think that it's being replaced by anything. All these new titles are just that, new titles. I doubt highly that the higher ups got together and said "Okay, X-statix is going to go..to be replaced by X-Force!"

I just dont see it :)

Anthony L

[Dylan McKay]

Originally posted by 'zel-J


Sure, but that can apply to escapist comics. They can reflect the times in which they were created very well. Remember that in times of stress people are more likely to turn to escapist art and literature etc. The emotion that such works can capture can be the desire to be &quot;anywhere but here/now&quot;, the craving for life to be less complicated.

I'm not saying they're better or more important than more &quot;serious&quot; comics; just that a well-crafted comic can have merit and purpose even if it doesn't aspire to change/comment on the world or the way we think. Sometimes people just want to be entertained, full stop. Sometimes people want to read something that doesn't educate, inform, challenge or in any way seek to improve them. Nothing wrong with that- there's room for all sorts of entertainment in this world (or at least I'd like to think so).

I don't think your first example can be described as reflecting society. Mainstream comics can be artistic. God Loves Man Kills is a perfect example of that. But I wouldn't say that graphic novel is escapist.

[Emily Morgan]

I’m not saying the industry is healthy as much as it’s healthier than its been in the last few years, and not totally as bleak as everyone claims it is. Numbers are on a slow incline. I realize they aren’t as strong as they were in the 90’s (I can read a table), but I don’t think the market crash that came at the tail end of that decade is going to repeat itself soon. Didn’t that crash come from a sudden surge of people looking to make a quick buck as collectors? I think the fact the numbers aren’t as high now as they were then shows that a similar crash isn’t very likely. I’m not saying there's not the chance a crash can’t happen (anything is possible), but if people want there to be a larger fan base, then there needs to be some follow up on the publishers’ part.

As I think russbrett77 pointed out, there isn’t much growth in securing new readers, the younger generation, for example. I agree that comics don’t have to be just for kids, but I don’t think they should be aimed solely toward adults. An example would be the Quemas revamp of a few years ago. Most of the franchises were revamped with a more adult tone. I think many of those were just a flash in the pan, and too became marketing ploys like the taboo crossover. The padding and made for trade arcs are just an attempt to milk more money out of little story. A lot of the changes now, ones brought in by a regime whose intention was to disrupt the status quo, are making things just as static. What’s happened in The Incredible Hulk in the last two years? Not an entirely lot. Conversely, what’s happened in Amazing Spider-Man since JMS has come aboard? Well a lot actually. Now whether they were good changes or bad (the general consensus on message boards is bad) is another discussion altogether. Basically, no matter how many changes they introduce, everything is meant to bring about higher sells and should entertain.

Going back to the whole “for kids” discussion, the industry is very polarized at the moment. I fall on the side that doesn’t think everything has to have a higher message or stories “ripped from the headlines.” There’s nothing outright wrong about those type of stories, but a majority of books are slowly becoming political allegories, and not all franchises are capable of holding up as one. This is why a few of the Quemas books failed early on, and on the other side of the argument, it’s the reason why I see many are opposed to much of Chuck Austen’s work (he does have a habit of giving heavy handed messages, I’ll give you that). Everyone wants a story that appeals to them, but not everything has to be written for a select group. It is possible to create things that appeal to a vast audience (Shrek is a good example).

One of the few places in comics where the purpose seems to be the creation of entertainment that appeals to all audiences, are the adaptation books like Justice League Adventures and the Powerpuff Girls. It’s harder to come up with mass appeals books, so, like I said above, we are now finding ourselves in this polarized market because writers choose one side or another. I don’t believe simpler stories are necessarily a sign of ignorance (almost everything can be boiled down to a high concept after all), thus, I think there is still a place for these stories. In fact the ushering in of “high art” at the expense of general audience books sets the industry up for failure too. By that I mean there is a huge population being neglected who too can get into comics (children). As someone pointed out earlier about being able to purchase a pack of Pokemon cards for the same price as a comic, who’s to say if there weren’t more comics that appeal to them that the choice would be a harder one, and one which comics could ultimately win.

As much as people claim continuity is unwelcoming to a new audience, I’d say the opposite movement is unwelcoming to a new generation of readers. People aren’t willing to get into things that try too hard to be edgy. Justin Timberlake is still considered laughable, right?

[Donald Miner]

Emily,

Like you, this situation has forced me to post. Unlike you, my reasoning isn’t because I agree with the points you made. I’m not trying to be insulting, but I find several of your claims laughable. I’d mainly like to highlight your accusation that today’s industry carries an elitist mentality.

Many of the current titles are actually aimed towards what you like to call the “traditionalist” subgroup. With Reload and what little we’ve seen of Disassembled, the 90’s feel is being ushered back in, and this “sudden” dark and gritty movement is being eliminated. The latter can be easily seen with the changes to the formerly politically charged Captain America, and Thor. If anything, publishers are once more pandering to the fanboys, who, I might add, are the ones making the industry unwelcoming (your off-putting article can attest to that). I remembered when I tried to get into mainstream superheroes ten years ago. For the most part, it was more hassle than it was worth. Continuity can be a bitch sometimes, and is often inhospitable. How would folding more continuity into the story make comics more appealing to a general audience? Capturing a new audience was the point of your last post, was it not?

The 90’s were a very prosperous time, but we don’t need to revert to its stale, all-style-no-substance content in order to increase sales numbers. It’s like the old saying goes: those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Many will agree that 90’s superheroics wasn’t the most flattering time for the genre. Presently, we are slowly seeing the reemergence of many of that era’s less becoming qualities--alternate covers, crossovers, devaluing death, market flooding.... You have said realism is hollow, yet are contempt with the reversion to the hollowness of the last decade?

You are the one coming off as hypocritical, not the “elitists.” Frankly, after your last post, I don’t know where you lie. You keep saying there’s room for everything, yet you condemn everyone who isn’t a “traditionalist” in your article. Despite you claims of the opposite, and you’re denouncement of those who perpetrate the acts that serve as the basis of your tirade, I’m getting the feeling you too want comics to reflect your taste. You’re angry that there are some who’d wish a few of the more negative aspects of storytelling brought on by stagnant continuity, along with actual advancement of characters and themes were done away with, but you're fine if the new age comics were eliminated (and actually want it to happen). Do you see the irony is that statement? You’re coming off as the type of people you are condemning--the poorly named Do As I Sayers.

[Ricky]

Well, Emily, in a way I felt that you kept accusing people of intelerance, while meing intolerant at the same time. I also felt that your article was more language and less value.

Nevertheless, I'd rather like to comment on the fanboy vs. revolutionist-debate.
I've practically grown up with Marvel comics. I got a small glimse of Spiderman whan I was 12 and I got hooked nearly instantly.
And I never ever understood none of my friends could even remotely be interestes in superheroes.

By now, I know why. Even though Marvel revolutionized the whole genre in the 60s, when they gave their characters actual personalities and real lifes, they kept a lot that should have been changed. Should have been, because most potential readers wouldn't unterstand it.
You see, most people would never ever wear a colorful costume, call themselves something-man and ridk their lifes for the society without any reward. And since they would never do something like that, they couldn't relate to a story about a character doing it either.

You see, it is one thing to be interested in characters with unique powers and another thing to be interested in characters with unique powers that act in a way not at all related to real life.
And this is where the overly due second revolution of the super-hero genre come in:
Defining super heroes in the context of the real world.
Millar's Ultimates is a good example for this:
Super Heroes still define themselves through their powers, and they still use these powers in order to fight against evil, but they do so with the backing (and the paycheck) of the government, just like normal police men, firemen ore FBI-Agents. And this gives those characters more credibility then most traditional super heroes ever had. And this makes it possible for "normal" people to relate to these comics as well.

You see, I know a lot of people whe share a certain interest in fantastic tales, from SF to fantasy. Hardly any of them ever considered super heroes even remotely interesting. But most of them can relate to the Ultimates. Or two Stracinsky's Supreme Power.

You have told us before how much diversity there suppossedly was among traditional super heroes (using the X-Men if I remember correctly). Runing around in tights, calling themselves code-names and fighting super villains in your spare time (without even getting payed...) seems to be one defining criteria of traditional super hero tales, though.
And it is a criteria that many potential readers can not relate to. For that reason, we need a second revolution. A revolution which will generate a new generation of super heroes with closer ties to the real world. And judging by books like Stracinsky's Supreme Power, that revolution might already be taking place.

[Emily Morgan]

Originally posted by Dr. Manhattan
Emily,

Like you, this situation has forced me to post. Unlike you, my reasoning isn’t because I agree with the points you made. I’m not trying to be insulting, but I find several of your claims laughable. I’d mainly like to highlight your accusation that today’s industry carries an elitist mentality.

Many of the current titles are actually aimed towards what you like to call the “traditionalist” subgroup. With Reload and what little we’ve seen of Disassembled, the 90’s feel is being ushered back in, and this “sudden” dark and gritty movement is being eliminated. The latter can be easily seen with the changes to the formerly politically charged Captain America, and Thor. If anything, publishers are once more pandering to the fanboys, who, I might add, are the ones making the industry unwelcoming (your off-putting article can attest to that). I remembered when I tried to get into mainstream superheroes ten years ago. For the most part, it was more hassle than it was worth. Continuity can be a bitch sometimes, and is often inhospitable. How would folding more continuity into the story make comics more appealing to a general audience? Capturing a new audience was the point of your last post, was it not?

Yes, capturing a new audience was the point of my last post, but I didn't outright say the only way to do this was continuity enriched stories, although honoring continuity isn't a bad idea. I'm just saying creating flavorless stories that only appeal to one audience is hurtful to the industry. Also, it is harder to write a contuity based story and therefore more fulfilling for the reader. Could you tell me how continuity is so unwelcoming, and my article for that matter?

The 90’s were a very prosperous time, but we don’t need to revert to its stale, all-style-no-substance content in order to increase sales numbers. It’s like the old saying goes: those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Many will agree that 90’s superheroics wasn’t the most flattering time for the genre. Presently, we are slowly seeing the reemergence of many of that era’s less becoming qualities--alternate covers, crossovers, devaluing death, market flooding.... You have said realism is hollow, yet are contempt with the reversion to the hollowness of the last decade?

I don't see how alternate covers and crossovers are that big of an issue. Firstly, not all titles are receiving alternate covers (they're being held for #1's instead of random numbers like 19). Secondly, is anyone forcing you or any other comic reader to buy every cover or every comic in the crossover? This just shows how some people are jumping the gun a little.

You are the one coming off as hypocritical, not the “elitists.” Frankly, after your last post, I don’t know where you lie. You keep saying there’s room for everything, yet you condemn everyone who isn’t a “traditionalist” in your article. Despite you claims of the opposite, and you’re denouncement of those who perpetrate the acts that serve as the basis of your tirade, I’m getting the feeling you too want comics to reflect your taste. You’re angry that there are some who’d wish a few of the more negative aspects of storytelling brought on by stagnant continuity, along with actual advancement of characters and themes were done away with, but you're fine if the new age comics were eliminated (and actually want it to happen). Do you see the irony is that statement? You’re coming off as the type of people you are condemning--the poorly named Do As I Sayers.

I lie in the same position I always have. I haven't moved an inch. I think every reader would be happy if a multitude of books appealed to them. The other difference is I am not asking for such a change nor am I forcing anyone to do as I say. This was a very ignorant comment.

Originally posted by Ricky
Well, Emily, in a way I felt that you kept accusing people of intelerance, while meing intolerant at the same time. I also felt that your article was more language and less value.

Nevertheless, I'd rather like to comment on the fanboy vs. revolutionist-debate.
I've practically grown up with Marvel comics. I got a small glimse of Spiderman whan I was 12 and I got hooked nearly instantly.
And I never ever understood none of my friends could even remotely be interestes in superheroes.

By now, I know why. Even though Marvel revolutionized the whole genre in the 60s, when they gave their characters actual personalities and real lifes, they kept a lot that should have been changed. Should have been, because most potential readers wouldn't unterstand it.
You see, most people would never ever wear a colorful costume, call themselves something-man and ridk their lifes for the society without any reward. And since they would never do something like that, they couldn't relate to a story about a character doing it either.

So you're saying that someone doing a selfless act is unrealisitic? Hmm I guess chivalry is dead.

You see, it is one thing to be interested in characters with unique powers and another thing to be interested in characters with unique powers that act in a way not at all related to real life.
And this is where the overly due second revolution of the super-hero genre come in:
Defining super heroes in the context of the real world.
Millar's Ultimates is a good example for this:
Super Heroes still define themselves through their powers, and they still use these powers in order to fight against evil, but they do so with the backing (and the paycheck) of the government, just like normal police men, firemen ore FBI-Agents. And this gives those characters more credibility then most traditional super heroes ever had. And this makes it possible for &quot;normal&quot; people to relate to these comics as well.

So being a tool of the government is more relatable than balancing a career with some other job whether it be saving the world, raising your children, or maintaining an image? Does this also mean I shouldn't do charitable work unless there's something in it for me?

You see, I know a lot of people whe share a certain interest in fantastic tales, from SF to fantasy. Hardly any of them ever considered super heroes even remotely interesting. But most of them can relate to the Ultimates. Or two Stracinsky's Supreme Power.

You have told us before how much diversity there suppossedly was among traditional super heroes (using the X-Men if I remember correctly). Runing around in tights, calling themselves code-names and fighting super villains in your spare time (without even getting payed...) seems to be one defining criteria of traditional super hero tales, though.
And it is a criteria that many potential readers can not relate to. For that reason, we need a second revolution. A revolution which will generate a new generation of super heroes with closer ties to the real world. And judging by books like Stracinsky's Supreme Power, that revolution might already be taking place.

Again, I don't think the getting paid thing is an issue here. Aren't the X-Men supposed to be convincing a world that hates and fears them that not all mutants are evil? Plus, aren't they financially secure enough to safeguard the world without receiving reparations (Warren, Emma, and Prof. X are just a few of the millionaires on staff)? Is using your super strength to stop a meteor from destroying the Earth that outlandish? I don't think the concept that you shouldn't do anything that can help someone else unless there's something you can get out of it is a very good idea to reinforce.

[Dylan McKay]

Originally posted by Emily Morgan

I'm just saying creating flavorless stories that only appeal to one audience is hurtful to the industry.


But isn't that what mainstream superhero stories are?

I look at Image, Wildstorm and Vertigo as examples of what comics should be. There is growth potential there. And there is real diversity. Not, different kinds of mainstream diversity.

If you look at what those companies offer you have, and this is a rough list:
All-Ages superheroes
Teen as target audience superheroes
Mature readers superheroes
Character driven disaster
Crime
Political Thriller
Espionage
Mystical/fantasy
Romantic Comedy

Pretty much any genre that'll work within the medium can be found there, and it's even better if you expand to include Darkhorse, Oni Press and IDW.

Honestly, I think if you scrapped mainstream DC and Marvel, and those 6 publishers were the major players in the industry the growth potantial would dwarf what it is now. When it comes to people who don't read comics, I can't see how X-Men has more appeal than Queen & Country.

[Donald Miner]

Emily,

Are you even reading anyone else’s posts? If this was a dialogue, I’d say you just like to listen to yourself talk. The reason why alternate covers and crossovers are bad for the industry has already been answered. To restate what has been said, these stunts (that’s what they are after all) force retailers to pick up more of one reliable hype title at the expense of smaller ones that won't sell as many. This is due to them having the insane idea of wanting to make a profit. As last week has clearly shown, the problem is people are going to buy two or three issues if they come in pretty different covers. So why should a shop owner dedicate a portion of their budget to purchase a lower tier title or Indie book that might not sell when they can buy a few more copies of a guranteed money maker like Astonishing X-Men #1? See the problem yet? If not...

The Astonishing X-Men variants were given out depending on how many copies the retailer purchased of another one of the Reload title. This lead to some stores placing a $75 price tag on them. How is that not harmful? Wouldn’t that money better serve supporting more than one title especially when it concerns people who have a collector mentality? Why should a company publish a book that might not sell when they can slap an X on it, offer high profit variants, and receive massive orders? This is why the industry is becoming stagnant--people are sticking with what they know will earn of profit. Growth isn't given much opportunity to florish.

As for continuity, I’m speaking from experience here when I say new readers aren’t going to pick up a series regularly when there are a dozen footnotes referring to Bad X-Pun #47, and X-Uberant X-Men #357. This ties in with the reason why crossovers are bad, because both cases force the reader to pick up more books if they want to know the full story. As you probably know with your comment on the high price of comics, that isn’t feasible for most consumers. In fact, I’m probably going to drop a few of the Batbooks comes August because I don’t want to have to pick up six more titles a month to know what’s going on.

[Emily Morgan]

Originally posted by Nalyd Psycho


But isn't that what mainstream superhero stories are?

I look at Image, Wildstorm and Vertigo as examples of what comics should be. There is growth potential there. And there is real diversity. Not, different kinds of mainstream diversity.

Umm... aren't Wildstorm and Vertigo part of the huge, very mainstream DC?

If you look at what those companies offer you have, and this is a rough list:
All-Ages superheroes
Teen as target audience superheroes
Mature readers superheroes
Character driven disaster
Crime
Political Thriller
Espionage
Mystical/fantasy
Romantic Comedy

Pretty much any genre that'll work within the medium can be found there, and it's even better if you expand to include Darkhorse, Oni Press and IDW.

Honestly, I think if you scrapped mainstream DC and Marvel, and those 6 publishers were the major players in the industry the growth potantial would dwarf what it is now.

I don’t see what you’re getting at. Aren’t the genres you listed found in mainstream titles as well? Also, if we are to associate mainstream with superheroes, then how does half of the alternate choices being defined as hyphenated superheroes make Indies more diverse? If we assume that no matter the approach, mainstream superheroics aren’t very diverse, don’t we have to say Indies are limited too?

When it comes to people who don't read comics, I can't see how X-Men has more appeal than Queen &amp; Country.

There is the familiarity to the characters thanks to the movie and cartoon franchises for one. Strong, deep characters and stories with history are another, as is the broad range of relatability the diverse characters create. Concerning that last one, like the saying goes, there's an X-Man for everyone.

Originally posted by Dr. Manhattan
Emily,

Are you even reading anyone else’s posts? If this was a dialogue, I’d say you just like to listen to yourself talk. The reason why alternate covers and crossovers are bad for the industry has already been answered. To restate what has been said, these stunts (that’s what they are after all) force retailers to pick up more of one reliable hype title at the expense of smaller ones that won't sell as many. This is due to them having the insane idea of wanting to make a profit. As last week has clearly shown, the problem is people are going to buy two or three issues if they come in pretty different covers. So why should a shop owner dedicate a portion of their budget to purchase a lower tier title or Indie book that might not sell when they can buy a few more copies of a guranteed money maker like Astonishing X-Men #1? See the problem yet? If not...

The Astonishing X-Men variants were given out depending on how many copies the retailer purchased of another one of the Reload title. This lead to some stores placing a $75 price tag on them. How is that not harmful? Wouldn’t that money better serve supporting more than one title especially when it concerns people who have a collector mentality? Why should a company publish a book that might not sell when they can slap an X on it, offer high profit variants, and receive massive orders? This is why the industry is becoming stagnant--people are sticking with what they know will earn of profit. Growth isn't given much opportunity to florish.

As for continuity, I’m speaking from experience here when I say new readers aren’t going to pick up a series regularly when there are a dozen footnotes referring to Bad X-Pun #47, and X-Uberant X-Men #357. This ties in with the reason why crossovers are bad, because both cases force the reader to pick up more books if they want to know the full story. As you probably know with your comment on the high price of comics, that isn’t feasible for most consumers. In fact, I’m probably going to drop a few of the Batbooks comes August because I don’t want to have to pick up six more titles a month to know what’s going on.

Again, is it my fault these people are buying multiple copies? No. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy more than one copy of Astonishing. This applies to your crossover argument too. Continuity doesn’t necessarily equal following every title, it only adds another layer to the story.

Finally, I’ll have you know I do read the other posts. Maybe if you spent less time disregarding information, ignoring questions whose answers don’t feed your theories, and spiting venom you’d see that I actually read other people’s posts. You’ve yet to show how my article was off-putting nor have you proven how my views have changed through the course of this thread.

[Anthony Lucynski]

Umm... aren't Wildstorm and Vertigo part of the huge, very mainstream DC?

Yes and no.

Anthony L

[Bamfette]

Originally posted by Emily Morgan


Umm... aren't Wildstorm and Vertigo part of the huge, very mainstream DC?



Just because they are owned by DC does not make them 'mainstream' by the definition being used here. both imprints are doing things that go against the mainstream perception of what American comics are. while there are superheroes in Wildstorm, they arent some huge shared universe, and ARE more diverse, though not as much so as Vertigo. while some mainstream books may have *themes* of diversity, crime, romance etc. they're still superheroes! still the same characters that have been around for 30 years or more. that is NOT my idea of diverse. Y: the Last Man, Fables, 30 Days of Night, etc. THAT is diverse. and now there is DC's publishing deal wth Humanoids, so you've got a ton of cool sci-fi stuff coming up. giant Aeon ships, cyberpunk, robots, etc. that's something DIFFERENT than what is going on in the big two's core titles, and that's a good thing. i happen to LIKE some of the old superhero characters, but i can still see that the industry is stagnant and in the chokehold of these books. people in America think comics, they think superheroes, whether they read them or not. they don't figure that there is anything else available, so they don't bother looking. and THAT'S the problem. Face it, a lot of people out there are just NOT interested in reading about spandex clad heroes who fight crime, no matter how much subtext there may be. Why should what THEY enjoy be marginalized and only have a few books available? All many people here are saying is that you should try and appeal to THOSE readers (and somehow make them aware that these alternate books exist) because it will make the industry truly grow. and appealing to them doesn't just mean putting subtext in superhero books, it means publishing TRULY diverse books that have nothing whatsoever to do with superheroes.

What we have going on here is like if Hollywood made nothing but popcorn action flicks. then claimed diversity just because characters in those movies had romantic moments, or happened to be fighting a terroist (politics, donchaknow) or whatever. those movies may be the biggest box office draws on the whole, but in reality Hollywood is VERY diverse, and that's one of the things that helps make it thrive. (and lack thereof is killing the animation industry. you know things are bad when Disney shuts down it's animation department. thankfully Pixar seems to have figured this out)

are you aware just how strong an industry comics are in Japan or Europe? a book selling 100,000 would be at the bottom of sales lists in those countries, not the top seller it is here. an anomalous spike of 250,000 is NOTHING to cheer about when (and exact figures are hard to find, but this is the best i can do) in Japan anthology magazines regularily sell over a million copies (http://www.dnp.co.jp/museum/nmp/nmp_i/articles/manga/manga1.html), and the only hard and fast number i could find from Europe was over 500,000 (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4079) for this February's release of the latest volume of XIII. French language version only. so that's only in France, Belgium, and other french speaking European countries. now think of the population of those countries. (U.S.A with 280,000,000 vs. 120,000,000 in Japan, 60,000,000 in France) and see a bit of an imbalance, here? the US has more people, (not even counting Canada which helps towards the American sales figures) than Japan and France combined, and each one of those is kicking our asses in sales. and to top it off, Tokyopop sells more Manga trades in the US than American pulishers can sell of their trades! THOSE are healthy industries. not the little niche market we have in America. and you know what they have that we don't? REAL diversity. see XIII? it's a spy story. Disney character comics, especially Donald Duck, are popular in Europe, Manga covers romance, action, crime, sci-fi, literary works, the list goes on. Humanoids in france is primarily science fiction. not just old superheroes that have been dressed up with diverse themes.

If Marvel and DC want to stick to doing primarily superheroes, fine. let them. they're good at it and it's clear that there are some people that enjoy them. i read X-Man, Spider-Man, Sueprman.... nothing wrong with them. all I (and i think the others) are saying is that American comics are too focused on superheroes as the defining characteristic of comics, to the point where it is strangling the industry as a whole. and you can't point to themes within the superhero genre and call the industry diverse. there is SOME non-superhero stuff in American comics, but superheroes still dominate. but i think the NON superhero-stuff has a much greater potential to attract new readers than the superhero genre. my sister who has never read comics before recently got totally hooked on Y trades. she loves them. but i had to give her the first one, otherwise she would have never known about it. and she's not about to check out Superman or Spider-Man.

just saw this and had to edit my post to address it:

Originally posted by Emily Morgan


Yes, capturing a new audience was the point of my last post, but I didn't outright say the only way to do this was continuity enriched stories, although honoring continuity isn't a bad idea. I'm just saying creating flavorless stories that only appeal to one audience is hurtful to the industry. Also, it is harder to write a contuity based story and therefore more fulfilling for the reader. Could you tell me how continuity is so unwelcoming, and my article for that matter?



WTF?!?! one, you are making generalizations. you can not look into the minds of readers and make an announcement of what all will find fulfilling. that's a ludicrous claim to make. I am sure *some* might feel that way, but there are plenty who most definitely do NOT. a lot of people would never TOUCH a superhero book even if it was offered to them. or only do so if they could ignore continuity (like Ultimate) and as mentioned before, some people find 'traditionalist' superheroes to be 'flavorless stories that only appeal to one audience'. many people want something different, and their desires and opinions are no less important than yours.

[Donald Miner]

Good Lord I don’t think you’re even trying to be rational anymore. Firstly, what questions have I ignored? Surely you don’t mean the ones that weren’t directed at me.

Secondly, did you not see how I showed continuity and your article being off-putting? Well obviously not or I wouldn’t be in this situation. Continuity is a good thing for some and a bad for others. It all depends on whom it’s directed at. Of course it brings a smile to the face of long-time readers, but it doesn’t have the same effect on new ones. It’s like an inside joke. People feel stupid when everybody else gets it and they have no clue what’s going on. Therefore, they go back looking for the rest of the puzzle. Let me ask you a question, have you ever jumped on a series halfway through its run, loved it, so then went and bought back issues and trades to find out what was going on? It’s the same theory. People want to know what’s happening, and they don’t really want to shell out a bucket load of cash if they don’t have to (they're already spending three dollars a month of the comic itself). Making a story a slave to continuity or a title one of seven involved in a crossover does just that. This is why people find it so hard to get into mainstream comics, and the sometimes off-kilter fanbase doesn’t help any. This brings me to how your article is off-putting: 1) you insulted the intelligence of me and others who don’t share your views; 2) you’ve been as close-minded as the people you’ve condemned; 3) you throw out arguments without giving any facts to back them up; 4) you have a radically shifting viewpoint; 5) your comments are generally hurtful for no necessary reason.

Thirdly, your views have changed throughout the course of this debate. In your original column you say there is no place for new age material in comics. When confronted with facts and opinions showing otherwise, you recoiled and said there was room for everything. This is just one example of many, but I don’t think my blood pressure can handle any more.

[Eric Travis]

For a couple of days now, I've thought about tossing myself into the discussion of Emily's column, which I personally found well-written and intelligent. I'm not sure how much I agree or disagree with the points she was making, but if the point was to get me thinking about the broader picture of the comic book industry, then in the much maligned words of President Bush, "mission accomplished".

However, I find that, whatever intellectual stimulus I may have derived from the initial column, my personal passion for the subject is dreadfully lacking. In point of fact, I've lost track entirely of what the point of the thread was. All I've seen of any substance for a while has been either Emily and the rare supporter defending her point of view or The Distinguished Opposition attacking that point of view. Or, if you prefer, Emily attacking other points of view and 'TDO' defending their own. Whichever offends you the least.

In some ways it's like watching Sean Hannity (ultraconservative) debate Al Franken (ultraliberal).

[Dylan McKay]

Originally posted by Emily Morgan


Umm... aren't Wildstorm and Vertigo part of the huge, very mainstream DC?


Lets see how I can put this. In the film industry you have your big blockbusters, then you have your cult classics and you have your film festival fair. I know I'm over simplifying but bear with me. Obviously in this analogy, X-Men, Spiderman, Batman etc are the big blockbusters. Your film festival fair would be your self published comics and your company owned Avatar Press (The Frank Miller, Warren Ellis etc creator owned comics might skew things, and they were the first to pop in my head.) comics and others of that ilk. Then you have your cult classics. In the film industry, these range from indy movies that make it big, Blair Witch Project, My Big Fat Greek Wedding etc, as well as movies put out by major production companies, but simply don't sell as well, ie, Field of Dreams, Office Space, Usual Suspects etc... This is especially relevant because even though initial ticket sales of the major company cult movies are week, they have longevity. They are a long term investment where DVD sales and TV broadcast rights become profitable. This is very analogous to Vertigo and Wildstorm. Since by and large Wildstorm doing quality comics has happened recently, it's hard to say how well they'll hold up long term. But Warren Ellis's Stormwatch and The Authority have shown more longevity in trade sales than most if not all comics of compairable sales over the same period. By the same token, any good shop still carries Sandman, Invisibles and Preacher trades. Invisibles was a bubble title at the time it was published, yet is still selling today. There are superhero comics like this too, the previously mentioned Stormwatch as well as the Robinson/Harris Starman series.

Another example, looking at my cd collection Prick's self titled cd was published by Interscope, a major record label. Would you call Prick mainstream?

So in conclussion. 1) Being produced by a major company does not entail mainstream status. 2) Vertigo and Wildstorm are neither mainstream or independant. They are readily available (Although I have found myself having to order Human Target if I miss an ish.) but not overly common. I think cult is a more appropriate label than mainstream or independant.

The problem is this, why are books like Y, 100 Bullets and Fables cult? They appeal more to people who don't currently read comics. So why isn't this something worth remedying? If Vertigo was selling like it was mainstream, that would be fabulous for the industry.


Originally posted by Emily Morgan

I don’t see what you’re getting at. Aren’t the genres you listed found in mainstream titles as well?

I'd like to say first that I really enjoy superhero comics that employ methods beyond standard storytelling. I really enjoy character driven stories like Common Grounds and 4. I love J.J. Miller's Iron Man which brings in political intrigue and develops the character beyond reminding me of a Sabbath song.

Second, there are three problems with your argument, and the first two are in some instances linked.

1) You are treating sub-genre elements as equal to primary genre elements.

2) The use of sub-genre elements in superhero comics is fleeting and not reliable.

3) Some books would suffer from superhero elements.

I'll go into details on the third one first. A good example of this is Liberty Meadows. It balance romance, talking animals and boy and his dog as sub genre elements all under the comedy genre umbrella. There is no good versus evil or fight scenes. To add in superheroes would destroy the delecate balance and turn a delightful little comic into a steaming pile of crap. This is the true for many comics. Can you really imagine a world where every piece of entertainment involved superheroes? (Well, Superhero by KMFDM is a great track.) Now, can you really say that is diverse?

Now onto the first two critisms.

The difference between primary and sub genres is best explained using comedy as an example. Imagine a Romantic Comedy. Now imagine a romance. Can you see the difference. This is the difference between Daredevil and Sin City. Sure both are crime stories. But if you want a crime story, Sin City is better because it is a crime story. If you want a superhero/crime story, Daredevil is better. They may both have crime stories as an important element, but that does not make them interchangeable.

The second pointomes down to this, a sub-genre is that it can be changed. The primary genre can't really be changed. This has consiqunces. The most important being, if what you want is the sub-genre, then you can't reliably collect the series to fill your need for the sub-genre.

For example, if you liked Batman: Broken City for it's crime elements, you don't stick with Batman because the crime story is sandwiched between two far more superhero-esque stories. What you want for your regular fix is 100 Bullets.

The other side of that is that sub-genre elements can be brought in then removed easily, as seems like the case will be with Iron Man and the political thriller sub-genre. As someone who bought it for the sub-genre, I'm now outcold, well, except for Ex Machina. Yay! Non-Mainstream! Yay! Wildstorm! Yay! Brian K. Vaughn!

So sub-genre elements cannot be relied up as primary genre elements can. So it's imparitive to have diversity in primary genres as well as sub-genres. But more important with primary genres.

Originally posted by Emily Morgan
Also, if we are to associate mainstream with superheroes, then how does half of the alternate choices being defined as hyphenated superheroes make Indies more diverse? If we assume that no matter the approach, mainstream superheroics aren’t very diverse, don’t we have to say Indies are limited too?

I think you need to read this:

Main Entry: di·verse
Pronunciation: dI-'v&rs, d&-', 'dI-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English divers, diverse, from Old French & Latin; Old French divers, from Latin diversus, from past participle of divertere
1 : differing from one another : UNLIKE
2 : composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities
synonym see DIFFERENT
- di·verse·ly adverb
- di·verse·ness noun

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diverse&x=0&y=0

Seriously, did you even read what I said. As I said the ideal system would still involve superheroes. The companies I listed would give you Invinsible, The Authority, Common Grounds, Noble Causes, Strykeforce, Savage Dragon, Wildguard and countless other superhero books.

There is no hyphentated superheroes. There is real diversity. There is multiple genres. That's what diversity is. To say that the non-mainstream of the comics industry should be labelled as non-diverse is well...

Well, there's no nice way to describe that statement.

If you wish to continue to discuss comics I highly suggest you stop, read what the other person has to say, and then think before you type.

(Editor's note: I typed out of order, this is, in fact, the last comment I actually write.)

Originally posted by Emily Morgan

There is the familiarity to the characters thanks to the movie and cartoon franchises for one. Strong, deep characters and stories with history are another, as is the broad range of relatability the diverse characters create. Concerning that last one, like the saying goes, there's an X-Man for everyone.



they are familiar with the characters, and yet they don't buy the comic, what does that tell you about the likelihood they will buy the book? As opposed to Preacher which they may not have heard of, but if they like Tarentino and aren't religious, a non-comics reading person would likely love it. The lack of familiarity with the characters creates potential. I may be optomistic, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

The idea that there's an X-Man for everyone negates the idea that they may not like superheroes living in a world that hates and fears them. Even then, John Constantine is my favourite comics character, points to avatar, what X-Man is like John? None, and if there was he'd likely end up in limbo or be neutered because characters like him don't work in a team like the X-Men.

[Emily Morgan]

Originally posted by Therion
However, I find that, whatever intellectual stimulus I may have derived from the initial column, my personal passion for the subject is dreadfully lacking. In point of fact, I've lost track entirely of what the point of the thread was. All I've seen of any substance for a while has been either Emily and the rare supporter defending her point of view or The Distinguished Opposition attacking that point of view. Or, if you prefer, Emily attacking other points of view and 'TDO' defending their own. Whichever offends you the least.

Minus me "attacking other points of view", I agree with Therion. I believe nobody has really formulated any workable theories that show substantial errors in my reasoning. All they have done is assault my character and taken my words out of context to support their stances, painting me in an bad light. Hopefully everyone forgives me for taking the spiteful comments of others personal, but I believe they are an example of the public degradation my column talks about, and because of this, I couldn't let it stand.

As you might have guessed, this is going to be my last post concerning this installment. Hopefully I'll be able to answer everyone's questions to the extent they want (although I have the odd feeling nothing I could say would suffice). With that said, I guess I'll go back to the numbering well that seems oddly popular in this thread...

1. Have I ever said all comics should have superheroes in them? No. I'm merely stating that the genre doesn't deserve the negative stigma attached to it nor should it be purged from the comic medium. Superheroes are a channel in which to tell a story, and not the end-all-be-all route. I agree they are just a sub-division of the grand division of comics, and everything has its place. Although there is a sudden influx of opinions that superheroes are killing the industry and should go the way of the dinosaur, superheroes still hold the ability to entertain a wide audience, and their longevity only adds credence. Now for the fun with analogies portion of our show, Indiana Jones was a good series that some say is past its time, but does that mean there is no place for movies about globe-trotting adventurers? Or space westerns in the vein of the often-lamented Star Wars franchise? This is not Highlander, I am not suggestion there can be only one. I'm only stating that most people preaching for a comics call to arms usually think gutting the superhero genre is the first step (I believe the many examples in this very thread prove that). Contrary to what everyone claims, I don't think the alternatives should be eliminated, rather I think there needs to be an option for everyone, but not at the price of another (in this case superhero comics).

2. Dr. Manhattan, I still fail to see how my article was off-putting (I'm starting to hate that word). Now if you're lying to yourself and putting false meanings to my words...

3. It's funny, everyone says how much I attack and ignore others, yet don't realize they work much the same way. Did I just see someone copy and paste an entry from the dictionary? Also how is it the fault of superhero comics that they're so popular? Is there anyone stopping Johnny from buying Sandman? Am I asking people to not buy any nonsuperhero comic? Obviously not. Are people hiding nonsuperhero comics from everyone? To use an example, half of my LCS is half Marvel/DC and half Indie. With such movies as Ghost World and From Hell being made, as well as TPs appearing in book stores, the information is out there. If anything, it falls to the reader to search out alternatives, not the publisher's (reducing and/or eliminating the use of superheroes).

-Emily

[Donald Miner]

Emily,

I’ve waited four days for a reply and receive this--a very backhanded apology/holier-than-thou decree. Judging from our exchanges, I should’ve expected as much, but oddly enough, it surprised me. I'd like to say you've yet to address numerous points made against you, and given you throwing in the towel, I'm not going to bring them up again here. You’re being very bullheaded and aren’t giving your opponents any reason for taking your points into consideration nor properly refuted any of theirs (case in point I have given my reasons why your article was off-putting, and you ignored it). I was only interested in sparking an intellectual conversation with you that would give you a better understanding of my beliefs and me a better understanding of yours which, in my mind, were oftentimes quite outlandish. I never meant to assault your character. Actually, I can’t find a passage proving such an accusation, and I in fact believe you’re guiltier than me in that respect. I'm sorry for any ill feelings my words might have created. I wish you wouldn’t have backed out before giving any rational explanations, and I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get you to give an ear to the other side, although I have a few ideas. I'm sorry, but I feel this attempt at martyrdom is quite silly.

[Emily Morgan]

You can't find an instance where you assaulted my character? Try your last reply for one... And don't hold your breath on the pity tactics being successful. I have a feeling your insincere apology isn't going to fool anyone.

[Magic Rabbit]

Okay enough. I understand things can get heated in a column discussion, but this is getting ridiculous. We need to all play nice here.

I see a lot of opinions being typed out (and argued vehemently) here, but I see no assaults on characters, insults or flaming. Really. So let’s keep it that way, shall we? After all, a column is someone’s opinion on a specific topic: it doesn’t mean that you have to agree with the author of that opinion. But be cool about it.



Magic Rabbit

“Plaque is a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to scare you into buying useless appliances and pastes. Now, I've heard the arguments on both sides, and there is nothing to convince me of the need to brush your teeth.” – Master Shake

[Ricky]

Before going into the next round of arguing, I'd like to express my respect for your courage and your ambition. Having an opinion is one thing, but expressing it and fighting for it is something that takes a lot more, and I honestly respect that.
(Especially since I though about writing a columne before but couldn't convince myself to stand it through)


So you're saying that someone doing a selfless act is unrealisitic? Hmm I guess chivalry is dead.

Well, what I actually meant to say was this:
"Throughout the column, though, I couldn't help but get the feeling that you keep pointing your finger at people for the very reason that they point their finger at other people. In other words: You accuse people of accusation."

So being a tool of the government is more relatable than balancing a career with some other job whether it be saving the world, raising your children, or maintaining an image? Does this also mean I shouldn't do charitable work unless there's something in it for me?
Well, the way I see it, keeping a secret identity in itself is a over-used tradition in the genre of super-heroes.
The very act of dressing up, hiding your face and refering to yourself under a code-name put's a person out of society. The idea of having a secret identity reaches further back than the super-hero genre, though. Stories about "maskes avengers" and other vigilantes, fighting for justice in an injust world reach back into the middle ages. Robin Hood is one of the distant forefathers of this genre as much as Braveheart (as both eluded the forces-that-were). Later on, we have Zorro, who hid his face behind an actual mask, because what he did was considered "crimanal" by the government (the occupation force he fought against, actually). From what I read, a lot of pre-WWII-super heroes followed in this tradition of the "mystery men", the hooded vigilantes thah hide their identity from society at large.
One of them, for which this actually makes sense is Batman. Like Zorro before, he fights a hidden war, not against the regime, but against crime. Still, he fears repercussion, should his identity ever get revealed.
As could be seen in early Batman-comics as well as in the first movie, Batman became a vigilante, sought for by the authorities.
Which makes sense. Imagine someone wearing a maske ran around New Yorl today, beating up criminals nearly on a nightly scedule, how could it be ignored? Even worse, how could this person ever be trustes? How could he ever became officially recognized?

Let's look at another pre-war character: Captain America. The government had trained him, changed him, gave orders to him.
Even though his identity might have been hidden from the general public, he didn't stand outside of society. He had a clearly defined place, as a part of the execution (as in: the executional branch of the government). Therefore he was NO vigilant, merely a 'secret' secret agent.
So far, things make sense, at least for me. What does not make sense for me is how Captain America (who could spend every waking hour either actually fighting for Amerca or training for that and it still wouldn't be enough) ever had the time to build up a secret identity after his return in the sixties. He ought have been busy, doing what he had been trained to do, fighing for justice and freedom.
I can only think of two reasons why he wasn't:
1. He needed the money
2. He used his second life as a time of recreation, where he could relax and intermingle with ordinary people.

I feel safe enough to rule out the first one. There would have been enough ways in which a super-hero could earn money WHILE being a super-hero (I argued about this before).
Well, I can picture Captain America intermingling with "ordinary citicens" for the very sake of it. And he would want to do it out of costume, because he's just the type that would despice being treated as the celebrity he is. He'd long to be treated as "one of the crowd". The same could be said about Superman, as well.

Well, in a way, one could find an explanation for any single character why he would hide his identity from society. The question is, though: why would every single one of them have such a specific reason? Why haven't there been any super-humans who had NO reason for hiding?
Well, there have been: The Fantastic Four
As has been said by someone else before, the Fantastic Four broke every single cliche the super-hero genre had. They had public identites. They originally (until issue 3) made do without costumes. They behaved more like the family/freinds they were than like a team trained exclusively for combat.
In a way the FF were one of the most diverse, one of the most progressive and one of the most realistic book of their time.

Again, I don't think the getting paid thing is an issue here.
Well, in this inperfect world, getting paid is a major issue. Only millionairs can afford a grossly time-intensive "hobby"

Aren't the X-Men supposed to be convincing a world that hates and fears them that not all mutants are evil?
And hiding their faces behind masks, fighting in public places without any legitimation whatsoever and slipping away into the night once the police arrives like common thieves is going to help?

Plus, aren't they financially secure enough to safeguard the world without receiving reparations (Warren, Emma, and Prof. X are just a few of the millionaires on staff)?
As I said before, only frantically rich people can afford a time-intensive hobby. The fact. that their "hobby" is caritable work (in their case: saving the world and fighting evil powers) does not change the fact, that it is something they do in their leisure time.
But, as you said, the X-Men are rich enough not to care about money.

Is using your super strength to stop a meteor from destroying the Earth that outlandish?
Is taking the praise for it more outlandish? Why run away from it? Why wear a mask, why hide behind a code-name?
Even worse, is NOT stopping a (small) meteor, that would only destroy part of Sibiria (either because you didn't know because the Russian government didn't know how to contact you or because you were so wrapped up in your daily life that you never had the time to inform yourself about Sibiria, even less the time or money to travel there) heroic?
If you had the power to stop meteors, save sinking ships, help with natural disasters, whatsoever, whouldn't the most responsible thing be to set up a small company specializing in "rescue missions", which can be contacted effectively whenever people are in danger?

I don't think the concept that you shouldn't do anything that can help someone else unless there's something you can get out of it is a very good idea to reinforce.
Which I never asked for. But a realistic approach would be nice.
I won't mind if Batman, Tony Stark, the FF, the X-Men or even Daredevil (with precation) do what they do, because they believe in it and they can afford it.
Other's like Superman, Spiderman, Captain America and most other solo characters can't. They have to earn a living. They have to divide their time between their activities as "hooded avenger" and their "real life".
Some are doing so on purpose, but most do it because they have no choice. Because they think they have no choice.
The Altante Blur in Supreme Power is a nice example of how you can become a full-time super hero. Do you really think Spiderman is happy the way he lives?
Or do you think it is "moral" if you save people for free, than spend 8 hours in the office to pay a living? Well, I don't, and many other people don't either. Even though we might read comics as a form of escapionism, we still want our stories to be sensible.

Ricky

['zel-J]

Originally posted by Nalyd Psycho


I don't think your first example can be described as reflecting society. Mainstream comics can be artistic. God Loves Man Kills is a perfect example of that. But I wouldn't say that graphic novel is escapist.

Ok first off, sorry for not replying earlier, time is the fire etc etc. Lets do the definition thing, that'll help simplify the debate. Definitions please, for "art" and "escapist comics", or some examples of what you view as an escapist comic. I'll post again with my own ideas when I have more time.:)

[Red]

Emily, I enjoyed your column. I definitely think there is a silent majority of "traditionalists" out there who, at most, check the boards occasionally and rarely post (like me), but more likely would just rather spend their time reading the comics they love instead of fighting the good fight on the "Claremont vs. Morrison" thread. Don't get me wrong, I think boards have their place, especially when it comes to spreading the word on good-but-obscure books and even the occasional indulgent "what in the world was Quemas thinking this time?" discussion. But obviously when it comes to the Big 2 and their franchises, sales numbers speak louder than all the "diversified" Do As I Sayers out there, and I'm glad those numbers have another voice on the boards.

Having said that, I was very confused about some of this particular column, specifically your point under #1. I couldn't tell if you were defending this summer's big "shake-ups" or calling them superficial. Personally, my opinion on the subject is that it's immaterial, as the current incarnation of the X-Men or Avengers or Superman or whatever will only last as long as the current creative team anyway, but that is for another discussion.

Now, for the part where I tip my hand and show my ignorance (if I haven't already), I have to ask: what's a mod creator?

[Gambit]

(First post here in a loooooooong time)

I can't say there's much of this article I disagree with.

1. Yeah, I wasn't a fan of the Morrison era "dark and gritty" wave. I followed X-Treme X-Men for a while (mainly because it was the only book that even remotely reminded me of what I liked about comics in the first place), but stopped reading that two issues after Gambit and Rogue left the team (Hey, I readily admit to being a fanboy). As somewhat of a "traditionalist" myself as far as comics go, I didn't like the black leather costumes, I didn't like the fact that characters were being killed left and right, I didn't like the fact that while Morrison was writing "new, fresh, and exciting stories", he was throwing good characterization and continuity out of the window.

2. I agree and am glad to see that comics are becoming a more "socially acceptable" medium. I remember the days where being a comic book fan sometimes meant that the entire class and neighborhood goons would say you were a loser because you should be outside obsessing about football instead (or did that only happen to me?) My only hope is that comic books don't become overly trendy, because trends in general disgust me. I doubt this will ever happen, though.

3. Good to know the sales are inclining :D. I think that comic book prices are at the point where it would be nice if they were a little bit cheaper, but they definitely shouldn't get any more expensive.

About the whole "self-destructive industry" thing, my thoughts are that if you like it, good, if you don't like it, ignore it. It's ok to tell people you think something sucks, but not ok to tell them they're wrong for liking it. There's books out there for everyone, but that doesn't always mean they're for anyone.

Everybody's always going to have an opinion, favorite certain creators, characters, books, whatever, and usually there's little you can do to change that, mainly because there's no real right or wrong. Is someone wrong because they like Morrison better than Claremont? No. Is someone wrong because they prefer costumed superheroics better than black leather politics? No. Is someone wrong because they think Cyclops is the greatest character ever created? No (although that doesn't stop me from questioning their taste. ;)).

Basically, in a nutshell, it's ironic that fans of comic books about equality, peaceful coexistance, etc, are so quick to try to tear down other people because they have a different opinion. Haven't we learned anything from reading these books all these years? ;)

[Ricky]

I agree and am glad to see that comics are becoming a more "socially acceptable" medium.

This reminds me of something, I heard in a comic store last week. When I joked about how great it is to have a girl-friend, that spends more time than me in comic-stores, the owner told me, that this was rare, indeed.
According to her, many women/girls start complaining after about 2 minutes, because they feel uncomfortable, standing around in such a place, perhaps even being seen there.
Even worse, she told us she recently got "neutral" paper bags, like they do in sex-shops, because carrying a comic-book around troubled some people...
Shocking!

['zel-J]

Originally posted by Ricky

According to her, many women/girls start complaining after about 2 minutes, because they feel uncomfortable, standing around in such a place, perhaps even being seen there.
Even worse, she told us she recently got &quot;neutral&quot; paper bags, like they do in sex-shops, because carrying a comic-book around troubled some people...
Shocking!

And it's not just girls that think that way, Ricky. I've seen guys in business suits (obviously on their lunch breaks) slink out of Forbidden Planet, look around to make sure no-one they know is watching, and hastily stuff a copy of Amazing Spiderman into their briefcase. Maybe if more folk "came out" as comic readers, the whole plain wrapper thing wouldn't be necessary. Meanwhile, you can have fun playing "who is a closet Batman fan" with your workmates...;)