Kirkman's Cruise to Save Comics

I realize this was a while ago, and most people have already read this, but I wanted to weigh in my opinions on Kirkman's controversial claims about creator-owned work in the industry. Not necessarily because he's wrong, but because his argument is very very scatter-brained and he misses the mark on some issues.

If you haven't seen his editorial, watch it here.

First, being the feisty guy I am, I'm going to pick his argument apart, piece by piece.

"If you give people the option of Spider-Man or your creator-owned book... they'll choose Spider-Man, that's something time-tested versus something new. New has to be the only option."

I'm not really sure about this. Walk into your average comic book store.

And when I say average, I mean AVERAGE. Not the hip trendy store downtown where all the employees are cute girls that like indie rock or the stores with couches and lounges in them and have every Top Shelf book on display.

I mean the ones that have giant statues of Spider-Man and don't even a trade paperback section yet.

In most of these stores, most people don't even follow the creative teams involved. They just buy books with their favorite characters in them. I highly doubt sales of Matt Fraction's CASANOVA would be at all affected by him dropping his Marvel duties on INVINCIBLE IRON MAN or UNCANNY X-MEN. Even if you wrote "From the writer of all your favorite Marvel books!" on the cover.

"If that results in a mass exodus of creators leaving Marvel and DC, don't panic guys, I love their books as much as everyone else -- nobody wants to hurt them in the process. Look at it like an opportunity, that's the time for Marvel and DC to step up the plate and make their comics viable for a whole new generation. Less continuity, more accessible stories -- not made for kids, but appropriate for kids. Books that would appeal to everyone still reading comics, but would also appeal to the average 13 year old too. "

Would this really result in a creative resurgence at Marvel or DC? Let's look at some historical examples.

Let's roll back five years. Ed Brubaker was introducing new readers to Selina Kyle in his reboot of CATWOMAN and at the same time, along with Greg Rucka, was giving us a gritty detective drama very much akin to TV shows like NYPD Blue or Hill Street Blues on GOTHAM CENTRAL.

Mark Millar made a Superman fan out of me (and many others) in SUPERMAN: RED SON.

Brubaker, Millar, AND Warren Ellis were all doing incredibly provocative work at DC's child, Wildstorm.

Then they all left to do work at Marvel. And what happened to the DC Universe?

INFINITE CRISIS, COUNTDOWN, DEATH OF THE NEW GODS, and now FINAL CRISIS. Heavily continuity-driven books that were very unfriendly to new readers.

Let's go back even further, to the entrance into the 90's. Nearly every major name creator, from Jim Lee to Alan Moore, had all left the big two to do work at Image, Dark Horse, or other independent companies.

What happened to the books at the Big Two?

The Death of Superman happened, along with a billion other superhero deaths. And crossovers.

I think Kirkman is way wrong on this point. I think most of history has shown us the opposite - that when the good creators leave, quality and accessibility of the books goes way down.

In some ways he's correct, in that some of the books that really appealed to all ages were ones in which DC or Marvel were taking big chances on new talent. Bendis was a no-name indie guy when he was given ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN, and now, everybody in the last 6 years swears it's what got them reading comics again.

But there's two points that need to be considered with that: 1) That all-ages accessibility is really a prerogative of the editors more than anything. DC editors don't seem to care much for that at the moment. 2) It usually takes several years for the company to get desperate enough to take chances with no-name talent.

"A comic industry where there are more original comics, so there's more new ideas, more creator-owned books by totally awesome guys that are selling a ton of books. Those books are mature and complex and appeal to our aging audience that I count myself among who are keeping this business alive. And we also have a revitalized Marvel and DC who are selling comics to a much wider audience than ever before. And that audience, as they age, may get turned on to some awesome creator-owned work eventually. So everyone is happy."

Kirkman envisions a kind of creative renaissance in comics due to an exodus. I think what's more likely to happen is that many of the creators would flop like fish out of water. Most comic readers don't take chances on buying new creator-owned books until at least a trade is put out, so many of them would suffer financially almost immediately. Most of them would just go back to working at the Big Two right away. Marvel and DC can hold their breath much longer than the creators can, and it would take a long time to erode the market to the point where buyers HAVE to buy creator-owned work in order to read something good.

--

It seems like I'm being really negative about creators in this. I really don't want to appear that way at all. I love creator-owned work and actually prefer reading it much more to the usual monthly titles on Marvel or DC.

I will even agree on the point that most writers at Marvel and DC should be doing much more creator-owned work. I would love to see awesome writers like Matt Fraction, Grant Morrison, Jason Aaron, Brian Bendis, and Peter David have AT LEAST as much creator-owned work being published as corporate work.

And Kirkman pointed out one thing that's really critical and misrepresented - while most creator-owned work isn't profitable, it has the potential to be INCREDIBLY profitable, more lucrative than any high paying job at Marvel.

The biggest selling blockbuster comic at Marvel is usually a crossover issue, and that usually hits about 250,000 copies. The average #1 during a non-summer crossover month is around 110,000 copies. And even if you had a big seller like this, most of the profit goes to Marvel, the real owner of all of the characters.

But did you know that there are still comics that sell in the MILLIONS? They're not making it on the Diamond lists, but that doesn't mean they don't fly off of bookstore shelves. Comics like Jeff Smith's BONE, Chris Ware's JIMMY CORRIGAN, Marjane Satrapi's PERSEPOLIS, and Craig Thompson's BLANKETS are all huge worldwide sellers, with some of these selling multiple million copies.

So it's possible to sell ten times the copies of a hit Marvel comic, while at the same time, getting a much bigger profit share. Ever since launching the Millarworld comics, Mark Millar has probably been driving Ferraris.

Do the math. All the wealthiest in the industry own their own creations. So while Kirkman may be wrong about EVERY creator, he's right in that there are a few more that would be able to launch a book that critics adore and at the same time puts a Ferrari in the garage.