Marvel Must Die! Grab A Brick

[William G]

Today in my newspaper there was an article on the guy who's drawing Fantastic Four now, Steve McNiven.

Turns out he's from Halifax and he's quite telented. While it's all great that he's gotten the job that he wanted, the fact that if he hadnt been working on a superhero book, he would never have gotten mentioned at all... well, it gets up my ass.

He, the artist, was secondary to the fact that he drew The Thing. The article wasn't "Hey, this is a really talented guy." the article was "A guy from Halifax is drawing for Marvel! Oooooo! Marvel!" The newspaper would not be interested in him if he was doing his own comic, even if it was the best comic in the universe. The public still views Comics = Superheroes, and even though Mr McNiven might have his article in the paper today, in a couple of years, he'll be tossed by the wayside and forgotten like the legion that have come before him.

He'll never be remembered for his work, he'll simply be "One of the MANY guys who drew Fantastic Four", and I see this as wrong.

That is why we have to kill the superhero companies, so everyone who's wroking hard on something that ISN'T a corporate mascott can have a chance to get the recognition they deserve, for their work and not for the company they work for. And this wont happen until the hero companies are gone, gone, gone.

Viva La Webcomics!

[CleverUserName01]

Sure, it's a shame that a newspaper wouldn't recognize him for doing his own original stuff...

But on the other hand, he's getting recognition in the paper for working in the comics field. That's something - even ten years ago, I can't imagine any paper in North America running an article saying, "Hey, wow, local boy works in comics!"

And if he wanted to be doing his own stuff, maybe he would be. Maybe he'd rather work for Marvel, drawing the Fantastic Four. Who knows?

I can't say I'm big on the idea of defending Marvel, but they (and DC) do get people into the shops. People go in looking for the X-Men or Batman, maybe they stick around and find more interesting things that they like. People don't go in looking for the X-Men or Batman, in all likelihood they don't go in at all. Like it or not, a healthy Marvel and DC is good for the industry - and like it or not, a healthy print-comics industry is what the world of webcomics hinges on as it stands right now. A few years down the line, that may not be so...but right now, well...I'm not sayin' it's fair, and I'm not sayin' it's right, I'm just sayin' that's the way it is.

[Greg Stephens]

... and like it or not, a healthy print-comics industry is what the world of webcomics hinges on as it stands right now. A few years down the line, that may not be so...but right now, well...I'm not sayin' it's fair, and I'm not sayin' it's right, I'm just sayin' that's the way it is.

I just posted a reply that speaks to some of this in the To Hell With Print thread. I'll expand on that slightly here to say that if there's a current business model that might change in the next few years, why not position yourself ahead of the curve rather than behind it? Well, I do know from some of his other posts that Mr. Beckerson would point out that most innovators (and I'm talking economically as well as artistically) are likely to get overrun by the others following on their heels (as Scott McCloud point out, the pioneers are those guys ahead of you, lying face down with arrows in their backs...), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't work for change.

Though there is a distinction to be made between the separate debates of working as an independant artist v. doing work for hire and webcomics v. print comics. Though there aren't very many work for hire webcomics, there will probably one day be a whole passel of 'em and this whole problem of being recognized as an artist in your own right v. being recognized as an artist working on a hot commercial property will still be dogging us.

[CleverUserName01]

...if there's a current business model that might change in the next few years, why not position yourself ahead of the curve rather than behind it?

No reason at all - but what I was responding to was the animosity towards Marvel. Marvel's not what I'd ideally like to see out of a comics company (though I do think that in some important ways they've gotten better under the leadership of Joe Quesada than they had been for many, many years before that), but as comics as a medium and an industry stands right now, a healthy Marvel is, overall, good for everybody. Maybe I'm wrong, but I certainly don't perceive webcomics to be generating much audience of their own independently from dead-tree stuff. The webcomics audience is, largely, crossover from the print-comics audience. If Marvel can expand its fan-base, then the fan-base for comics in general grows, too. C'mon...how many of us here started out reading comics with stuff by Will Eisner, Dan Clowes or even, for that matter, Alan Moore? I started reading comics when I was seven, when a teenaged neighbor showed me a bunch of Claremont/Byrne X-Men and the Spider-man "alien costume" saga. During the first many years I read comics, I was a bona fide Marvel Zombie. My first real exposure to anything other than super-heroes came (as I imagine it did for more than a few people my age) with Neil Gaiman's "Sandman." As I grew older, my tastes evolved and I started discovering more and more outside the super-hero realm. But it started with Marvel and the X-Men. Marvel does the comics medium the valiant service of putting butts in seats, or rather, eyeballs on pages. Readers can grow from there, but it's a starting point.

Marvel (and, of course, DC too) isn't inherently evil - they simply specialize in fluff ("chocolate pies with Oreo cookie crust," to once again quote McCloud) that appeals to a broad audience. As is the case with any pop-culture medium, that stuff's always going to be the most popular, due to that broad appeal. Not necessarily super-heroes, but lighter fare, fantasy/adventure/escapism kind of stuff. Whether webcomics take off or not doesn't really have any effect on Marvel's chosen genre, or its effect on the industry as it stands today. If (when) webcomics do become big business, if (when) Marvel enters the fray in a meaningful way (i.e. providing original web-only content rather than just web previews of print stuff), I suppose it becomes a different question. But in today's status quo, I see Marvel's influence as frustrating but positive.

Though there is a distinction to be made between the separate debates of working as an independant artist v. doing work for hire and webcomics v. print comics. Though there aren't very many work for hire webcomics, there will probably one day be a whole passel of 'em and this whole problem of being recognized as an artist in your own right v. being recognized as an artist working on a hot commercial property will still be dogging us.

Of course. The "starving artist" vs. the "sellout" has always dogged every art form, and always will. A lot of the issues surrounding print comics will become part and parcel of webcomics as that field grows. I question the snobbery of the "starving artist" set in many cases. If all a young pencil-pusher wants is to work for Marvel and draw the Fantastic Four...well, so what? And if he gets what he wants and it earns him a "local boy done good" column in the paper...well, so what? If he's setting out to create high art and abandons that when someone waves a few greenbacks under his nose, I can see the problem. But maybe this guy is living his lifelong dream - how does that reflect badly on him, or on Marvel?

[Greg Stephens]

This topic has some more things in common with that other "to Hell with Print!" one, so I'm quoting from that topic here, in order to reply to this one. Confused yet?

Blankets. Courtney Crumrin. Ghost World. Anything by Alan Moore.

Dude, I consider myself into comics and I have only heard of three of those.

Actually, the two people responsible for introducing me to comics way back many years ago would probably only know Alan Moore. In fact neither of them had heard of "Understanding Comics" until I mentioned it to them in the last couple years. They weren't familiar with Scott McCloud's name, but did recognize "Zot!" when I said that's what he was most known for prior to UC. Superheroes? Yup, they knew those. Comics theory discussed in comics form? One of the most influential books in this field from the last 10 years? Nope, not a clue. So, I do agree with your observation, because I've seen it.

I suppose, though, that this is exactly what feeds some of the animosity toward Marvel (& DC) because they've so deeply intertwined the concepts of "superheroes" and "comics" that most people can't tell the difference. Ah, more to add to this, but have to do it later...

[Rip Tanion]

I must say, that even though I'm not a fan what they have produced over the last decade, or so, of years, I will always have a soft spot for Marvel Comics, and thier classic characters. I don't wish to see them "DIE! DIE! DIE!" I grew up reading Marvel comics, and collected them voraciously from the late 70s thru mid 80s.

I became disenchanted with Marvel and DC as the 80's ended, when collectibility became more important that story and art. The change from calligraphic brush inking to the scratchy rapidograph look turned me off, as well; not to mention the roid rage anatomy all the super-characters were being given. I was also around this time I discovered hallucigenics, and the universe of underground comix.

By the time I got to art school in 1990, I had NO desire to draw anything remotely connected to the Superhero market; except for maybe a spoof of said market. I scoffed at all the fan boys there who just wanted to learn to draw muscle men, and a get gig with Marvel or DC. In fact, some of them already had internships with one or the other. Oddly enough, a lot of these guys were weight-room nerds; geeks who decided to do the Charles Atlas program, and became obsessed with body building. No wonder why the Superheros were getting so big; they were being drawn by guys who sat around reading muscle magazines all day, and coping out figures that were enhanced by GNC and Balco.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Point is, as the years past, I gained an appreciation for the fact that Marvel Comic (DC as well) has given us a great folklore tradition. I never threw-out, or sold the bulk of my Marvel collection from all those years ago. Once in a while, I'll walk into a comic shop, look through the Old Comics bins for bargains, and pick out a Marvel ish or two, to fill the gaps in my boyhood collection. I'd like to see some big changes at those companies, in term of what they presently produce (I never will); but I certainly don't want them to turn to dust, either. That would be a tragedy for American pop-culture.

[William G]

But on the other hand, he's getting recognition in the paper for working in the comics field. That's something - even ten years ago, I can't imagine any paper in North America running an article saying, "Hey, wow, local boy works in comics!"

I found that it was quite the opposite ten years ago. Different towns I guess.

I can't say I'm big on the idea of defending Marvel, but they (and DC) do get people into the shops.

Well, that's the problem. The only people they get into comic shops are the people who go to buy comics in the first place. Most people don't but them because there aint nothing new with Spiderman they didn't read when they were a kid. Every decade Marvel and DC reinvent themselves, but all they do is tell the same crap with a new coat of paint.

Basically, they're the old hookers with a lot of makeup plastered on.

Like it or not, a healthy Marvel and DC is good for the industry - and like it or not, a healthy print-comics industry is what the world of webcomics hinges on as it stands right now. A few years down the line, that may not be so...but right now, well...I'm not sayin' it's fair, and I'm not sayin' it's right, I'm just sayin' that's the way it is.

It's only healthy for superhero comics, everyone else is shit out of luck.

[CleverUserName01]

It's only healthy for superhero comics, everyone else is shit out of luck.

You can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but you haven't refuted my statement - that a majority of the people who take an interest in non-superhero comics started out reading the long-underwear stuff.

Take a look at what are arguably the three biggest names in the field today:

1. Will Eisner - the Godfather and Original Champion of diversity of genre. Started out doing superheroes, refined and diversified from there.

2. Scott McCloud - the loudest and most widely-heard voice advocating comics-as-art and diversity of genre today. Didn't like comics until Kurt Busiek put some X-Men in his hands. Started out reading superheroes, remains well-known for doing a super-hero series, but has developed beyond it.

3. Craig Thompson - the Hot Young Upstart whose work is changing perceptions and influencing a whole generation of artists. Started out reading superheroes (as anyone who remembers his and his brother's pajamas in "Blankets" could tell you), but decided to go in a different direction in his comics career.

I don't understand the perception of the super-hero genre as inherently negative or destructive. Yes, perceptions about what comics are and what they can do need to be changed, but I don't know why that necessarily has to involve the destruction of super-heroes as a genre.

In the early days of the cinema, everything was bad melodrama and broad slapstick. That's all people at the time thought film was capable of. It first took pioneers like Griffith and Chaplin to expand the boundaries of possibility from within the established genres. It took time for them to create it, and it took time for audiences to accept it. From there it was possible for generation after generation of filmmakers to explore, broaden and diversify. But even today, after 90-some years of this, we still have bad melodrama and broad slapstick in the cinema, alongside everything else - they're still here and what's more, they never left.

Why not the same thing with comics? Admittedly, the period of "infancy" has been longer than with the cinema, but comics isn't nearly so popular an art form. But I think the same pattern can be applied; I think it's valid to compare Frank Miller and Alan Moore to Griffith and Chaplin - expanding the boundaries of possibility from within the established genre. From there (or rather, here, where comics' boundary-pushers have brought us today), anything's possible. Perceptions will change, barriers will fall - but it doesn't require the destruction or elimination of what has come before. Diversity of genre is about expanding territory, not conquering it.

[William G]

It's only healthy for superhero comics, everyone else is shit out of luck.

You can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but you haven't refuted my statement - that a majority of the people who take an interest in non-superhero comics started out reading the long-underwear stuff.

Okay then-

1) I say it's more likely that they started out watching cartoons on TV than reading hero books. Saw the Justice League cartoon, bought the Superman comic. But....

2) They had the lack of choice for the most part. That manga is so popular today shows that when faced with the abilty to choose genres, Spiderman isnt the first thing on comic buyer's minds. This also ties in with the first point about the power of TV

3) Are you forgetting about Archie?

Take a look at what are arguably the three biggest names in the field today:

1. Will Eisner - the Godfather and Original Champion of diversity of genre. Started out doing superheroes, refined and diversified from there.

2. Scott McCloud - the loudest and most widely-heard voice advocating comics-as-art and diversity of genre today. Didn't like comics until Kurt Busiek put some X-Men in his hands. Started out reading superheroes, remains well-known for doing a super-hero series, but has developed beyond it.

3. Craig Thompson - the Hot Young Upstart whose work is changing perceptions and influencing a whole generation of artists. Started out reading superheroes (as anyone who remembers his and his brother's pajamas in "Blankets" could tell you), but decided to go in a different direction in his comics career.

Great, now go ask you mom, neighbour, or boss who these three people are. Then ask them who Superman is. I think you'd be surprised at the results.

I don't understand the perception of the super-hero genre as inherently negative or destructive. Yes, perceptions about what comics are and what they can do need to be changed, but I don't know why that necessarily has to involve the destruction of super-heroes as a genre.

Because art is a product of the artist. Superhero books as done by Marvel, DC et al, subjigate the artists in favor of the hero itself. When the public (And I mean "people not comic geeks like us") doesn't see hero books as art, it's because they've been trained by the superhero genre to think so because they've been show that the artist is irrelevent to the process.

No artist, not art, thus no respect for anyone trying to create art.

Right now, the superhero genre needs to go away and fade from the minds of the public. When that happens, then you'll be seeing the great comics revival because people will be able to see comics for what they are, and not as "Non-art starring Spiderman"

Why not the same thing with comics? Admittedly, the period of "infancy" has been longer than with the cinema, but comics isn't nearly so popular an art form. But I think the same pattern can be applied; I think it's valid to compare Frank Miller and Alan Moore to Griffith and Chaplin - expanding the boundaries of possibility from within the established genre. From there (or rather, here, where comics' boundary-pushers have brought us today), anything's possible.

Again, ask your mom, neighbour and boss about Miller. After a bit of prodding, you'll probably get "Oh yeah, the Batman guy" if you're lucky.

Perceptions will change, barriers will fall - but it doesn't require the destruction or elimination of what has come before. Diversity of genre is about expanding territory, not conquering it.

I like metaphors-

The territory has been conqured by the huns known as superheroes for about half a century now. If you want the medium to be all it can be, it has to be freed from that which chains it. That means the huns must be driven back into the woods.

[losttoy]

I will post my reply to the two topics in question (this and To Hell With Print) here.

Yes, I started reading comics with good old X-Men and Spiderman. No wait, it was those old Bug Bunny, Uncle Scrooge and Bullwinkle comics. Wait, I am sure my mother read me Little Golden Books and other picture stories when I was too young to read.

With all due respect, I believe Mr. Beckerson has much limited view on what comics are. I read a news magazine that had a photo journal of events happening in another country. I saw a pamplet for a transportation company that had a series of pictures demonstrating how to use their bus system. I checked out Daniel Goodbrey's Mr. Nile comic online.

Due to time and money, I have not been able to go to a comic book shop in a while. I just can not afford to keep up with a monthly book, but I still like to collect graphic novels and tradepaperback collections. I do frequent Borders book store enough to know that there is a wide variety of comics in their comic book section (of course a bigger humor section with collected comic strips, an even bigger childrens section with picture books and let us not forget all those how-to books with the appropraite diagrams). Borders did have a section of Marvel and DC books, and a considerable persentage of Japanese manga. However at least 25%-33% of their comic book selection (not including manga) is non-superhero stuff.

Another odd story. i was trying to get guests to talk on behalf of comics at the Ann Arbor Book Festival. We are truely trying to get the word out that comics can be veiwed a literature. When I spoke to all these non-comic book readers that composed the sponsors and board of the Ann Arbor Book Festival, they were all excited about the fact that I was tryng to get Scott McCloud to consider coming to the fair ... not for Zot!, but for that Understanding Comics guy. (A postscript, it looks like the board can not afford his speakers fee for this year, but we are hoping for next year.)

You see, Mr. Beckerson is walking around with Marvel shaded glasses. But if you define "comics" as "comic books" you very much narrow your choices and views. If Marvel is the enemy, than we have lost, because the scope is much bigger than this small little company.

[William G]

You see, Mr. Beckerson is walking around with Marvel shaded glasses. But if you define "comics" as "comic books" you very much narrow your choices and views. If Marvel is the enemy, than we have lost, because the scope is much bigger than this small little company.

Simple fact of the matter is that print comics (not compalations of daily newspaper strips) do not sell to the market they should be selling to. Some could say that it's simply a lack exposure, but I think thats wrong. Just an example- You can not get as much exposure as the Spiderman movie gave comics. And yet the millions of people who saw the movie did not rush to the comic shops, buy Spiderman, looked around and went "Golly, this Maus comic looks interesting. Thank god I came into this shop." No, they didn't, and sales are still abysimal because those people still see comics as equalling superheroes.

Now, if you want to talk about newspaper strip compendiums, sure, they sell gangbusters compared to what's sold in a comic shop.

But think about it for a second, when you get your book together, where is it going to be sold? Chapters or The Android's Dungeon? We both know the answer to that. The place where the vast untapped market that may make you a shit load of cash doesn't enter because they only see comics as being about jerks in tights.

So, yes, we have lost the battle, but the time may come when we can reclaim the kingdom. We just need the current despot to die.

And Mr. Beckerson has a pretty good view of what comics are. He just has lost his pie in the sky idealism about the artform he chose, and views it as realistically as he can.

[losttoy]

While a agree with many of the points you make, I still think you missed mine.

I do not know about other Borders or those chain book stores, but the one near me has a decent selection of graphic novels and trade collections. About a fourth of the section is Japanese manga (which has a wide variety of genres and rarely superheroes as we know it. Almost half of the total selection is actual superheroes, which leaves a just over a fourth of non-manga/non-superhero. Regardless of it being a minority, it is a nice percentage. A better percentage than what is in the actual comic book stores which are "suppost" to have a wider variety.

While you are right that most people did not go to the comic book stores after watching the Spiderman movie, I bet there was still a small amount that went to a Borders type store. I DO remember reading some article about sales going up on Spiderman books after the movie came out. Regardless, more people go to the local Borders than to the local comic book store and about 50% of the purchases there are not superhero.

Furthermore you miss the point of the cross genre superhero books. Spawn, Witchblade, Sandman, Doctor Strange, Thor: Son of Asgard and those have a fantasy element to them as well as superheroes. Then there are crime related books like Powers, Sam and Twitch, Elektra, Punisher and at least one of those Marvel Max books. Do not even get me started on sci-fi/superhero cross breeds.

No, American comics are just not what they should be, but it is getting better. A Craig Thompson book was found at my library right next to X-Men. Yes, Marvel in the past has done major damage to the comic industry. I hear Quesada is trying to make things better there. My point is compared to Microsoft or MCI, Marvel is small beans.

[CleverUserName01]

Great, now go ask you mom, neighbour, or boss who these three people are. Then ask them who Superman is. I think you'd be surprised at the results.

Irrelevant. My mom doesn't know a thing about any comics artists, but she couldn't pick a recording artist younger than the Beatles out of a lineup, wouldn't know who Martin Scorcese was if he kicked her in the ass (wow, did I just give myself a weird mental picture), and might vaguely recognize the name Michael Chabon just from seeing it in the bookstore on her way to the register with an armload of John Grisham and Patricia Cornwell.

If you're fighting for universal recognition of comics as art and for comics artists to be household names, you're going to be fighting for a long, long time, and with gains that are limited at best. Comics are never going to be as popular as movies, nor will they ever be as ubiquitous as television. No matter how much the general public accepts comics as art, it's still going to be relatively few who are interested or who know much about it. I can't think of a single comic, from "Watchmen" to "Blankets" to "Ghost World" that I could show to my mother, my neighbor or my boss that would make them even casual, occasional comics readers (beyond, perhaps, a glance at the daily paper to see what that wacky Sally Forth is up to). Public acceptance is one thing; public enthusiasm is quite another.

Do I think there's a much larger, untapped potential audience out there for comics? Certainly. But that untapped audience is not the entire general public.

Right now, the superhero genre needs to go away and fade from the minds of the public. When that happens, then you'll be seeing the great comics revival because people will be able to see comics for what they are, and not as "Non-art starring Spiderman"

I must admit, it's a possibility. Another (in my opinion, more likely) possibility is that comics as a medium will die (certainly in print format, anyway, which I believe would also cripple webcomics), because there's nothing to interest younger readers and draw them into the shops where they can later discover more interesting things.

Again, ask your mom, neighbour and boss about Miller. After a bit of prodding, you'll probably get "Oh yeah, the Batman guy" if you're lucky.

Again - irrelevant. Interest in genre and interest in form aren't necessarily the same thing. Whether people see it as all superheroes or not, you're not going to get everyone interested in comics.

I like metaphors-

The territory has been conqured by the huns known as superheroes for about half a century now. If you want the medium to be all it can be, it has to be freed from that which chains it. That means the huns must be driven back into the woods.

"Driven back into the woods" is one thing, and it sounds more like what I'm advocating - putting superheroes in their proper place. What you're talking about is another thing entirely, and that's lopping off the huns' heads and putting them on pikes.

[William G]

Again- NO ONE OUTSIDE OF A VERY SMALL GROUP IS BUYING COMICS. If you can find them, go look at the numbers. Only a fool will see them and go, "Golly, that's great"

The Japanese comic market has proven that the wider public can and will buy comics because the choices have always been there for them. The superhero companies have margionalized those choices here to such a degree that superheroes have become entwined with the idea of comics. And the sales/ site hits prove this. These are facts.

You used the word "irrelivent" , but that refers to all of us comic drawing chimps. We have the ability and opportunity to make this medium more widely accepted, and history has shown us that superheroes have turned more people away than they have drawn in. The numbers have done nothing but decline since the 1950s with a brief peak in the late 80's. And it's all due to what has been offered by the two biggest companies in the field. Marvel and DC are currently busily polishing the same turd they've always had and hoping someone will notice. No one has. The sales are not improving.

The medium has been badly hurt by those companies and the product they put out. Because the people who may be interested in what we can offer them still see superheroes whenever they pass by a comic shop.

What I'm seeing right now is a couple of guys who don't want to lose our little club mentality we have here in comicsdom. But I want this medium to come out of hiding and take it's rightful place in the public's eye. I want a lot of people to be able to earn a living from their webcomic. But it just aint happening because of the menatl association OUR POTENTIAL AUDIENCE makes with superheroes. That's why they must be driven away.

But, if you prefer the warm cozy treehouse club of obscurity we have here, great. There's no more use trying to talk some sense into you.

[Ray Radlein]

Irrelevant. My mom doesn't know a thing about any comics artists, but she couldn't pick a recording artist younger than the Beatles out of a lineup

Who knows, then -- she might know Eisner. I know that my dad, who certainly doesn't read any comics, knew who Eisner was when he saw the little autographed "Spirit" sketch I have. He not only remembered The Spirit, he also remembered all the training manuals and stuff he drew for the Army during and after WWII (since I got my packrat genes from him, I still hold on to the hope that someday he'll come across some of those old manuals in a trunk somewhere -- how cool would that be?).

[losttoy]

Yes William, there is a "war" going on. The fight for public perception. The fight to see comics as art. To see comics as literature. The diversity of genre within comics with media and institutional scrutiny. You are right that only about one out of a thousand American's read comic books. It is the non-comic-book-readers that are our enemies, not Marvel.

William, you are not the first person to say that Marvel sucks. You would not be the first person to be right when saying so. However Marvel is good at what it does; Marvel targets young boys and gives them what they want. Perhaps it is Marvel's audience that is our enemies, because all they want is action, quick quips and bang for their buck. Can you blame Marvel for giving them what they want? They have after all built a relatively big business doing just that, so there must be a market for it. And while superheroes tend to be the fat bloated disgrace of the comic industry, to remove it entirely would probably kill the comic industry first than to make it better. You think that if Marvel goes out of business, they comic reading drones will start reading "A Contract With God", "Maus", "Ghost World" or whatever indy thing there is today? Nah, they would just go over to DC where they will just have to settle for Superman instead of the Hulk and Batman instead of Captain America.

So why is DC better than Marvel? Because they have Vertigo? Frankly in terms of parent companies, AOL-TimeWarner is a lot bigger than Marvel. I am not sure what Marvel is doing these days. I do know that before Vertigo there was Epic. Epic was a pretty decent division that included non-superhero and creator owned stuff. For whatever reason, they closed Epic. It did not work for them. Whether they fucked it up first or not is in question, but there it is. But I do know it is not quite business as usual these days. Sure there is not much in the way of non-superheroes, but they have some talent working on decent stories. Brian Michael Bendis,, Mike Allred & Peter Milligan, Chris Claremont, Keith Giffen, Kurt Busiek, Grant Morrison, Neil Gaiman and Garth Ennis are just some of the name writers that they have working for them this very month. Frankly if Neil Gaiman, who once promised the world he would never work for Marvel, is working there today, then Marvel must be doing something right. One might pick up X-Statix at the drug store magazine rack and later go and buy Red Rocket or Madman. One might pick up Gaiman?s 1602 and then later go and buy Sandman, Mr Punch or Stardust. One could read Brian Michael Bendis,?s Spiderman and go on to read Jinx and Torso. And so on ?

You see, instead of an enemy, Marvel can be an ally. After all they control at least one of our true enemies, the people who mindless read superhero crap. After all we pay for what we want and get it. Furthermore, Marvel is a bigger company that can get unknown artists in the newspapers ?as local hero draws comics? to give us a little spotlight to our other enemies, the non-comic-readers. There is that saying that there is no bad press, this is right right to an extent. At least people are watching.

Anyhow, I have said what I wanted to say ?

[losttoy]

Actualy I have just one more thing to say ...

William, just so you do not feel too bad, I used to be a gunho anti-Marvel person myself. I was big on creator rights and how creator owned comic tended to have better stories than the stuff put out by a group of editors. They did so many wrong things by trying to buy out competition, the distributors and mussle their way through everything. Marvel lost and filed Chapter 11. In ways they are still putting out the same old crap, but then again with different divisions with Max and Ultimate books and getting good writters back to the books. They still suck, but the key is to look at the bigger picture. Getting the masses who have no idea what Marvel is and get them to read Dark Horse, Top Shelf, Image, Fantagraphics, or whatever indy label there is out there these days.

Or with the web, just produce a better product and people will read it since Marvel does not have a foothold of the web like they do with the internet. It is a big world out there and we could fight with each other or spread the news together.

[William G]

Unless I'm mistaken, your argument is based on the idea that a healthy Marvel will raise us all up, right? It's a nice idea, and I appreciate your faith, but it is killed by the reality of the situation.

Let me simplify the argument for you-

1) The hero companies are producing the same superhero stuff that the public lost interest in a long time ago. True or false? True. Sorry, Vertigo, for all of it's artiness, are still hero books. Don't get your panties in a knot over this, a lot of translated manga are superhero comics as well. That's how deep the rot goes.

2) The public associates comics with the superhero because of these companies, True or false? True. The "irrelivencey" of your mom not knowing Miller but knowing Batman supports this.

3) Because of this association, only hardcore comics geeks buy comics. True or flase? True. If not your mom, who's buying the very few comics that do get sold then?

4) So, no new audience is being made. True or false? True. If there was a new audience being made, then the sales would rise or at least hold steady... they've been doing the opposite for decades.

5) Thus comics are dying a long lingering death True or false? True. Again, look at the ever declining sales.

6) Which negatively impacts upon us on the web, because if we want to see "the end of free" we need to win the same audience that has been alienated by the hero comic. True or false? I say true. Even mighty Penny Arcade's hits are a small drop in the numbers of people using the web.

7) Thus, the source of the problem are these companies. True or false? You claim it's the readers that exist currently. I say it's the loss of former and potential readers because of of the product these companies put out. Who's right? I am. Again, the sales records support me.

If you have a problem, and the problem refuses to solve itself, shouldn't you want to see it removed? The hero companies are the problem and they are refusing to change. Unfortunately, no one has the courage to want to see them removed.

You see, instead of an enemy, Marvel can be an ally

This I agree with. They are in a unique position to be leaders. If, the right person with vision and the willingness to crack skulls comes along, they (or DC) can lead comics back into the light.

But in order to do that, they have to stop presenting the same re-fried crap they've been presenting since the second world war. Nothing has changed except the quality of the paper and the breast sizes. There was a brief shining moment of hope with Epic, but then their laziness got the best of them and it became "Galactus Magazine"

But they, nor DC wont try to lead the charge into the public eye because inertia and an unwillingness to change (and lose those movie options) is preventing them. Ultimate X-Men is still X-Men.The superhero companies are not targeting teenaged boys as you say. They are targetting a small group of hardcore comics nerds who will buy the product regardless what gets put out. No new readers are coming in and thus they are not looking around at the alternatives. The sales support this.

And we as comic artists will continue to be held down because of this.

Wake up and see it for what it is.

[CleverUserName01]

Again- NO ONE OUTSIDE OF A VERY SMALL GROUP IS BUYING COMICS.

I do not dispute this, nor have I at any point in this discussion.

The Japanese comic market has proven that the wider public can and will buy comics because the choices have always been there for them. The superhero companies have margionalized those choices here to such a degree that superheroes have become entwined with the idea of comics. And the sales/ site hits prove this. These are facts.

I do not dispute this, either. But if you look at Japanese comics, you'll find that they include as much super-hero/adolescent power fantasy stuff as American comics in addition to the wide range of other choices available. One of the most revered Japanese artists, Osamu Tezuka, spent quite a bit of his career doing "Astro Boy," which is nothing if not a superhero strip. I would take this as proof that power fantasies can quite happily co-exist alongside other genres.

You used the word "irrelivent" , but that refers to all of us comic drawing chimps. We have the ability and opportunity to make this medium more widely accepted, and history has shown us that superheroes have turned more people away than they have drawn in. The numbers have done nothing but decline since the 1950s with a brief peak in the late 80's. And it's all due to what has been offered by the two biggest companies in the field. Marvel and DC are currently busily polishing the same turd they've always had and hoping someone will notice. No one has. The sales are not improving.

I don't really know for sure - tracking Marvel & DC's sales figures isn't really high on my "to-do" list - but my impression is that sales are higher today than they were in the post-speculator bust of the late '90s.

The medium has been badly hurt by those companies and the product they put out. Because the people who may be interested in what we can offer them still see superheroes whenever they pass by a comic shop.

The medium was kept alive (in America, anyway) by those companies and the product they put out during a long period of years when nobody else was doing anything. Granted, that this is the case is largely the result of the sort of perceptions you describe, but my point remains the same - had Marvel and DC folded in the '70s, I doubt that there would be enough interest in comics today for us to even be having this conversation.

What I'm seeing right now is a couple of guys who don't want to lose our little club mentality we have here in comicsdom.

Sigh...then, obviously, what you're seeing right now is based on qualities that you choose to ascribe to me rather than what I've actually written. Since you don't quite seem to be able to distinguish between myself and losttoy, this is hardly surprising. Try actually reading my posts and figuring out what I'm saying instead of assuming that you already know.

But I want this medium to come out of hiding and take it's rightful place in the public's eye. I want a lot of people to be able to earn a living from their webcomic.

That would be nice. I'd like that, too.

But it just aint happening because of the menatl association OUR POTENTIAL AUDIENCE makes with superheroes. That's why they must be driven away.

But, if you prefer the warm cozy treehouse club of obscurity we have here, great. There's no more use trying to talk some sense into you.

I've never once said that I "prefer the warm cozy treehouse club of obscurity." Again, try reading what others write instead of putting words in their mouths - you might be surprised at how much you can learn.

All I'm saying is that I don't think that destruction of the super-hero genre will accomplish what you think it will; indeed, quite the opposite. I think that it would simply drive away most of the readers that already exist and largely prevent the sort of expansion of readership and public acceptance that we'd both like to see occur.

[William G]

All I'm saying is that I don't think that destruction of the super-hero genre will accomplish what you think it will; indeed, quite the opposite. I think that it would simply drive away most of the readers that already exist and largely prevent the sort of expansion of readership and public acceptance that we'd both like to see occur.

And I see this as flat out wrong. For what you think can ignite the expansion (The hero companies) is exactly what is preventing it from happening. You two can try to dismiss what I'm saying about it all you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation one bit.

Sales and history support me. Nothing left to be said about it.

[losttoy]

All I have to say, William, is that while there are some points that I agree with, I do not agree a lot of your points. Some of the things that you speak as true, I would say that it is false. But it is okay for us to disagree, it makes us unique. I also know how hard it is to get off one's soapbox.


I believe you have not understood what I have been trying to say. That's okay, it happens. You said ...

Unless I'm mistaken, your argument is based on the idea that a healthy Marvel will raise us all up, right?

You are mistaken. My argument is that there is bigger fish to fry and Marvel is not our true enemy. It is my belief is that we should focus on educating the public and focusing on the good. An attack on Marvel will only give more focus to Marvel. But look, there have been people making kick-ass non-superhero comics since before you were born. Do not ignore them too, or else Marvel has won. Think about it. Do you want to be a peace-lover and support "cool comics", or be a war-monger and attack the "okay, but really should be better comics"? My point is that you should put a positive aspect on yourself. If you attack one comic company, who is to say you will turn on us later. It is hard to trust an extremist and/or a war-monger. If you make it us vs. them, they will not change, only fight their case even more. However if we work together making change from the inside, harmony will come easier.

[Greg Stephens]

Paul O'Brien over at The Ninth Art has written an interesting article which relates to this discussion. He suggests looking at the issue from a different viewpoint: Not that Superheroes dominate the comics market, but that the comics medium dominates the superheros genre.

It's almost a tautological argument, really, but it's short and easy to read.

[losttoy]

Definately food for thought for all us non-superhero comic artists. While I think he is right on for print comics, I also think this differs with web comics. At least in my observation, the most popular web comics are non-superhero because the web is accessable to everybody to any genre or media.

[William G]

It is a good theory and I would even agree if it were true outside of North America.