Click Pic To Email
This is a BIGGIE, so brace yerself...
Let me state up-front for the record that I am, unashamedly, a huge comics fan. Marvel, DC, Image, Wildstorm, Dark Horse, Charlton, Eclipse, First, Fleetway, IPC, you name it, the chances are I've read it, own it and love it.
I first became aware of comics as a young boy in the early 70s. Initially enthralled by the myriad British 'weekly' comics such as Lion and Valiant, I soon became addicted to the superhero genre when 'The Mighty World Of Marvel' was released in the UK, containing black & white (or mono-colour) reprints of Marvel's original US colour editions.
The graduation from UK reprints to the real-deal (the then irregularly-available US imports) soon followed, and so most of my weekends and holidays were consumed with the hunt for any newsagent with the potential to unearth a treasure-trove of as-yet unseen US issues.
Marvel comics were always my main passion - but interest in characters such as Batman (drummed into my consciousness by TV appearances and advertising) somehow led me to stray on a semi-regular basis to the D.C. universe, to follow the exploits of Teen Titans, Superboy & The Legion of Super-Heroes, et al.
From the mid-70s onwards, despite the dearth of specialist comic shops , I doggedly maintained sources for the monthly influx of comics from the U.S. Each month's titles were anticipated with frantic excitement - to learn the next installment of the story and discover the destiny of the heroes and characters I cared so much for.
This wonderful entertainment ran hand-in hand with bitter disappointment as, for reasons unknown to me then and now, the UK only ever seemed to be graced with a subset of the available titles - a subset that in the mid-to-late 70's rarely featured favourites such as the Incredible Hulk or Spider-Man (exposure to whose exploits was limited to 'Marvel Team-Up'). Worst of all - occasional shipping disputes meant that you could follow a title for a year, as ardently as any viewer follows a favourite soap opera, only to miss a month's worth of issues due to some administrative error, or employment dispute. Bah! Can you imagine how crushed I was, following the early Claremont/Byrne run on Uncanny X-Men, to be suddenly bereft of issues 121 & 122? Talk about cold turkey. And no back-issue specialist shop to order one from. Curses!
Fortunately for my habit (but not my bank balance) - the 80's saw the emergence of specialist shops who would import and stock every title, within days of it's original relaease in the U.S. - not some irregular subset appearing 4 months behind schedule. Hallelujah!
But the thing is (and bear with me, the intro will soon be over) the desire to regularly buy so many titles was fuelled by really caring for what happened to the characters, and revelling in the craft of storytelling. The Marvel and DC universes became two massive, sprawling, super-powered soap-sagas that I was well and truly addicted-to. The thought of missing an issue, and potentially missing some stunning revelation or plot-twist was inimaginable. Both universes flourished, and characters and titles proliferated. Admittedly, many new titles were short-lived experiments at creating a new major character - but at the time even these seemed must-have titles.
Of course in retrospect, only nostalgia would make me recommend Omega The Unknown to a modern-day reader but in it's day, it had it's place. In the 1970's I was a reader bursting with innocence. I believed the moral message behind every panel - that good will ultimately prevail over evil, that it is each individual's responsibility to do the right thing. Never once did I look at a musclebound character in skin-tight spandex and countenance homosexual overtones. It was face-value, roller-coaster entertainment with a positive message.
The world and myself have changed considerably since then - but despite having 'grown up' I can still revel-in and appreciate the quality of the classic issues of yesteryear. That's not to say I don't also appreciate something entirely different and contemporary such as Sin City, but to my mind they are completely different beasts that just happen to share the description of 'a comic'.
These days I have enough money to continue to follow the super-hero soaps, and easy access to a retailer only too happy to part me from my wages. The problem is, I'm increasingly finding that I'm buying less and less. When I do buy, I'm not feeling the same excitement. When I do read, it doesn't have the same impact; not every single time but disappointingly often.
Over the last 15 years (a decent enough sample) I have found myself picking up a comic with eager anticipation - only to be wound-up and frustrated beyond words by numerous annoyances - and it's finally time I got it off my chest...
"COMICS JUST AIN'T WHAT THEY USED TA BE!"
I'm absolutely convinced that there are just as many, equally talented comics writers and artists today as there has ever been, perhaps more. Why is it then, that following the exploits of my favourite characters (exploits I have been following for the best part of 40 years) is increasingly unrewarding?
I accept that some of it must be to do with 'me'. Our age and experiences change us and that too changes our perceptions of everything. I have no doubt that when I now read a comic, I am seeing the story through very different eyes to the innocent 7-year old that first stumbled across Strange Tales #157. Yet I don't want to view it differently, so I strive to abandon my mantle of maturity when turning open the cover of any issue. The faults therefore, can not only reside with the myself.
And so, dear reader, I grant you my polemic on precisely what is wrong with the modern-day, mainstream super-hero comic.
"UNCLE DEAN'S RECIPE FOR THE PERFECT COMIC."
Ok, let's start at the beginning, the first thing you see, the thing that grabs your attention and promises of the story-to-come: the cover.
Drawing a successful comic cover is true art and different altogether from drawing comic interiors. An interior artist needs to master the art of sequential story telling, panel-by-panel to illustrate an unfolding story. The cover artist however, has the job of creating powerful or spectacular image to grab your attention and, ideally, to communicate a major aspect of the story within, be it a climactic battle scene, the aftermath of a bruising encounter, some heart-wrenching character development, and so on.
Back in the 'good old days' (just thought I'd better get it in before you said it yourself) there was a certain consistency between the comic cover and the interior art. Frequently, the same artist would provide the pencils to both. If for any reason this was not possible (perhaps due to deadlines) a roster of regular cover-artists would perform the cover chores - but generally the style of art was consistent and similar to the interior pencils. This familiar style maintained a regular 'look' for the various titles.
Other tools employed to convince the reader to buy a particular issue included editorial blurb and speech bubbles on the cover. Ask anyone who has read comics for more than a decade to give you a list of their top ten comics covers and the chances are that the greater percentage will feature blurb and word balloons. Why? Because it was, and can still be, a hugely effective means of getting across a message. Ask yourself this: when was the last time you bought a comic that featured either? And that's not to include any comic sporting a contrived 'retro' look. Exactly. As I type this, I've just picked up my weekly fix - a meagre 6 titles this week. Not a single word on the cover of any of them. And it's not a recent development. I have boxes of comics going back years, on the covers of which would struggle to find any printed word (other than the splash-title). And you know what? It makes them bland. It makes them the same. It makes them dull.
Now this in itself is not necessarily a cardinal sin. A good cover can still communicate the message of what awaits within, without resorting to the printed word. The problem is that not only do 90% of today's comic covers not manage this - they don't even deign to attempt it - and ultimately this can only be down to editorial policy.
Are comics being written/drawn/created in such an environment of uncertainty that an editor/writer are unable to instruct the artist what to draw on the cover? Or is it simply easier for the publishers to pre-commission a swathe of frankly uninspiring character portrait pictures to use as stock images for any given issue? And there's the rub. I give you exhibit 'A' - Avengers volume 1 issue 154. You are left in no doubt that at some point within the issue the Vision is going to find himself helpless vs Attuma and his horde of Atlantean barbarians - and that the rest of the team are both shocked and helpless to do anything about it. Sure enough - that very scene plays itself out neatly within - and boy does the cover make you want to open the issue and find out. Now - take exhibits B through Z - oh and throw in several hundred others while you are at it - grab (at random) any issue you have bought in the last 12 months. The chances are it will bear no resemblance to what happens within and have no specific relevance to that issue of the comic. In fact, you can probably swap around the covers on a years-worth of issues and it would not make the slightest difference. It's sloppy, uninspiring, bland - wrong.
I know Wolverine is tough, mean and moody. He was tough mean and moody in the last issue. He's tough mean and moody in this issue and he'll be tough mean, and moody in the next issue. A tough, mean and moody portrait of my favourite Canadian mutant tells me nothing about the story and does nothing to encourage me to open the issue and find out why he's still tough, mean and moody.
INGREDIENT 1: THE COVER
Understand the specific content of the issue. Decide which incident in the story has the most value as an iconic cover moment. Draft a cover page that powerfully communicates this moment. Dash liberally with speech bubbles and editorial blurb.
Ideally, get the interior artist to draw the cover themselves. If this is not possible, ensure that an extensive run of covers are drawn by the same regular alternative artist, with a similar style to the interior artist. Covers devoid of blurb & word-ballons, or featuring simple character portraits, should be rare and kept to a minimum, enhancing their impact on the odd occasion they do appear.
Cover sorted, on we move...
Ahhh here we go - the interior art! Yes, I know that great art on its own can not a story make, but we'll get to the writers in due course. For now, the first thing you notice is the art.
What was that key word I mentioned earlier? Consistency. How great is it when you get a long-running artist/inker combo that just 'clicks'? Everything about the title looks and feels right. Your character's 'world' has a familiar, consistent feel to it. You know what to expect when you turn the cover, and you feel like you've hardly been away when each new issue arrives.
I have to admit that the situation has improved since the end of the 1990s. It's refreshing to see artists having lengthy runs on a given title (eg. Scott Kolins & Doug Hazlewood on Geoff John's 'The Flash'). I appreciate it is unrealistic to expect an artist to draw every issue of a title for 5 years. Artists need a holiday as much as the next guy, so you are going to get the odd fill-in issue - but the 1990's were riddled with inconsistency in the art department. Alternate issues would be drawn by different artists - and (worst of all) more than one artist would work on the same issue - sometimes several at a time. I distinctly remember one issue of the Uncanny X-Men (yes, Marvel's flagship title) where they had the temerity to pass this off as a positive thing: "The most artists to work on a single issue - ever!". Good grief, Charlie Brown. HELLO!?!?! Have you any idea how distracting an artistic change is mid-issue, when you are trying to follow a story??? Barring an artist being hit by a truck mid-way through his chores on a specific issue, there should very few reasons indeed why more than one artist should handle the pencils on one issue.
OK - so we've established we need to create a regular look for our comic. We need an artist who is going to come on-board long-term. We also need our artist to deliver. I don't mean deliver as in "every page must be a spectacular and detailed pin-up battle scene" - but that they can turn in consistent work on a monthly basis, meeting publication deadlines.
Now, deadlines are a tricky issue. On the one hand, I thoroughly enjoy Marvel's Ultimates, drawn by the hugely talented Bryan Hitch, not exactly reknowned for the speed at which he works. The finished product however, is well worth the wait. I'd much rather wait 3 months for a Hitch-drawn issue of the Ultimates than have it appear monthly drawn by a less talented artist, or a group of artists sharing the chores.
But I consider a title like the Ultimates a very different beast to say, Uncanny X-Men or Amazing Spider-Man. These are flagship titles that are expected to appear on a more regular basis. However there still needs to be a proper balance struck between expected deadlines and quality of product. In the 1970s many titles appeared bi-monthly. Why not today? Setting realistic schedules for titles avoid the problems of missed deadlines or last-minute fill-in artists.
There are plenty of consistent artists out there more than capable of great story-telling, that might not necessarily make the Wizard list of top ten 'Hot' artists. Mark Bagley, Alan Davis, Scott Kolins, Steve Epting, Doug Mahnke, Leonard Kirk, Ron Garney, Phil Hester, Paul Ryan, Howard Porter, Paul Pelletier, Tom Grummett - these are the kind of talents that should form the core of regular monthly/bi-monthly artists. These are guys who can reliably turn out consistent storytelling to such deadlines. Other long-serving, talented professionals such as John Byrne and George Perez have stayed the test of time in this respect, and fall into the same grouping.
Other, perhaps more 'spectacular to look at' artists, who take longer over their craft, should be targetted specifically to work on specials, annuals, mini-series or less-frequently published (eg quarterly) titles (e.g. Bryan Hitch, Travis Charest, et al).
INGREDIENT 2: THE ART
Decide on the frequency of the publication and employ a dependable artist/inker team on a long-term contract (at least 12 issues, preferably more) for interior (and ideally, cover) pencils.
Ok - now we're getting somewhere. We have our artist & inker signed up long-term and have an editorial policy on covers. The long-term artist contract is to help create a consistent look. But what visual style of storytelling exactly are we hoping for?
Well - we have to accept the artist's individual style in terms of how they draw people, objects and scenery - after all - they are the experts. But what about the storytelling art in terms of panel layout, the sequential flow of a story in terms of its constituent images, and how easy it is for the eye to follow?
Bearing in mind the basic requirement of the art is to help the story flow, it's driven me potty in recent years just how hard so many artists try to do exactly the opposite. Even experienced and estabished artists such as comics legend John Byrne insist on having panels separated by thin black lines rather than definite white borders, designing pages with irregular, angular panels, and having their art bleed to the edge of every page. Forget the artist's craft, this makes following the story more difficult than it need be. There is plenty of room for innovative panel layout without having full-bleeds, panel overlap and thin borders. And don't even get me started on those 1990's gimmicks such as fold-out pages or pages requiring you to flip the book 90 degrees just to accommodate a spectacularly-drawn 'big-image'. Don't make it hard for me to follow the story, make it easy.
Just a moment ago, I mentioned leaving the artist alone to decide how to draw their subject. I would make one crucial exception in this respect. Backgrounds, or more specifically, context. Characters need to be placed in an environment, or the whole story falls apart. It's pointless having three pages of babe-tastic, musclebound fight panels if you have no frame of reference as to the setting they combatants find themselves in. How they react in relation totheir surroundings gives the moment context and this should be paramount in the artist's mind at all times. Background-less panels have their place, but again, they should be limited so as to lend them greater impact when they arise.
Many artists hate drawing backgrounds and see it as a huge chore compared to the sexy fight scene they could be rendering. However talented, such artists need not apply for the job.
INGREDIENT 3: STYLE & LAYOUT
Straightforward, basic panel layouts should be the norm. Standard white borders to separate panels. Quirky, irregular panels and full-bleeds to be avoided. Backgrounds should be included in most panels, except where it would detract from the impact of the panel.
Still not finished with the art however! We have yet to tackle the unfathomable world of - the colourist!
Now as much as I love the dot-matrix colours of yesteryear, I can not ignore the vast advances in digital technology that mave increased the possibilities for the colourist a thousand-fold. I would not argue that an artist ignore the capabilities of thier toolset. What I would argue however, is that the colourisation employed, be used to help the flow of the story, not detract from it or interfere.
What I'm talking about is that fact that every single colour item these days seems to be a graduated 'fade'of colours into a sparking point of white light. Every surface that can possibly reflect a glare of light does so. Although clever, realistic and flashy, it is merely another obstacle making it difficult for the eye to follow the narrative, and needs to be kept to a minimum - only appearing when it enhances the story or situation. Don't just do it 'because you can'.
Almost as bad is today's trend to make every background grim, grey, brown, grungy and realistic. Hey - I buy comics to be transported to a fantasy world - not to be reminded of today's hum-drum existence! I remember being lucky enough to speak with Alan Davis when he was working on AVENGERS at Marvel. He was gutted with the appallingly dull colour job on his issues and hence left the title as soon as he could. If it drives the creators away, surely it's going to do the same to the readership!
INGREDIENT 4: COLOUR
Basic, solid colouring, limited computer glare or graduated colouration - but employ vivid, colourful expression to enliven the page.
Phew - and we've only just started...
Oooooo-kay. We are now confident that we are going to produce a consistent, good-looking, easy-to-read comic, to an achievable schedule. But what story do we want to tell? And about which character(s)?
Wow - this is a hard one to encompass. If you think I've ranted long enough already, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Everyone has their lists of favourite titles, storylines or creator-runs from yester-year. One of my favourites, like may people's, is the classic Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne run on the Uncanny X-Men that began way back in 1976 with Giant-Size X-men #1. The original Uncanny X-Men title had stagnated into slough of reprints and this was a refreshing injection that not only the title, but the industry benefitted from. On a bi-monthly basis (can you imagine having to wait 2 months for a new mutant installent these days?), I would be enthralled by the new exploits of Cyclops, Phoenix, Wolverine, Nightcrawler et al - in the only comic to feature those characters.
At the time, the reader knew very little about many of the characters in the team, so it look a long time for their personality, strengths, weaknesses and backgrounds to be revealed. There was so much you wanted to discover, and it was skillfully rationed to keep you interested, while each adventure progressed. Often, where characters are concerned less is more. How much greater was Wolverine, when you knew bugger-all about his origins? How much of an impact did it have when we discovered his name was 'Logan'? Just what exactly did 'James Howlett' add to the character?
These days, Marvel realises that Mutants sell comics & make bucks. Yes, I realise that publishing comics is a business - but it is also an art. You can churn out a dozen X-titles per month but in twelve months' time, how many people are going to remember what-happened-to-who, much less care? It dilutes the impact of the story and character development. Even worse it breeds inconsistency, as different writers/artists on different X-titles decide on a different look & approach to the same characters.
These days we have X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, New X-men, X-Factor, Generation M, New Excalibur, yadda, yadda, yadda. There used to be a core team of seven or eight mutants, with occasional cameos by ex-members or newly-introduced mutant heroes. Examine the first 100-odd issues of this run and you will find a manageable number of mutants in the team roster. Examine the subsequent 100+ issues and you see a very different picture indeed. How on earth is the reader expected to invest their interest in a character's development when they are in-and-out of the team like a yo-yo or when they appear in so many other titles that you have no idea what's going on in their world? So much happens to the characters these days, that the impact of each individual episode is vastly reduced.
The recent "House of M" fallout that wiped out many mutant powers is a huge move in the right direction. But I would even argue that 198 mutants in the world is still too many, when you pick up Marvel's "198 Files" and read that mutants like 'Sac' are still with us. Why on earth keep characters like this? Why not reduce the number to fifty - or less? Marvel made a huge statement in ridding their 'universe' of the proliferation of mutants in recent years - yet the message is unnecessarily diluted by keeping such bit-part characters in the picture.
No, there should be one X-title only: Uncanny X-Men - and that's it. No X-Factor, no Excalibur, no 'New' X-Men - just the one. If you have a tale to tell about mutants, tell it in Uncanny X-Men, the one and only place the reader can (or need) go, to discover the fate of their favourite mutants. If the mutant story is good enough to tell, tell it in Uncanny X-Men. This may mean that several good stories vie with each other to be included - but then if a story is good enough to tell, it can wait until the right 'slot' arrives in the schedule.
The same goes for Spider-Man. I so want to follow the exploits of my favourite wall-crawler; I really care what happens to him - both in and out-of costume. But hang on - over recent years, I've needed to buy Amazing Spider-man, Spectacular Spider-Man, Astonishing Spider-Man, Peter Parker: Spider-Man, Web of Spider-Man, Ultimate Spider-Man, Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, etc, etc. Don't even get me started on Batman or Superman. The proliferation of titles for the same big-name, buck-pulling characters has only served to diminish them and dilute the impact of their adventures.
The bottom line is: (using Marvel as an example) - if the company published one Spidey title, one X-title, one FF Title, etc - I would buy them all. But by having several versions of each on a monthly basis, I don't know which one(s) to invest my interest in, so end up 'not bothering' with any. And so...
INGREDIENT 5: ONE TITLE PER CHARACTER OR TEAM
Decide on a single, dedicated title for your character (or team). Characters with individual titles to appear in ONE team book only. (e.g. Captain America may appear in Avengers, Batman may appear in JLA).
So having decided to limit the number of titles (therefore and increasing their impact), what about the story-telling itself?
The nature of long-running comics is that they defy the laws of time. Peter Parker started life as a teenager in the 1960s and has certainly not matured 45 years in the meantime. So we have to accept that time will play tricks with us. The world moves on and comics need to remain contemporary to appeal to each successive generation, so that the reader can identify-with and relate-to a character's environment, problems and motivations. Fashion, language, politics, geography - everything has changed dramatically since a certain irradiated spider sank it's fangs into young Parker's hand.
It is therefore unlikely, improbable and inappropriate that the sort of story written in the 60's, 70's or even the 80's should be repeated today. What should remain consistent however, are the over-riding themes and central message of good overcoming evil, of heroes struggling to cope with adversity, of the promise of a better world.
The times we live in will always influence the storytelling. We live in darker times, and to a significant degree this has permeated the look and feel of comics in general, but this does not necessarily have to be the case. To deny it or ignore it would be wrong, but to embrace it wholesale and forever change the theme and the message of comics is equally flawed. There is still room for the innocence of youth, but many of today's comics deny the younger reader that luxury.
INGREDIENT 6: THE OVER-RIDING THEME AND MESSAGE
Superhero stories are made of the fantastic, juxtaposed with familiar everyday life. Maintain a positive message of good overcoming evil. Darker, more 'realistic' themes can be an inspiration for occasional stories, but in general, keep things positive. At the risk of repeating earlier comments, this will lend the occasional, darker storylines more gravitas. Exposing the reader to a regular diet of sex and violence makes this the 'norm' and detracts from the dramatic impact of such scenes when there is a specific, narrative need for them to appear.
At this point you would be forgiven for thinking "job done", sitting back and cracking open a beer. Oh, no - not yet. We still haven't finished. Here's where we really have a battle on our hands - the marketing policy.
Hmmmm. Let's see... one, two, three... on average 23 pages of story per issue. Now - how many pages of adverts? One, two, three... just a cotton-pickin' minute! On average I'm paying for as many pages of ads, if not more, than pages of story!
I'm not deluding myself here. The first Marvel comic I ever bought had many pages of adverts in it. But things have taken a horrendous downward turn in this respect recently.
A few months ago, I heard that Michael Oeming and Scott Kolins would be producing the 'Thor: Blood Oath' mini-series. How excited was I? No Thor title for some time, and now two of my favourite creators working on a new series! Woo-Hoo!
So imagine the scene when I approach my local 'dealer' all-adither with anticipation of issue #1. And what do I find? Problems and irritations to test the patience of any reader...
1) The first thing that faces you when you open the cover is an advert. No, not the interior side of the cover page - the first page proper of the comic itself. You therefore have to turn two pages before getting to beginning of the story. Just how much impact is lost on the reader there? You should open the cover and - POW! Immediate splash page setting the scene for the story. Almost as bad as this is the recent trend in comics to provide a page of text recapping the previous issue on this page. Argh!!! Don't do it!!! If you must recap, use the interior side of the cover - but don't deny the reader that attention-grabbing title page at this point in the comic!
2) The comic has a glossy card-stock cover. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo! This is just wrong!!!!!!! They are harder to read, easier to crease/damage, often develop an irreparable 'curl' due to heat or moisture, feel "wrong" in your hands, refuse to stack neatly with other comics/issues, cost more without adding any value to the buyer, etc, etc. The 1990s saw the worst examples of this with foil enhanced, embossed, die-cut, fold-out, card-stock covers that are, plain and simple, an abhorrence. Cut it out!!!!!
3) The number of adverts! There are more pages of adverts than story! You are buying a thick-feeling issue but getting the minimum percentage of story pages! There were 23+ pages of ads - far more than story. There were so many pages of adverts that, barring the requirements of a double-page splash (that simply could not be split up), there are no two pages of consecutive story-telling in the issue. None! If you add to this the fact that both comic art and adverts pages 'bleed' to the edge of the page - I defy anyone to read the issue/series without developing a headache.
To redress the balance, the art and story-telling were exemplary - however, the above faults detracted from the experience so much that I did not pick up another issue of the tale.
These problems were not restricted to the one title. Many suffered the same faults. If you want extra ads in a comic - then include them all in the centre - so those of us who don't want them can pull them out without damaging the comic itself.
INGREDIENT 7: POLICY ON ADVERTISING AND MARKETING GIMMICKS
Limit advert pages to as few as affordable. Any extra pages required should be included as centre-page inserts, that can be safely removed without detracting from or damaging the issue. No adverts or recaps on the first main page of the issue. Recap pages restricted to the inner cover only. Restrict full-bleed advert pages to back covers or centre-inserts.
Gimmick covers to be avoided at all costs - no card-stock, die-cut, foil-enhanced, fold-out or other gimmicks to be used. Maintain a simple, standard quality of paper cover for all issues.
Include a letters page and/or editorial page with monthly/weekly checklists, but ensure these are kept to a regular position in the issue, prefereably toward the rear.
And there we have it. A simple recipe for any issue, and a common policy for our publisher.
IT AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE!!!
ARGH-OMETER RATING:
