Marvel Flipside

Story Theory: Themes

Super-writer Grant Morrison was given an interview on The List about his book, Supergods. In the interview, he mentions this little tidbit.  It seems that he is trying to point out the nigh-mythological level that superheroes reach, while at the same time our modern storytelling demands that we, incongruously,  keep such myths "grounded."

"A lot of the superheroes, like Flash, don’t even need a great backstory. If you look back to the early Zorro film, which influenced Batman, Zorro just turns up and starts kicking ass. There’s no indication why he became Zorro or why he chose to dress like that. The modern approach to comic superheroes only came in later, when adults started to ask dumb questions like, ‘Why would he do that? How could he afford to do that?’ These are really stupid questions to ask of fantasy, but people did ask them, and then try to answer them" (Morrison).

Is this why all of our superhero movies must include an origin story? Do our modern storytellers think that audiences won't accept the story unless they consider the whys and wherefores? (Or it could also be the answer to my earlier Story Theory post about how it's only the "origin" story that has a definite and recognizable beginning-middle-end.) Or perhaps it's simply because that origin story is often the purest version of the simple superhero *theme* -- something about overcoming great odds, rising above your circumstances, choosing the responsibility that comes with power, etc. Put simply, when your story is about becoming a hero, then the clear theme will be "Be Heroic."

But this basic theme can be in *any* superhero story, to some extent. It's the whole reason to READ such stories, in my opinion. We all need this theme on a mythological level, to inspire us all to do heroic things even in our ordinary lives. I think that is the unspoken assumption in Morrison's quote, above-- that we don't need questions that ask "dumb questions" since the "stupid questions" get in the way of the fantasy, or more specifically, get in the way of the "be heroic" theme we need.
Spidey's origin? Be heroic. His overcoming of the Sinister Six? Be heroic. His grief over Gwen Stacy's death? Be heroic. His recent decision that "no one dies" under his watch? Be heroic. So it comes down to what flavor of "be heroic" you want to say. After all, Spidey's heroics are different than Superman's All-Star stories, or War on Krypton, or Walk Across America.

Some of these are quite easily recognizable, in which case these stories are ripe for introduction WITHOUT a long origin story.

• She-Hulk: "Be heroic in balance" with a story about juggling crimefighting criminals in and outside of courtrooms, and juggling her private life and personal life, and juggling her Jennifer and Shulkie sides.

• Captain America: "Be heroic for your ideals" as he overcomes corruption both literal and figurative.

• Black Knight: "Be heroic in your legacy" as he finds modern ways to fulfill ancient responsibilities.

etc. etc., with different nuances and flavors for each one, complete with a villain or antagonist that serves as a foil for the hero's own journey. Change your hero's situation too much, then you risk changing his/her theme. (Although, alternatively, if you don't vary things too much, then often the themes become interchangeable, such as making it hard to distinguish between, say, Moon Knight stories and Nighthawk stories, between Black Widow stories and Nick Fury stories.) 
It takes good writers, you see, of episodic storytelling to share the same message (or at least a nuanced variation of it) in bright new packages every time.

But it's something I, for one, need constant reminders about, which is why I return to superhero stories all the time!

Spider-Man: Turn off the Snark

Wow! They really did make some changes to that Spider-Man musical, didn't they? I can see why it was so dangerous now... those large bananas will poke someone's eye out!

Anole

Writing my 10 Most Inhuman X-Men list the other day make me reflect on many, many X-Men, but there is one idea that I can't shake. I must come clean; I must confess. It is with heavy heart that I admit such feelings, but I feel I cannot hold it back anymore. I have to mention it.

I have to admit I hate the code name "Anole."

In fact, I can't really express how much I really hate this code name. It's like someone didn't want to think of a tired, old lizard-y name (which is great!) and so went to wikipedia and clicked on the first "unique" name on the list (which is bizarre.) In other words, its obscure to the point of being laughable. I think I remember doing some things like this when I made original super-characters for my role playing games when I was in middle school. It seemed so cool at the time, like I had a little extra knowledge and that made that particular character way more legit. I guess it's the heroic-naming equivalent of playing dress up. I couldn't help but cock my head to one side and say, in a cooing voice, "oh, you named him 'Anole,' huh? Yeah, that's … cute, I guess." And when that was just in New X-Men/Academy X or whatever the series was called, that seemed okay. But the character isn't going away, and in fact is often quite leveraged as a popular and supported character, I really wish they'd think about coming up with a new heroic name for the guy.

 from New X-Men #13 (2005), art by Michael Ryan/Rick Ketcham/Pete Pantazis

Okay, okay. Don't cry about it. It's not your fault.

Bandwagon

Far be it from me to not jump on a bandwagon when it comes along…
The entire internet broke in half with DC Comics' big announcement, which (in case you've been living under a rock, on Mars, with your fingers in your ears) is rebooting/restarting its entire comics line in September 2011 as well as publishing same-day digital versions.

There are many opinions out there, but here is mine--
Don't worry.

I mean, yeah, it sucks that there are incredibly complex stories that won't seem to "matter" if you are going to reboot a universe of characters from the beginning (which no one is sure they are really doing, but still. Bandwagon with me here.) However, be careful. Once you get into that argument, it's really self-defeating. After all, no stories really "matter," do they? I understand if you were gripped by the plight of our heroes when parallel worlds started crashing down upon them, that you were moved to pity and fear when a hero's wife was the victim of a brutal attack.  You sigh in satisfaction and put the collection on a shelf in reverence. But at some point, you have to figure out what's for dinner, how you can finish that deadline for work, and buy your dad a Fathers' Day gift.

How much are we really investing into these characters? I once wrote one of the first comprehensive online resources for the Marvel Universe in the pre-wiki days of the innanet. I understand the appeal of investing in these stories, of honoring their continuity, and of relishing their complexity. We collect the stories and ideas of these comics just as much as we collect the paper (or zeroes and ones?) they are printed on. I would love to return to the dynamic Avengers written by Roger Stern or the anything-goes Excalibur by Claremont/Davis. But just because the Avengers are so different nowadays and there has been no Excalibur series for 20 years doesn't mean that the stories I love don't matter. Does Photon's absence from the current Avengers' series mean her stories don't matter? Does Nightcrawler's recent death mean his Excalibur stories don't matter?

Does the recent Transformers movie mean its original TV series doesn't matter? Does Nolan's Dark Knight movie invalidate Tim Burton's Batman? Does Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen invalidate Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? I'm going to share a smile and a nod of the head with anyone when reminiscing with these stories. I can laugh in spite of myself when I stumble onto a compilation of 80s Saturday morning cartoon intros on YouTube. I can revisit those stories anytime I want to, just as much as I can revisit any memory. Perhaps it's simple nostalgia, or perhaps I recognize that these stories matter in and of themselves. They were there for me at the time, and I can thankfully recreate that time because these stories will forever be consecrated as their own entity. The context may have changed, but that doesn't mean I have to change what I think about the content.

If a story mattered to you at all at one point, it will continue to matter to you forever. If they cease to matter to you at all, then you probably will have left the hobby and found new stories that matter to you. So go ahead and put those mattered-stories back on the shelf. They will still be there when you need them.

(PS. Don MacPherson agrees with me!)

Story Theory: Endings

Let's talk about story theory for a bit. What's story theory? Don't worry, it's a concept I just came up with, so just run with me for a while, okay?

If story theory is a study in how stories work, we can start by breaking down stories to their basic elements: character, plot, setting, theme, etc. All of that English Lit class stuff. What's interesting about comics is that you can add all kinds of new elements to represent the visual nature of _comic_ stories: layout/pacing, balance, color, line quality, etc.  

But to keep it short (and sanity-saving,) let's focus on the most strange aspect of the comic-story hybrid-- plot. Because your basic story has a beginning, middle, and end. (Well, technically, it has exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and denouement, but you are trying to forget your MIddle School English, aren't you?) However, on-going comic book series cannot follow this basic structure. By virtue of being episodic, the comic book must either have NO end or must have INFINITE ends. Did you catch that? The "story" of a particular character can never really be resolved ("end") if his comic book will forever be published. Or, if it does get resolved, it merely sets up a new beginning or a new middle for yet another kind of resolution (yet another "end.")

Example time. The Hulk's basic story is in the conflict between the inner self-- Bruce Banner vs. Hulk. This story has never ended. Or you could say that it did. Writer Peter David merged the Hulk and Banner personas in The Incredible Hulk #377 (vol. 1, 1991). But then I would argue that the Hulk's stories shifted-- those stories featured the Pantheon characters just as much as the Hulk's. And later, Paul Jenkins in The Incredible Hulk #12 (vol. 3, 2000) explained that this merged Hulk was merely another personality all along. This would be an example of the "infinite" endings as the only other option. (Its current status quo at the time of this writing will be "ending" with The Incredible Hulks #635 (2011).)

This is why some creators disliked Spider-Man being married. Looked at from a story perspective, it was an "ending" to part of Peter Parker's story, but his stories were continuing regardless. So either Spider-Man's basic story had to shift along with it, or it would be hampered if it continued to try to keep all the other story elements except that one in place.

It's also why super-hero movies are all about the origin story. It's the only definite beginning-middle-end kind of story that a character has. It's also why villains are so important. The beginning of a villainous plot naturally leads to its ending, and hopefully along the way the character can show us a bit about why his character is so compelling. But in a way, as much as that hero is spotlighted, the story is basically the villain's.

It's also why many characters simply cannot keep a series in the first place. Either there has already been an ending for that character, and/or there is no room for infinite endings. 

Ms. Marvel-- great visual, strong personality, perfect for the company to leverage and market. But what's her story? Is she an Air Force officer? Part of an alien legacy? A magazine editor? A home security advisor? A mentor? A celebrity hero? It's hard to have any kind of ending, let alone infinite ones, if there's no place to even begin. Without any strong "beginning," Ms. Marvel is doomed to the fringes of the Marvel universe.

Ms. Marvel volume 2 ended with #50 (2010),
after various "beginnings" throughout the same series

The Thing-- again, great visual, strong personality, recognizable, and intimately connected to the Marvel universe. But he already had an ending-- he has come to accept his monstrous form. It certainly came gradually (even his own series in the 80s was about the interplay as he switched from human form to Thing) so perhaps there was no "big" event that allowed his story to end-- in some ways, the writers simply stopped writing about it. Sure, it comes up every now and then, in the same way every once in a while you remember with regret that you forgot your friend's birthday that one time but it doesn't define your existence anymore. With no inherent conflict defining the Thing's existence, he won't ever be able to be a star in his own right again.

The Thing's volume 2 got all the way to issue 8 (2006).

In some ways, I'm asking for stories to become more streamlined, a bit more simplified. Which is a testament to how rich and complex some characters' stories are right now. Thor's movie (an origin story, of course) is far removed from his current status quo, which is more complex as he wrestles with the dynamics of Asgard/human relations. The X-Men's Storm, who some would argue is one of Marvel Comic's strongest female heroes, showed up in the X-Men in 1975 somewhat full-formed. A beginning, middle,  or end for her would show up from time to time, mostly through flashback, but essentially she was always reacting to these outside forces. And ultimately she is caught up a complex relationship between her past, her teammates, her marriage, making it difficult to have a story of her very own, generating from within her.

Perhaps that's why the mini-series is the format of choice for most publishers. It allows a character to have a dedicated story with a specific beginning-middle-end for that particular moment. The on-going serialized and episodic lead character is now the exception rather than the rule. And maybe that's okay. By embracing this model, creators and publishers can focus on the stories themselves, avoiding the trap of an episodic character going stale or (maybe worse) suffering through endless revamping. Heck, why not fully embrace it, and bring back anthologies and magazine-format quarterlies. Giving more definite endings (or recognizing an infinite ending) will allow characters to be better realized, and readers will be better satisfied. I refer you my Comics Memo: Be About Something.

And speaking of endings. There. I'm done.  

 

Everybody read THIS

I mean it.

EVERYBODY READ THIS.

It's called "Mainstream superhero comics need a kick in the butt" by the bloggers at Comics Should Be Good at Comic Book Resources.

Some snippets:

• "Marvel and DC are desperate to sell comics, but they do nothing to make the comics sell better."
• "I still love superhero comics, even though I have lots of problems with them. It seems like superhero comics just aren’t doing what they could, and in a comics world that is losing readership, I wonder why companies aren’t encouraging at least a bit more experimentation with them."
• "There’s a lack of boldness in the way comics are designed, and all of these people are talented enough to do things differently. It’s frustrating that they don’t."

I am reminded of this everytime I watch a new superhero animated series. There are amazing things happening with superheroes displaying feats of power and dynamism in such shows and comics, as a visual medium, could also be doing these things. There is a choreography of panel-to-panel movement that is simply missing from comics, ranging from a lack of tilting camera angles to extremes of focus/perspecitve and more. Comics have become so writer-driven and script-created that the art of visual storytelling and graphical metaphor itself is simply missing. I know these are heavy-handed terms so if there is any interest in explaining these things, I'll do my best.

Until then, go read that other blog. I won't be offended.

Fixing Marvel Comics (well, sorta)

Let's take a look into the past. …
Joe FanGuy rushed into the comic store, on October 21st, same as every Wednesday. The new releases were spread up and down the racks all along the wall. He always got $20 each week for his allowance, and the comic store was one of the first places he went to with his money ready in his hand. He snapped up X-Factor #210 and Deadpool #28, both things we was really waiting for. Those only cost about 8 bucks together, but it was just (ugh!) two thin comics!  He browsed the shelves, considering. Should pick up another book? He settled on X-23 #2, which was new enough that he thought it could be a good idea to jump on board, but what he was really looking for was Uncanny X-Men #529. Unfortunately, that wouldn't be out for another week. Still, 3 books at 12 bucks total left him with 8 in his pocket. Not too bad, but not great. He might have to hit up his parents for a few more bucks if anyone was doing stuff on the weekend.

Let's now take a look at an alternate world…
Joe Alt-FanGuy walked into his comic store on alt-October 21st. The new releases for that week were in the same corner as always, the far corner just for weeklies, just past the trade paperback/assorted collections. He picked up the hefty X-Men weekly, knowing he'd get the third installment in the brand new Uncanny X-Force serial that started two weeks back, and he was equally interested in the ongoing X-Factor, Deadpool, and Uncanny X-Men chapters inside, too. The whole 64-page thing was going to be 7.99, but those 8 serials inside should keep him pretty busy, and he'd still have 12 whole bucks for the weekend.  This issues featured, after all, the penultimate installments to the X-Men vs. Vampire story threads of certain chapters, all setting up next week's finale. JoFan contemplated picking up the Hulk Weekly, too, since that had a Wolverine chapter among its contents, but he could purchase such serials separately online for only 99 cents for each installment.

I'm trying to visualize these worlds so that I can work through an idea that entertains a radically different vision of the way comic books are consumed nowadays. It started after reading an old article by Erik Larsen, himself both a prolific comic book creator and a vociferous comic book fan, who proposed something similar to "fix" the comic book industry. It's a big read, but you could go and read that first, or risk feeling like you've entered mid-way into a conversation. At least try this for a summary -- Larsen claimed the best way for comic companies to proceed is to fully scrap the entirety of its current publishing model and embrace a new one that can be described as a hybrid of European and Japanese models, which bottom line would be "everything's anthologies" supplemented by collected volumes. Hey, I know It's all pretty much an idealized world, but it's entertaining to entertain the idea.  In other words, I'll offer my perspective on Marvel's publishing strategy right now, on something that could be different, and even on how it needs to factor in that whole (gasp!) digital thing that seems to be happening.

The standard disclaimers go here-- the fact that I am merely a consumer and not a publisher, etc. etc. But I have taken some time to really think about my ideas, and I want to talk about what I think FROM a consumer's perspective anyway. It's too presumptuous for me to consider that this could happen in reality, but it's always good fun to theorize! Just ask English majors and professional philosophers! 

Here's my perspective on Marvel's current publishing schedule, using a randomly chosen recent month-- October 2010-- as a basis. At my count, there were 80 titles being offered as "Marvel Comics" single issues, aside from any trade paperback collections and licensed titles, etc. Although, how many of these could have been considered core to the publishing line? Not all of them are meant to be on-going series. You could take things out like one-shots centering around the "Shadowland" story and things deliberately meant to be limited series, such as "Amazing Spider-Man Presents Black Cat," there are 40 titles. Things do get muddled in hindsight, of course--  some things  were meant to be on-going series, "Young Allies," and things that took the place of on-going series, like "Klaws of the Panther." And of course there are some titles meant to be on more than once a month, "Amazing Spider-Man," and some titles that should have been published last month but get published late, "Incredible Hulks" 614 and 615.    

If you wanted to have bought all 80 titles, at an average price of $3.99, you would have paid $320 for the month. Even paying for just 40 "core" on-going titles you'd have needed $160. Obviously, either would have been out of the range of a typical consumer. Especially if your target consumer is youth, someone with around a modest $35 disposable income for a month to spend on comics. He could buy about 9 issues. That sounds about right. If you're an adult and have $60 a month or more to spend on comics, your monthly minimum would be about 15 issues. And yet, even THAT amount is only about a quarter of the full "experience" of the 40-title core Marvel Universe! Very conservative budgets might only allow for only $20, or 5 issues, or an 8th of the 40-title core.

Which leaves me to wonder how much of an impact this has on a consumer and the ability of a publisher to grow its brand. Chances are, comics fans have their few "must-buys" that they supplement with a sampling of other things here and there. Perhaps a selection of core titles and a sampling of mini-series. This is why Spider-Man and Wolverine will always be headliners, and why Hawkeye & Mockingbird can't sustain an audience. The dollars simply aren't there in the first place.

Also, if a consumer uses a limited budget and takes advantage of the current industry practice to order ahead of time (often it's the current industry *requirement* to order ahead of time,) there is no reason to drop by the comic book store on a regular basis, since everything is held for you and you buy what you always want to buy. Sure, there is the lure of the "here and now" if you make a weekly trip, but by and large consumers will make limited trips during the month-- they know when the things they want come out, or they simply pick things up according to their own preferences. This is also why there will be little room for mini-series to burst into full-blown titles, since there is no sense of impulse buy. These little titles "don't matter" which gives rise to Marvel's habit of making "big events," so the consumer feels driven to experience things that "matter" to the overall Marvel Universe by shifting  budget dollars into areas they wouldn't normally be spent. Both this and the problem above is why comic book pundits claim the industry merely cannibalizes itself, looking for short term gains within an insulated audience and demographic.     

Here is where the radical idea comes in--
Take the 80 titles you would publish, and break them into 8 to 10 page chunks. Publish these chunks in mega-anthologies that are 64 page weekly magazines for 7.99. You could fit 8 issues nicely into one weekly omnibus serial. For example, the Avengers Weekly for October 2010 could have had Avengers, Avengers Academy, Captain America, Hawkeye & Mockingbird, I Am an Avenger, Invincible Iron Man,  Secret Avengers, and Young Allies all inside. It would take the 4 weeks of the month, but you could have read the equivalent of eight titles (costing 32 bucks) by buying only four weekly serials (by also spending 32 bucks)!

Here are the ten titles I propose Marvel publish-- no more thin single issue monthlies! Instead, every WEEK could have thick, jam packed serials! And under the title, again looking ONLY at October 2010, I divvied up to 8 monthlies to each:

AVENGERS: MARVEL'S MIGHTIEST HEROES
Avengers, Avengers Academy, Captain America, Hawkeye & Mockingbird, I Am an Avenger, Invincible Iron Man, Secret Avengers, Young Allies

X-MEN
Deadpool, New Mutants, Uncanny X-Force, Uncanny X-Men, X-23, X-Factor, X-Men: Curse of the Mutants, and X-Men Legacy

SPIDER-MAN
Amazing Spider-Man, ASM Presents Black Cat, Black Widow, Carnage, New Avengers, Spider-Man: Back in Quack, Spider-Man vs. Vampires, Taskmaster

MARVEL KNIGHTS
Daredevil, Deadpool Corps, Deadpool Team-Up, Shadowland, Shadowland: Blood on the Streets, Shadowland: Moon Knight, Shadowland: Power Man, Shadowland: Spider-Man

THOR: JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY
Chaos War, Invaders Now, Loki, SHIELD, Thanose Imperative, Thor: For Asgard, Thor: First Thunder, Thor

ULTIMATE MARVEL
Ultimate Avengers, Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate Thor, Ultimate Comics Mystery, New Ultimates, New Mutants Forever, X-Men Forever II

HULK
Incredible Hulks, Hulk, Incredible Hulks: Enigma Force, Iron Man: Titanium, Wolverine, Thunderbolts

MARVEL MAX
Deadpool Pulp, Deadpool MAX, Daken: Dark Wolverine, Strange Tales II, Punisher MAX, Kick-Ass II

FANTASTIC FOUR & TALES TO ASTONISH 
Captain America: Patriot, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four in Ataque del Modok, Klaws of the Panther, Marvelman Familys Finest, Secret Warriors, Steve Rogers: Super Soldier, X-Men

MARVEL (ALL-AGES) ADVENTURES
Super Hero Squad, Avengers & the Infinity Gauntlet, Avengers vs Pet Avengers, Spider-Man/Fantastic Four, Thor: Mighty Avenger, Iron Man: Legacy

That was the fun part! (Yes, that was "fun" for me!) But also frustrating, as it leads to somewhat weird pairings-- Wolverine serials in HULK Weekly? X-Men serials in FF/TALES TO ASTONISH? Ooo-kay! You could spin the situation for both the positive and the negative-- after all, some overlap would be nice for a consumer to buy FF/TALES TO ASTONISH and still feel somewhat connected to the X-Men's corner of the universe. It could even serve to cross-market the properties and brands.) Also frustrating is that there isn't truly enough content for one area alone, such as a HULK weekly or even SPIDER-MAN (and MAX, but you could probably have guessed that.) But, hey, as long as we're wishing, we might as well truly experiment. Some issues could be smaller, or larger, or be embracing the overlap more obviously (one title for IRON MAN & THE AVENGERS and another THE AVENGERS & THE HULK, etc.) Maybe a bi-weekly format would be more appropriate and more consumer-friendly, with different titles alternating week to week.

So, obviously, October 2010 wouldn't *directly* translate into this new weekly system-- too many "temporary" events such as the MARVEL KNIGHTS weekly having too much Shadowland and Shadowland-related mini series and one-shots. How about that? The weekly anthologies of serials would require creators to re-invent the kinds of storytelling the current market has fostered! Again, maybe that's both the positive and the negative. It would still allow the MARVEL KNIGHTS weekly to distinguish itself with the "SHADOWLAND" event for that month or two, and it would pull in readers to see the Spider-Man Shadowland-flavored serial. But the biggest advantage would be to allow for some experimentation in expanding/exploring events with a variety of creators and characters. If anything, we could see *more* experimentation with mini-series and spotlighted characters. We might even be *more* likely to have Hawkeye stories or Taskmaster stories or whatever, as they don't have to automatically pull down 25,000 readers to prove "survivable" in the market. 

Aside from the experimentation and re-invention of the kinds of storytelling, another natural outcome of this publishing model is to drive everything to collection. You could argue that the industry is kind of driven this way already… single issues are bound together for the eventual trade paperback collection. These weeklies are no exception, and in fact could drive any variety of new types of collections. Perhaps a 96-page weekly that has merely a chapter of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN at a time could turn into a 64-page AMAZING SPIDER-MAN-only bi-annual collection (in either magazine or comic-style) and/or a yearly trade paperback. Consumers could have a choice of how they want to follow their character-- in short bursts week-to-week, in semi-regular turns throughout the year, and/or in major but sparse events.

And here (FINALLY!) we get to the point that truly embraces this format as a modern alternative-- it's natural complement to a digital format. The weekly serials are large collections of mini-chapters, and various mini-chapters could also be available day-and-date at a reduced price. Right now, 3.99 for a digital comic will not solve the consumer's needs. But 99 cents for a small 8-page story feels just right, as would a larger amount for a subscription for viewing that week's serial chapter. But the advantages of having weeklies collecting a variety of stories might drive more "heavy users" to choose the physical copies primarily with digital as a supplement to their reading. Or perhaps the chapters aren't day-and-date until the last chapter is published. Or perhaps the weeklies are NOT collected at all, but consumers can  wait for a digital quarterly version. Or, or, or… the advantage of this system would be to allow the market to be flexible enough to allow the consumer to have choice.    

Imagine--
Wednesday, my iPad app tells me I have the latest HULK serial available. I buy it for 99 cents, and read it before I take my trip to the store. At the store, I pick up FF/TALES TO ASTONISH  (7.99) and AVENGERS (7.99) weeklies. In the Avengers, there was a house ad for the last chapter of the BLACK WIDOW serial that just ended in SPIDER-MAN. I go again online and purchase the 4 chapters for 4.96. My total haul that day? I read 21 serialized chapters of comics containing over 35 characters and spent 20.93. 
THAT would be some satisfied reading. 

Now, I have no idea if my math is wrong. It's entirely possible that I'm selling the creators short, and my price points wouldn't be sustainable for the page rates that creators are entitled to. Also, I cannot imagine the logistical nightmare it might be to coordinate a weekly production across so many creators and titles. I imagine it's these two issues that are a one-two punch that knocks my idea into impossibility. As I mentioned before, this is probably because I'm taking something that was created by the demands of the current publishing model and forecasting them onto another, so of course it doesn't line up flawlessly. The way creators work, the way writers structure their stories, the amount of panels artists might use, the ad space required, the storage needed if you wanted to store such weekly collections, pretty much the entire spectrum of thought to tangible product would have to change. Yeah, I get that. That's why I said it was just a fun exercise to think about. I'm not sure my ideas are "ideal," but those two words are closely linked.

As I finish my thoughts, I see that there is another contemplation about the state of the industry over at iFanboy. Thomas Katers claims it's the business end of things that are holding onto traditional publishing models and hopes for change. I can't say this idea of mine here would satisfy him, but if you take anything away from my massive musing on the subject, it would be that I agree with his last line: "The business end (publishers, distributors) are the ones who want it one way (the old), while more and more of us are going the other way (the future). The sooner the business side figure that out, the better off everyone will be."




      

Being an Artist

I do like to draw. Really. Some people say I'm good at it. I even made a go and had a bit of a career doing it at some point in my life. And, yes, there is a little part of me that is still capital-A Artist and it prompts me to express myself through art. And so I wonder-- could I still create something of my very own, even if my life-path has most decidedly taken me down different trails?

If I ever do (and I'm not saying yes or no!) it would have to be on my very own, with my very own projects, in my very own style. Which actually is kind of the problem. I'm one of those few rare artists that would actually prefer working with other people's projects in other people's styles.

I'm thinking about all of this after coming across this essay written in response to an artist hoping to get a portfolio review. I found it on the Robot 6 blog, who gave it this blurb: "Jim Zubkavich, project manager for UDON, shares his response to 'an intense two screen long message' from an artist who wants to work for the studio: 'Your artwork is not as good as you think it is.'" You can read the entire responce here.

It brought up many things that I was faced with as I once tried to make my way through an industry that is really quite small. Based on what I experienced, I'd add two things to Zubkavich's points:
1) Your work is only as good as your competition allows it to be, and your competition includes veterans in the industry with years of professional and personal experience.
and
2) Even if you get one gig, you pretty much have to repeat everything you did to get the first one in order to get the second one. In which case, you start with the problem of #1 all over again, because 99.9 percent of the time, those veterans are finding that in order to get the 713th gig, since very often they have to repeat everything they did getting those 712. 

And if you can accept #1 and #2 as reality and still feel hopelessly abandoned to your craft (not just the industry but the pure love of the craft itself,) then you'll have What It Takes.

So, yes. Maybe I like to draw, but honestly, I'm okay with not having What It Takes. I'm comfortable with where my life is right now, and I like who I am regardless of what it is I'm doing. I used to think that because I could do Art, then I must be an Artist. What I had to realize (the hard way) is that the correct idiom should be: I must be an Artist, which I can use to … do whatever I want! And that is incredibly liberating.

Drunken Marvel Role-Playing

As someone who still fondly remembers Marvel Super-Heroes Role-Playing from the late 80s/early 90s, I had to admit that I laughed heartily at Cracked.com's parody, which includes some spectacularly well-thought out re-tooling of old materials...

I've always wanted to do a home-brew re-imagining of this game system, but as fun as that parody seems, I might go in a different direction...

Swarm

Still very, very busy. In lieu of any original content, I'll just point you to something that had always captured my imagination as a kid-- the episode of Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends featuring Swarm! Heck, maybe I *am* getting into the Halloween spirit, as this certainly pays tribute to Things That Are Creepy and Bodysnatcher.

&