Comic Book Resources

I mostly agree with what you are saying about Quesada, but it’s no surprise to me that he is faring so badly in the poll. I know a lot of older fans (i.e. people who started buying comics in the 70′s and 80′s) who have quit buying Marvel completely because of the stories being put out under Quesada. And these are mostly people who stuck with these titles through Marvel’s bankruptcy and the Heroes Reborn reboot. I think there is a feeling among some people that in giving his talent more creative leeway he has sometimes given them too much freedom, to the point where I have had more than one discussion with someone expressing a nostalgia for the Jim Shooter era of strict editorial oversight. Quesada’s done a lot of positive things, but unlike Shooter, the bridges he’s burned have been with fans instead of creators.

I recently wrote on my blog that if you don’t read Incredible Herc I don’t like you. I didn’t actually mean that, so we’re good. But you’re right on about being an asshole when you think you’re being constructive – I really need to learn the art of writing something and letting it sit for a few days before posting; I’ve gone off on long tangents on my blog about certain writers that come off far more cruel than I intend, or even feel.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Zodiac, the best Marvel title this year? I was under the impression everyone thought that of Captain Britain : \

So who lost the poll? Harras or Shooter? I’m sure it’s one of those two.

“…we haven’t had too many pissed off creators leaving Marvel in a huff…”

No, they left in a minute and a huff.

(Ohcomeon, somebody has to say the obvious jokes.)

I’ve got something here for you that I think you need to read.

http://www.problogger.net/how-to-write-great-blog-content/

And now I want you to apologize for that blog post you did about moving into your girlfriends apartment.

I’m going to go post about this awesome thing I just did right now on my website and laugh about it with my friends.

“Stan Lee’s one-man operation, for example, was such an entirely different beast that the two are different companies…”

So right. If I remember, Marvel only had a handful of titles then, not 120 a month.

Didn’t Morrison have a public falling out with Quesada at a San Diego con a few years back? I think Darwyn Cooke might have done the same–or maybe it was with Jemas.

So who lost the poll? Harras or Shooter? I’m sure it’s one of those two.

Harras, at least thus far.

Random Thought! Do writers really enjoy what their colleagues are doing as much as they say they do?

I have a friend whose name many people here might recognize, who saw GI Joe. And he said he really enjoyed it.

He also got in free.

I think the same thing can happen with creators. On one hand there are the comp boxes that creators still get, so they don’t have to pay for this week’s addiction. On the other, many of these writers know each other, came up in the business with each other. It’s not just that a creator won’t say something negaative about another creator, but they can’t say anything negative, because they’re too close to the work to judge it objectively. My wife thinks I’m the greatest writer in the world, but I still can’t get my novels published. That may not be entirely because the books suck, but it’s certainly more likely.

Scott — I honestly don’t understand that mindset. I will take creativity and ambition over simple character maintenance.

Matt — It’s easy to go over the top a bit. Like I said, I do it too sometimes. The key is to try and be better about it. Or, at least, have the good sense to do it in private.

Snapper — This is better.

Mysterious Stranger — I never apologise since I do these posts to entertain myself primarily. That you guys get to read them too is a treat. Heh. (But, good one, in all honesty…)

Nate — I forgot about Morrison, but that was with Jemas I believe… and, let’s remember, Morrison previously left DC in a huff, so that’s a wash…

Wesley — Good points. Also, one thing I notice is that a lot of the time, writers hype up the IDEAS that came out of summits, but the execution falls below expectations… which isn’t their fault as they’re just praising what they know about.

Random Thought! Do writers really enjoy what their colleagues are doing as much as they say they do? I mean, do other Marvel writers really like work that’s universally panned? Are they that disconnected from readers or is it just being polite? And, if it’s the former… what does that say about their books and the company they work for?

I’ve always wondered this myself, particularly when writers praise the “amazing art” of a less-than-great artist. I understand the point of it — all sales by a company are good sales — but I really find it hard to believe after a while when Gail Simone and Geoff Johns, for example, consistently praise almost any book they mention. Of course, that might just speak volumes about the books they DON’T mention, but, let’s be honest, most mainstream superhero books by DC and Marvel are average at best. But I guess towing the company line is part of the job, so God bless.

Is that random thought about creators dropping you a line about good reviews a previous random thought? I could swear I’ve read something like that before.

{{Random Thought! Do writers really enjoy what their colleagues are doing as much as they say they do?}}

It boggles my mind a bit when Mike Carey offers praise for Daniel Way, or Kyle & Yost. I WAS impressed by the way he responded, toward the beginning of his X-Men run, when an interviewer asked him what he thought of Peter Milligan’s run (and in my own opinion Milligan’s normally an excellent writer but his X-Men was pure shite), and he very gracefully and without any disrespect managed to point out what it was about Millgan’s run that fell so short — without ever saying that it fell short explicitly.

But I think part of what looks like kissing one another’s asses here is just humility and respect. I think it’s natural for a writer to respect what another writer is doing because honestly, even if they’re crap, they’re putting their work out there and that takes courage, vulnerability and dedication. It takes passion and hard work to make it in this industry and even if your work sucks, there’s something respectable about that, so I can see why comic creators would want to support each other.

“I honestly don’t understand that mindset. I will take creativity and ambition over simple character maintenance.”

In theory I agree with you. In practice, I’m actually on the fence with this specific situation. I was a kid when Shooter was EIC and I remember an article he wrote for the Overstreet Price Guide where he explained the philosophy that got him hired at Marvel, which was this: “Tell a good story and tell it well.” For a lot of fans, it’s that simple. They aren’t looking to be intellectually challenged or to see creators break the rules and push the boundaries; at least, they aren’t looking for this stuff in the mainstream flagship books. They just want to read good stories about their favorite characters.

For me, I appreciate what Quesada has done, because he’s really taken a lot of risks to shake up Marvel, changing the very concept of the MU and advancing some characters that had been static for decades. I think it’s great. The problem for me is that while the concepts have been really fascinating and groundbreaking, I haven’t actually enjoyed any of the stories that have resulted (with the exception of Captain America). Civil War, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, I just haven’t liked any of them. So I have a lot of sympathy for those fans who just want their favorite characters back to a recognizable place where they can read some cool stories.

For me, the late 90′s before Quesada became EIC provided a good balance, because you get could get the somewhat nostalgic (but still well done and fun) stories from people like Waid and Busiek on the big Marvel books while also getting more innovative work like Preacher, Sandman Mystery Theatre and Starman over at DC.

Anyway, I personally wouldn’t vote for Quesada as worst EIC as I think he’s very innovative even if I don’t always like his innovations; but I understand those who do vote for him.

we haven’t had too many pissed off creators leaving Marvel in a huff

Well, there’s been a few – mostly seemingly due to Jemas… maybe not in a huff, but there’s creators who haven’t gone back since… although JQ huffed when Morrison left New X-Men.

Do people really forget the energy and creativity that came in his initial years?

No, but again – and quite oddly – that went away with Jemas.
Soon as he left it became cross-over time, and I started tuning out.

But I’ve tried it, so get off my back. Please?

No.

You must read all of it.

Read it, until you love it.

Only then will your opinions of it be valid.

if i could have taken that marvel pool i would have proably put jim shooter to number one for joe i like what he has done for his ledearship is what has helped make marvel the power house it is for eic of marvel and dc have the most thankless jobs they get crizited by fans if they do good ideas and the grief if they try stuff like final crisis and one more day catch 22 . though bob harris if i recall was running things when marvel was int he clutches of ron perlman. he would have been number two to me. as for dark reighn been trying to not read much of it as i can for want it to end and norman to be sitting in maybe the negative zone prison during civil war.

…Actually, Tom DeFalco did far worse damage than Harras or Shooter combined, simply because he took two of Marvel’s best books – FF and Thor – and wrote several years of the worst hack jobs Marvel had ever put out before Bendis, Millar and Loeb came along. Harras comes in second, the Big Fat Q third, and Shooter only ranks because of the problems he had with the creators. If you ran a poll as to which editor cared the most about what was good for the fans, Shooter would outrank all three of those other editors combined.

Of course, Stan Lee beat them all hands down, but this is obvious.

Harras was an odd call.
‘Let’s get the guy who managed to take the companies biggest franchise, lose all of it’s number one creators, and shed fans by the hundreds of thousands, and see what happens when he runs a company!’
With thinking like that, where did they go wrong?

Bob Harris and Joe Quesada are 1 and 2? Geez. Does nobody remember Tom DeFalco?

Quesada would not be number 1, but thats because the house already burned down. Would probably vote for Harras. If he had done a better job Quesada would of never of gotten the job to begin with. Its hard to blame Defalco because I do not think he had as much control as other EIC’s. But a lot of bad things happened on his watch.

Comparing Shooter and Quesada is a joke. Marvel does not publish one book currently (with the possible exception of Cap) that was not better when Shooter was EIC. Certainly can’t mention sales. The best selling Marvel book today would of been on the bottom rung in the Shooter era.

I don’t think you can criticise DeFalco as editor-in-chief due to his writing. A person can be a horrible writer and still be a good editor (Ralf Macchio, for example), or vice-versa.

I don’t really know how the various editors have gotten along with the writers and such. I only know what the books are like under their watches. And with that criteria, I have to rate Quesada very low. Continuity seems very weak in recent years. That was Shooter’s great strength. When he was in charge, the various titles usually fit together without much contradiction (and usually only minor ones). And it seems to me that Quesada is allowing way too many huge epics (House Of M, Civil War, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign). It’s made it hard for some series to maintain a normal storyline, as these epic crossovers keep coming and getting in the way of everything.

I stopped buying comic books in the mid-90s, when the local comic store closed down, and I didn’t start buying them again until Civil War had already started, so I missed the end of DeFalco’s period, the first half of Quesada’s, and all of Harras’s period (although I’ve bought a handfull from that time in the last couple of years), so there’s a lot I don’t know about. But judging only fromthe stuff I’ve read, I would have to rank Quesada below Shooter or DeFalco.

…Actually, Tom DeFalco did far worse damage than Harras or Shooter combined, simply because he took two of Marvel’s best books – FF and Thor – and wrote several years of the worst hack jobs

*****
That is debatable. His FF run had its good and its bad. But his Thor run was consistently good. His only crime was following Walt Simonson.

Fully agree about Quesada. I think he’s made some pretty big mistakes occasionally, but hey it’s a tough job to pull off (especially in the modern day when you’ve also got to compete with constant internet criticism). He’s brought in some interesting often a little left-field talent, put out some really fantastic series and regardless of whether you’ve enjoyed them or not (personally I’m about 50-50) he’s taken the Marvel universe into some interesting directions these last 5 years with the bigger storylines (many of which I think will be remembered more fondly 10 years down the line). From a sheer business point of view he also seems to be doing pretty well, and in particular Marvel is in a very healthy position in terms of movies and other licensing.

As I said he’s made some definite mistakes, but I think years after he’s gone and people can really look back on his time there as a whole he’ll be missed when he’s gone.

Regarding sales – is it really fair to directly compare one EIC to another in those terms? If the industry as a whole isn’t selling quite as many comics due to a whole host of cultural or economic factors that also plays pretty heavily into it? I’ll also say that even amongst the actual comic fans I know, I know ones who never buy actual comics because the Marevel trades are so good and quickly put out now these days, ones who never buy actual comics because online piracy is so well organised they can download and read them incredibly easy for free, and ones who simply can’t afford them due to the current economic situation – personally it seems to me like there’s a lot of factors to compete with these days.

Joe Quesada pissed off the biggest creator around – Alan Moore – and it wasn’t even his fault. It had something to do with leaving Alan off the credits in a Captain Britain tpb. This was around the time 1602 was coming out, I’m guessing. Joe Q. just nabbed Neil Gaiman and was trying to do the same with Alan, mending things with him. At first he got Alan’s attention but when he learned of the error, that’s when he said he had enough.
I know Marvel screwed him over in the past but I still think Alan was over-reacting. Joe apologized publicly and made sure the corrections were made in later prints, but it wasn’t enough to get him to work for Marvel.
DC on the other hand had been doing everything but forcefully sodomizing Alan Moore in order to keep him.

If your primary concerns are line-wide continuity and books shipping on time, than I guess Shooter was the best. And obviously the Simonson, Miller, Claremont and Byrne stuff was great. But there was an awful lot of boring crap produced under his tenure. Al Milgrom drew a lot of comics.

The DeFalco era was like Shooter’s, only with a lot less of the good stuff. Marvel comics were never as consistently mediocre as they were when he was in charge. Bob Harras’s tenure was pretty bad, but I’ve always felt that he held the job at the absolute worst time anyone could hold it. He might’ve been terrible regardless, but the bankruptcy and the speculator bubble bursting were outside of his control, and he had to attempt to pick up the pieces. He might have sucked anyway, but I don’t think anyone would’ve been very good under those circumstances.

Overall, I think Quesada’s been good for Marvel and comics in general, particularly the first few years when Jemas was around. The quality of the books increased tremendously. (Continuity and timeliness suffered, but I’m not really concerned about those things). I thought the “no more mutants” and “One More Day” edicts were pretty lame story decisions, but I don’t think it’s affected the quality of the books.

@Chad

RE: Hercules, I feel your pain – any time I’ve gone into a book that everyone seems to love, and I end up cold on it, I feel extra-bad. Not just because it disappointed me, but because I feel like I’m disappointing OTHER people for BEING disappointed. (“Secret Six” comes to mind; and I was lukewarm on Paul Cornell’s “Wisdom” series, so I’m not sure how much more I’d enjoy “Captain Britain & MI13″).

I have “Agents of Atlas” on hold at the library right now, and man, am I nervous about not enjoying it as much as I’ve been told I should.

Jeff — I’ve also had a similar experience with Secret Six, so you’re not alone there. On the other side, I always feel a little bad when I praise a book so much that it causes someone to spend their money on it and not like it.

Do writers really enjoy what their colleagues are doing as much as they say they do? I mean, do other Marvel writers really like work that’s universally panned? Are they that disconnected from readers or is it just being polite? And, if it’s the former… what does that say about their books and the company they work for? (I’m working hard to not focus on specific people here… can you tell?) I have absolutely no issue with a writer not wanting to publically bash a friend or product put out by a company he/she works for, but sometimes it works to make them look bad, too.

Just say you’re talking about Loeb. It’s obvious, and I’ve wondered the same thing. His fellow Marvel writers as recently as the Chicago con still rave about his work, like Millar talking about his Ultimates. I know it’s the professional thing to do, but don’t go so far as to rave about it. They’re really stretching plausibility.

Continuity seems very weak in recent years. That was Shooter’s great strength. When he was in charge, the various titles usually fit together without much contradiction (and usually only minor ones).

In all fairness though, it was WAY easier in Shooter’s day. I recently was rereading an old 80s book and on the Bullpen Bulletins I looked at the checklist and it shocked me how much fewer books a month there were. I mean a LOT less. Probably what comes out a week today came out a month back then. Take away the out of continuity stuff like Epic and Star and licensed books and it was even less.

I have to agree with your take on the issue, T. If I were a professional comics writer, there is no way I would publicly say bad things about other writers. Just wouldn’t do it, out of professional courtesy and a respect for what they are doing, even if what they are doing is something I happen not to enjoy. But by the same token I don’t think I could bring myself to effusively praise something that’s not very good either.

If asked directly, I’d probably have some sort of bland, stock comment handy. You can always claim not to have read the work in question, but that can strain believability when its something huge — you’d believe a writer for Marvel may not have gotten around to checking out Incredible Herc, but not that he hadn’t read Civil War.

Agreed that looking at absolute sales isn’t fair when comparing EIC’s, but if someone could be bothered to look at sales relative to DC, that might be interesting. Then again, there would still be too many external factors to consider, I suppose.

I also think Joe Q’s done more good than harm. One More Day (and even the reasoning behind it) was awful, and the “Decimation” wasn’t a great move either. I thought House of M was like the poor man’s Age of Apocalypse and Secret Invasion didn’t live up to the hype, but Secret War was an excellent idea and, although the execution of the mini was far from perfect, it really changed the Marvel U and made things pretty damn interesting (for a while at least). Annihilation was also really cool, and WWHulk was a fun summer event.

If we toss in things like Morrison’s X-Men, Priest’s Black Panther, Bru’s Cap, Bendis’s DD, Marvel Boy, Alias, and Ennis’s Punisher, he doesn’t look too bad.

Shooter may come out tops (and Stan deserves love for a number of reasons), but Q should still be up there.

I think Harras is probably the worst, though DeFalco wasn’t great either. But as othes have said, they may have been victims of circumstance.

Oh, and yellow hat guy is a douche.

@ T.

The number of books released in a given month is an editorial decision. That is doubly true of the number of books released in main, superhero universe. Quesada could decide that a fan should be able to follow the entire 616 universe for $120 per month and cap the number of titles in that universe at 30 (including cross-overs). It might not be the right business decision, since he would need to find additional revenue elsewhere and that is probably difficult. However, it is within his power to do it.

@ Dean -

I think the size of the Marvel Universe is one of those Pandora’s boxes where once opened, it’s hard to reverse. I really doubt absent a tremendous drop in sales Marvel’s shareholders and higher ups would allow Joe Quesada to slash that many titles. Also, with all those exclusives they need books to put that talent on. Smaller book pool means smaller choice of titles to work on means less potential work to entice talent to sign exclusives.

Further to Dan’s comment, the irony of Shooter’s term as EIC is that while he angered many creators, they churned out arguably their best work during this time. Miller’s Daredevil, Claremont & Byrne’s X-Men, Simonson’s Thor and the “Demon in a Bottle” storyline from Iron Man all came out during his tenure and are regarded by many fans as the high points of each series.

I’ve found that most, if not all, creators produce better results when there is a framework they have to work within.

What bothers me, honestly, is that Joe Quesada was in second place. Really? In what areas exactly has he failed so much? With creators, his track record has been very good compared to previous regimes — we haven’t had too many pissed off creators leaving Marvel in a huff (have there really been any?). He’s brought in talent on books and in editorial that would not have worked at Marvel otherwise — Axel Alonso as an editor probably being the biggest single move that altered Marvel’s creative direction, I think. Do people really forget the energy and creativity that came in his initial years? Have there been questionable choices?

Chad, I am with you. The anti-Quesada feeling makes no sense to me. My rough checklist of a good Editor-in-Chief is as follows:
1. Lays out some big milestones, articulates them to the fans and honors those commitments.
2. Creates a “house style” that is consistent with what has come before, easily recognizable and broad enough that many creators can work within it.
3. Creates clearly defined areas that deviate from that house style, which lends the line some diversity.
4. Recruits and retains top creators that either fit the house style, or can do innovative things outside of it.
5. Develops new creators by working them up the line in assignments that suit their abilities.
6. Creates entry points for new fans that synch up with interest generated by movies, animation and etc.
7. Acts as a “Brand evangelist” and gets the message out to folks that might not be reading their titles.

You have to take it as a given that you are not going to love all the milestones the EiC lays out. So, you almost have to leave the specific decisions aside.

The only area in which you can really fault Quesada on this list is #2. The Marvel comics that I pick up do not really conform to an identifiable “Marvel Style” anymore. Some read like Marvel books, while others read like DC (or Image, or Vertigo) books. Dan DiDio has been much more effective at imposing a consistent tone at DC for better or worse.

Jeff – not to beat a dead horse and comment on every iteration of this, but I picked up Secret Six based off Greg’s multiple “Gail Simone is hardcore” reviews and I’ve been happy with it, so I picked up 3 issues of AoA based on his lofty reviews, and I am completely cold on it. I can see why people would like it, but it’s not for me, and the experience has kept me from trying out Capt. Britain. I could see from a reviewers standpoint how it would be annoying that they get hounded to review books they don’t like.

Dean – I find fault with Quesada on #6.
Marvel’s comic sales should have been much better for crossover stars like Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, Daredevil, X-Men and Iron Man. New readers, eager try out a comic were instead met with one or all of the following: characters not meshing with how they’re portrayed on screen; too many titles/intimidating continuity; line-wide events that interrupt storylines and require additional purchases; and decompressed storytelling.

The last one is most baffling to me. Stories drag on for months, sometimes with entire issues featuring no plot progression whatsoever. Isn’t this in direct conflict with people’s increasingly shrinking attention spans? I always like to remember that any issue might be someone’s first. I can imagine many new readers picking up their first Marvel comic and 10 minutes later thinking “that’s it?” There’s just too little value for customer dollars, especially when compared to other entertainment options. Decompressed Storytelling or Writing for the Trade has been an almost mandated during Quesada’s tenure and does little to grow the industry.

@Reader Zero

It is funny how differently people see things. I thought Quesada was great on item #6. He ordered up Ultimate X-Men and Ultimate Spider-Man expressly for new readers. Millar turned out to be a bad fit for UXM, but Bendis and Bagley hit USM out of the park. He also gave folks Morrison and Quitley on “New X-Men”, which should have been transformative. Any new Iron Man fans got Fraction and Larocca on “Invincible Iron Man”.

Most of those would be great first comic experiences.

On decompressed storytelling, that is a function of the decline of the direct market. Long-term, floppy comics sold to adults is probably a dead medium. If floppies exist at all, then they’ll be written for kids and sold at grocery stores and Wal-Mart. They type of densely plotted superhero stories that we are used to reading will be published more like books.

It is funny how differently people see things. I thought Quesada was great on item #6. He ordered up Ultimate X-Men and Ultimate Spider-Man expressly for new readers.

To be fair, that was Jemas. I was just re-reading some interviews as research for a column I wrote. Quesada was actually a little nervous about Ultimate Spider-Man because they had just tried to revamp Spider-Man with Byrne’s Spider-Man: Year One storyline, and it had tanked.

Re: Dark X-Men

Cornell and Kirk could be writing a splatterfest where My Little Pony takes on the Predator and Power Pack make a guest appearance only for the last four Marvel EIC’s to show up and save the day, and I’d still give it a shot. The return of the Marvel UK Heroes splash page from Captain Britain has been my personal comic book moment of the year so far! Two creators who absolutely guarantee having me as a reader.

The Galactus line in DR Zodiac is hilarious.

Joe Quesada pissed off the biggest creator around – Alan Moore – and it wasn’t even his fault. It had something to do with leaving Alan off the credits in a Captain Britain tpb. This was around the time 1602 was coming out, I’m guessing. Joe Q. just nabbed Neil Gaiman and was trying to do the same with Alan, mending things with him. At first he got Alan’s attention but when he learned of the error, that’s when he said he had enough.
I know Marvel screwed him over in the past but I still think Alan was over-reacting. Joe apologized publicly and made sure the corrections were made in later prints, but it wasn’t enough to get him to work for Marvel.

The thing is Zabba, before that one of Moore’s issues with Captain Britain was that the credit was missing – JQ did the work to try patch it up, and said that on the next issues we won’t make the same mistake, so sorry, and then made the same mistake.

Also, there was an interview from around the time where Moore said he was more than happy to have lunch with Joe Q, and to let Marvel try and fix the mistakes and make amends, but that him working at Marvel wasn’t something he was going to do.
I think he said as much as ‘that may have been what Joe wanted as an outcome, but even if everything had gone right, it wasn’t going to be an outcome’.

Heck, can you see an Alan Moore book fitting in at all with Marvel these days?
Even if he had wanted to work with them, I can’t see it being much better than his 90′s Wildstorm books, and with very few exceptions, they read like sticking your tongue in a switched on blender tastes like.

DC on the other hand had been doing everything but forcefully sodomizing Alan Moore in order to keep him.

They never had him since Watchmen – they only got ABC as a side result of buying Wildstorm.
They had to set up a company to just pay his cheques because he refused to use a cheque that had their company name on it.

They Yellow Hat Guy gag was humor not critique. I lol’ed. It was a prank. Get over it. You obsessing over it is more wrong then him punking Rob.

Seems more obsessive to respond to a post from over two weeks ago just to defend some guy who was a jerk to a comic creator.