BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Who cares who writes comics?

 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:19 / 12.10.04
Thought tangential to the Non-comic Writers writing Comics thread

Out of the entire audience of comics, what percentage, does it seem/do you think/do you know are more interested in individual creators and what percentage are interested in characters/intellectual property? Is there a certain point at which a comics fan becomes (for lack of a better word) "sophisticated" enough to differentiate between creators (particularly writers, though artist may be discussed to - I think the issues involved are a little different) rather than simply buy X-Men because they want to read about Wolverine? Translating (kind of) to film terms, do people ever go see movies based on a "produced by Michael Bay" credit rather than a "starring Bruce Willis" credit? Do people care who wrote which individual "Buffy" episode? I mean, not you people. "people."

Have comics become (or are they becoming) a sort of "auteur" medium, even the older, more popular properties?

How does the so-called "Garfield Protocol" fit into this? Can the "Garfield Protocol" deliver quality product?

I guess I'm more interested in this queston w/r/t established "universe" characters rather than creator-owned properties.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:33 / 12.10.04
I think I noticed that different people were writing the same characters fairly early on, because of the Transformers comics. I presume it's a similar story for a lot of UK comics readers - the differences between some US and some UK writing was pronounced and made even more obvious by standards in the art. US strips had that dot-colouring effect, while UK ones generally had proper blocks of solid colour.

Actually, maybe it was the art that made me notice first of all.

Creators over characters? Characters over creators? A couple of years ago I would have said that a familiar writer's name attached to a project - any project - would have been enough to pique my interest. Since NXM I'm not so sure. I don't care about the characters in that series. I doubt I ever will, regardless of who's penning it.

As for your questions about "other people, not us people," aren't they impossible to answer? I can't speak for anyone else and don't particularly want to try.
 
 
Haus of Mystery
13:35 / 12.10.04
Past the age of, say, 11 I never followed a character regardless of who was writing it. Before that I was still seduced by gaudy costumes. 2000ad first alerted me to creators I dug; Pat Mills & Kevin O'Neill, Grant Morrison, Peter Milligan, Brendan McCarthy etc... and I learnt to follow their names around. Upon realising a good deal of them were also producing work in America I sought those comics out, and everything snowballed from there.
If a writer I like writes a comic, I'll give it a try. Once they leave (i.e. New X-Men) then more than likely I'll leave. Whilst I know some follow characters in a soap operatic fashion, it's not for me. Occasionally I'll try out a new spin on a character I dig, if I don't know the creator, but finacial restrictions tend to mean they better be good to merit my hard earned sheckles.
Like a good film I guess, first and foremost the writing has to be good, or I can't be arsed. Sure, a good artist can salvage an average script, but it just ain't enough. If the story's not there, neither am I.
 
 
Brigade du jour
14:35 / 12.10.04
Since my comic-reading life has been split into two distinct phases, I can easily pinpoint when I first noticed who was writing (and drawing, colouring etc.) comics. It's when I was about twenty-six and I started collecting them again after a fifteen-year hiatus.

However, I only really noticed because the friends I was talking to who got me back into this insidious hobby/lifestyle choice/obsession were always going on about people called Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, John Byrne, Steve Ditko and Frank Miller every time I mentioned a comic I had read as a child.

I do care who writes comics, but in exactly the same way that I care who writes, directs, scores or acts in films. It's so that I can show off and impress other geeks. For example, I can recite all of Tim Burton's films in chronological order with release years. For further example, I can name every Best Picture Oscar winner since 1959. It doesn't usually impress anyone except me, of course, but what the hell.

I am way more interested in films than I am in comics (and I do love comics), so although I think that going on about who wrote what is more than a little geeky, I also recognise that I am just as geeky (frequently more so) in another medium.
 
 
Tom DS
15:26 / 12.10.04
I was also made aware of different writers through 2000AD, in the annuals they had profiles of the 'script droids' so the idea of distinct writers was made clear when I got my first of those age 10.

Brigde : I disagree that knowing who writes a comic book is all about impressing other geeks, for me it's more about making sure I buy stuff that I'm going to enjoy.
 
 
Haus of Mystery
18:12 / 12.10.04
"I am way more interested in films than I am in comics (and I do love comics), so although I think that going on about who wrote what is more than a little geeky, I also recognise that I am just as geeky (frequently more so) in another medium."

So you love films, but aren't interested in who produces them? Or if you are it's to be 'geeky'? Weird.
Do you have favourite directors whose work you follow? Or actors? 'Cos that's what I do with films AND comics. S'got sod all to do with being geeky.
 
 
PatrickMM
22:27 / 12.10.04
Out of the entire audience of comics, what percentage, does it seem/do you think/do you know are more interested in individual creators and what percentage are interested in characters/intellectual property?

Right now, I'd say there's two distinct camps in comics, those who follow characters and those who follow creators, there's not that many casual readers who just pick up a book because it looks good, most people pick up a book for the two reasons mentioned above. If I had to guess at the split, I'd say 70/30 in favor of characters, in the direct market, but probably about even in the trade market.

Is there a certain point at which a comics fan becomes (for lack of a better word) "sophisticated" enough to differentiate between creators (particularly writers, though artist may be discussed to - I think the issues involved are a little different) rather than simply buy X-Men because they want to read about Wolverine?

Definitely, I think that's a huge step for the comics reader, because a good creator is more likely to write a good book than a character written by many different people is likely to appear in one. I think the same thing happens in film, where, the more you study the medium, the more you become aware of directors.

Translating (kind of) to film terms, do people ever go see movies based on a "produced by Michael Bay" credit rather than a "starring Bruce Willis" credit? Do people care who wrote which individual "Buffy" episode? I mean, not you people. "people."

I think other than a couple of exceptions, the Bruce Willis credit would be the bigger draw. M. Night Shyamalan and Quentin Tarantino are the only people I can think of who can open a movie just on their name.

As for the Buffy, I think most people don't care about the different writers. Buffy's different than a film, because there's a writing staff making the stories, rathre than just the person who wrote the episode. Towards the end, I think there was increased interest in Joss Whedon episodes, but besides Joss, I think most people found the writers interchangable, if they even thought about the issue at all. Even as a big fan, I can only really distinguish between Jane Espenson, Marti Noxon and Joss, the rest don't seem to have any uniquely individual characteristics for their episodes.
 
 
matsya
22:44 / 12.10.04
I don't think movie producer is a good parallel for comic writers. Scriptwriter or director, yes, and there are plenty of people who go see the new PT Anderson film, or the new Shalamayan film, or whatever, on that basis alone.

For me, it's twofold, and this has become a more recent phenomenon. I want the art AND the writing to be good. Writing first, then art. Used to be I could happily read a well-written comic with shite art, but these days I don't anymore. The art's gotta be good as well or I'm not buying it.

I'm a writer, so I tend to look at everything from a script point of view. And in terms of the Buffy thing, I did notice when crap writers were doing episodes. The characters lost focus every now and then, more cliches cropped in, characters used catchphrases more often...

I'm always interested in this "I'm not talking about us, I'm talkign about NORMAL PEOPLE/EVERYDAY PEOPLE/THE UNWASHED MASSES/THEM" paradigm, and sometimes wonder how constructed that stance is. I'm not saying there aren't dumb, unthinking people out there, I'm just saying that they're pretty convenient as something to hold ourselves up against in contrast...

The other day I tried to put a politically focussed entry on my blog, knowing full well that it wouldn't be particularly insightful or comprehensive, but deciding fuck it let's do it anyway. One of the comments I got was from someon who slapped me down as cliched and uninformed, and from his perspective I was - he's much more well read and comfortable citing his opinion when it comes to australian politics. I suppose to him I'm regarded as one of the unthinking "people". It was an interesting experience, one that left me pretty uncomfortable, liking as I do to be thought of as clever.



but I suppose I became aware of writers in comics late in the piece - in my late teens, I guess. I knew about john byrne from the age of 14, but i think that's because as a writer/artist he was more evident. Same goes for Kieth Giffen and Frank Miller. Generally I reckon it was the artist/writer people who alerted me to the idea of writers in comics, and for me it happened around the time that hte writer of comics as celebrity phenomenon began - gaiman/morrison/moore and such. And, as I said, being a writer myself, I rather gravitated to that perspective.

m.
 
 
Billuccho!
22:56 / 12.10.04
Out of the entire audience of comics, what percentage, does it seem/do you think/do you know are more interested in individual creators and what percentage are interested in characters/intellectual property?

Depends where you look. Here, I'd say it leans more towards creator-over-character, but in the shop I haunt and on places like Comicboards, it's definitely character-over-creator. Personally, I follow creators; it's so much easier to find good comics that way.

Is there a certain point at which a comics fan becomes (for lack of a better word) "sophisticated" enough to differentiate between creators (particularly writers, though artist may be discussed to - I think the issues involved are a little different) rather than simply buy X-Men because they want to read about Wolverine?

I always thought one guy wrote and drew and lettered etc. an entire comic. Once I learned there were a multitude of creators, my world changed. But it's really within the last handful of years, and probably thanks to Morrison, that I've chosen creators over characters. But I was young back then.

Translating (kind of) to film terms, do people ever go see movies based on a "produced by Michael Bay" credit rather than a "starring Bruce Willis" credit? Do people care who wrote which individual "Buffy" episode? I mean, not you people. "people."

Well, okay, no, "people" don't care. But I do. I've pretty much learned who wrote each episode of Buffy, and I know which ones I like best: those written by Joss Whedon, Jane Espenson, Doug Petrie, and Drew Goddard. Whereas most of my least-fave are by Marti Noxon and Drew Greenberg and the like. But I watched Buffy 'cause it was, well, Buffy. I became absorbed in the story. TV is different than comics, tho; one person (say, Joss) has absolute control over the property. Whereas, with comics, it's much different, and things can change radically every month.

Now take movies. I'll see anything with Bruce Campbell in it. Or anything with Sam Raimi's name on it (so I'll end up seeing the Grudge, 'cause it's produced by Raimi and "Buffy's" in it! Woo!). Of course, for those movies with 'creators' who have unproven track records to me, I'll check it out if I like the concept or whatnot. It depends. With comics, though, I'm very picky.

Really, it just upsets me when those from outside the comics field are writing comics, 'cause dammit, I want to break into the field, and I don't want to have to direct a movie to do it!

Creator-over-character is the best way to go, though. I mean, you can pick up a random X-Men comic, and it'll probably be crap. If you pick up a random Grant/George/Greg/Judy Morrison comic, though, it's probably going to be good, especially if you like Morrison comics.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
00:09 / 13.10.04
As a kid, before I started reading super-hero comics, I didn't know who worked on comics, because Archie, Disney and Harvey didn't have creator credits. I can still remember certain stories, and when I got back and find them, they are by the creators who I have since gotten to recognize (Carl Barks, Dan DeCarlo, etc...).

Once I became a Marvel Zombie, they kind of hammered in your head the creators, and I became a fan of certain creators, and followed them from book to book, but there were a few characters who I followed because I was attached to the characters. I also learned that some creators who are very good on some books just don't work well on others. Again, as a kid, I LOVED Moench on Master of Kung Fu and Moon Knight, but hated him on the Fantastic Four.

Now, I only follow a couple of characters regardless of creators, mostly out of childhood loyalty, and because the creations are so good that even mediocre creators can rise to the occasion.

I think the TV analogy works best, since most TV shows have writer "teams" who work under a head writer, so while individual episodes may be mediocre, they are all supervised by someone who is going to even out the talents of those involved. The best example of this is "The West Wing", which had a writing team under Aaron Sorkin, and when he left, the show became unwatchable...or Buffy, which had a writer's team supervised by one person who made the show consistant.

Comics are more dependent upon individual talent now, as editors don't take such a strong hand...but there are still times when the editor has more influence on a book than any individual writer.

For example, the X-Men under Bob Harris was mostly plotted by him, and no matter WHO was writing the book, it always read the same. Or any of the comics edited by Julie Schwartz...I STILL can't tell a difference in writers under him, but when they worked on books under other editors, the writers had more of an individual voice.
 
 
Brigade du jour
07:31 / 13.10.04
Ok TommO and MacGyver, I could have put it better. How about this - being geeky isn't the only reason I care about who wrote/directed/funded etc. a film or comic book, and of course I do go and see the new Tim Burton film chiefly because it's the new Tim Burton film, and I've liked his films before and expect to again.

However, I do think that 'most people' would probably regard this rationale as geeky. It's not generally acceptable that 'most people' (that phrase again!) watch films because of the director in the same way as, for example, 'most people' read Stephen King books because they're written by him and only secondarily because of what they're about. This is a difference that brings in arguments about auteur theory in films, i.e. films are made by many people, novels by one person.



Hmm. Comic books, meanwhile, although produced within a 'company' and therefore of shadowy and indeterminate authorship, are generally credited to a handful of people. And reading a comic book chiefly because of who created it is not so much 'geeky' (ok, I'll stop using the word 'geeky'. Didn't mean to offend anyone, incidentally, sorry if I did!) as par for the course within that medium.

Therefore, the fewer authors credited with creating a work of art, the more common it is to appreciate the work on the basis of its authorship.

Actually, that all sounds really obvious now I've read it back!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:56 / 13.10.04
The "I follow creators, not characters!" mantra seems to have sprung up in reaction to the success of franchises in comics, and while it certainly seems like a fresh, mature and sensible approach if you've coming directly from a cultural context filled with weirdos who dribble over Rogue, it can now manifest itself in as tiresome, unthinking and elitist manner as any other aspect of the Nu-Fanboy/post-WEF culture. (Please note: can, not always has to.) It really shouldn't be so much of a badge of pride, and I think once again in the rush to distance themselves from Ye Fanboys Of Olde, some people have overlooked the fact that "following characters" occurs in plenty of other media, and not necessarily in a bad way.

The idea that there are only two camps of comics readers, and that both of them are defined by a form of blind loyalty, would be pretty depressing if true, but fortunately I think it's nonsense. Plenty of people 'follow' other factors (personal interest in the subject matter of the story, as it's been described to them, being the most obvious). And plenty of people are able to recognise that although there may be many comics writers who are uniformly bad, there are few if any who always get it right: most of the 'big name' comics writers, especially of genre comics, are equally capable of dross and brilliance. If one were to be incredibly cynical, one could speculate that convincing a bunch of comics readers that "following creators" was not only a good thing but made you cool not like those other comics fans, would help SAVE comics etc, was a genuinely brilliant marketing ploy that enabled certain writers to shift a lot of dross.
 
 
Spaniel
08:29 / 13.10.04
However, I do think that 'most people' would probably regard this rationale as geeky. It's not generally acceptable that 'most people' (that phrase again!) watch films because of the director in the same way as, for example, 'most people' read Stephen King books because they're written by him and only secondarily because of what they're about.

Really? What about Spielberg, Lucas and Scorsese? What about marketing where a director's name is bigger than the name of the film, bigger than the names of the stars, even? What about M. Night Shyamalan's huge writer, director, producer, actor credits, in shining silver no less?

And we don't need to bring auteur theory into a discussion about whether people pay attention to creators.
 
 
Haus of Mystery
09:33 / 13.10.04
"I don't think movie producer is a good parallel for comic writers"

Umm.. if this is in reference to what I said I didn't mean the literal producer, rather those involved in the production of said film, be it director, scriptwriter etc...

Anyway...
 
 
_Boboss
09:45 / 13.10.04
i know a chap who's got every issue of thor (except number 225 of course). he couldn't tell you who the writer of it is, or has ever been most probably. he likes reading comics about space vikings a lot though. even shit ones nigel?

nigel shrugs:

it's only a comic. there'll be another one next month. slike 2000ad. there'll be another one next week, it doesn't matter if half of this week's was written by alan grant.

the only practical difference between us, really, is that nigel has the money to spend ten grand on a single book and the space to keep 600? plus issues of thor in his house.

so the point becomes: who's actually gone to the newsagent and spent their three hefty quid on the vintage* milligan reprints they're flogging to the young this month?

*maybe
 
 
Billuccho!
21:18 / 13.10.04
(Didn't mean to offend anyone, incidentally, sorry if I did!)

Yes. I am terribly offended. Just because I like to bit the heads off of chickens in circus sideshows is no right to discriminate...

And I'd like to own every Thor issue, too, even though I've already got 98% of the actual good stuff. It's a leftover fanboy urging. The same urging that gets me to check out quite a lot of stuff that features Elongated Man. Shoot me now.
 
 
TroyJ15
21:29 / 14.10.04
I think personally that:

A) We have Marvel mostly to blame fore the concept of "auteur" in comics. Kirby's very distinctive art and Stan's trademark dialouge style was probably the first time (outside of Will Eisner) that a creator was given a distinction from other creators.
B) There is a 50/50 chance that people pay attention to names. For instance More people will recognize a name in a trailer for a movie if it says "From Director Steven Speilberg" than they would if it said "From Writer Charlie Kauffman". I think in any medium names only matter depending on how much success the individual who is being named has had. I'd say that readers will pause for a book if it says "Frank Miller," but more non-fans will break for a book with Spider-Man on the cover, than the creator. It all depends on the name of the person or character. So if you have a Wolverine book written by Mark Millar you've got the best of both worlds, If you've got a movie like "Titanic" that may not appeal initially to such a wide audience, if you put "From the director of Terminator 1 & 2 and The Abyss," it can be much more beneficial to get people to take a look. Sorry if that seemed obvious, but I felt I should state it.

On a side note, I couldn't help but notice that by the time Season 4 of Buffy ended, I enjoyed the series less until Season 7. When I went back recently to look at the series on DVD, I noticed that between Season 4 and 7 the regular writers I saw credited for Season 1-4 were not regularly the writers for Seasons 4-7. I figure that had something to do with it.
Then again, I love the X-Men but when Morrison left I wasn't going to read the other writers's books because I tried them once and couldn't stand them. Then I heard Joss Whedon was doing the book and I opted to keep reading to see how his run was. I don't find anything wrong in rewarding good storytelling, but it's a reward that must be earned. Whedon, to me, earned at least my $2.25 for Astonishing X-Men based solely on what he did on Buffy and in Fray (and some of Toy Story)
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
01:04 / 15.10.04
A) We have Marvel mostly to blame fore the concept of "auteur" in comics. Kirby's very distinctive art and Stan's trademark dialouge style was probably the first time (outside of Will Eisner) that a creator was given a distinction from other creators.

I think that the first company that really did this was EC, which would run articles on inside covers about artists, gave them nicknames and told them to play up their artistic differences.
 
 
Brigade du jour
12:02 / 15.10.04
Really? What about Spielberg, Lucas and Scorsese? What about marketing where a director's name is bigger than the name of the film, bigger than the names of the stars, even? What about M. Night Shyamalan's huge writer, director, producer, actor credits, in shining silver no less?

As a fan of movies, I have to say that that's an excellent point, but not everybody follows movies even in that much detail. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are probably the only contemporary filmakers that everybody, movie fan or not, has heard of, and could name more than one film by, and would go and see a film by simply because it was by them. In other words, I think they're the exception rather than the rule.

Maybe we should take this aspect of thedebate over to Film, TV & Theatre, eh? Shall we start a new thread there?
 
 
Brigade du jour
12:04 / 15.10.04
Oh and BillR? I'm not discriminating, I'm exploring the concept of geekdom, primarily through my own geekdom.
 
 
Haus of Mystery
12:15 / 15.10.04
"George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are probably the only contemporary filmakers that everybody, movie fan or not, has heard of, and could name more than one film by, and would go and see a film by simply because it was by them. In other words, I think they're the exception rather than the rule."

Balls. Most films are advertised, and have been for some time as 'a _________ film'. Tarantino, Scorsese, Shyamalan to name an obvious few, are all names that pull in crowds. I think your assumptions about 'the masses' are off. Also, how often are films advertised as 'by the makers of..'? All the frickin' time. Granted there are people who go to see whatever's on at the time, but don't assume they're the majority.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:01 / 15.10.04
And it's not even a post-60s, post-Cahiers du Cinema trend, either; long before "auteur theory" was a buzzword, you knew what to expect from, say, an Alfred Hitchcock movie (indeed, Hitchcock may be the most successful example of directorial "branding", extending as it did to books, magazines, and TV)—while at the same time Frank Capra was becoming, in his own words, "the name above the title." Earlier on you had Cecil B. DeMille, and all the way back to Mack Sennett and DW Griffith.

I find the whole question sort of baffling, frankly. About the only other medium in which authorship has been generally considered as secondary is episodic television, and even in TV there are huge exceptions—from Rod Serling to Norman Lear to Chris Carter to Aaron Sorkin, there have always been writers whose name was enough to sell a series.
 
 
Billuccho!
21:19 / 15.10.04
Oh and BillR? I'm not discriminating, I'm exploring the concept of geekdom, primarily through my own geekdom.

Just pulling your chain... leg... leg-chains... there.

And the thing about geeks? We're so the majority.
 
 
Brigade du jour
10:09 / 16.10.04
It may be 'balls' to you MacGyver, but this is just my experience. Most people I know neither know nor care who's responsible for a film, no matter how much the advertisers hit them over the head with the information. I guess your experience must be different, that's all.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
18:00 / 16.10.04
Credits got really strange in the 80's. DC had, up until the late 70's, been kind of lax about credits in their books, usually just putting them in a small box somewhere on the splash page while Marvel had them VERY prominently displayed in the books. Then, sometime in the early 80's, they were putting the last name of the writer, penciller and inker on the cover, no matter what the book.

I don't if it helped a lot, since most of the people were pretty unknown, and there were times when I would look at the cover and not know who they were. Now, there are some comics that I think would do well to put the creator's name on the cover as a sales point that don't (like Astonishing X-Men), while others where it doesn't matter much (like the Star Wars comics) have the creators prominent on the cover.
 
  
Add Your Reply