Does failure define the medium of Sequential Art

I think it all has to do with each person's differing tastes. I like different genres/ series than others, but when it comes to what I feel is complete and utter shit, I must say that everyone tends to agree that The Clone Saga was horrible, The Death/Return of Superman was all a bunch of shit, and Rob Liefeld is one of the worst artists ever.

Such failures have found it's way into popular culture to the extent that some closet nerds can feel comfortable spewing forth a hateful diatribe about the Iron Spider costume to other people.

I prefer to talk of the success of comics in bringing more independent works into the light.

The problem is that even a hit comic is probably only selling a couple of hundred thousand copies these days. Looking at Diamond's sales charts for December of 2006, the top 300 combined sold 6.97 million copies. That's about 22,000 per title, and the #1 title -- Justice League of America -- sold 136,700 copies. Those numbers just don't scream "SUCCESS!!!" the way a $100 million opening weekend or a #1 Neilsen rating or a #1 album debut do.

In fact, the Comics Buyers Guide estimated that overall comic sales for 2006 totalled $396 million -- less than what Dead Man's Chest grossed domestically. Comics are just operating on a different scale, one that makes even their runaway hits look puny by comparison.

I think the medium itself is defined by it's underdog complex and it's willingness to whore itself out whenever it gets thrown a bone (the current heavy-petting from Hollywood ) but I also think fatalism and cyncism is becoming an increasingly annoying disposition of fans.

It's a little hard not to be fatalistic and cynical when the same number of pages that cost me 25 cents when I was a kid now costs $2.95 with the only appreciable changes being nicer paper.

Part of the problem is the public's perception of the medium and its fans. A lot of people still think comics are just for kids, and anyone over the age of maybe 14 that still reads them must be extending his adolescence, and is probably an immature person. For some reason, it's OK to see a movie about Superman or Spiderman for a non-comic fan. Maybe they once were into comics as a kid, and get a litle jolt of nostalgia watching the movie, or wearing the T-shirt. It's hip to do that, if the movie's a hit. And some folks are wearing the t-shirt because they liked the movie, not the comic it's based on. Not that there's anything wrong with a good comic based movie. I wish more of them were as good and as successful as "Spidrman." More of them might get made, and for each one that succeeds the popularity (and profitability) of the companies putting them out increases, even if it's only temporarily. And the level of social acceptability of the comic book as an art form creeps upward a notch.

Maybe a special effects laden movie presents the avergae, non comic fan moviegoer with more of a visual spectacle than the best drawn comic does. Maybe it has to do with the shrinking literacy of America (a guy recently quoted some stats in a thread on Creature Corner about the Death of the Horror Novel that are pretty shocking; people are reading books something like 29% less than they did 20 yrs ago, and less than 1/2 of adults reads anything). Comics are becoming more literate all the time, and aren't the Zap! Pow! beat up the supervillains and go on to the next story medium they used to be (for the most part anyway). They're more of a challenge to read and understand and appreciate, much less follow over the course of a story arc than many less than literate folks are willing to undertake.

But the fans stigmatize themselves and the medium as well. A lot of us know a lot about a medium that, like it or not, has a social stigma attached to it. If we have any sense, most of us don't go around advertising the fact that we're comic geeks all the time. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with being one; hell, I am one. But large segments of the public do. The level of acceptability creeps up every year, as more brave souls are inspired by the fans from the generations before that have hung in there and kept reading the things into adulthood to emulate their example and do likewise. The attitude of the public is a large part of why more people aren't brave enough to do this. But so is a nasty exclusionary attitude on the part of the fans. I know comics fans get shit on by the general public, who see us and our colorful little books as nerdy. But turning into an asshole and making fun of someone who knows less about this nerdy medium than you do doesn't help. It can be very off-putting. I've been at it too long to stop for a reason like that. I'll go to Wizardcon and the NY Comicon, braving getting lumped in with the guys in costume that my co-workers would make fun of, so a message board nasty is not a problem for me. But for a kid just getting old enough that he's starting to wonder if this is something he should keep doing, it probably would be. The kid's gonna ask himself: I'm gonna brave social stigma for THIS? Even these guys have to insult me? We as fans can do a little something to stop perpetuating the stereotypes by not BEING the fucking stereotypes. Comics have enough to overcome without us making it worse.

On a less serious note, Part of the problem is the transient nature of the medium. Most story arcs don't take that long to tell. Continuity isn't always top priority after they're over, especially when the creative teams change, as they frequently do, so it's hard for a reader to see a continuing series as an ongoing story, even though the same characters may be involved. And because the publisher feels an understandable need to keep its mainstay characters going (can you imagine a months long stretch w/o a Spiderman or a Batman book being published? neither can Marvel or DC) w/o a break in the action. So gaps in the creative teams need to be filled pronto, and this all too often leads to them just sticking anyone they have available in the spot, regardless of whether or not they're right for the title or have good ideas on where to take the character next. Result: a previously cool character you were into, and collected, gets lame and you lose interest. Maybe for good. That happens enough times and for a long enough period, you may stop buying a lot of what you previously did; maybe altogether. The age of a series may have something to do with this as well. You really get into a character, buy all the back issues and eventually just get sick of it, especially if they keep rehashing the same stuff someone else already did w/ the character.

These are some obstacles - failures, if you will - that keep comics from becoming the success it should be. Maybe Image Comics' run was the Disco era of comics (great analogy, BTW), because they were cheap, cheesy thrills. But they were also enormously popular in their day. And Disco and all things 70's did make a nostalgic comeback. Stuff like Image probably will too. But to call them a failure that defined the medium? Respectability and greater levels of success are being withheld because of prejudice against it from the rest of the culture, not because they published "Youngblood."

That's more than my two cents. Hope it contributed in the way you intended Mr. Anderson.

Maybe hugely successful movies don't necessarily get them thinking about comics in the right way, but they do get the public thinking about them. A non comic fan may not know Spiderman's origin, or who lex Luthor is but they know who Spidey and Supes are, and that they're comic characters. Take your kids to see those films. . . you may create a new fan. If you're not too old to "know better", maybe the thrill of seeing this movie spurs you into a trip to the local comic shop, and you become one again, like you were a few years ago. That's one way parts of the majority can start redeeming the medium, which is why I hope to see more and more of those.

The thing is, though, these movies are doing so much more to bring in new fans than any comic ever has, or could, that it actually brings the vitality and necessity of comics as a form into question. Movies, TV and video games have audiences that absolutely dwarf that of the entire comics industry.

If superheroes become such a mainstream concept that original superhero properties begin to thrive in these other media, comics may cease to be the primary home for the genre. Of course, that might actually be good news for the people who publish non-superhero comics, who might finally be free of the domination of the spandex crowd.

There are times when I'm genuinely surprised that comics are still around. As Dickson pointed out, they've priced themselves out of finding a wider audience. And now that the other media based on them are making more money than the original forms, the corporate masters have got to start asking why they should maintain those original forms at all.

While the value of a medium's being widespread and popular can't be denied, it's important to remember that good art is good art, and quality will endure and may even flourish years after the fact. Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting. The Velvet Underground was never a popular band. The Prisoner got dismal ratings.

I'm not saying there are that many works of comics that can be placed on the same level, but I think people are focusing too heavily on the bell curve. Just because everyone bought a certain CD or saw a certain movie doesn't mean they'll think about it ever again. Whereas someone who sees a brilliant movie that bombs at the box office, or hears a great album that no one's heard of, will hype it to their friends. Maybe they'll start a band or join the movie industry, and their influences will become known and lead to people discovering these lost gems. Or maybe they'll do their part to help out their heroes.

In that respect, the surge of comics-to-movies is simply part of the process that began when the quality comics came out in the first place. Quality is propagating itself. Sure, it has to do it through the populist medium of film, but eventually you have to hit a certain threshold where this new, vast audience starts following the trail back to the original comics, which I believe is what's happening now.

Also, don't underestimate the appeal of the underdog. If everyone starts reading comics, they might actually lose their cachet in some quarters.

I wonder if the movies are drawing people to the new comics or sending them looking for the originals. If it's the former, people who see Spider-Man or X-Men and pick up a current issue are probably going to be disappointed. If it's the latter, well, it's not helping the current titles a bit.

True enough. I should've said this in the original reply re: movies, but I don't think they'll be the total salvation of comics, it's just one way a wider audience can get turned on to this heretofore niche medium. But comics and books will remain a prime source of material for movies to draw upon. It probably costs a lot less to launch a new comic title than to make a new movie, using untested characters and plots. Comics are therefore a fertile ground for new things to get tried out. The movies will continue getting made, I think, from the successful comic and book titles.

One of the ideas I'm kind of on the fence about - a friend came up with it - is that comics don't really advertise beyond the community. Sure, there are movies, games, toys, etc. advertised on TV, but not the comics themselves. For kids - teens, for example, they can advertise comics like Marvel Adventures, Batman Strikes, any Ultimate series, etc. Adults could have graphic novels or independents marketed to them, like they used to do with Stephen King novels, etc. If the commercials are approached from a certian way, and look halfway decent (maybe a live action recreation of a scene or two), people will respond.

Of course, the hardcore fans might bitch a bit, but in order for the medium to survive, it has to atract new generations of readers all the time, and keep the universes and characters somewhat accessable. I don't know how it works in Japan (do they advertise, is it all word of mouth, etc.?), but they have comics for every audience at every age it seems, and I'm assuming the industry is thriving there.

This is of course possible, but it'd take a lot to see it happen in such a way that superjeroes are no longer the bread and butter of comics. I think movies, video games and TV shows based on established characters have historically done better than the other way around. Mega Man was a hugely popular videogame, and I don't know for sure, but there was probably a comic adaptation of it. But if there was, it was short lived. Mega Man was a cool videogame, but not a compelling character. And there weren't that many games like this that attained that level of popularity that I know of, other than maybe "City of Heroes", of which I was an ardent fan, but which ultimately fizzled due to game play issues (but, although I think my geek credentials are in order, I am not a video game geek to the extent that I'd know this authoritatively). If Nintendo or Sony put out another Spiderman, Superman or X-Men title, it may not attain classic game status, but at least the comic geeks will buy it. At least it can get made & released. Is NBC's "Heroes" going to inspire a series of TPB's that people are going to actually buy and read, that aren't based on the show's episodes themselves? I doubt it. And much as I like the show, I don't see it lasting much longer than the current story arc, which I hope they finish before the end of the 1st season, because the odds of it getting picked up for too many more are slim, IMO. But we're seeing, what, the 3d incarnation of a Spiderman animated series? And I can't think off the top of my head of a movie based on a superhero that wasn't drawn from comics that did really well. There may be one I'm forgetting. But all that comes to mind is "Meteorman" and stuff like that. This kind of goes back to the prejudice I mentioned earlier; comics is where, for a long time now, and a long time to come, I think, the general public expects to see superheroes. They get let out every once in awhile

That is a very good question. With the success of the movies, or even just the books themselves in the 80's - 90's boom, why DIDN'T any of the publishing houses go into mainstream media to advertise? And I am curious how they do it in Japan, where comics are siad to be much more socially acceptable than they are here. Anyone know the answer to this?

I really think independant comics are entering a golden age as far as entering a wider audience and appreciation, what with the healthy move from the stale Direct Market into bookstores and book publishers (I'm thinking of Jimmy Corrigan, Persepolis, Blankets, Epileptic, Palomar, various anthologies, etc). And right now there's simply a lot of great stuff out there if you've the inclination for it (Fantagraphic's Ignatz line, Kramers Ergot)--and a better selection of classic reprints than ever before (Popeye, Krazy Kat, Little Nemo, Peanuts, Dick Tracy, etc).

And I'm curious to see what the future brings when the comic-reading kids of today, who are largely growing up on manga, start entering the independant comics field and applying manga's strengths to their own personal works.

But when it comes to superheroes and the mainstream in general, I can't be enthusiastic. They've become mules for multimedia projects, and I think the recent crossover event mechanations of Marvel and DC might cost them a lot of readers in the long term (not even entering into how it might cost them from a creative standpoint--I mean, aside from a dwindling few, most mainstream comics just ain't very good nowadays, I'm afraid).

That's just it. If you frame the conversation in terms of superhero comics, you're missing out on the most obvious way to bring in new adult readers to the medium, which is through the more ambitious and literary stuff like the graphic novels that Mundt mentioned. And I believe these types of books are popularizing the medium to some extent. Corrigan, Satrapi, Armstrong, and plenty of others are getting tons more attention from literary publications than they ever would have ten years ago. While they're not getting Stephen King-level publicity, how many writers do? Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, Michael Crichton, Dan Brown, and John Grisham are not the standards by which to judge success when it comes to books. These are exceptional cases. Most writers don't get by on mainstream advertising, but on good reviews and word-of-mouth. A good comparison point between how these comics are thriving isn't the standard Marvel or DC model, but the group of writers affiliated with McSweeney's. Though there's a lot of stylistic variation, there's a vague aesthetic similarity that gives the sense that if you enjoy, say, Persepolis, you might enjoy Blankets, despite drastically differing subject matter.

I think this attachment to superhero comics on the part of many comics fans gives them a flawed sense of the possibilities of the genre and its success, overall. The medium does not rise and fall based on whether adults take Spider-Man seriously, but on whether they're interested in a form that integrates pictures and the written word. If Marvel disappeared tomorrow, I'd be a little sad out of nostalgia, but, like Mundt said, it's not as if they'd be going out on a high artistic peak.

Exactly.

Fair enough. But for good or ill, superheroes do dominate the landscape. And the rest of the general public is hip to that fact. So acceptance by them, for now anyway, does revolve around their acceptance of superheroes to at least some extent. I'd like to see more other genre stuff, too (especially horror), but like a good superhero story a lot, too. I'd like to see the quality of writing improve to the point where there are more superhero books you could recommend to a non comics fan and say: this is a good piece of writing, even if it is a superhero comic book. There have been a few. Let's see a few more.

People still relate to superheroes and comics in general, even when they've grown up and left collecting behind. I remember when Spidey wore the black outfit for the first time - there was an outcry amongst Joe Average Citizen that was reported in the papers. Same thing happened when Superman changed his costume - people freaked out, wrote letters to the editor in many newspapers, etc. Shit, Marvel used to stage publicity stunts to announce big events - Spidey & MJ getting hitched had two actors get "married" at home plate at (I think) Yankee Stadium - amde all the networks.

The audience for comics is still there, and people still like superheroes. The comic companies just have to reach them, and make their product more accessible. They also have to really evaluate the writing and artwork that's being turned out - there's been far too much shit lately.

Comics as a whole has to move out of the comic shops, and back into ready access. Whatever happened to the old 7-11 racks? Why can't they be put into stores' magazine racks? Let's see some commercials on TV. Radio spots - hell, Spider-Man 3 is coming out, why not run a Spider-Man comic ad before the movie starts? DC could pimp out their Vertigo line before HBO's Preacher starts up by putting an ad in books like TV Guide, etc.

The thing is that a fair number of those good pieces of superhero comic writing are commentaries on the genre, itself. To be specific, I mean "good" as acknowledged by the mainstream. The Dark Phoenix saga is a fine piece of work within the genre, but it, in no way, transcends or comments on the genre. In other words, it means absolutely nothing to people who haven't followed years of continuity. Books like the Dark Knight Returns go over because Batman has a life outside the medium, and a commentary on him can be appreciated by people who have never picked up a comic before in their life. The Watchmen worked for non-fans because it hit on not only the tropes of the genre (and the broad strokes in that respect can be appreciated by the layperson), but introduced a group of characters with no backstory in a stand alone story. I've never really gone back and checked, but I'd also guess that Watchmen didn't catch on with the mainstream until long after publication.

The thing is that superhero comics are basically soap operas for adolescent boys. They're fluff. When the industry uses terms like "mature," it quite often just means extra-bloody violence and unclothed, usually gigantic, tits (but let's not even get started on how the mainstream comics industry continually shoots itself in the foot when it comes to a female audience with this sort of absurd objectification). So, basically, when you're talking about why they're not accepted by the mainstream, you could just as easily be talking about why dumb action-oriented science fiction or fantasy novels are only embraced by a select audience.

If you're talking about sequential art as a medium, hell yeah, it can be saved. In fact, in terms of literary acceptance, it's thriving like it never has before. When lists of the year's best books started popping up, I saw Alison Bechdel's name mentioned more often than Philip Roth's. That's a pretty huge achievement, but what's even more interesting is that you almost have to put it into context to appreciate it - Bechdel isn't all that exceptional in the way that, say, Art Spiegelman was when Maus came out to near-universal praise. There are plenty of others using the genre in more autobiographical and literary ways, and a number of them have the potential to get the attention that she did with Fun Home.

If you're talking about the mainstream acceptance of comics in terms of guys in spandex beating up bad guys (no matter how innovative or complex they may seem within the genre), then give it up. Ain't gonna happen. It's never happened before, and it won't happen now, and you know why? Because, as much as I still enjoy picking up an X-Men or Runaways trade now and again, the concept is limited and kind of silly. In terms of acceptance, the future for the form is not in superheroes, but in innovation. Superheroes are a lark that most prefer to appreciate in two-hour chunks of spectacle on the big screen.

The man makes a point. One we all tend to overlook (being, when it's all boiled down, essentially adolescent boys on at least some level): comics never have appealed to women on any kind of a large scale. How can anything gain widespread societal acceptance in today's day & age, in a free society, if half the population doesn't just not get it, but maybe loathes it?

As for stupid sci fi, see my Hammer's Slammers thread in the Books and Magazines board for my feelings on that.

I guess superheroes are kind of silly. But lots of stuff people like is silly: horror movies, romance novels, a lot of video games, MOST TV . . . silliness has its place. But you're probably right that it's easier to get someone to put up w/ a 2 hour, movie length chunk of silliness than to follow a series of comics for a decade or more. But what, I wonder, is to stop someone from looking at even an innovative, non-superhero comic (take Maus, for instance), and say: "Why don't they just write a book? What's with all the silly pictures?" It WORKS for superheroes and horror because it gets the action and disturbing imagery, respectively, that those genres are based on across, and adds to the words. I read a novel about the Avengers once (called "The Man Who Stole Tomorrow"; can't recall the author) and it was an enjoyable enough read, but not nearly as much fun as a comic book would have been, for that type of story. What does sequential art add to the writing in a thing like Maus for the average, non comic fan Joe? That's a serious question, I'm not being facetious. Superhero silliness aside, even if the comic in question is a more serious, other genre'd work, how do you convince them it's better BECAUSE it's a comic book than a novel would be? I don't necessarily see the proliferation of other genres as the magic bullet either.

Exactly! And this is one thing that becomes practically a non-issue when you start talking about the type of stuff that I've mentioned. In fact, Persepolis and Fun Home may be even harder sells with certain guys, simply because they're comics with female protagonists (and, furthermore, female protagonists not designed to appeal to adolescent fantasies).

Just checked it out. To be honest, those kinds of books don't really hold any appeal for me. If I want mindless, passive entertainment, I'd rather find it in film. Melodrama just plays better there for me. I prefer to have some intellectual stimulation when I read.

I think it's also that it's a very specific kind of silly. There's a lot of room to move in horror movies and even romance novels. The defining elements of most superhero protagonists are essentially the same - powers, responsibility, secret identities, fighting crime, etc. Also, I think there's more of an acknowledgment on the part of romance novel fans that romance novels are sort of trashy. There aren't the attempts to put forth the romance novel equivalent of a Watchman or Preacher as proof that the genre deserves serious critical attention or a widespread audience. Romance novel fans are more content to accept the genre for what it is. And horror movies aren't universally ghetto-ized. There are cheap, exploitive horror movies, sure, but movies like the Exorcist, Jaws, etc. are embraced by mainstream America and critics as film classics.

Actually, Maus might not be the best example for your point, since the pictures are incredibly important to the point being made. The Jews aren't mice and the Nazis cats just for the heck of it. It's an essential part of the work.

I can see your point with something like Fun Home, Persepolis, Black Hole, or Blankets, though. The thing is that the people behind these works are visual artists and writers, so it's simply the medium in which they choose to work. Asking why they chose it is like asking why Martin Scorsese decided to become a filmmaker when Mean Streets might have worked just as well as an opera.

I have to say that I find it odd that I'm defending superheroes as much as I am, since I hardly read superhero books anymore. The power of nostalgia, I guess. Someone on another thread said they foresee the eventual collapse of the superhero as the foundation of comics. For all I know, they may be right, and even though I don't spend a lot of time with that particular type of comic these days, I'd still be sorry to see them go.

True. But there's still some room to maneuver here, as well. Watchmen and Powers are good examples of the exploration of thePowers and responsibility elements, and daredevil: Born Again is a great study on the importance of the Secret Identity. These are all great comics for that very reason, and I'd like to see more like this, and even beyond, than the collapse of the genre.

That's just it, though. These are all reactionary and quite dependent on the status quo upon which they base their commentary. Without the stuff to comment upon (which is of lower quality), this sort of book can't exist. How the heck is "the importance of the secret identity" important outside of the superhero genre?

Also, consider what happened with Dark Knight and the rise in popularity of characters like Wolverine and the Punisher in the 80s. The random violence in comics started getting explored through these (at the time) unusually violent characters, but the idea was lost when every character started becoming dark, brooding, and armed. The commentary ceased, and the violence, no longer ironic or thought-provoking, became the status quo.* In the superhero genre, the good books are almost always commentaries on the less-than-stellar books.

* Not so coincidentally, I believe that this was probably the time when comics geeks started making noise about comics being taken seriously as more than kids' stuff, under the false belief that blood and nudity = maturity.

DaveB speaks truth. However, I have to point out that there was, in fact, a time when comics for girls sold like hotcakes. Ever hear of Little Lulu? Then there's the genre of romance comics, which was aimed mostly at girls. And stuff like Carl Barks' duck comics weren't really gender-specific, though I guess they were read a little more often by boys than girls.

The Bronze Age really killed off a lot of comics' mainstream appeal in the name of "hipness". Before that, it was as populist a medium as you could ask for, even if it was aimed mostly at kids. I don't begrudge the fact that comics "grew up" in that era, but it would be nice if we could keep the "hip" adult comics while still restoring the popularity of the medium, particularly for kids. And superheroes, as a subgenre, can't handle that by themselves.

And I'm going to repeat what I've said several times: diversity of genre would benefit every aspect of comics, including superheroes. If they weren't the only game in town, they would attract the people (as writers and artists) who really care about this stuff, and the quality would improve. And we wouldn't have to have all these discussions about "who do they think they're aiming this book at?" It would be aimed at the superhero audience, period. Right now we have a lot or writers and even artists making books that want to be something else but are forced to stay within the genre of "superhero" because that's what sells, and publishers indulging all the worst traits of the genre.

People forget that Harvey was a major presence in the comic book world for decades by aiming directly at a kid's audience with Casper,Richie Rich,Little lotta,and others. Not my cup of tea, but a reminder that comic books used to appeal..and sell... to a much more diverse audience then they do know.
And I think that one problems is that comics at times takes themselves so damn seriously they forget to be FUN anymore.
That might be one reason I like Dan Slott's work at Marvel so much. He does not the Marvel universe so damn seriously.

I think that's largely true. Ironically, the medium's struggle to be taken seriously as an art form has done a great deal to reduce its appeal. Of course, It might help if the most visible practitioners actually could produce art. As long as monthly superhero comics dominate the form, it's staying right where it is in the public perception.