BARBELITH underground
 

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


New Grant Morrison interviews!

 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
 
CameronStewart
01:47 / 10.09.05
>>>SEAGUY 2<<<

Please see here.
 
 
louisemichel
05:57 / 10.09.05
Krug, why do you feel to defend Leah Moore ? Why do you say it's a low blow ?
Please, explain...
 
 
Lord Morgue
07:09 / 10.09.05
Stellarisation? Eh, there was a huge backlash after Image popped up, see, Marvel were pumping a LOT of money into pushing their hotshot "Artists-As-Writers" as celebs- interviews, signings, advertising, cover credits, and they saw all that blow up in their face when their brandname ingenues jumped ship. So, right after that, Marvel took a giant step back, pushing characters and crossovers over creators, and it took a while for things to balance back out.
 
 
louisemichel
14:01 / 10.09.05
I don't think it's that kind of stellarisation. Nowadays, in the outer media, people talk more about Kevin Smith or Joss Whedon or whatever novel writer that writes now for comics than seasoned comics writers like Joe Casey or Devin Grayson (to take an exemple based an a very good interview of said Devin Grayson, commented by Joe Casey).
These writers suffer from the so-called stars that come in, do whatever they want and leave the ship, when they don't care anymore about comics.
As if talking about litterature, people would talk more about Oprah's new book than Chuck Palahniuk's new book. And the problem, is that they do talk more about Oprah's new book...
 
 
Lord Morgue
14:27 / 10.09.05
What, is Oprah writing comics now?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:27 / 10.09.05
So, in the way of this NATURAL evolution, will stand the fan boys who don't like change. that's a fact. Look when there's a penciler change on a title, it's a bloody revolution. Even the change of a corporate logo causes turmoil...
But some early movies fanboys didn't like the sound in the movies or the addition of color, and were very vocal about it... see what I mean ? ultimately, I think they were wrong... The medium evolved and history forgot them.
Now, people are vocal because in an interview, somebody asks a stupid question about Grant's wife. I think history will forget them too.


Doesn't work. Colour and sound were technical innovations to a medium. Interviews with comics creators being done by drooling fanboys is not a technical innovation to the medium of comics. Nor is it a development - interviews by fans have been inept and uncritical for many years, in many media. The difference being that the general indifference about comics in the wider world compared to, say, film means that it's only the fans who do the interviews.
 
 
eddie thirteen
14:22 / 11.09.05
What other medium is it wherein the fans *don't* do the interviews? Maybe comics fandom has yet to produce an industry publication with the cold, unblinking critical eye of Entertainment Weekly or Premiere, but even those magazines (I imagine) are staffed by film enthusiasts.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:57 / 11.09.05
In this case, by "fan" I think we can take to mean a person whose employment is not to interview people - that is, somebody who is doing it personally because they love comics and contingently because they have devoted time and resources to the unpaid job of comics fan. As opposed to somebody for whom writing about a medium is their employment.
 
 
eddie thirteen
23:05 / 12.09.05
Understood, but I posit that (a) the end result is the same, in that the average celebrity interview (for which the interviewer is actually paid) rarely amounts to more than a verbal blowjob administered to the celebrity in question, and (b) a big part of the reason why fan interviews read the way they do is because said fans are in fact emulating what they've seen in the professional press. That, and yeah, they actually possess the uncritical adoration for their subjects that the pro journalists are merely faking because it's their job. So maybe it comes off as slightly more slavish and drooly. Serious interviewing is generally an endangered species, though; I've mostly heard it on NPR, and (in the case of comics) sometimes read it in the Comics Journal. I don't know if it's really fair to single out a college guy who's genuinely living out a wet dream by talking to a favorite writer or artist when so many "real" journalists make serious livings throwing out softball questions and kissing ass. It's kinda like picking on the gimpy kid.
 
 
The Falcon
01:14 / 13.09.05
Hmmm, just rereading these I noticed the "not mentioned the two big 'icon' series" bit.

Everyone's pretty sure one is Detective, yuh, but can we indulge in some mindless speculation as to the other?

I want it to be Green Lantern solo or Corps. Preferably the latter, actually, cause team-books are best.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
01:36 / 13.09.05
GM on GL Corps would be fantastic. I feel like I read a previous interview with him where he expressed a desire to do something with them, and really make it a crazy sci-fi cosmic series...

How come everyone's pretty sure one is Detective?
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
02:42 / 13.09.05
Everyone's pretty sure one is Detective, yuh, but can we indulge in some mindless speculation as to the other?


All Star Superman, perhaps?
 
 
The Falcon
12:24 / 13.09.05
Did he not mention that? In which case, d'oh.
 
 
grant
19:16 / 13.09.05
Brief observations --

1. I think we're using different definitions of "successful" here. There's the success that comes from selling lots and lots of product, and the success that comes from telling stories worth telling. They sort of overlap, but aren't the same thing.

2. I don't think books (of the non-comics kind) are successful in the big money sense -- my impression has always been that there are usually a couple of star authors, a few dedicated toilers, and an awful lot of pulped books & folded publishers. Rowling may have singlehandedly upset this applecart, but I dunno. Comics are the same, only moreso, and with a different relationship to their consumers.

3. I think tabloidy gossip stuff goes along with the first kind of success. The kind of gossip that goes along with the second kind seems to me to be more geared towards discovering subtexts to stories. Again, I haven't read much NYTimes Review of Books since, like, 1994. I don't think fawning adulation is necessarily part of the tabloidy gossip phenomenon, though. I believe People Magazine started that friendly, all-puff-pieces style in the 70s, while the roots of celeb gossip go back to the scandal sheets of the late 40s/early 50s. The tell-alls.
Stars were in the news before that (Fatty Arbuckle = trial of the century), but there wasn't really an industry pumping out stuff besides the studios themselves and the regular news.

4. I'm really glad that Morrison mentioned Len Wein in that one intvw. I definitely was getting that vibe from the books but unable to put my finger on whose bell it was exactly that was being rung.
 
 
louisemichel
15:19 / 01.12.05
Grant, just one thing.
Success is success. it's a quantity. You can't say you're successful without backing that with numbers to prove it.
Success is not about writing good stories.
Talent, is about writing good stories, it is all subjectivity.
But when a lot of people say you have talent, generally you have some kind of success.
The other way around is not true.

Now, just for fun. I just read Morrison's interview in Wizard 170. You guys will love it or already loved it. Honestly.
Ok, it was sarcasm.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:47 / 01.12.05
No disrespect intended, louisemichel, but I think that grant's distinction makes sense in English. A work can be described as being artistically successful, in the sense of being a good work. It can also be commercially successful, in the sense of selling enough copies and making enough money to be considered a success. Both of these are subjective - you can get an objective measurement of profit, but whether a particular amount of profit means that something is a commercial success or not is still decided by consensus among those who are interested in working it out.

Think of It's a Wonderful Life. It turned out that George Bailey was the luckiest man in the world after all...
 
 
louisemichel
05:25 / 02.12.05
no problemo, weird thing.
But I tend to think that "success", as in "oh, i'm the greatest writer there is", without the numbers is kind of delusional.
Of course, you may object that some Chuck Austen stories sell more than some Grant Morrison stories or Alan Moore stories...
of course...
But as I say, it works one way, not both way.
 
 
This Sunday
06:19 / 02.12.05
Since when does 'success' mean 'best', though? If it fulfills your goals - whatever 'it' is and what you set out to do with 'it' - it's successful. When I did not particularly want to be involved in a certain anthology and the editor wouldn't quit bugging me, I sent her what amounted to a 'fuck off' piece. It's in the anthology, so in that sense, it was not a success, but it did get her to quit bugging me, so, ultimately: a success. Even though it sold pretty bad.
I someone paints, say, a landscape and puts it away in their attic, it can still be a success, if all they wanted out of the painting was to (a) do the painting, or (b) do the painting and stash it in the attic. Money and sales are nice, true, but they are neither the qualifier of success (in art or anything), nor absolutely necessary to life.
I consider myself a successful human being every time I get to lie back comfortably and indulge in excellent food, cool company, and/or great music, but I have yet to find any profession where I make lots of money or get huge sales from any of those three things.
Think on this: a successful suicide; no money need be involved, no sales rate going up or down, and you're still dead. But, you did it right, it's done completely, and you're still dead. Ain't nobody going to look at the corpse and argue it wasn't a successful suicide, unless you aren't dead.
 
 
louisemichel
15:07 / 03.12.05
a successful suicide is a very unsuccessfull way of succeeding in life...

however, when you say : "If it fulfills your goals - whatever 'it' is and what you set out to do with 'it' - it's successful.", I kinda agree with you. If you're alone.
But in comics world, or litterary world, you're not alone, there is a publisher that can pull the plug on your work if it's not successful, whatever your talent because if he begins to lose money on you, he'll soon commit economical suicide.
Of course, that suicide can be very successful...
 
 
Alex's Grandma
16:45 / 03.12.05
I'm not saying you're wrong LM, but according to that analysis (the numbers and so on,) Dan Brown is @better@ than William Blake.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:37 / 03.12.05
Actually, LM, quite a few books lose money. Most big publishers' poetry lists are full of loss-making authors, who are published because the quality of their output, and the perception of quality that publishing them goves the publisher are more important to the publisher than making a profit on their work. Their are different forms of sucess, even to a publisher. More broadly, your contention is based on a belief in how the word "successful" is used in Engllish which is not experientially valid.
 
 
louisemichel
20:56 / 03.12.05
Alex, Dan Brown is not better than Blake.
Except that for a certain number of people, especially those who bought his books and never heard of Blake and never will read one of his books, he is...
As for a certain number of people, Chuck Austen is better than say, Alan Moore and Rob Liefield is better than say, Frank Quitely.
Sorry, but you forget one thing, that is reality. In reality, there is people, and people don't think like the almighty elite.
 
 
louisemichel
21:01 / 03.12.05
Weird, you say it : Big Publisher. A big publisher can lose money on some way, can spend money to wait till a writer flourishes and discovers his true talent, whatever it is, be it commercially successfull or critically successfull.
A small publisher can't lose money on a book or he dies.
Dan Brown's publisher can spend now a lot of money on poetry books. I hope he will lose a lot of money on those to redempt himself...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:33 / 04.12.05
Success is success. it's a quantity. You can't say you're successful without backing that with numbers to prove it.
Success is not about writing good stories.


***

be it commercially successfull or critically successfull.

'Splain please?
 
 
The Falcon
00:05 / 05.12.05
Why do people say 'worst serial killer' about the ones with the most victims? Surely they are the best.
 
 
louisemichel
05:07 / 05.12.05
weird :
as you said, a writer can achieve different successes. He may be a hell of a writer, loved by critics and won't sell a copy of his book, that happens a lot. He may sell gazillions copies and be a hack. That happens even more often...
A big publisher can publish both types because he has lot of money to spend on image...
A small publisher won't because a book costs money, you know...



duncan : you're my new god a the day.
 
 
louisemichel
05:24 / 05.12.05
oh, weird, that's right, I know what you mean.
It's a question of POV...
when I say YOU can't be successfull without the numbers, it's when I think about you, or I, but actually, it's a ego centered thought. It's when a writer thinks about himself and talks about him.
If a writer, loved by the critics and selling nothing thinks he's successful, he's delusionnal.
There. I think it's better that way.

Of course, you'll tell me that time change this thinking, as he can be reknowed after his death. Good for him, I say. I prefer being hated by critics and able to buy something to eat...
 
 
sleazenation
07:58 / 05.12.05
A big publisher can publish both types because he has lot of money to spend on image...
A small publisher won't because a book costs money, you know...


And where does this put smaller publishers and self-publishers who make comics as a sideline because they enjoy it? Although their work is acclaimed, their readership is never going to challenge the X-men and the revenue generated from it is insufficient to live on.

I don't think there can be many hard and fast rules about 'success' in comics, outside of the success of getting a comic published (and distributed) in the first place.

This is something that is being underlined at the moment as various publishers are emerging to reprint or collect comics that never quite found their audience when they were initially published.

I'm thinking of books like Dave Hine's Strange Embrace. The recent collection of which through active images impressed Joe Quesada enough to prompt him to offer Hine gigs writing X-comics...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:10 / 05.12.05
Actually, I'm going to suggest that you're not making sense.

You have so far stated:

a) A writer's success can be judged both critically and commerically.
b) A writer's success can be judged only commercially
c) A writer can only judge his or her own success commercially.

If a) is true and c) is true, it follows that d) People who are not the writer are able to judge the writer as a success using criteria both critical and commercial. However, b) contradicts this, stating as it does that the only possible criterion for the assessment of a writer's success is how much money they have made.

Basically, you've got an entrenched position here which it would be more sensible for you to abandon or revise.
 
 
Abraxas
12:02 / 05.12.05
Interesting though this "criteria of success" debate may be - wouldn't it be time for a separate thread? Each time this gets pushed on top of the stack I'm thinking there's a new interview with Grant Morrison ...
 
 
louisemichel
13:11 / 05.12.05
you know, weird, by taking sentences out of context, you can justify the shoah.
Now, by all means, I meant PROFESSIONAL publishers. Not publishers that publish books at their spare time. I meant PROFESSIONAL writers. Not people who write at their spare time. You know, like people who write as a living... Sorry if that sounds short biased to you...
I thought it was clear. It wasn't.
My mistake... must be the language, eh...
 
 
louisemichel
13:14 / 05.12.05
"Basically, you've got an entrenched position here which it would be more sensible for you to abandon or revise. "
I love this new definition of debate.
 
 
louisemichel
13:18 / 05.12.05
Sleaze, I think you can ask Hine, I'm pretty sure he'll tell you he's a lot more successful writer now that he writes X-men than before...

Of course, I may be wrong...
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:21 / 05.12.05
Phil Hine is writing the X-Men now?
 
 
louisemichel
13:27 / 05.12.05
ahahaha !
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply