RE: Eric Stephenson VS Everyone Else (Or Just About)

 Eric Stephenson, current publisher of IMAGE comics, recently addressed retailers through ComicsPro, delivering a long speech about the importance of the direct market, and the future of the industry and the direction he believes it should take.  There is some good stuff in there and I agree with a lot of what Stephenson says, particularly in relation to courting the growing female readership; publishers should take note of that; and he's obviously really passionate about comics as a medium and about storytelling as a form, which are feelings I share...but there is something about his speech that just does not sit right with me; his simplistic, and actually pretty insulting, view that licensed or work-for-hire comics aren't "real."

"One of the first things we need to do is stop looking at the comics market as the “big two” or the “big three.”

There are only two kinds of comics that matter: good comics and bad comics.


Read More: Image Publisher Eric Stephenson's Address to Comic Retailers | http://comicsalliance.com/image-publisher-eric-stephenson-comicspro-transcript-speech-2014/?trackback=tsmclip

"One of the first things we need to do is stop looking at the comics market as the “big two” or the “big three.”

There are only two kinds of comics that matter: good comics and bad comics.

Everything else should be irrelevant."

One of the first things we need to do is stop looking at the comics market as the “big two” or the “big three.”

Read More: Image Publisher Eric Stephenson's Address to Comic Retailers | http://comicsalliance.com/image-publisher-eric-stephenson-comicspro-transcript-speech-2014/?trackback=tsmclip

One of the first things we need to do is stop looking at the comics market as the “big two” or the “big three.”

There are only two kinds of comics that matter: good comics and bad comics.


Read More: Image Publisher Eric Stephenson's Address to Comic Retailers | http://comicsalliance.com/image-publisher-eric-stephenson-comicspro-transcript-speech-2014/?trackback=tsmclip

One of the first things we need to do is stop looking at the comics market as the “big two” or the “big three.”

There are only two kinds of comics that matter: good comics and bad comics.


Read More: Image Publisher Eric Stephenson's Address to Comic Retailers | http://comicsalliance.com/image-publisher-eric-stephenson-comicspro-transcript-speech-2014/?trackback=tsmclip

Stephenson breaks it down to a very objectivist point of view: comics should only be treated as good comics or bad comics, which, from a reader and a retail perspective, is admittedly not that far off base...the easiest product to sell is a good product, to be sure. 

But later on he comments:


"If we seriously want to expand the marketplace and appeal to new readers, different readers, we can only do that by developing new things that only exist in our market.


While the rest of the entertainment industry lays back in the cut and churns out sequel after remake after reboot after sequel, we need to be on the frontline with the biggest, boldest, and best of the new ideas that will keep this industry healthy and strong for years to come.

Let the rest of the world come to US – let them make movies and TV shows and toys and cartoons based on what WE do.

Their dearth of ideas and their continued fascination with our unbridled creativity will only make us stronger.

THE WALKING DEAD is proof of this.

Like I said, THE WALKING DEAD comic book was selling great before it was a television show.

Now it sells even better.

And that’s because the show made people aware of the comic – and those people came to your stores to get that comic.

Because they want the real thing.

TRANSFORMERS comics will never be the real thing.

GI JOE comics will never be the real thing.

STAR WARS comics will never be the real thing.

Those comics are for fans that love the real thing so much, they want more – but there’s the important thing to understand:

They don’t want more comics – they just want more of the thing they love."


 There is a lot about this I have a problem with.  It's both dismissive of the creators that work on them, and dismissive of the readers that buy them...readers that, theoretically, Stephenson would like to buy his books, and even the example he sites of THE WALKING DEAD is smug and undermines his point.

Now, he's not completely wrong...comics as a market is broken down into two big publishers, and those publishers are feeding on a shrinking market, and have not had the greatest success growing their readership despite great success in other media.  I lover superhero comics, but it is often a lot of the same shit, a lot of stunts, and a lot of event books designed to get my money, and I do admittedly fall into that trap.

But if the only thing that is important is if a comic is "good or bad" then why attach the caveat that it must also be creator owned or "indy" to be worthwhile?  Is Stephenson suggesting that you cannot bring novelty to a licensed book?  That you cannot find a superhero book meaningful?  That's remarkable insulting to both the work-for-hire creators and the audience of those book.  Darkhorse has produced some literally great STAR WARS comics in their long relationship with the franchise, and those creators lovingly craft stories that they care about and that bring novelty to a world that they do not own.  Marvel of late has taken to allowing creators to put their own distinct mark on the characters they own which has been met with great success on titles such as HAWKEYE, SUPERIOR FOES OF SPIDER-MAN, and SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN.  Are those books less "real" or worthwhile?  Is the readership of those books less intelligent or critical?

IMAGE isn't "indy."  While IMAGE should be commended for the chances it's taken and the talent it's fostered, and has had a few Cinderella stories (such as Robert Kirkman), that is not the norm...many of IMAGE's biggest successes are with vanity projects helmed by name creators who work for the same big name publishers he decries.  SAGA is not a Cinderella story...Brian K. Vaughn was a popular writer with a series of proven hits under his belt.  IMAGE didn't take a chance on him.  IMAGE is just as concerned with the bottom line as any other corporate entity, and pissing on the work of the people that they potentially publish one day seems like bad business.

Also, how do you think that the creators at IMAGE pay their bills?  Even SAGA probably isn't Brian K. Vaughn's chief source of income...he's writes for TV.  MORNING GLORIES probably isn't paying Nick Spencer's bills...SUPERIOR FOES OF SPIDER-MAN probably is, and both are great books filled with novelty...but the latter is somehow less real a creation?  I just don't buy that.

Also, it's very smug to cite THE WALKING DEAD as being more real because it's a book with a TV show based on it, rather than a book based on a TV show, because (1) not many creator owned books get TV shows, and (2) while THE WALKING DEAD probably sold pretty good before TV show, I guarantee that it's success now owes a lot to the media exposure of a hit TV show.  THE WALKING DEAD was not selling to non-comics readers before it was on AMC.  Now it is...because "they want more of the thing that they love," to use Stephenson's own words.  Yet, somehow, those readers and the success of that media crossover are more "real" than, say, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER season 8?



From the retail perspective, sure...it's a great thing to push books you like, and it'd be great to have audiences expand their horizons, but I'm not entirely sure the public has made up their minds about superheroes (as Stephenson also states in his speech)...I think the public has made up their mind about COMICS.  Non-comic readers do not walk into comic stores saying, "I've run out of novels to read...what have you got for me?"  Do you know what brings a non-comic reader into a store?  BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER seasons 8 and up.  Do you know what happens when that non-comic reader does when they run out of BUFFY to read?  They ask if there is anything similar to BUFFY.  I've had this interaction time and again with people, and I've directed them to other books...sometimes IMAGE books, if they fall into the area of interest of the reader.

Here's a personal anecdote some people have most probably experienced; I read comics at work sometimes, and my co-workers express surprise and bemusement.  And I will go on to explain that comics are not just superheroes...I often read manga at work.  I explained the premise of Takehiko Inoue's REAL to a co-worker...wheelchair basketball being about as far from superhero comics as you can get.  One of my co-workers likes TWILIGHT, so I lent her a book in a similar vein (ha ha!), which I enjoy and think is superior to TWILIGHT, and she has yet to read it...because it is a comic.  She doesn't understand comics, and has a pre-conceived idea of comics as not being "real"...and this is coming from someone that considers TWILIGHT a literary masterpiece.  To people outside of comics it's not superheroes or licensed books that aren't "real"...it's COMICS that aren't "real."

Licensed books and superheroes are not the thing that keeps comics from gaining new readership.  The North American attitude towards comics as being "not real" is still very much the public perception; unlike in Europe and especially Japan where comics are as real as any other book, and as legitimate both an artform and source of entertainment; but that perception is slowly changing.  That has a lot to do with these license tie-ins and the success of superhero movies.  They do, in fact, bring people into stores...just not in droves.  Public perception is not going to change overnight. 

The trick is exploit that interest to divert these new, virgin, readers into other books.  It is to take the fans of BUFFY or the Marvel movies and turn them from tourists into comicbook readers.  And telling them that they are not "real" is not the way to do that.  If you treat them as tourists and their interests with derision, chances are they will not visit you again.

And that's the "real" problem.