Here Comes The New Mainstream, Same As The Old Mainstream

(Originally Posted at my livejournal, 3rd of October 2007)

There's a recurring conversation that goes on in the comics blogosphere, and on the various message boards that cater to those of us who care about this stuff; about so-called "gateway" graphic novels, books that will bring new readers to comics by showing them what the medium is capable of, and busting their preconceptions about the type of material they're likely to find. I think about this a lot, because what it essentially boils down to is: there aren't enough people reading comics, people who surely would if only they knew that the kind of material they'd enjoy is right there waiting for them in their local comics shop. When we talk about "gateway comics", we are talking, potentially, about the comics that will save our industry. I thought I'd share my thoughts.

A while ago I linked to a fantastic piece by Kevin Church on his Beaucoup Kevin blog. In it he briefly touches on the "gateway" topic, and makes this comment:

"A real gateway comic is something like Persepolis or Fun Home"

Which is a pretty commonly voiced idea; and those two titles, along other pieces in a similarly serious literary vein such as Palestine, Maus, American Born Chinese, Cancer Vixen, etc. etc. are regularly touted by the more intellectually inclined comics fan (a group I usually find myself allied with, if not one I feel completely comfortable in) as being the "new mainstream" of comics, comics that ordinary people will be interested in, and will eventually help break the superhero's vice like grip on the medium yadda yadda. But while that's a noble sentiment, it's frankly completely unrealistic.

Documentaries do not, in general, do amazing business in cinemas. They are not what one would refer to as mainstream cinema. And every single one of these books is basically a documentary in comic form.

Documentaries are wonderful. I LOVE documentaries. But they are NOT mainstream. They are educational. They are thought provoking. They often tell us things about the world, and show us things about ourselves, that could not be communicated effectively by even the most accomplished fiction. But they are not mainstream.

I mean no disrespect to the creators of any of the above mentioned titles; I am not commenting on their quality. I love Maus, and Fun Home is without doubt one of the best graphic novels I have ever read. But if someone unfamiliar with comics asked me to give them something to read, the very LAST thing I would do is hand them one of these books.

Unless they REALLY REALLY liked documentaries.

I wouldn't give them a copy of Eightball either, or Hate, or an Acme Novelty Library, not even that most beloved of indy classics Love And Rockets. I would not suggest they read Goodbye Chunky Rice, even though I found it beautiful and moving. In fact, I wouldn't recommend any of the many, many, highly accomplished quirky independent "art-comix" that are often championed as being part of this "new mainstream", either.

not unless they, like me, had a fondness for quirky independent cinema.

And there's the thing- those two words, there in that last sentence: like me.

Everyone like me already reads comics.

Which is where the whole debate about "mainstream"-ness comes in... because a real gateway comic is a mainstream comic. I don't care about quality when it comes to this issue. A comic doesn't have to be good to appeal to a mass audience, any more than movies or music or prose have to be good. But it does certainly help if it's, well, mainstream... assuming that by mainstream comics we mean not superhero comics, or indy art comix, but comics that appeal to the majority of people (or would if they knew they existed). That's what "mainstream" means in every other field of entertainment, right?

Unfortunately, one could be forgiven for thinking that "mainstream comics", at present, is practically an oxymoron. Comics fandom, and to some degree the industry that caters to it, is almost as polarized as western politics right now. On one side you have the Superhero fans, with their company cross-overs and continuity porn, blindly loyal to corporate properties that were old before they were born; and on the other you have the hip indy kids, more than a few of whom are hardly kids anymore- their "underground" comics are almost as old as the Fantastic Four, and their claims of outsider cred seem more and more absurd when Graphic Novels are winning literary prizes. But this is the state of our industry now, this is what you see in the comments section of every comics news site or blog (see the links list to the left); and this is the audience that comics publishers are catering to. And so comics are by and large these ridiculously obscure creations, designed to appeal to one or the other tiny subculture... and no one else.

So is this what it boils down to? Pervert Suit Adventures versus The Lonely Death Of Got No Legs Boy? (Apologies to Warren Ellis)

Of course it isn't.

Ocean by Warren Ellis and Chris Sprouse is a genuinely mainstream comic book. It is an entertaining, self contained story with an interesting premise, that requires no more than a passing familiarity with the science fiction genre to "get it", if that. Anyone who enjoys science fiction movies, from Star Wars to Terminator, is likely to enjoy it. And that's a lot of people. Orbiter by Warren Ellis (again) and Coleen Doran fits into a similar category, although, I'd be more likely to recommend it someone who liked K-Pax or Contact than a Terminator fan. Give Me Liberty by Frank Miller and Dave Gibbons would appeal to fans of all of them. Miller's Ronin suits this demographic as well.

For people who like cop shows on TV, or gangster movies, there's plenty to choose from as well: from Fell (Ellis
again, this time with Ben Templesmith) to Sin City (Miller), via Kane (Paul Grist) and Road To Perdition (Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner). Kickback by David Lloyd is a recent work that I would particularly reccomend.

Horror fans are notoriously well catered for, from Walking Dead (Robert Kirkman and various) to 30 Days Of Night (Steve Niles and and Templesmith).

And I should probably apologize to you, dear reader, as I've no doubt that you've already heard of every one of these comics, and probably read most of them. But I'm making a point. Which is this:

There are, despite the corner we've managed to paint ourselves into, plenty of great comics out there that are truly mainstream. And I should point out that I am deliberately leaving out unwieldy longform works, like the holy trinity of Sandman, Preacher and Transmetropolitan, because I think that they are quite a commitment to ask of a new reader. It's like handing someone a boxed set of The Sopranos when all they asked for was a crime movie (Even though I know for a fact that they are more likely to entertain the average person than the latest issue of Skintight Society).

Now, this list clearly needs some romantic comedies, the most popular genre in any medium that has managed to actualy attract the attention of the real mainstream. I doubt very much that I would want to read any of them... but that's the point, isn't it? Gateway comics aren't comics that appeal to me- or you- they're comics that appeal to new readers.

...................

And well, while that's probably not the most coherent train of thought in the world, that's a pretty full summation of my opinion on "gateway" comics and the "new mainstream". So put that in yer pipe and smoke it, matey.

It's Time To Stop Being So Fucking Polite

(Originally posted at my livejournal, 6th Nov, 2007 )

This post began in my head as a result of an exchange I was involved in, in the comments section over at Comics Should Be Good, on the subject of feminism in comics culture. but while it was percolating through the layers of my sick little brain, rachel_edidin linked to this which touches on some similar thoughts, although in a more specific context....

One thing that struck me about the conversation/argument/slanging match at CSBG was the way several people who actually agreed with me took it upon themselves to attempt to chastise me for the harshness of my tone. "You'll never get anyone to change their mind with that attitude" is the basic core of the objection.

But really, that assumes willingness on the part of the person one is talking to change their mind. And as I think that little adventure made clear, this is not always the case.

I am so sick of bloody liberals.

Let me explain...

Now, I'm a lefty. When asked about my political leanings, I generally describe myself as a socialist, although I think of myself as an anarchist. Ideologically and idealistically I am both, I suppose. I would like to see humanity one day become civilised and mature enough to make an anarchist society work; 'till then, I think that socialism is the most humane and just way to run things. I suppose that in some ways this makes me a pretty traditional marxist, actually.

Here in the UK, that isn't all that unusual, although it does seem to be becoming rarer all the time. If TV and movies are anything to go by, it is somewhat more of a novelty in the US, where socialism would seem in the minds of the majority to be synonymous with communism, which itself seems generally to be equated with fascism. Socialism, then, would appear to be beyond the pale, a form of extremism. The American left is instead liberalism- which would be regarded in Europe as the centre position.

The reasons for this are of course not hard to root out, we all know about the McCarthy witch-hunts and the way they effectively silenced the left in the American media. And no matter how much work has been done to reinstate that voice in the last fifty years, it's still a game of catch up. And so the only voice with any strength to it that remains to argue with the right is the one that, traditionally, should be bridging the gap between the two and attempting to find a compromise.

And thus we begin to see just how the Western world got so badly screwed up.

The conservative element of our culture has become far too used to being able to expect it's opponents to approach any debate in the spirit of compromise. Christians feel able to claim persecution in countries where their sacred days are national holidays, and where schoolchildren are taught their holy songs as a matter of course. They feel able to claim that allowing certain members of society to have equal rights to marriage is an act of oppression.

Men feel able to claim their rights are being curtailed when they are asked not to belittle and objectify women; white people feel justified in claiming discrimination when they are asked to ensure that ethnic minorities are given equal opportunities for employment.

Why?

Because when they say these things, they are not told to shut up and stop being so bloody stupid. Because rather than standing our ground and giving not an inch, we are instead bound by doctrine to always respect our opponent's point of view.

Well, I'm sick of respecting the point of view of people who think that certain of my friends are not proper human beings.

I know right from wrong, damn it. And having confidence in my own opinion is not the same as being closed minded.

If you think it's okay to reject someone's opinion on the basis of gender, ethnicity, sexuality, social status, or any other reason save the actual substance of that opinion- then frankly, you have no right to expect anyone else to treat your own opinions with any kind of respect.

And I am sick to back teeth of being told that I need to try and compromise my beliefs in order to appease a group that has absolutely no intention of shiftng their own postion. That's how we got into this state in the first place. Look at the political stances of the main parties in the UK and US over the last thirty years. Observe how the left has crept ever closer to the right, to the point that the supposedly socialist Labour party here in the UK is now to the right of our Liberal party- while the Conservatives and Republicans haven't moved an inch.

That's where respecting the other side's opinion gets us, when they don't respect ours. When faced with an opponent whose stance is both offensive to you and essentially unchangeable, then there is no reason at all to be polite, because then all you are doing is lending credibility to their views.

The problem - as I see it - is that in the "great debate" in our society, there is a voice that has gone quiet. There is, of course, a place for liberalism, for compromise... but for compromise to have any meaning it has to be between two different things. I'm not advocating opposition without any chance for compromise, or descrimination against those whose views we don't like.

I'm saying that we should let those who actually believe that compromise is the best way- which is practically the definition of liberalism- be the ones who advocate it. If your own opinion is diametrically opposed to someone else's - as socialism is to free-market capitalism - don't waste time trying to find a middle ground yourself, someone else will do that for you. And the only way for it to be a genuine middle ground is everyone is honest about where they stand.

So if you think that health care should be offered free of charge by the government, paid for out of taxes; and if you believe that better public services are worth paying higher taxes for; and if you believe that big business cannnot be trusted to regulate itself; and if you believe in a minimum wage and the unionization of the workforce; and if you believe in the absolute seperation of church and state; then for goodness sake don't call yourself a liberal; and don't try to find a middle ground with the conservative right because there isn't one. You are a socialist. Bloody act like one. Have confidence in your beliefs; and don't worry about offending conservatives, because every thought you have offends them.

And if you do believe in compromise, in finding the middle ground- if you really are a liberal- recognise the difference between yourself and those on the left. Don't try to approach me in a debate as if we are on the same side, because we aren't. I'm over here on the left, and you're over there in the middle; and you need to work just as hard to convince me as you do to convince that bible thumping fascist on your right. Remember that.

Continuity Schmontinuity

(Originally posted at my livejournal, 16th Nov, 2007 )

Everybody at all familiar with the ins and outs the comics internet is already aware of Dick Hyacinth, I'm pretty sure. You know who he is, he's that guy who hates your blog.

Well today he posted a piece that started out being about him pruning the list of blogs he reads, but ended up being about the various types of complaint he most often sees in the comics blosmos.

I'm guilty of most of them, I think. The first and third in particular. But I'd like to think that the fifth type of complaint on his list, "fan ownership of corporate owned properties" is one that I have thus far managed to avoid.

It's not always easy, I'll admit. I've always advocating buying comics based on who writes and draws them (and colours them and letters them for that matter) rather than on the basis of which popular icon they happen to be about, but you know what? I own a Batman t-shirt, that I wear with pride. I have a batman action figure standing on a bookshelf in my living room, and I have very little interest in action figures. I dig Batman, is what I'm saying. As a concept. I think Green Lantern is pretty cool, as well.

I'll even admit to bristtling slightly at Hyacinth's comment that: "DC has never published anything remotely approaching the quality of Lee/Ditko Spider-Man and Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four".*

But I know that it's stupid. I don't buy every comic with Batman or Green Lantern in it. I buy Blue Beetle (on and off) because it's written by John Rogers, not because I liked the previous version when I was a kid. And I honestly could not tell you what the hell is going on in current DC continuity (a fact that I understand doesn't differentiate me all that greatly from an awful lot of avid DC readers, but still).

Well, all right, I know there's something big going on to do with alternate universes and stuff. But I only know that from surfing the net. And I know about the religion of crime thing, because I'm reading Greg Rucka's Question book.

In fact, the nearest I get to blind character loyalty is with The Question, but that's a subject for a blog post all it's own.

But anyway, I'm wandering away from my point. There's this one thing Hyacinth says in his piece that I think is really quite pertinent to the way the two major comics publishers are doing business right now:

"Even if all the writers and artists who had worked on Spider-Man over the years had been competent (which they haven't), Spider-Man would still be a completely broken character simply because he's appeared in hundreds and hundreds of comics over the last 45+ years."

He's absolutely right.

You know what I think? Fuck continuity. Seriously. That shit really does not matter.

It is no coincidence that the two most respected works of superhero fiction ever published- Watchmen, and The Dark Knight Returns- are both "outside continuity".** It makes them more accessable, for one thing. But more importantly, when Alan Moore sat down to write issue one of Watchmen, he didn't have to worry about whatever any hypothetical previous writer had been up to. Frank Miller did not have to explain what had happened to Robin, or tie up any dangling subplots. Neither of them had to suddenly completely alter the course of their story half way through in order to accomadate the events in someone else's book.

Now, don't get me wrong, I actually like shared universe stories. Alan Moore's ABC comics are among my favourite of his work. And I actually think that the multi-creator cross-over is a story telling method with a huge amount of potential (as yet, sadly unrealised, in my reading experience).

A little bit of continuity can be a good thing. Of course it can. But it shouldn't have to be set in stone, and rigidly adhered to at all times. If the current writer on comic A wants to continue on from where their predecessor left off, then great, they should do that. But if the next writer doesn't ... then hell, it's not exactly the end of the world, is it?

Here's the thing- what one person writes about The Skintight Gimpsuit Avenger tomorrow does not affect what Oldguy McGoldenage wrote about him twenty years ago. It doesn't matter if it's a sequel, a prequel, or a complete re-invention of the character. The original piece is not altered in any way. So it really doesn't matter whether or not I like the current run of Detective Comics. Alan Grant's run is still bloody good. I don't know if that took place in current DC continuity or not, and I don't care.

We all have our own private versions of what is and isn't "canon". And there are things we all agree to ignore, as well. If everything that's ever happened in every Marvel comic ever published is in continuity, then Spider-Man is a little old to be swinging off buildings by know, and Aunt May should be in the Guinness Book Of Records for living so long. Well, either that, or it's still nineteen sixty-something in the Marvel universe.

So, why bother with all that fussing over keeping everything in line? Apart from anything else, all this extra shit to keep track of definitely puts off readers who aren't prepared to buy every single comic put out by a specific publisher. And it seems to distract those who do from the quality of the work, too. I've heard quite a bit about Warren Ellis' Thunderbolts comic around the net. Pretty much all of it has to do with people's opinions on the character Penance, though, so I have no idea if people thought the comic was actually any good. I'm betting it's probably not bad, what with it being written by Ellis, but I also know that it is connected in some way to Civil War. I'll give you three guesses how that affected my purchasing decision.

Oh fuck it. I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say, and I need to get back to work.

So I'll leave you with this: Once again, FUCK CONITNUITY. When working with pretty much every single intellectual property franchise outside of the American comics industry, from James Bond to Sherlock Holmes, each new writer takes what they want from the earlier works, and discards the rest. The average movie goer doesn't bat an eye when James Bond's hair changes colour- why can't we apply that aproach to super hero comics?

*because OH MY GOD DC PUBLISHED WATCHMEN AND DARK KNIGHT RETURNS AND RONIN AND PLANETARY O'NEILL AND COWAN'S QUESTION AND AND AND ANDANDAND

**Or at least, they were when they were published, I understand that's under review at present.

Here's the first few pages of my webcomic, Damnation, which you can read the rest of (at least, up to page 32) by following the link above.

Crossposted From My LiveJournal

So, It's midnight here in 'orrible old Blighty, so it's Friday as far as I'm concerned. It may still be Thursday in Yankyland, but I don't care. I say it's Friday and so you will have page 32 NOW, not later! SUFFER, FOOLS:


.....

So, you know what I've been thinking about a lot lately? Green Lantern.

It all started after a little exchange with a rather famous and monstrously talented artist in the comments a week or two ago. Basically, jacen said that Green Lantern was an inherently silly idea. Now, he's got a point, at least in terms of how the character has been presented up untill now. And, as anyone who reads this journal regularly will now, I'm a Green Lantern fan. But even I can see the silliness when you have a guy in a green leotard fighting bankrobbers with a giant floating boxing glove.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

Now, obviously, I've been thinking about how I would handle the character, given the chance. And I think there's the pontential for something considerably wierder. I mean, here's a guy who wears a ring that basically makes him able to manifest anything that comes into his head. The way I see it, after a little while, anyone wearing that ring would become like a kind of mini-god, maybe not omniscient, but sure as hell omnipotent.

Think about it this way: a character who shapes the world as he (or she) passes through it, remoulding it in his or her own mental image; surrounded by fleeting phantoms manifested from their own subconscious. A localised god, tasked by wierd little blue space fascists with maintaining order on our world, and in our solar system. A green Dr. Manhattan, but with the temporal issues swapped for job dis-satisfaction...

Now that could make for a very interesting comic.

.....

Three other things:

1) I note that I am able to view this journal from any computer without having to promise that I'm not under fourteen. So, either nobody reads this thing, or those that do don't mind a few swear words. Or maybe the Judges have yet to pounce.

2) alandaviddoane has hurt his hand, and the blogo[insert word for universe here] is poorer for it. I hope it gets better soon, man.

3) I got book two of New Frontier. I'll probably write a review one of these nights.