Comic Book Resources

"(And this one actually made Julie laugh out loud.)"

...thank you?

She thought it was sweet, Rachel, and a nice change of pace from all the other, more hysterical link entries we were seeing. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.

See, this is why I'm not an editor.

Geez, Greg. That was GREAT.

The main obstacle preventing "real" news is access. And I don't mean that the reporters wouldn't be able to get it, more that the comics companies would then remove all access to their artwork, exclusive creators, etc to any journalist willing to make a stand. It's largely the same in the genre magazine business, the wrestling magazine business, and just about any form of commercial enterprise that relies on access to trademarked and protected sources.

And ain't that a sad thing?

Well said again, Greg. That's two whoppers on two consecutive Fridays. How are you going to top it next week?

Do I dare say it?

Okay, why not...

We may not be the news, but at least we are fair & balanced! I like to think of us as the Daily Show of Comics. (In fact, its all part of my nightly routine... Stewart, Colbert & Hatcher. Wait, you and Cronin are the same guy, right? And Joe Rice is your evil indie twin!)

How are you going to top it next week?

I never know that until Tuesday or Wednesday. But I am going to think of something less grim for a topic, I promise. This current-events crap is taking too much out of me. The news game is for someone younger and less emotionally invested in the subject than I am.

Greg: "This current-events crap is taking too much out of me."

I can tell. That's why I deleted all but the first line of my reply. I had really interesting things to say, though!

Your mention of Murrow, and having recently watched "Good Night, and Good Luck", brought his 1958 speech to the Radio-Television News Directors Association & Foundation to mind:

"Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live."

"I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could." (Full speech text at http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/hiddenagenda/murrow.html)

I can get caught up in thinking about the need for real comics journalism and being outraged by the lack of it when I'm reading the more industry-savvy sites of the blogosphere like The Beat, Occasional Superheroine, The Comics Reporter, or those that dabble in commentary like Eye on Comics or Rich Johnston & the CSBG crew here. Usually though, a trip to my LCS will cause me to realize that what seems like a critical mass of fandom while I'm online is actually a drop in the bucket of actual comics readers. The majority of people buying comics and therefore supporting the industry are not interested in or do not have the time to dig into these dramas or the personal experiences of the men & women who create, produce & distribute their hobby. They are spending their money for escapist fiction. They want books that they subjectively deem to be good. They don't have the time, money or interest to read real journalism about the industry, online or in print. Hell, we've all been trained to not expect real investigation of life & death matters by "news" in other media. Is it surprising that people aren't looking for it about their superhero comics?

I've noticed this in another industry whose geeky product I'm a fan of - professional wrestling. Online outlets & "smarks" can rage about an angle or a guy they don't like, but that doesn't effect overall WWE revenues or live audience reaction to any great degree. It's important to remember that while the internet is "free", there are still barriers such as free time, money and education. Not only is the internet audience smaller than the general audience for real-world product, but it's an audience that has different needs and interests.

I don't intend any of this to be a knock on the masses, I just find it interesting. Items like those coming out regarding DC and well written pieces like Greg's pique that interest. For me, it just helps to remind myself that the opinions and thoughts of the fifty-or-so people I read online aren't necessarily speaking for all of comics' fandom.

And, oh yeah, Secret Invasion is teh suk. Fire Didio!

Haven't been to overly impressed with DCU recently, whether that's the Didiot's fault or not, remains to be seen.

If this CBR's not reporting news, then what do you call all the editorializations and opinions?
Gossip?

Well meanings?

"At this point, they seem to have just given up any hope of a PR strategy other than silently hunkering down and waiting for it to be over."

Not in any way surprising, given that this is the preferred nerd method of handling any uncomfortable situation.

I'm thinking next week you should write an in-depth comparison of Monster Island and Dinosaur Island, or maybe Skartaris and the Savage Land.

>"People don’t want news."

Bingo. Have you been on a comic book message board lately? Most posters are to busy trying to figure out who is a skrull, how Donna Troy's costume doesn't look the same in Countdown and Titans, or creating their own "dream team Avengers" while telling everyone else that their dream team sucks. Nothing wrong with that really -- escapism is grand -- but they're certainly missing the bigger picture.

The best example (which you used) is the recent Siegel family court business and the unfortunately large number of fans who were mortified that this could affect their weekly dose of Superman comics. I can't help but think that that attitude is selfish. I'm a huge Batman fan, but I would be willing to forgo the future publication of Batman comics just so Bill Finger could receive the proper credit and his family (does he have family?) receive the proper compensation that has been denied to him for seventy years. There's plenty of material out there to sustain the character for decades.

Why? Because I've enjoyed Batman since I was three years old and the man deserves recognition and compensation FAR more than I "need" new Batman comics.

...but many other fans would completely disagree with me. After all, they wouldn't be able to put Batman in their "dream team" Avengers.

>>“At this point, they seem to have just given up any hope of a PR strategy other than silently hunkering down and waiting for it to be over.”
>"Not in any way surprising, given that this is the preferred nerd method of handling any uncomfortable situation."

There is not enough words to describe how awesome this comment was.

"At this point, they seem to have just given up any hope of a PR strategy other than silently hunkering down and waiting for it to be over."

Probably because they know that a week from now half the bloggers will be talking about the next Mary-Jane Statue or a Playboy cover.

This whole thing reminds me of political Pundits during the primaries. They dissect every poll, every word from the lips of Obama, Clinton, McCain, every action, every gaff, every time someone resigns. Much of the time they were much but they were wrong as many times. Clinton was a shoo-in for the nomination, Obama didn't have a chance in hell and McCain's campaign was in shambles with his staff quiting left and right. Yet here we are.
After a while you get the feeling that these things are a lot more important to those pundits than your average voter. These things are more important to the bloggers and the fraction of fandom who actually go online, than your average reader. I have never ever discussed Dan Didio or Joe Quesada at a comic store. I have discussed good books and bad books which is what fans care about.

These things are more important to the bloggers and the fraction of fandom who actually go online, than your average reader.

They're also important to the creators and employees they're happening to. And those are the people that produce your good books and bad books.

My feeling is that more transparency in publisher's dealings with the people that work for them would, overall, probably give us better comics. But they're never going to volunteer for that. They need an active press presence of some kind to push them there.

I think your comments Greg are again on the mark.

No one actually reports comics 'news' anymore. The interviews with creative personnel you see on CBR and Newsarama are e-mail exchanges that have to be signed off by the publishers. In fact Morrison's drift off the reservation a couple of weeks ago is the exception that proves the rule. And if the publishers don't like the coverage, they can restrict access: two years ago, Marvel and Newsarama were best buds; Joe Quesada was doing a regular feature there and had stuff all the time. Now, there's hardly any Marvel items at all (or at least not at the same level there had been), Joe still publishes QandA but on Marvel's myspace page. So much of the news that exists are, essentially, infomercials for the publisher.

Secondly you nailed it: the audience doesn't really want it. I just about went nuclear on Occasional Superheroine a couple of months ago when a fan said of the Siegel suit "those heirs probably never even met Siegel"-- ignoring the fundamental fact that the plaintiffs are Siegel's 80 year-old wife and his daughter. Why care about the facts when you can have a knee-jerk reaction instead?

First off fantastic article Greg. I'm halfway through "The Big Picture" by Edward Jay Epstein, which talks about in great detail about the moviemaking business. There is a lot of detail about how the studios in congress with the stars massage much of the news that reaches people to create a healthier and more exciting image. An actor says he does all his stunts when its obvious that they could never cover the insurance to do so.

I don't think it's essentially an issue with comics journalism, but more of a case with entertainment journalism. It's mostly toothless. There most fierce thing I saw recently, was an article were people were shit talking Mike Myers, but the only reason they could was because he had no power left in Hollywood, especially after the Love Guru bombs this weekend.

I think as long as people follow the model of entertainment journalism in regards to comics journalism, it will remain as ineffective as Access Hollywood is about breaking real stories. Even "serious" entertainment journalism is more obsessed with numbers, something that certain creators get frustrated about. I've seen creators complain about people focusing on how much a book sells instead of looking at the critical material. Several feel that we should only be discussing comics critically and that its none of our business to talk about them outside of the light news and press releases.

I just don't know if it's reasonable to expect hard hitting journalism in a media that's starting to get it's act together when all the other ones that do have their act together are badly reported on.

If this CBR’s not reporting news, then what do you call all the editorializations and opinions?
Gossip?

You said it yourself. Opinion, not news. "Op-Ed," as they say in the newspaper business.

"They’re also important to the creators and employees they’re happening to. And those are the people that produce your good books and bad books.

My feeling is that more transparency in publisher’s dealings with the people that work for them would, overall, probably give us better comics. But they’re never going to volunteer for that. They need an active press presence of some kind to push them there."

I agree. I'm saying it doesn't matter to Joe Comic book reader because most of us are not creators or employees. Most people don't care about the nitty-gritty aspects of the business. More transparency is needed and I feel it should come from guys like CBR and 'Rama. They are the most popular sites(I think) and we should force them to cover real news not just previews, interviews and hype(although I love those things). I was on CBR and "Rama for two years before I even heard about TCJ.
Also, the guys that are more or less the real journalists should make their news more accessible by guys like me. A lot of times it seems like they write for their colleagues who already know this stuff.

To use a very sad example, when people were talking about Tim Russet's life, almost everybody mentioned his ability to make people understand the political situations. He didn't talk like everyone was a Washington insider. After the Superman ruling I had know idea what anything meant but most people who did know were too busy talking among themselves. At least until Jeff Taxer started making things simple.

just a random comment...
red ricky said he sees you guys as the daily show of comics. i think that's part of the problem
there are too many people who take the daily show as complete reality. it's supposed to be satirical, but there are people who decide to make it one hundred percent their opinion. For teenagers, it's sometimes the only news they even see.
This is really the main comic site i read, because it's fun, but everything is taken with a grain of salt. If people begin to take this too literally, it all hurts the comics medium in general.
This was a fantastic post though, as was your last one.
D

Wonderful columns both weeks, Greg. I'm an editor at a music industry publication--primarily for people who care about the business issues, not for general consumers--so I take your points about both editors' responsibilities and industry journalism very much to heart. As a comics blogger/podcaster I focus more on the goofy fan stuff, because I don't have access in this industry--but it's also why I look long and hard on the internet daily for any kind of industry analysis I can find. I can't really separate being a fan from wanting to understand how the objects of my fandom are created from a practical and decency standpoint. if someone were to fund a dedicated investigative outfit, I'd pester them to death to be a part of it.

I think a big factor is, though, that you need *industry* people to see the value in serious, objective industry analysis. The publishers and distributors and retailers need to believe that their business will be better and more informed because of it--it can't just be an assumed adversarial relationship, because then yes, the access to the things that fans care about would be cut off. They need to see that if they are forced to be more transparent, they will produce a better product with a happier workforce. I believe this is true--even in the often-bordering-on-evilish music industry, in-depth analysis of what's right and wrong with major record labels has led to an unprecedented age of indie success, where artists are taking control of their destinies.

I love the Marvel and DC universes specifically because they're so big--they have the reach and weight to create a wonderful and dynamic history of expansive, intertwined stories. I would be kind of sad if everything went indie and fully creator-owned, to be honest. So like you, I'd love to see a publisher like DC get its act together before it goes the way of Warner's recorded music arm.

Another great column, Greg.

Another excellent column, Greg. I agree that we need more journalism in comics-- I'm fed up with the softball questions that make all interviews read exactly the same. Some of these reporters are given gigantic windows of opportunity to ask some harder questions and never pounce on them. Comics reporting shouldn't be about holding hands with the industry and skipping down the lane.

Comic books aren't the only place to have this problem. Any area where you have a large group of fanatics the "reporting" is a joke. Video game reviews and reporting, to use an obvious example, is such a nest of vipers that none of it is usable. And you're right that the masses don't want anything resembling accuracy or interesting reporting; they want their viewpoints confirmed, to be told that what they're being sold on is going to be the greatest ever, that being part of that is the greatest thing ever, and so on. With the Internet there's nothing to stop it; anyone who dares be confrontational gets cut off and the readers go elsewhere. The only way to fix it would be for readers to stop tolerating it and I don't see that happening.

We may not be the news, but at least we are fair & balanced! I like to think of us as the Daily Show of Comics. (In fact, its all part of my nightly routine… Stewart, Colbert & Hatcher. Wait, you and Cronin are the same guy, right? And Joe Rice is your evil indie twin!)

Hahahaha, Daily Show fair and balanced? Yeah, whatever...

Honestly, I think too much transparency may actually be the problem, and I think having even more may make it even worse. Imagine how the Marvel Age of Comics or the Weisinger era of Superman would have been if readers were privy to all the abuse Weisinger was heaping on people or what a tyrant he was. Or if people knew all the internal squabbles between Stan, Jack and Steve over at Marvel when they were creating the best superhero comics ever? It would have probably really ruined enjoyment of those stories as the backstage drama would have eclipsed the great stories and art.

But then again, more transparency in the area of good news reporting may have caused better treatment of Seigel and Shuster and Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko thanks to the public shaming that would have occurred. So there are pros too.

"See, a short time after last week’s column went up, I started to get e-mail from people in the business who didn’t want to be ’seen’ in the comments section. “Gotta tell you, off the record, you really nailed it, it’s a mess up there.” And others, from folks whose job is to cover the business of comics. “Glad SOMEBODY in the press finally wrote about this. It’s a story that needs to be told. I’m just not in a position to do it. I’d lose my job.” Or “my access.” Or in one case, “my partner.” Whatever. Fill in the blank."

Stand up and be counted, or forever be lame. If you won't say it on the record, you are lame. Anonymous sniping is akin to being an internet whiner hiding behind a sock puppet.

And whatever happened to "professional ethics"? If you are employed by a company, you are obligated to support that company (unless they are involved in illegal activities). If you don't like it where you are, move on.

"The latest is this Chuck Dixon flap, and once again let me remind all of you that Mr. Dixon exercised amazing restraint. ... Dixon kept his comments short and to the point, and he only showed up here in the first place because he wanted people to know that the editors I named in the column were not responsible for his firing. To me that’s showing integrity, especially considering he’s defending his former co-workers at a company whose direction he clearly disagrees with."

I disagree. He should have said nothing. Now he is lost to DC forever. He's already lost to Marvel. He'll soon run out of places to write comics.

And it doesn't matter if he disagrees with the direction the company is taking. He's just an employee. If he doesn't like it, move on, only in this case they made the move for him.

Goodbye to Comics was obviously a personal vendetta, and the obvious bias is still rampant at that site today. It's just a DC hater hating on DC.

In such a small industry, one that may very well be gone in 8 years, there is no publication that would be willing to pay a full time investigative reporter. To get anybody good enough to do an acceptable job, you'd have to pay them a real wage plus expenses. Gasoline costs if they drive to a convention, air fare if they fly, recording devices, notepads, pens or pencils, telephone costs. It could easily add up to $50,000 a year. All for what? So we could know when DiDio took time to clip his fingernails?

Goodbye to Comics was obviously a personal vendetta, and the obvious bias is still rampant at that site today. It’s just a DC hater hating on DC.

I can understand if DC was doing great or garnering critical acclaim yet this site was just harping on him incessantly. That, indeed, would be just unfair hating. But dude...DUDE...have you SEEN the latest sales figures? Have you read the griping on the DC Message Boards? On the rest of the internet? The critical bashings (with the exception of Sinestro Corps)? I think this column is just representing a large segment of the fanbase based on sales and critical response to DC comics lately. If anything, this site has been one of the most restrained and level-headed criticisms of Didio's DC given what I've seen elsewhere.

I disagree. He should have said nothing. Now he is lost to DC forever.

Well, probably as long as the current editorial/administrative regime is in power at DC.

Which is... probably not gonna be forever.

Jeez, Alan, people still gotta eat. If all they know is comics, and the pool of opportunities is drying up from no shortcoming of their own, what's them sorting through their intuitions over what needs to be done to you? With no sense of irony, it takes you 4 posts in 17 minutes to complain about the whining of others. If you don't like it, you can turn off the computer.

I'm assuming that Alan has never had to look for a job. Or else he would know that it isn't as easy as saying so to get a new one.

Theno

Alan:

"And whatever happened to “professional ethics”? If you are employed by a company, you are obligated to support that company (unless they are involved in illegal activities). If you don’t like it where you are, move on."

And if that company doesn't pay you for your services and disappears with your work? Are you supposed to support the parties behind that company, or are you to be seeking recompensation or the return of your works?

If a company editor or representative blatantly lies to you in written communications and it leads to your being denied work or the cancellation of work you had in development with the company and that costs you income, are you just supposed to grin and nod and say everything's hunky-dory?

Company support extends only as far as the equitable and respectful treatment it offers to its employees, or even their potential employees.

Hahahaha, Daily Show fair and balanced?

But that's why you should watch the Colbert Report! So that you can contrarrest Stewart's Pro-Terrorist Agenda!

In any case, I was thinking about CSBG being fair & balanced. Which, you know... I guess could be proved if somebody would just post something positive about Hush in the Bazooka Joe thread I saw a couple of days ago.

Mmm... anybody?

Another great column, as always.

I didn't feel that it was my place to "weigh in" on the issue, especially as last week's column expressed my views so perfectly. I mean, for God's sake, if publishing companies want to be around well into the remainder of this century, they had BETTER get their shit together.

And Chuck Dixon's comments made me laugh so hard. It's funny only because it's so true. He's what the old time comics guys considered a consummate professional. A true mensch, as well.

Unfortunately, some fans see any talk about the bitter and ugly truths of the industry as threatening their future enjoyment of superhero stories. These people bashed on the Siegels and Shusters because they feared not being able to read more Superman! Reality check: Superman's NOT REAL. The Siegel and Shuster families are, and they deserved they just compensations for their grandparents work.

There was a time when comics writers and artists were treated worse than the checkout girls at Walmart. Fortunately, they now receive something akin to a more appropriate level of compensation for their extremely creative efforts. However, when we find that the industry is in danger of backslading towards the bad old days of stolen credit, lower than living wages, and artists struggling to feed their families, then it's our responsibility to respond to the companies perpetrating such injustices. To say, "no more". Unfortunately, we don't live in that kind of a society - at least not in the United States, and big business is still able to walk all over the little guy.

However, when actual change has happened, historically it's been on account of the press. The press forces those who feel themselves aloof from the masses to face accountability for their actions. Had there been a bona-fide comics press, Time-Warner's stock would have taken a hit last week with the news of Chuck Dixon's dismissal. As there isn't, it was able to ride it out as if nothing had happened. People don't count unless the media MAKES them count. Greg did that last week. Sadly, others spent their time opining that Chuck Dixon was a whiny, greedy bastard. For shame.

Again, comics aren't important. They're fun, but they're not important. PEOPLE are important. And when the comics companies shit on their employees, they disgrace their entire line of publications. It lessens my enjoyment of comics to know that their publishing company cares so little for the talent it employs. Par example, DC recently taking a massive bowel movement (excuse my purple prose) on the legacy left to them by Jack Kirby. Had Kirby's heirs had proprietary rights to his creations, such a travesty would never have occurred. Unfortunately, it's rare for creators to get such rights, even when they are as talented as Kirby. If creators were able to retain some sort of control over the manner in which their creations were used, we as fans would probably be subjected to fewer crappy stories.

Last week's events should be a wake-up call. The time is ripe for a paradigm shift. It is time to give creators more control over their properties. Maybe then we'll see some sort of change.

Until then, keep fighting the good fight.

Such a long post is bound to have some typos. Please excuse them.

(deserved THEIR just
grandparents'
backsliding)

He should have said nothing. Now he is lost to DC forever. He’s already lost to Marvel.

Well, I'm not up to date on the history of Chuck Dixon; but why is he lost to Marvel?

I mean, I think he worked on the Punisher during the 80's... By your tone, I take it he left under bad terms?

Does anybody know what happened? I mean, considering it was like... 20 years ago, and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet.

Goodbye to Comics was obviously a personal vendetta, and the obvious bias is still rampant at that site today. It’s just a DC hater hating on DC.

That raises a painfully obvious question; why does the author hold such hatred for DC? Is it perhaps justified? Is the author "hating on DC" just to be controversial and edgy, or could it perhaps be because the author was treated shamefully by DC while employed there?

Absent context, your statement is meaningless.

One thing I've learned in the last year or so that I've been involved with UNSCREWED is that there are a LOT of people in comics who have put up with a lot of crap and kept silent. It's comments like yours that put them in the position of believing that "sucking it up and taking the abuse" is better than being painted as "haters."

Had I the time and qualifications, this column would compel me to start a news column at UNSCREWED focused entirely on the backstage abuses that fuel situations like this. Good job, Greg!

Hey, to be fair, it's been almost a year solid of "ho ho ho, nudge nudge, the fans sure do hate DiDio and everything we've done lately" from DC's promotional fluff.

Bright-Raven asked: "And if that company doesn’t pay you for your services and disappears with your work? Are you supposed to support the parties behind that company, or are you to be seeking recompensation or the return of your works?"
--------------------

At that point, the company has acted illegally. You no longer owe them support. Whether you sue them to get the money you are owed, or show up at their door with a baseball bat is up to you.

Thenodrin said: "I’m assuming that Alan has never had to look for a job. Or else he would know that it isn’t as easy as saying so to get a new one."
________________________

Let me look at my most recent paycheck stub. Oh, yeah, the last day I worked was July 31, 2007.

Mike,

Can't every post online be considered whining? Even yours? What about the original column? Was Greg whining about the lack of journalists in the comics industry? Was Dixon whining about no longer working at DC? It's all in how one perceives it.

acespot said: "Had there been a bona-fide comics press, Time-Warner’s stock would have taken a hit last week with the news of Chuck Dixon’s dismissal."
--------------

Highly doubtful. Time-Warner is so big that a little thing like Dixon leaving the company wouldn't even make a momentary blip on the company. As big as the Dixon story appears to be, it isn't. A guy was apparently fired. It happens in all businesses every week. It's just that the comics business customers have online places to compare notes, making the event seem larger than it really is.

MacQuarrie,

I support what you do with Unscrewed. I followed the saga from page one of that never-ending thread. I won't mention the person's name who was the spark that fueled Unscrewed, as he deserves no attention. Unscrewed has done a lot of good things for creators.

If anybody doesn't know about Unscrewed, they should find out what Unscrewed does.
-----------------------------------
I would never suggest that someone just shut up. If your bosses are idiots, it might actually be beneficial for your mental health to vent to your friends. If you wish continued employment at a company, your choices are to slog through the week, or you work to improve things from the inside. Airing your dirty laundry in public does little good.

Let me again say---if they are doing something illegal, then you must do what you feel is morally right. Report the company to legal authorities...sue them in court...whatever. If DC fires an employee because they don't want to buy his work anymore, there is nothing illegal in that. If DC fires an employee because of what his beliefs are, that employee has legal options. But going online and making snide or rude comments about your former boss or bosses could lead to legal action against you.

I realize the emotional discomfort of being told your services are no longer needed. And crabbing to my friends may keep me from committing violence. But going public with my complaints could be considered an attempt to harm the company I no longer work for. If Soder Cola fires me and I then run around saying Soder Cola puts dog urine in their drinks, I will expect to get sued. If they truly did put dog urine in Soder Cola, I would feel right in going to federal or state authorities.

Yes, I suppose DC is barely a blip in the Time Warner empire. Too bad. That means that they can do what they wish with absolute impunity.

"To get anybody good enough to do an acceptable job, you’d have to pay them a real wage plus expenses. Gasoline costs if they drive to a convention, air fare if they fly, recording devices, notepads, pens or pencils, telephone costs. It could easily add up to $50,000 a year."

This is an interesting point.

In such a small industry, one that may very well be gone in 8 years, there is no publication that would be willing to pay a full time investigative reporter. To get anybody good enough to do an acceptable job, you’d have to pay them a real wage plus expenses. Gasoline costs if they drive to a convention, air fare if they fly, recording devices, notepads, pens or pencils, telephone costs. It could easily add up to $50,000 a year. All for what? So we could know when DiDio took time to clip his fingernails?

I don't know about that. There are a number of political bloggers doing "real news" that then gets picked up by the print media and results in "real news" for the mainstream population. They are not paid full-time employees; they're people using their skills to write about what they're passionate about.

There are at least a dozen people in the online "comics press" who could easily shift focus from writing about Final Secret Infinite Civil Crisis Invasion War, and start writing about the business end of comics in a way that's entertaining, intelligent, informative, and not completely opaque to the non-comics reader. Such journalism would put a spotlight on not only comics, but on the ramifications of the industry leaders' decisions.

For example, I was recently told by a film industry insider that the Justice League movie was shut down primarily due to concerns over the Siegel lawsuit. The producers may try to take Superman out of the film and keep going, or they may wait until the suit is resolved. Either way, comics industry news is impacting the film industry in a very real way that is affecting the jobs of hundreds of people.

There is an opportunity here for any aspiring journalists looking to carve out a niche for him/herself. We don't need more gossip sites, but some real business journalism would be most welcome, and it doesn't require a company to pony up $50 k a year for it. It just requires somebody to do it.

I know of at least one website that would gladly and eagerly host such a columnist.

Weird. I don't know why it applied the block quote format to those last few paragraphs.

And the one thing such a journalist would not be writing about is "when DiDio took time to clip his fingernails."

Oh, and it's on the verge of hitting the mainstream now:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/a-major-reboot-of-dc-comics-before-comic-con/

Weird. I don’t know why it applied the block quote format to those last few paragraphs.

You have to close the HTML tag or it keeps applying that format all the way down, even to subsequent postings sometimes. I fixed it.

I'm not sure what kind of press or news reporting you would consider "real" compared to the "infotainment" stuff. Yes, comics is just like movies, TV, sports and so on, but you make it sound like that doesn't constitute as news. What are you expecting to come from comics as actual news reporting?

Comic news reporters report upcoming comics, including previews and new titles or events, creative changes, conventions, conduct interviews and numerous other types of factual reporting, just like real reporters. Some of it is thinnly veiled fluff pieces that are more advertising than actual reporting, but we find out what's going on in the backrooms 99% of the time, whether there are creative differences, firings and the reasons thereof or feuds. We even have rumour reports from behind the scenes and various leaks of that sort.

Can you explain how you would make a "real" non-infotainment comic reporter? Even investigative journalists can't make companies and politicians reveal confidential information unless it's some once in a blue moon scandel, which typically comes out in comics reporting as well.

For instance, you mention creators' "only" recourse is to take things publically to their own blogs / message boards / CBR / etc. Well, CBR contacted both Dixon and DC Comics over the firing and neither wanted to comment. I'm sure other sites, like Newsarama did too.

So, when Dixon talks about it on his blog and in your comments, that's the same as if he had actually accepted an interview with the "infotainment" comic reporters. A "real" reporter wouldn't have done any better if both parties have a gag order on or are keeping the matter private.

The only problem I see with comics and news / reporting is that Marvel and DC are too powerful. Anyone that pisses them off, be it a reporter or creator speaking up, can easily be out of a job permanently or until a new EiC comes in, which is rare. So, they have the option of speaking out and hoping the competitor will take them in or go back to indy work or they can keep their mouth shut and grit their teeth, which I'm sure many do.

If you look at the manga industry in Japan, they are huge and have dozens of publishers (yes, its more than just Shounen Jump with weekly Narutor and Bleach) and you, especially "big names", have no problem speaking out against a publisher won't leave you with absolutely no options except self-publishing like it does in America.

So, to reiterate, I'm not sure what your trying to get at with how reporting is done in comics, as it's done just like entertainment and sports with a wide coverage of previews, reviews, management and athelete/actor/creator interviews, speculation, rumours, event coverages and more, all with relatively little bias (at least from the top news sites). You judge the comments about the Shooster coverage, but did you judge the actual site traffic numbers to that article compared to other ones? Just because a few people bark loud anonymously on the internet with little to no actual facts to back them up doesn't mean people don't want those news pieces. I'm willing to bet that that was one of the higher news traffic items or, at the very least, comparable to the regular news item traffic.

Yes, I suppose DC is barely a blip in the Time Warner empire.

We all think that, but after reading the article Jim linked to, I am wondering.

If there is ONE mistake that I think Didio/DC Editorial/whoever has made over the last five years, just in terms of artistic success, it's giving up on the idea of DC comics as a mass medium. Instead of trying to sell more comics to more people across the board -- and I think the Marvel movie successes and Harry Potter and so on show that there is a market for fantastic adventure in mass numbers -- DC has, even more than Marvel, chosen to focus on just us, the hardcore faithful. Nostalgia comics, fan-service comics, hideously expensive hardcover comics, and so on. To me that has always seemed nutty. I have done a number of columns in the past wondering about it.

But I always figured it was me and maybe a couple of other bloggers who thought that was kind of dumb, since most fans seemed happy to be, well, serviced, so to speak. But apparently other people-- specifically, industry people, money people-- are wondering what the thinking is there, too.

Anyway, this is the kind of "business news" press I was theorizing we needed to have more of, so seeing it is encouraging. Serious money is tied up in this stuff, a lot of people's jobs ride on it. You can't be running your publishing business with a fanboy mentality any more.

The heart of the whole problem is "Infinite Crisis". I finally read it recently and I was truly aghast. No context, no explanation for what's going on, no opportunity for audience identification. Endless mean-spirited meta-textual in-jokes (Power Girl wondering why she'd had so many origins was a very serious plot point!). Ultra-violence that was entirely inappropriate for any child (Black Adam pushes somebody's intact eyeballs through the back of their skull??). And, in the end, the whole point seemed to be to re-complicate something that had been un-complicated twenty years earlier, a move that could only possibly have been aimed at pleasing crotchety 35-year-olds.

I was a Marvel zombie from age four (1979) to age ten (1985), then I bought my very first DC comic, Crisis #2, based on all the fan excitement. I loved it. Yes, that series was also doing a lot of meta-textual clean up, I now realize, but it was also a fun, well-explained, emotionally rousing epic that served as a great introduction to the DC universe. Infinite Crisis was exactly the opposite. It hung a big "35-year-old-readers-ONLY" sign on the DC universe.

I hate to say it, but it's time: the EiC needs to do another company wide re-boot. Yes, that's unfair to fun new characters like the new Blue Beetle, who are just starting to shine, but it's time, man. Virtually every character has multiple contradictory origins. They're all too aged and too played-out. Superman's been married for fifteen years. Batman has a grown son. Green Arrow and Green Lantern used to be in their fifties, but now they're young again, though GA still has a grown son. Don't even get me started on the convoluted histories of Black Canary, Martian Manhunter, etc...

"If there is ONE mistake that I think Didio/DC Editorial/whoever has made over the last five years, just in terms of artistic success, it’s giving up on the idea of DC comics as a mass medium."

Greg, you're absolutely right. And it's NOT just Didio driving this. At least, if what I've heard is true.

Incidently, I'm within range of that 35 year old mark and but I didn't like it either.

Whatever nostalgia points they were looking to gain with someone in my age range were easily countered and nullified by DC's psychotic need to grim the hell out any Silver Age idea they bring back in addition to just making their own universe a bigger mess in terms of being able to follow it on even the most basic level. If they're gearing their stuff for only people who come into it with their scorecard in hand then they've still failed because even if you have been reading forever it STILL doesn't make sense. At least with the previous big shakeup you could point to which version of Superman's backstory everything was flowing from. Wether you loved or hated Byrnes take, you knew who he was and how he came to be.

Plus, the series started with what seemed to be a story that would challenge the idea of superhero comics needing to be so aggressively dark only to basically flip the audience the bird (which would seem to run rather counter to that whole 35-year-old readers only thing that I agree with you they're pushing) and just start going to that same well with bigger buckets. It also doesn't help that this seems to be DiDio's schtick wherever he goes. His same grim-it-all tactics can be seen in his tenures on animated series as well. It's like he's Sid from Toy Story all grown up only this time he's putting firecrackers in Ted Kord and Bart Allen.

To be sure, I think at some point "playing to the base" was necessary. A lot of genuine comics fans had been turned off by the collector era B.S., and it was important to let them know that superhero comics were at least going back to something resembling the basics of actually telling stories fans would want to read. However, now that the market's more stable, it does seem like it'd be a good idea to do more stretching out and playing to people outside the existing demographics. There are signs of this- both DC and Marvel have their "for kids" lines, DC's trying Minx and Zuda and so on, arguably one thing helping keep BLUE BEETLE around is that it does target a demo that the company would like to bring in, etc. But there's still this need to keep the base happy with big events catering to people who know a lot of continuity and obscure characters and like to see the metaphysical machinery of the DCU get messed with (trying to set rules for magic and Monitors for the multiverses and so on). There's a broader audience being neglected, I think, but then again with distribution as messed up as it is it's gonna be hard to reach them anyway.

"I hate to say it, but it’s time: the EiC needs to do another company wide re-boot. Yes, that’s unfair to fun new characters like the new Blue Beetle, who are just starting to shine, but it’s time, man. Virtually every character has multiple contradictory origins. They’re all too aged and too played-out. Superman’s been married for fifteen years. Batman has a grown son. Green Arrow and Green Lantern used to be in their fifties, but now they’re young again, though GA still has a grown son. Don’t even get me started on the convoluted histories of Black Canary, Martian Manhunter, etc…"

God, no.

What DC needs to STOP doing is fretting so much about its continuity, and it needs to put the editorial brakes on writers who want to "clean up" or "fix" or "reboot" characters' backstories. They just need to take it easy and let writers draw from whatever past incarnation of the character they want, within reason. There's no reason one run can't have Bat-Mite because the last one focused on Zzazz. Continuity geeks will complain, but this is serial fiction. It's not even beholden to the sort of consistency one expects from a TV show, because some of these series (and a lot more characters) have been around a LOT longer than the writers writing them.

I think maybe Marvel has a lot fewer of these problems because they haven't tried to integrate the necessary inconsistency of their literary form into their universe. I mean, it's great (sometimes) when someone like Morrison does this for DC in something like Animal Man, using all the crazy crap and mixed history to question the comic book as a form and its universe as a place, but attempts to do this usually end up like Slott's recent continuity "fixes" in Initiative and She-Hulk: everyone just wants to ignore them. This is in part because, well, most fiction writers are not cut out for "meta-fiction", and its total post-modern popularity has churned out some really horrible stuff all over literature and film and elsewhere.

DC has not only been playing Slott's game since before I started reading DC, they've made it the centerpiece of their line, with yet another huge crossover based (at least in part) on "resolving" these issues. Now, I love Morrison, and I think Final Crisis will be a fun ride for hardcore fans when it's done and bound, but honestly I can't fathom their strategy. They're targeting their comics not to their loyal fans, but to the most nitpicky and dissatisfied of those fans, and the thing that makes those people the happiest is COMPLAINING about this stuff. It's a small market and TW owns DC for the intellectual property, but this helps neither of these aspects.

Plenty of people have said it before: Marvel's beating DC with its crossover because your average comic fan would rather read a fun, super-hero-centered version of Invasion of the Body-Snatchers than Sheriff Morrison's Final Cleanup. As someone who's going to read FC anyway because of Morrison's name, nothing made me happier than Morrison's blunt statement to ignore DC's buildup - as bad as it looked for DC. It wouldn't look so bad, and they wouldn't have the problem, if they stopped caring so much about making everything "fit" when that is goddamn impossible in superhero comics.

McK wrote: "Have you been on a comic book message board lately? Most posters are to busy trying to figure out who is a skrull, how Donna Troy’s costume doesn’t look the same in Countdown and Titans, or creating their own “dream team Avengers” while telling everyone else that their dream team sucks. Nothing wrong with that really — escapism is grand — but they’re certainly missing the bigger picture."

I don't know if I'd say that. They're just concerned with the content, not the business.

It's like the difference between a Star Trek fan site, versus Locus Magazine writing about a new editor handling a Star Trek novel line, or a new author contracted to write such a novel.

Locus is just a whole different universe from the content-focused online discussion universe.

I suspect the comic business is just too small and relatively closed to new entrants to support something like Locus.

Is there anyone in the creative department over Didio?
To my understanding, only the business branch would remove him, and I doubt they give much of a crap about this drama. They look at sales, and as much as we fans continue to complain about the creative output of DC we still buy the books. DC's business side is surely more concerned with keeping up with Marvel in the cinema department, something Didio has no say in.

Alan Coil writes:

"At that point, the company has acted illegally. You no longer owe them support. Whether you sue them to get the money you are owed, or show up at their door with a baseball bat is up to you."

Ah, but what if the publisher has not technically acted illegally?

What if an editor asks you not to submit a proposal due to their "not liking" the characters you're porposing a series for and effectively not wanting to do a book featuring said characters by inference, then solicits a book the following month featuring said characters? No, not your story - it has nothing to do with you or your proposal. It's merely that the editor lied to you about the status of the characters and their personal interests.

Is this unethical, unprofessional and disrespectful? Of course it is. They could have simply said, "I'm sorry, but the publisher already has a project featuring those characters on the schedule, and so I cannot consider your proposal at this time." But it's not like you have legal recourse just because the editor was less than considerate or professional.

What if an editor rejects your story, then quits being an editor some 18-24 months later, and goes freelance, and then suddenly you see a story by them that is your rejected plot? Not your script, but the plot and pacing is identical. "Circumstantial similarity", or theft? And is the publisher truly responsible, when they likely don't know that the story isn't legitimately that writer's and they have a reputable status with the company? (And if you tell the publisher and prove your case, then what? Sure, you can maybe shitcan the person / people who stole your work, but they have friends in editorial that will be pissed at you and make sure you never work there again too.) Lawsuit? Oh sure, go file your plagarism suit. One, since it's not technically plagarism to swipe another plot if the scripts are significantly different, it'll probably get thrown out as "circrumstantial". Two, even if you prove your case and win, the publisher will appeal until they get the ruling overturned or they run out of appellate courts. You'll be so far in debt in legal fees it's not worth the effort. What are you going to sue for and win? Page rate for your work had they accepted it? You wouldn't even recoup your retainer and filing fees. So you quietly grumble about it, and you're supposed to have the notion that "there's more stories where that came from", and that you'll get your turn.

Only that doesn't pay the bills, now does it, Alan?

What if you're developing a miniseries "on spec" with an editor to be contracted upon final approval of the first full script, and the EIC decides to kill your project script sight unseen to give the character to someone else without so much as an acknowledgement of your efforts or an apology for the inconvenience or a request that you submit something else for consideration? And then you find out that you've been cut out of the equation by some unrelated third party, instead of from editorial?

You aren't contracted, so you have no legal recourse. But is that ethical or professional behavior by editorial? No, it isn't.

Or you're the artist / writer on a book, and you're suddenly off book without notice. Sometimes it's editorial turnover. Or maybe you're an inker working on a book and the penciler or editor gets a burr up their butt because they didn't like the way you inked panel 3 of page 17 last issue and "can't stand your work", so you turn in your latest book, and you just don't receive the next batch of pages in the mail or the files on your computer to work from when it's time and you call the editor, and they're like, "Oh, yeah. I forgot to tell you? I had to replace you." I've had pencilers tell me how their editors have called them up to ask them to break the news to the inker, because they don't want to do it. If there's a problem and they need to replace you, the editor should be communicating this matter to the artist before it gets to that point, no? And if it's an issue of incompatibility (which is wont to happen from time to time), is it too much to consider trading books with another inker you have, instead of giving one inker multiple books and firing others? Just saying.

But this is the sort of thing that happens, Alan. ALL THE TIME. Hell, my first professional inking assignment was basically a "fill in" job on a #1 issue because the inker the publisher originally wanted flaked, so I did the book thinking I had the gig for the entire run since the other inker flaked, but then they gave the other inker the book back the following issue when he asked for it. Crazy, no?

Everyone of those examples is personal experience, Alan. And I could name many other examples of behaviors like these than I myself have experienced or that I've heard secondhand from my fellow creators.

There are many, many ways that creators get screwed, Alan. Most of the time, you have to try to grin and bear and try to trust and pray you don't get burned.

Bright-Raven said: "What if you’re developing a miniseries “on spec” with an editor to be contracted upon final approval of the first full script, and the EIC decides to kill your project script sight unseen to give the character to someone else without so much as an acknowledgement of your efforts or an apology for the inconvenience or a request that you submit something else for consideration? And then you find out that you’ve been cut out of the equation by some unrelated third party, instead of from editorial?

You aren’t contracted, so you have no legal recourse. But is that ethical or professional behavior by editorial? No, it isn’t. "

It depends on what the decision was made on. If they truly like creator B better than you and think the series would sell better with creator B, then that is what can happen when you work on spec. (If you are under contract and write something they decide not to use, then they should pay you for the work done.) If they cancel your story because of your beliefs, then they may be in the wrong.

Your example of inkers is full evidence of cowardice on the part of editorial, I agree. If they aren't adult enough to tell you right away, they don't deserve their job. You can complain to their boss, and you can complain to your friends, but honestly, if you want to complain publicly you are always going to risk getting labeled a troublemaker. This industry is just too small to avoid that.

As to the idea of stolen plots and stories, multiple people can come up with the same ideas relatively at the same time. It's happened in science. It happens in comics, and in fan-fic. If I remember correctly, Milton Caniff had a story element in one of his strips about creating an instant landing strip, and the US Government called him up to ask where he heard about that.

Editors are in a tough position. They get pressure from above them, and are sometimes exasperated by those below them. If they aren't adult enough to handle the job, they need to move on.

Jon H:

"I suspect the comic business is just too small and relatively closed to new entrants to support something like Locus Magazine."

Maybe, but there's not much reason why LOCUS can't expand to include the comics industry as part of their publishing world coverage. They already cover aspects of it related to licensed prose novels and authors who are more known for their prose work who are entering the comics industry. And editors jump between the book and comics industry all the time. In fact, I often read LOCUS and PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY to see how the book industry trends are going so as to speculate how that affects the comics industry.

***************

"Is there anyone in the creative department over Didio?"

Do you mean to ask is there anyone above Didio editorially, not creatively? (Seeing as Didio is the Senior VP and Executive Editor, not 'Creative Director', which DC doesn't have such a title to my knowledge or anyone who works there in such capacity, but probably needs.) Paul Levitz is the President / Publisher, and oversees Didio. But much of what Paul does these days has to do more with the business end of things to my understanding. If there was a matter of wondering where the buck stops, it's probably with Paul. But given his thirty years with the company and the many advents that DC gained under his and former President Jeanette Khan's leadership, Didio is likely the one with his head in the proverbial noose.

*******************

Greg:

Thanks for the link to the Nikki Finke article. Missed that one.

*******************

Tungsten Man: "What DC needs to STOP doing is fretting so much about its continuity, and it needs to put the editorial brakes on writers who want to “clean up” or “fix” or “reboot” characters’ backstories."

Yet sometimes that works to DC's benefit. For example, it is clear that Geoff Johns was able to make JSA, Hawkman (of course, with help from Robinson & Goyer), Green Lantern, and even Power Girl and Black Adam far more viable and successful characters because he picked through their muddled continuity and "fixed" them. This isn't to say everything Johns does turns to gold -- let's see how his Legion "fix" works out first -- but the man has a track record of taking concepts that had issues or lack of success and making them more successful. The point is, sometimes characters do need to get a clean-up out of the way to strengthen the concept.

But I agree with you that some characters DO NOT NEED A CONTINUITY FIX. Captain Marvel needed to be "updated" as much as I need another hole in my head. I'd argue Jeff Smith's all-ages take on the character was far more successful, especially considering next month a kid-friendly Shazam series is launching. Aquaman would probably have benefited from a "back to basics" approach (like Green Lantern and Green Arrow) rather than a radically new direction. Worst of all, DC is so clueless with what to do with Martian Manhunter that he is better off dead, not unlike post Zero Hour Hawkman. So it seems that for every successful “back to basics” revamp, there are several “bold new directions” that indeed go nowhere. See “One Year Later” for some examples.

One of my favorite parts of 52 and Countdown were the 2 page “Secret Origins” back-ups. Why? Because a writer should be able to tell the origin of any major DC character in 2 pages. We don’t need a six issue “Year One” miniseries for Metamorpho or Green Arrow when I can get what I need to know in 2 pages. Let’s see some great stories focusing on the intrinsic elements that make each character unique and great. Seems like that’s working for Green Lantern these days…

Jon H. "I don’t know if I’d say that. They’re just concerned with the content, not the business."

I'm on your side. I was trying to point out in a snarky way that there seems to be more fans concerned with the style of Donna Troy's costume instead of business issues. I don't mean to look down on those fans at all because I can be a continuity geek, but the "big picture" that they're missing is that it's quite possible that the superhero comic book industry might not even EXIST in a few years due to poor business decisions. The Siegel case and poor editorial management at DC are two major examples of issues that could theoretically immensely alter the industry.

...and THAT, my friends, is the big picture that's being missed.

Rich Johnston once did a month's worth of actual reporting and in-depth looks at comic issues/stories in Lying In The Gutters.
He then put it to the vote as to whether people wanted him to continue doing that, or just rumour mongering.
The latter won out, by a rather large margin.

Mike,

Can’t every post online be considered whining? Even yours? What about the original column?

Alan, you seem to have acknowledged your complaints qualify as whining, which means you are whining about whining. For someone claiming to be confronting the cowardice of others, demonstrating you require instruction on abstaining from hypocrisy is craptacular.

Just want to add my voice to the chorus saying that this week and last week's columns have been outstanding, even by your usual standards, mr Hatcher. Your column is often the only thing that keeps my grumpy self coming back to this blog, and I hope you never stop writing it.

And it seems that proper capitalisation of my own name means that I lose my avatar... Damn it. I was all enamoured with lower-case when I set up that thing...

!

Okay, maybe this'll work. Let's see.

Whether it does or not I'll stop filling up comment space with my technological inabilities after this attempt anyway...

And it seems that proper capitalisation of my own name means that I lose my avatar… Damn it.

Once you have created your avatar, you can spell your name however you like. You don't even have to login, ever again. The trick is in the e-mail address; as long as you type the same one that you used or have on record with Gravatar, then your avatar picture will appear.

red-Ricky-

Yeah, I worked that out in the end. I was using an old email address that I use as a spam box when I posted the first two comments, then tried a newer one for the third one, which worked. I don't comment much here anymore, and it's been AGES since the last time, so I'd forgotten which addy I used when I signed up with gravatar.

Not the best week in COMICS , either.

They fired just about anybody, except Mr. Dan.

Son. Of. A . Bitch.

Seems like this thread has split into two discussions, comics journalism and How Screwed Up DC Is.

On the first, I don't know any great long-term solutions. I think these issues get covered pretty well. And, like hoping for a viable third American political party, expecting DC/Marvel to lose their dominance and power is a pipe dream.

On the second, I think "What DC Should Do Next" deserves it's own thread. Personally, I think that they are in the process of ruining a lot of their Universe, perhaps permanently (or as permanently as they can). So what can they do to fix it?

I humbly propose:

1. A year-long moratorium on "events". I know they're addicted to them, and they help sales (which is not insignificant), but I just think they need to go cold turkey for a few months, and see where they are. If you're constantly destroying, and never resting to build new characters/teams/relationships, eventually you just destroy everything.

2. No more "reboots". Leave everyone where they are. DC's history is so interwoven, one brilliant reboot to fix continuity just opens up five holes somewhere else. See Byrne's MAN OF STEEL: A great update, and a disaster for continuity for the next twenty years.

3. Learn something from Marvel's multimedia success. What Marvel is doing now is exactly what we expected the Time-Warner deal to do for DC, but it's never really happened. How many wildly different versions of Batman does DC have in pop culture? BATMAN BEGINS, THE BATMAN, B:TAS, the DCU comics version, the scary smiling SUPERFRIENDS version, and who knows what BRAVE AND THE BOLD will bring? Make a similar list for Superman (just compare Brandon Routh to Tom Welling to the comics). Where is the consistent vision for their characters?

Then look at Spider-Man. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, the Raimi movies, the comics version, ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN. Different formats, but much closer to being the same character. And he would feel at home in IRON MAN or INCREDIBLE HULK, or in the animated AVENGERS movies.

There seems to be an overwhelming sentiment that DC has lost their way. What would you do to fix it?

Alan writes:

"It depends on what the decision was made on. If they truly like creator B better than you and think the series would sell better with creator B, then that is what can happen when you work on spec. (If you are under contract and write something they decide not to use, then they should pay you for the work done.) "

So, you would prefer all the non-contracted comics creators not bother submitting anything to Marvel / DC / Dark Horse / Image / Oni / *fill in the blank here* anymore? Because no matter what you're submitting, it's "on spec" unless you already have a well recognized established body of work or working relationship with a given editor who's going to go to bat for you. Why bother sending any work in at all then, hm?

As for whether the publisher (Marvel in this specific case) 'liked' the other creator's work better than mine, how can one claim they liked the other creator's work better when they never looked at mine to compare it? If you're saying they liked the other writer more than me as a person- considering they've never met me in person and have never worked with me, they don't know me, so they have no grounds for making that decision, either. Further, the job as editor is to judge the merits of the WORK and decide whether you want it. (Or at least that's the job as how *I* function as an editor, thank you very much.) In this instance, this did not occur.

Now, can we say the other writer is more marketable? Yes, definitely. So is that the reason? Sure it's one of the reasons. Fine and dandy. But if all you're going to concern yourself with is hiring the most marketable names or possibly the few writers who happen to be your friends, then you're going to get nothing but redundant books by the same group of writers trying to write the latest "Can you top THIS?" event. And isn't that pretty much what Marvel and DC both have been producing for the past twenty years, when you get right down to the nitty gritty? Why yes. Yes it is. And isn't that really the bottom line complaint of fanboys the world over?

And for the record, I'm not saying my story should have been picked up, despite what I'm sure some of you will assume. I'm simply saying it should have been given equal and fair consideration for acceptance. There's a BIG difference. Had I submitted the story and Editorial said, "We're going with WRITER S instead because of these reasons," then fine. We could have discussed the matter, and maybe something could have been resolved to the benefit for all involved. Instead, I was effectively blown off. (Though to be fair, the editor with whom I had been directly working with *did* apologize for the inconvenience about a week after the fact. Unfortunately, apologies don't pay my bills, and I wasn't offered any other opportunity.)

"As to the idea of stolen plots and stories, multiple people can come up with the same ideas relatively at the same time."

Yes, that's called circumstantial similarity. That's not what I refer to. I've had that happen to me six times in my career (incidentally all with DC between 1997-2004). Each time that's happened, I've received email or was phoned by editorial to confer on the matter. If anything, I am very appreciative of the communications and respect shown by Mike Carlin, Denny O'Neil (twice), Bob Schreck (twice), and Stuart Moore in regards to those circumstances, respectively. Sure it's disappointing (as with any rejection), but there's no greivance to be had. Honesty and integrity was in place at all times, and I was invited to submit other works at my earliest opportunity when appropriate. That's all any creator can ask for in such circumstance. Have other creators have had similar experience or opposing experiences? Probably a bit of both, to be honest.

What I am talking about is having one's project rejected and then seeing a project published 18-24 months later that is nearly identical to what one had originally submitted and it happens to be edited (or sometimes even WRITTEN) by the editor that one had submitted to. John Byrne has cited this happening to him once on his personal message board, and I have seen other blogs and have received numerous emails from other writers which have been essentially, "Have you seen this book? Compare it to my rejected project here." And I'm talking about creators with hundreds to thousands of comics to their credit, not unpublished aspiring talents.

*********

"Your example of inkers is full evidence of cowardice on the part of editorial, I agree. If they aren’t adult enough to tell you right away, they don’t deserve their job. You can complain to their boss, and you can complain to your friends, but honestly, if you want to complain publicly you are always going to risk getting labeled a troublemaker."

That happens to all creators, not just inkers. And to be fair to the editor (again, having been an editor and submissions director myself), it's hard to have to tell someone you're taking away their income. Some editors are human, too and some do have *some* sympathies, you know. But still, it's an ugly part of the job. But like Valerie D'orazio once commented on her blog as an assistant editor, she was once ordered to call up some freelancer who was chronically late and read them the riot act to the point where both she and the freelancer were crying.

That kind of action is absurd and uncalled for. If a freelancer is regularly that damn bad with deadlines, you cut them loose and find someone else, no matter how popular they may be. It's not like there isn't anyone in this business who can't be replaced. Or you put them on a different project that you can schedule around them. If it's a one time circumstance and there's a reason for it, chewing them a new ass isn't going to get the pages done any faster either, because now the creator is exasperated and frustrated and can't focus on the work. But the fact is, shit flows downhill and when the editors get bawled out by their bosses, they want to delegate that bawling down to the people who put them in that compromised position. Understandable, and sometimes warranted. But realistically? Usually not all that productive.

As an editor, I've dealt with "difficult" creators. And the only truly "difficult" creator I've ever had to deal with are those who didn't meet their deadlines in accordance to the schedule without valid explanation. And even then, you might let it pass once. It's the patterns or chronic problems that lend you to having to cut a person. And frankly, if they aren't meeting their professional obligations, then they shouldn't be surprised, now should they? But it's a two way street, Alan. When the publisher goofs up, they have to be held accountable too.

Grant Morrison's petulant, audacious, all-over-the-place, TANTRUM when he didn't get the Superman gig in the late '90s ( ' I quit comics . I'm taking the shitty taste they left in MY mouth. Blah fucking blah ' ). THAT is incendiary. And UNPROFESSIONAL.

Sure, it DID bring us New X-men and all the other proper work he's now apparently ashamed of since, but WHERE is he now amidst all this. Amidst his FELLOW CO-WORKER getting screwed FOR FUCKING REAL, because he just feels like screwing OUR Batman at the fucking moment with his ' enlightenment ' in his bogus made-up creep religion nobody damn cares the fuck about ? Geez. You think, aren't these people suppose to be WORKING ?

This guy is so damn surreal. Labor relations IN THE REAL WORLD do not concern him. Like the rest of them over there.

Probably why they want to bring the ' Silver Age ' back that much.

DC's ' editorial management ' is, after all, apparently nonexistent. It's just ' all about their damn feelings '.

, but WHERE is he now amidst all this.

Scotland, right?

And, OUR Batman? Not my Batman. DC comics's inc.'s Batman.

If you own part of the trademark, than "my" Batman is fine.

So it's damn sure not my made-up character. (I have a trademark on my made up characters.)

And, therefore, not "ours."
But I don't even KNOW anyone who owns Batman.

But I don’t even KNOW anyone who owns Batman.

I owned him once, but sold him on for a nickel.

Dude. I woulda given you two bucks fifty.

Then I would've traded him to Marvel for Howard the Duck. And given Howard the Duck to Steve Gerber.

I have mixed feelings on Didio. Honestly, under him DC has become far to event driven for my tastes. One need look no farther than McDuffie's JLA. Here you have what seems like a great pairing - a solid talent who has worked on the characters before in a popular cartoon and DC's flagship title. But until recently the series has been a mess, bogged down in leading up to other miniseries like Salvation Run and the Tangent thing.
JLA went for years under Morrison, Waid, and Kelly without having to tie into any big events or set up any big events that were happening outside of the book. This has changed under Didio.

But at the same time Didio's DC has also produced a lot of good stuff. Just a biased list:
Morrison's Seven Soldiers
Morrison's All Star Superman
Meltzer's JLA
Identity Crisis
The recent Metal Men miniseries
Ostrander returning to Suicide Squad for a mini series
The Sinestro Corps War
52
Waid's Brave and the Bold

Perhaps Didio's leaving will force DC to reevaluate its line and and force the publisher to cutback on its events.

Didio's not leaving, 'cording to the Beat

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/06/23/dc-update-didio-not-going-anywhere/

Greg, on a happy note, the phony Alan Grant posts prompted the real Alan Grant to get back in touch with me and we've exchanged some lively e-mails as we catch up with one another.

Mike said: "Alan, you seem to have acknowledged your complaints qualify as whining, which means you are whining about whining. For someone claiming to be confronting the cowardice of others, demonstrating you require instruction on abstaining from hypocrisy is craptacular."

Is this Mike Leung?

Once a topic is off the front page, does it cease to exist?

The problem with the reporting in today's comics business is that it all seems so inbred. It seems half those reporting on comics news are The Comics Journal employees or ex-employees.

Bright-Raven---if I have any more responses, I'll write them later. Thanks for the discussion, but I am done for today. Too tired to debate. Must. Get. Sleep.

Yes, this is Mike Leung.

” This is clearly an attempt by DC to steal Marvel’s glory and transplant it onto its own moribund universe. For DC to recognise its own weaknesses, then convert them in a stroke. To basically take everything Joe Quesada has built up at Marvel and buy it, “Citizen Kane” style. ”
.....

Previous to this, most of DC’s more energetic, vibrant and “cool” books were from Wildstorm, on the other side of the country. Their lauded “Batman” revamp was safe - it gets the sales but reviews have not been glowing. But just how many times can you revamp a character by getting Jim Lee to DRAW it? ”
- Rich Johnson, ‘ The Cold War ‘, Lying in the Gutters, 7/27/2003

Dan Didio, in a nutshell.

Mr. Morrison's been messing with the damn property like it's for HIM to take.

And we are expected to live with this.