Quote For The Week

In the current marketplace, most "ongoings" are making it to, what?  6-12 issues, no? If you're lucky? I've got a plan and I'm not being shy about planting seeds that I hope to come back to for, you know, exponential awesomeness... but neither am I holding my breath.   
Though Carol is an Avenger, there is no Captain Marvel movie coming out this summer, you know? And we talk a big game about wanting female-led books that don't look like gynecological exams, but can the community actually come through with the numbers to back that up? I don't know. God, I hope so.   
The problem isn't just that we have to get folks to buy it; it's that we have to get retailers to order it. The failing of our distribution model is that our customer isn't really the reader, our customer is whoever places the Diamond order at any store. So if there's a perception that the book won't sell, it gets under-ordered and it becomes this self-fulfilling prophecy.  
Here's a thing that happens to every creator on Twitter on one Wednesday or another: an incredibly sweet reader who really wants to support you, writes to tell you that they tried to buy your book at their LCS and it was already sold out! It's only noon, they say! The shop only opened at 10! Your book must've flown off the shelves!   
And then the creator, not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings, says, "Wow! Thanks for your support — better pre-order the next one!" and then they cry into their coffee. Because, friends, selling out by noon on a Wednesday is not good news. Heck, selling out byThursday is not good news. That means your book was under-ordered — if it was ordered at all. If the consumer wants the product and we can't get them the product, our system is broken.
I hate the pre-order thing. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Ten years ago, I was complaining about it on the WEF — I'm a shopper. I looooove to shop. I will spend money. But I am not going to buy a pair of shoes that I'm expected to order three months in advance and am not able to try on! And that's what we're asking of our readers. It's the dumbest system. No wonder we have problems! Is there another industry that works like this? 
And yet, here I am begging you: if you want to read this comic, please, please oh please, oh please: pre-order it. If you want to see more female-led titles from the mainstream publishers, pre-order this book. If you're not familiar with how to pre-order, or you're not sure why it's so important, check in with me on Twitter @kellysue or on my blog athttp://www.kellysue.com — some time in the next couple weeks I'm going to do a step-by-step blog post.  Maybe I'll even do one of those Warren Ellis-style pre-order coupons. 
-Kelly Sue Deconnick.
Yesterday, at Wondercon out in Anaheim, Marvel announced a new Captain Marvel series, starring Carol Danvers, written by Kelly Sue Deconnick and drawn by Dexter Soy.


Jamie McKelvie designed Captain Danvers's new costume, which just looks great:
Our idea was to give her a kind of swash-buckling costume that invoked a sense of her history as an Air Force officer. Her hair is slicked back at the sides when in costume - so her Kree-style helmet can form when she needs it.
The darn thing even looks like it keeps her arms and legs warm while she's all the way up in the sky like that, unlike her last costume. I do wish that I liked Dexter Soy's art anywhere near as much as I like McKelvie's, though; as great as the new costume is, I'm not sure I can shell out four bucks for a book that looks that stiff and pointy on a regular basis.

Putting The Band Back Together For The First Time


There's a lot about these Season One books from Marvel that drives me crazy, not least of which is the use of the word "season," as if comics were like television. We've been dealing with comics being talked about in cinematic terms for forever and, now that we are at a moment when television is, and has been for a decade or more, an ascendent medium, someone has finally realized that comics-- or serial comics, at least-- are much more properly compared to television than they are to movies, so we're also going to have to deal with conversations about comics being conducted in those terms. I should also point out that, in this case, the analogy doesn't even make sense, since each "season," which implies something that must be encountered repeatedly over an extended period of time, has only a single release.

Anyway.

The second of these insipidly titled Season One releases is Dennis Hopeless and Jamie McKelvie's reimagining of the original Stan Lee and Jack Kirby X-Men stories. On the whole, it's pretty good, sort of exactly what you would expect from this kind of book-- cute girl joins the exclusively male X-Men, falls in love with one teammate and then another teammate falls in love with her, and then, at a critical moment and after a series of tiffs cause some rifts to form, she brings them all together, giving a critical half-time gipper speech that rouses the team to victory.

Well, except that we don't get to see them win-- Jean Grey's rousing monologue is where the story ends, and, because we know that the X-Men live to fight another day, Hopeless didn't have to find an almost certainly awesome but laughably implausible way for a bunch of barely-trained kids with powers to defeat Magneto and we're spared the inevitably syrupy sweet scenes that would follow. It's a clever trick, structurally, and the book is all the better for it; if nothing else, Hopeless knows how to play his audience's expectations and his narrative's structure against each other. The result of the fact that the book concludes its major conflict (that is, the possible dissolution of the X-Men before Beast turns blue, or Jean Grey dies twice, or Wolverine shows up) and ends before the end of the battle with Magneto is that, as a whole, the narrative feels tightly wound around one goal rather than two or three, and is much stronger for it. Some readers are almost certainly going to feel cheated by this, but they simply aren't reading the book right.

In terms of narrative content instead of narrative form, though, there's nothing particularly striking about Hopeless's writing; his characterizations are strong, sure, but they rely on foreknowledge of the traditional presentations of the characters more often than I would like; someone unfamiliar with the X-Men is likely to find them sort of half-formed. Since the purpose of these "Season One" books is to introduce old characters to new readers, this is a relatively serious flaw, and the most major one; there are more problems with the plot than just that, but most of them have to do with the fact that the story is just the right side of tropes that have been cliched since John Hughes stopped making movies. Accordingly, the writing feels sort of vaguely mediocre, even though what Hopeless does in terms of the structure of the story is fascinating.

With that said, the book is saved from the banality of the storytelling by Jamie McKelvie's art, which is so perfect for this kind of story that I can't believe neither of the major companies have employed him to do it before, although he is almost certainly aware of how good he is at it, since both his solo book Suburban Glamour and his work with Kieron Gillen on Phonogram are much more wholly interesting examples of this genre than X-Men - Season One ends up being. McKelvie, you see, has a handle on faces, and that, by itself, makes him one of the best narrative comics artists around. It's not just that his figures are perfect, and that his characters look like human beings should look, either; instead, it's how much he can do with a face because he understands that subtle differences, little lines, a slightly different curve of the mouth, can drastically change how we understand a character's emotions. McKelvie, in other words, is an empathic artist, in that he allows his reader to really see what a character is feeling the way that no other artist, particularly not any who use a cartoony rather than a photorealistic style, can accomplish. The key to this ability is his line, thin and clean, and his uncrowded compositions; although McKelvie is a master of detail (remember that splash page from Secret Avengers a few months back?), he doesn't feel the need to load every panel with it, making his compositions as geometric and, therefore, as simple as possible. That he does so much with so little is what makes Jamie McKelvie so impressive; it's a rare talent, his, and he doesn't try to do too much with it.

That's not to say that he's perfect, not by any means; his singular line makes his panels static. Since much of what he does is conversation, though, this is usually a boon rather than some kind of detriment, but it does mean that his characters don't always move like they should, so his action scenes often feel a little stiff and end up being less exciting than the writer might have been intended. He solves this problem here, for the most part, by using movement lines, which are all the more effective both because they're always perfectly straight and because they're usually contrasted with monochromatic backgrounds, which gives the illusion that the panel itself is moving at the same speed as whatever it's focusing on a certain realism that such panels usually lack. X-Men Season One, in other words, may very well be the best of McKelvie's work so far, because he's making monumental strides in dealing with the few, small, limitations that he's got.

X-Men Season One, with its beautiful art and its fun if challenging writing, is basically exactly what I was expecting, with the added bonus of a surprising, and very interesting, narrative structure; in some ways, it is pure entertainment, the exact thing that most mainstream superhero comics should strive to be. Stan, if he reads it, and Jack, if he could, would be proud.

Quote for the Week 2/26/12

At the end of the day I have my own, very harsh, often narrow opinions about what makes good or bad work. But I won't draw a line in the sand and say that comics I don't like, done under conditions I don't approve of, are the root of all our problems. I'm not suggesting that anyone endorse Marvel or DC if they don't approve of their methods. The rights of Gary Friedrich or Jack Kirby are separate issues. I'm saying that it is not only possible but it is important to support our fellow artists in their attempts to make a living or contribute to comics culture without making blanket accusations as to their moral intent. Whats worse is that when we do so, we risk endorsing the type of behavior we fear from Marvel or DC. If we want change, all we can do is lead by example and I think the first example we need to set is that we don't eat our own.
 Jason Latour, at the end of a post on creator's rights that you should really go read.

Quote for the Week 2/12/12

"We [Joe Simon & Jack Kirby] discussed this idea, about America. This was at a time when everybody was patriotic... and it was ridiculous not to do Captain America because there was an idea that would have been bought by everybody. So Joe and I did that. Our job was to sell comic-books. And we did.

...

[after being asked about a current Captain America storyline:]
I receive the books from most of the companies... That's their prerogative. Whatever they do with Captain America is their prerogative. If you like it, fine... I say that Marvel has every right to put out the kind of book that they like. That's their business, to sell books."
~ Jack Kirby, co-creator of Captain America, on a panel in Troy, Michigan on the 29th of May in 1988.

This month, @DCcomics announced a series of prequels to Alan Moore's "Watchmen". Moore was quoted in an interview that this is: "shameless". The creators attached to the books defended their involvement in multiple ways including pointing out that Moore himself has used characters created by other people both for corporations ("Swamp Thing", "Superman", "Green Lantern") and in his own projects ("League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", "Lost Girls"). He dislikes the project and stands to make no money from it. (I've already covered this story myself here.) This page on ComicsAlliance.com summarizes the reactions.

Then, Ghost Rider creator Gary Friedrich was ordered to proffer to Marvel $17,000 he has made in selling his own Ghost Rider merchandise AND refrain from publicizing himself as the creator of Ghost Rider. Commenters have brought up Friedrich's health and financial problems as well as the fact that many, many professional comics artists supplement their careers with simple commissioned sketches of corporate-controlled characters at conventions or by mail. Some say @Marvel should settle with winning the case (i.e. not owing Friedrich any part of the earnings from the first film from 2oo7 or the new one opening this week) and rescind any request for damages or the somewhat ridiculous demand that Friedrich stop referring to himself as the character's creator.

And on top of all of this, original "The Walking Dead" artist Tony Moore is suing fellow co-creator Robert Kirkman claiming a proper half of proceeds from "The Walking Dead" TV show and merchandise has not been sent his way. The two were reportedly close friends who worked together on multiple projects before Kirkman (@RobertKirkman) became a part of the corporate structure of Image Comics (@ImageComics).

Supposedly
money + agreement = fair use of characters
but which part of that equation is more important? The compensation or the permission? And is there leeway for artistic relevance? Financial or health status? Even friendship?


Where do we draw the lines between business and ethics? Why do we draw lines there at all? Who is in the right: the creator or the copyright owner?

In this sudden rush of news in regard to creator's rights, it's interesting to me to remember that some of the most screwed over were also the most respectful. Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster sued DC several times. Kirby never sued Marvel. Was Kirby a fool or a gentleman?

~ @JonGorga