Reruns: Fight the Comic Aristocracy

I have a "rerun" of my older article Fight the Comic Aristocracy over at Sequart. It deals with the the "aristocratic" structures that are in the comic industry and the democratizing force that the notion of "visual language" can have in contrast to it.

I used the term "aristocratic" there pretty much to stand in for "Bourgeoisie" or "elitist", but in a somewhat broader more abstract sense. In retrospect it does admittedly sound a bit hokey, but I couldn't really think of something better. Ah well.

When it was originally posted over at (the-then-) Comixpedia, they broke it up into two separate articles, while here I've retained it in its intentional one big piece. I've also cleaned it up a bit and junked a few parts that I thought were clunky. So, if you didn't get enough when it came out a couple years ago, enjoy it once again!

Comics definitions and distribution

A friend of mine and I were talking about comic distribution and some interesting points came up, including how McCloud's definition of "comics" might actually hurt the growth of the medium.

I'll get back to that one.

My friend noted that "comics" are coming to be split into two major groupings of mainstream works and graphic novels (largely dominated by memoir), and that "comics" were once again coming to refer to the latter as a more niche label of superhero/fantasy/sci-fi/-ish genres.

Part of our discussion focused on the inadequacy of the distribution to "comic stores" for appealing to customers who might not have any interest in that niche. I've argued at length before about how if someone were to write a compelling baseball "comic" that would appeal to baseball fans (which outnumber "comic" fans by a lot I imagine, when they aren't overlapping), only selling it in a "comic" store would not reach the real audience intended to buy it — you'd need to sell it in sporting-good stores, batting cages, baseball games/stadiums, etc. (in addition to non-niche places like grocery stores).

Now, when McCloud tried to define "comics" back in 1993 as "sequential images," I think (?) his intent was to move the label beyond its stereotyped niche. Using such a formalist/structural definition would seemingly let so many other things into the fold that superheroes/etc. would become just another genre.

But instead of "comics" becoming the superordinate category to the benefit of the medium, I think this has actually had a negative impact for those that have adhered to it. Instead, it seems as though it only cast a wider net for all those things that break the stereotype to be sucked into the associations of "comics." My hypothetical "baseball comic" would only get hurt by being called a "comic" and being carried in "comic" outlets because readers of said genre already have predispositions toward things called "comics."

Indeed, the only real growth areas in the industry right now are things that have both evaded those stereotypes and use new labels altogether: "manga" or "graphic novels."

With those new labels they have appealed to audiences outside the "comics" markets. I've heard stereotype-avoiding readers say "it's not a comic, it's a graphic novel" — which is why Marvel and DC are now trying to give a post-hoc association of their products ("comics") as being "graphic novels" so they won't be left behind by the new wave of readership. (I doubt it's working)

I actually think it's fine for "comics" to refer to a niche, since it gives it a reliable label. And, there's nothing wrong with that, especially if we have a notion of the sequential graphic communication system that is separate from the notion of how that graphic system appears socially. It's also fine for that niche to be found reliably in "comic stores," while other graphic works that don't need to be called "comics" can viably be sold in other marketplaces.

We shouldn't limit potential graphic stories and books to the labels and distribution venues of a niche they don't belong to. Doing so would only ensure that they never sell to their potential and that the medium never reaches beyond niche works.

Links anyone?

Life's been good lately. After being a bit debilitated from my hip surgery, I'm now starting to walk short distances again, though the crutches will be with me for a few more weeks still. More pertinent to my research concerns, I've finally finished writing my first year project paper, which was a bear to write. Now I can turn my focus to other visual language and comics related projects. Here's some links that have fallen in my lap recently...

Through my ComicSpace account, I was alerted to The Cape Symposium. While most of it seems to be a message board for talking about superhero comics in particular, the overall tone tries to probe a little deeper than the usual surface discussions, and some threads seem to aim towards praxis based theory. One thread has a downloadable pdf exploring the relations of text and image in comics, largely from a semiological-ish view.

Also, Tor from Comic Book Innovation emails me with word of Storytron, which seems to be a company working on technology for interactive storytelling. Seems to be pretty interesting.

Finally, Alan David Doane has a great essay about why the mainstream comic market is doomed to extinction. I think it's a great piece, and echoes many of the things I said in my first essay for Comixpedia, and in many of the writings in the "Visual Language Manifesto". Worth reading if these are concerns of yours.

More reruns! Comics≠art

Continuing with the re-posting of my Comixpedia articles, Sequart.com has a posting of my old article Comics’ Identity Crisis: Claiming “Art” is a Misguided Quest. It's weird to see these older papers of mine as if they're new again, and kind of fun. Perhaps if people jump into them again they'll find something new in there...?

For anyone who surfs over from Sequart: thanks for dropping in and welcome to my site!

Reruns at Sequart.com

So, after discovering my post about them, the folks over at Sequart have kindly offered to repost some of my essays on the comic industry that initially appeared at Comixpedia over the last few years. I'm grateful for the exposure to a new audience, and if you've surfed over here from there, welcome to my site!

The first article is "Dissolving Comics' Boundaries", addressing how I think the comic industry can expand and what exactly that means.

Wired: Marvel should embrace digital distribution

This month's Wired Magazine features an article arguing that Marvel and DC should sell digitized versions of old issues online. While venturing into new material online has yet to show how it would be financially advantageous given their manufacturing model, back issues could provide the ideal stepping stone to digital distribution. Of course, that's if they can overcome their corporate-phobia of the Internet.

An interesting line:

In 2004, Marvel had net sales of $513 million. Of that, only 16 percent came from comics. The rest was from licensing characters for movies, TV, and toys. In other words, comic books - the actual printed artifacts - have become little more than marketing materials. Scary as that might be for fans, the publishers must have realized it. But it begs the question of why those publishers aren't embracing digital distribution when it could be free and easy evangelizing for the next summer blockbuster.

Marvel and DC have written off comics as a medium of worth in and of itself – to them its all just an avenue for better methods to make money. Time to shift to some new perspectives.

Oh "Graphic Novel", I hardly knew ye

I was in the kid's section of a bookstore the other day looking for a stickerbook for the 5 year olds I teach, and I came across a book titled "How to draw Graphic Novels" (or something like that). Yet, when I opened up the book (clearly aimed at young kids) it was all superhero stuff. Like, egregiously superheroes. Relatedly, in a Wired Magazine article about Paul Pope's upcoming Batman series, it says "DC Comics will release the first installment of his four-issue graphic novel."

These took me by surprise because my conception of graphic novels is as book length (not serialized) works, while escaping the specter of the superhero genre. It looks like people have missed the point entirely of the "graphic novel" movement, and the term is succumbing altogether to becoming purely an upscale synonym of "comics."

Quite frankly, I'm not surprised. This is what you get when you don't invoke an entirely different frame-of-mind with your vocabulary. New term, same baggage.

Though, I'm not wholly resigned about it. The term may beat the rap if enough focus and works shift away from the stereotype in order for a new frame to really be reached. But, we'll see how much weight the major comic companies throw around to prevent that from happening...

The Character of "Comics"

Recently, one of the elementary school kids that I teach found out that I “drew comics” after she mentioned that she wanted to be an artist. What intrigued me (besides a 10 year old girl's exuberance that drawing comics was “cool”) was her first response: “Have you made up any characters?”

Its rather striking that the defining feature of comics to kids is characters, as opposed to say, drawing one’s own book or writing a story. Though, this shouldn’t be too strange, since much of the industry of comics is permeated by a recurring theme of characters – in strips, in books, etc. Unlike stories, characters provide a foundation for merchandising, which is where the real money is. Marvel’s website directly totes them as “one of the world’s most prominent character-based entertainment companies.”

Characters versus story also becomes one of the defining differences, I think, between “comics” and “graphic novels.” As a form of literature, graphic novels are more plot/story based in contrast to the characters of comics. This difference underscores the business side of things too. Whereas publishers put out stories by authors, companies put out characters as corporate properties.

While these characters may undergo storylines, the characters are always the primary draw. No one reads X-Men or Batman because the character-titled books have a specific story that someone finds appealing. Rather, they read the books continuously because they like the characters, and seeing what various “creative teams” subject them to. And this is never ending, so the product can be pushed endlessly.

In contrast, the characters in graphic novels take a backseat to the stories. They exist solely as pieces in the greater whole of the conveyed narrative. And, it's a narrative that will have a conclusion at some point.

The web scene seems to balance both of these. Strips by and large remain character driven, while experimental and "artsy" graphic novel-esque works (like Derek Kirk Kim) remain story driven.

Japan meanwhile seems to have the best of both worlds. While they do feature very strong (and marketable) characters, there is almost always a specific story path that they traverse. No matter how much of a character oriented juggernaut Pokémon is, the outline of a story dominates those characters. The characters exist because of the story and don’t stray from its constraints.

This is different from say, X-Men, which merely creates a premise for having characters. The X-Men aren’t moving along some grand storyline, they just interact based on a theme that “mutants exist in the world as a superpowered minority” (and can thereby also cameo in other off-theme books).

Personally, I’d think that this can be added to the list of reasons why manga have seen success in recent years amongst American audiences. Its easier to get readers hooked onto good stories with interesting characters than by character driven soap operas where the plot is auxiliary.

Comics and the mainstream

Tom Spurgeon makes some points on why comics shouldn’t strive to be in the mainstream. I’ve addressed the ways I believe the form can become a major force in American culture in a number of writings. I’m not wholly in disagreement with is thoughts, but they afford me the opportunity to reiterate my beliefs by addressing each of his points:

1 & 2. That “comics” is and should remain a “secondary art form” relies on the false combination of the social artifact of “comics” and the structural form of visual language. Nothing about sequential images or the union of text and image inherently denigrates it as a lesser medium. It is because our culture’s only experience with this visual language has been primarily through the limited genres and industry of “comics.” If the medium — visual language — is to expand into the mainstream, it must step outside the association to “comics” through alternative genres and markets.

3. I agree that superhero comic companies have little to learn from manga… to an extant. The only successful way in which they can learn from the success of manga would be to fully adopt an alternative marketing and creative strategy, which is antithetical to their existing business model. While their model is profitable, actual comic books form only a small portion of their revenue, which largely comes from advertising and merchandising. This also leads to…

4. …the infrastructure problem that Spurgeon mentions, which is true. Because Marvel and DC have a niche audience, any expansion beyond their corporate products will always be a major financial risk. Again, the only real growth could occur if it cast off those restrictions, which of course is ridiculous for a company to do when they make money off them.

5. I am in full agreement that the status quo must be rejected in order to enter the mainstream, and that means rejecting most of the establishment of “comics.”

Nobody has to accept that this medium is a “secondary form” though. They only need to accept that the ways in which “comics” uses this visual language limits the chance for VL growth. The only real reforms to“maximize the potential audience” are through moving outside the “comic industry” audience that it currently has. “Comics” is a well that can only be tapped so far. By expanding beyond this model, the roof for maximal audience would be nearly unlimited.