Attn: Creators - Responsibility To Fans
Scott Bailey
>Others (myself included) think that while creating a
>story is appreciated, when a book becomes very late (past it's
>solicitation date) then the creator should provide the fans with a
>reason why they have to wait. Nothing personal...just a reason.
>So if you're if you're in the business and haven't had a go of it
>yet, feel free to respond. I'm really curious on your replies.
No way. No way. I hate late books as much as you, but the reason for
lateness could be any number of people's responsibility, from the writer, to
the penciller, inker, colorist, editor, printer, etc.--seperately contracted
people, or freelancers that may or may not even speak to one another
personally. The one you want an explanation from may have no idea why the
book didn't ship on time. The person responsible may not have the means to
provide you with an explanation, meaning he may not have a computer or a
press agent or whatever.
Water is wet, grass is green, comics are late. Especially when you have a
penciller who thinks he's to good for a deadline, or the writer is overcome
with ailments, or the book has to redone because a gross printing error was
discovered late in production. And so on. Who, in my clever examples, do
you want to explain? The artist? He's two weeks over deadline and he's
still got 3 levels left on Final Fantasy IV. The writer? His (personal)
business. The editor who had the book reprinted (or however it would work)?
Thank him for caring enough about the quality.
If a book is consistently late, drop it. Those suckers are way to expensive
to mess with if you aren't wholly satisfied. And you can tell the ones that
will be late, if you pay attention. Battle Chasers? Danger Girl? Come on,
who didn't see this coming?
Scott
Nat Gertler
>
> Comics are one of the very few products which can be safely delivered
> very late without apology or discount. I'm not so sure this is a good
> idea -- because in the long term this kills the retailers and
> discourages the fans, without obviously penalizing the people
> responsible for the lateness. (That's not a flame of creators. For
> one thing, very often it's not the creators' fault.)
That's not the case, though. When a book is very late, it is made
returnable within the direct market. The return of copies that the
retailer would otherwise have been stuck with is, in effect, a
discount... and the cost of that goes to the publisher (and, in the case
of a royalty or profit-share situation, the creators).
James Corcoran
If there are any creators, artists, writers or such others in the
comics business who haven't been following the "PCR #92: Danger
Girl is Late!" thread, we have been having a chat on what is the
creators' responsibility to the fans. Some have said that the
responsibility stops at the point of providing a story for the fans
to digess. Others (myself included) think that while creating a
story is appreciated, when a book becomes very late (past it's
solicitation date) then the creator should provide the fans with a
reason why they have to wait. Nothing personal...just a reason.
So if you're if you're in the business and haven't had a go of it
yet, feel free to respond. I'm really curious on your replies.
James Corcoran - and for others please let them respond without
getting all flamed up. I'd really like to hear without the
shouting please and could turn anyone who might have responded
away.
Mark Evanier
posted:
>If there are any creators, artists, writers or such others in the
>comics business who haven't been following the "PCR #92: Danger
>Girl is Late!" thread, we have been having a chat on what is the
>creators' responsibility to the fans. Some have said that the
>responsibility stops at the point of providing a story for the fans
>to digess. Others (myself included) think that while creating a
>story is appreciated, when a book becomes very late (past it's
>solicitation date) then the creator should provide the fans with a
>reason why they have to wait. Nothing personal...just a reason.
>So if you're if you're in the business and haven't had a go of it
>yet, feel free to respond. I'm really curious on your replies.
ME: I've only read a small part of that thread. Keeping that in
mind...
I think I disagree with your position. The reason that a given book
is late may be due to problems between the folks working on it, or
problems between them and the publishers. Some kinds of problems are
best resolved in private between the parties involved. They shouldn't
be rushing out onto the Internet to blame each other.
Just out of curiosity, what difference does the reason really make?
Are you looking to pass some sort of judgement on whether a reason is
acceptable or not?
And what makes you think you're going to get an honest reason instead
of a tactful fib or cover story?
I also hope someone pointed out that, sometimes, comics are late for
reasons beyond the creators' power...like, the color separator screwed
up...or the printer went out of business...or some other book at the
company was so much later that they made the decision to devote all
their resources to getting that one out, even if it meant making
another book a little bit late.
I did note that someone implied that creator-owned books are more
prone to lateness than the other kind. I don't know that that's
true...and if it is, it may be more a problem of small publishers than
creator-ownership.
And I might point out that during one ten year period, there was one
Marvel title that never resorted to a fill-in writer or artist. In
fact, it had the same folks writing, drawing and even lettering it
every month and it was never late. It was a creator-owned title.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evanier's e-mail address is: m...@evanier.com
363 S. Fairfax Ave., #303 - Los Angeles, CA 90036
Carl Fink
>And I might point out that during one ten year period, there was one
>Marvel title that never resorted to a fill-in writer or artist. In
>fact, it had the same folks writing, drawing and even lettering it
>every month and it was never late. It was a creator-owned title.
Did it involve mulch?
Comics are one of the very few products which can be safely delivered
very late without apology or discount. I'm not so sure this is a good
idea -- because in the long term this kills the retailers and
discourages the fans, without obviously penalizing the people
responsible for the lateness. (That's not a flame of creators. For
one thing, very often it's not the creators' fault.)
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>
KurtBusiek
And that's it. That's what the creator owes the reader for the cover price of
the comic.
While I tend to explain thigs like latenesses, I do it because I want to. If I
thought it was demanded of me, I'd refuse -- when you buy comics I write,
you're buying those pages; the best I can deliver at that moment. You're not
buying any sort of ongoing mortgage on my private life.
Besides, I'd never get the books done if I had to find a way to reach all the
readers with an explanation. What about the ones who don't read Usenet? What
about the ones who don't have computers? What about the ones who read the
Spanish editions, and don't get the same lettercols? I don't even speak
Spanish.
My responsibility is to do the job as well as I can, and hope I bring you back
for more. Not with my winning personality, or my affable online manner, but
with the content of the books.
kurt
David Crowe
: On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 02:47:15 GMT Mark Evanier <m...@evanier.com> wrote:
: >And I might point out that during one ten year period, there was one
: >Marvel title that never resorted to a fill-in writer or artist. In
: >fact, it had the same folks writing, drawing and even lettering it
: >every month and it was never late. It was a creator-owned title.
: Did it involve mulch?
I think he's talking about ElfQuest. :)
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe http://www.primenet.com/~jetman
"Fool! You have not the _strength_ to kill..."
-Slaymaster's last words, Captain Britain TPB
Alan Travis
> If a book is consistently late, drop it.
Not only do I not agree with James' idea that creators owe the fans an
explanation over lateness, I also don't understand why people drop books because
they are late. If you would buy a book released on time, then why not buy it if
its late? Is there something about waiting for the book to come out that
diminishes its inherent quality?
I know it can be frustrating at times, but it has never affected my opinion of a
story.
---Alan (who can't imagine that he would like Thunderbolts #25 anymore if he had
read it a few weeks earlier.)
Howard M. Shum
> And I might point out that during one ten year period, there was one
> Marvel title that never resorted to a fill-in writer or artist. In
> fact, it had the same folks writing, drawing and even lettering it
> every month and it was never late. It was a creator-owned title.
Yeah, but didn't every editor on that book end up being cursed?
Howard
--
Howard M. Shum
Gazillion (new comic from Image) web site at:
http://members.tripod.com/~howard_shum/comics.html
Mark Evanier
posted:
>Yeah, but didn't every editor on that book end up being cursed?
ME: In the comic book business, every editor is cursed. One way or
the other.
John Northey
>I think a creator's responsibility is to create the best comics he or she can.
>And that's it. That's what the creator owes the reader for the cover price of
>the comic.
I won't argue that point. The main problem with lateness is the fact
many fans do get angry about it (see Hepcats) and many creators get
mad when fans don't rush out and buy the comic after long delays (see
Hepcats).
OK, I used just one comic as an example, but it is the most extreme
example I can think of offhand. Basically, my point is that long
delays cost comics readers. If anyone can point out a comic that had
long delays between issues that didn't pay a price for it (and I'm not
talking about 1 or 2 weeks, I mean consistantly being 2+ months late)
I'd love to hear of it.
Readers can understand many reasons for delays and generally
appreciate it when a creator tries to let us know why our favorite
title didn't come out for a couple of months. If, say, Jeff Smith had
that long break from Bone and just said 'none of your business why I
was gone' I figure he would've lost some readers. Instead, when it
was known it was a serious problem that could've ended his career (eye
problems...I forget the details) it made a few look at trying out the
title, as it brought positive attention to it (I hadn't tried it until
after his eye problems...it seemed so tragic that his career could end
I thought I should take a look).
When a creator just keeps delaying and tells fans how little he thinks
of them (see Hepcats/Martin Wagner) then the reverse happens. I know
I'll not recommend Hepcats to people now because I know the story is
'stuck' forever. If #13 comes out I'll probably buy it, but odds are
good that I won't even notice it as I won't be looking for it (which
is probably part of the reason he got 'just' 4000 orders for it). Sad
really as he has tons of talent but just no urge to deliver unless it
is 'profitable' for him (I put that in quotes as all he had to do with
13 was let Antarctic print it since it was finished, and he would've
got some money...similar with the reprint of the Snowblind tpb). Say,
does Martin work for Diamond? 8)
John Northey.
Crazy Canadian and creator of the Fans of Teri Sue Wood site.
http://www.sentex.net/~jnorthey/TSW
JohannaLD
>I think a creator's responsibility is to create the best comics he or she
>can.
Agreed. But I think there's another consideration when
you're talking about a serial medium -- and that's the
continuing story.
>While I tend to explain thigs like latenesses, I do it because I want to. If
>I thought it was demanded of me, I'd refuse
I think there's a place between silence and demands;
I think it's good business to keep readers of a serial
story appraised of when they might expect to see the
next chapter.
-- Johanna
Comics Worth Reading -- http://members.aol.com/johannald
JohannaLD
> Is there something about waiting for the book to come out that
>diminishes its inherent quality?
If it's a continuing story, yes. The increased frustration
in waiting for it can affect the reaction to the material.
Additionally, reading comics is sometimes like going to the
movies -- as long as it's ok, it doesn't really matter if
you get title A or B. The experience itself is part of
the pleasure you're getting.
>I know it can be frustrating at times, but it has never affected my opinion
>of a story.
You've never read something and thought "this
certainly wasn't worth the wait"?
Michael Long
the way life is.At least when it is late though,it's nice to get an
explanation .Which has been done,gratefully,in the case of AC-Thank you.
MBLong
KurtBusiek wrote in message
<19990318234239...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>I think a creator's responsibility is to create the best comics he or she
can.
>And that's it. That's what the creator owes the reader for the cover price
of
>the comic.
>
>While I tend to explain thigs like latenesses, I do it because I want to.
If I
KurtBusiek
Date: Fri, Mar 19, 1999 1:18 PM:
>>The main problem with lateness is the fact many fans do get angry about it
(see Hepcats) and many creators get mad when fans don't rush out and buy the
comic after long delays (see Hepcats).>>
None of that has anything to do with a creator's responsibility to explain
behind-the-scenes stuff, of course. It points out that it can be smart to
explain stuff, and it can be counter-productive to berate your fans for not
being as devoted to your work as you wish they were -- but being smart and
avoiding counter-productive behavior is a matter of strategy, choice and all
that other fun free-will stuff; it's not part of any compact between creators
and readers.
Erik Larsen, Dave Sim and others piss off readers. They might have more
readers if they didn't do that, but that doesn't make it their responsibility
to be blander and inoffensive. It just means they live with the results of the
choices they make, just as an artist who changes his style in a direction his
audience doesn't necessarily embrace has no responsibility to stick with the
tried-and-true.
kurt
thad a doria
Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Scott Bailey wrote:
>
>> If a book is consistently late, drop it.
>
>Not only do I not agree with James' idea that creators owe the fans an
>explanation over lateness, I also don't understand why people drop books because
>they are late. If you would buy a book released on time, then why not buy it if
>diminishes its inherent quality?
>I know it can be frustrating at times, but it has never affected my opinion of a
>story.
>
>read it a few weeks earlier.)
Exactly. When you go back and re-read Thunderbolts years from now, will
you have a little post-it note reminding you how late it was? Only if
you're deranged. When I read my Camelot 3000 tpb, the fact that the
conclusion was 10 months late doesn't diminish the story's quality in the
slightest.
Late comics are a bit annoying, but you know what sucks more? Fill-in
issues. 20 inkers on one comic. Or what Marvel used to do in the
1970's--unnanounced reprints ("yep, we fell behind on Hulk, so this
month's issue will reprint an old story just so we'll have something to
ship. Aren't we great?"). 10 years from now, when I re-read some crap
fill-in issue of a comic, I'm not going to be consoling myself by thinking
"well, at least it shipped on time." I'll probably be thinking "why did I
waste my money, this isn't even by the regular creators" or "why didn't
they wait till it was inked properly before they rushed it out the door?"
I still get a chill thinking about all those horrid Spider-Man "inventory"
stories from the Shooter era. Shipping on time doesn't make an Alan
Kupperburg/Vince Coletta story any less gruesome...damn, just remembered
all those Moon Knight fill-ins. The potholes on the Moench/Sienkiewicz
highway. Now I'm going to be depressed all day.
--
-Thad Doria
"It's a simple equation, folks: hookers plus loneliness divided by
organ grinders equals monkey hearts!" --Olly
"What the [bleep] are you talking about?" --Sifl
KurtBusiek
Date: Fri, Mar 19, 1999 2:12 PM:
>>Agreed. But I think there's another consideration when you're talking about a
serial medium -- and that's the continuing story.>>
I think it's implicit in the form of the continuing story and the commercial
nature of the presentation of such stories that the audience doesn't get a
guarantee of completion, whether it's the cliffhanger at the end of SILVER
SURFER #18 (just now, decades later, resolved), Steve Englehart's abrupt
departure from CAPTAIN AMERICA with sub-plots on the boil when he was rewarded
for bringing sales up substatially by being replaced on the book by Jack Kirby,
a newspaper's cancellation of a continuity strip mid-story, or any number of
other examples. It is hoped on both sides that a serial story will continue to
conclusion without interruption or delay -- but the risk that it won't is and
has always been implicit in the production of these things.
I was a big fan of SECOND CHANCES, a nighttime TV drama/soap created by Latham
and Lachowick, the folks behind HOMEFRONT. It wasn't as popular as the
networks had hoped, however, and when the sets were destroyed in an earthquake,
the networks chose to put their money into getting more popular shows back up
and running swiftly, letting SECOND CHANCES fade and pretty much die. The show
got a second chance, though -- several of the lead characters were made the new
leads on a new Latham/Lechowick series called HOTEL MALIBU, and we got to see
their stories continue, even though many of the SECOND CHANCES plotlines were
abandoned without any resolution, and the characters who did continue went in
directions that they never would have had the original show continued.
But that was okay by me -- I got to see some continuation, at least, and it was
a good one. Unfortunately, HOTEL MALIBU didn't catch on either, and was
bounced around the schedule (possibly by my local station), with the last
episode I ever found playing at 2 AM on a Wednesday.
All that's regrettable, but I don't think Latham and Lechowick had a
responsibility to come onto the Internet and explain the reasons behind this to
me. I think their responsibility was limited to making the shows as good as
they could, and hoping that they would win eough of an audience to overcome
such difficulties as earthquakes and the whims of program directors.
They didn't, and I'm still frustrated at losing a bunch of charming, quirky
characters in mid-story, just as I'm still frustrated that the Stern/Byrne CAP
was ended too soon, that the last seaso of PICKET FENCES was so bad, due to the
departure of the main writer/producer, that TYRANT ain't coming out any more
after being told for months that the next issue would be finished, and so on.
And that frustration makes me less likely to give my full trust to creators on
a work-for-hire book, to be confident that I'll get the next episode or next
season of my favorite shows at the same pace and quality -- even TV GUIDE warns
that the shows they describe might not be the ones that air, because things
happen and they don't get told in time -- that self-published books will be as
regular as books where the owners will pull in fill-in creators or pay high
overages to get a late book turned around fast (and maybe sloppily) and any
number of things.
And I think that creators, from TV producers on down to Steve Bissette, should
understand that the stuff that happens that creates frustration in their
audience comes at a cost, and if the cost isn't balanced by enough on the other
side of the scale to make up for it, that audience can be lost.
But I don't thik any of that adds up to a responsibility on the creator's part
to come on line and explain the reasons for latenesses to that part of the
audience with the technology and interest to hear such explanations, which is
the concept at the heart of this discussion.
Yes, it ameliorated my annoyance at the sudden disappearance of SECOND CHANCES
to read about the earthquake in TV GUIDE; I understood that it couldn't be
helped. But if a new TYRANT got solicited tomorrow, I'd order it -- it's so
good that this reader, at least, will take it when he can get it, explanations
or not.
I don't think Steve owes me an explanation. I think it could be good sense and
good promotion to supply one. But I don't think those are responsibilities
owed to the audience, and if he doesn't supply one, I won't feel as if he's
violated some unwritten contract.
In the final analysis, what readers are buying for their money is a physical
object. I will do my part to make that physical object as good as I can,
within the constraints of my creative vision (i.e., I don't care how many
readers would be delighted to have Wolverine join the T-Bolts; it ain't gonna
happen). But that $1.99, or $2.50, or whatever does not entitle the reader to
something beyond the work that bears that cover price, even in the case of a
continuing story, since we all know that there is a risk of that story being
incomplete or untimely, no matter what the serial medium.
When someone pays for something ahead of time -- via subscription, for instance
-- it's understood that if the book gets canceled, the subscription can be
transferred to another book, or you'll get a refund. Or, if the work is late
enough, you can cancel (heck, with many subsciptions you don't even need
lateness -- you can cancel and get a refund just because you don't like GOLF
DIGEST any more). But implicit in that is the awareness that the future can't
be guaranteed -- so a safety net is provided, to make sure that you will get
what you ordered, something comparable that's agreeable to you, or your money
back. That's the safety net under continued stories, not guaranteed
explanations.
>>I think there's a place between silence and demands; I think it's good
business to keep readers of a serial story appraised of when they might expect
to see the next chapter.>>
I do, too -- that's why I do the explaining I do, when it's appropriate. Where
I draw the line is with the earlier assertion that such things are a
responsibility. For all that Peter David may come online or write a column
about why he left a series, or why a fill-in got slotted in, or any such
development, I'd be flabbergasted if Sal Buscema did the same. If an issue of
SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN, during Sal's run, wasn't by him, I simply assumed he
was ill, or on vacation, or had fallen behind due to other work and so they
brought in someone else, or whatever. I didn't feel Sal owed me anything
beyond the best he was capable of on the pages he drew.
kurt
Mute
>Yes, it ameliorated my annoyance at the sudden disappearance of SECOND CHANCES
>to read about the earthquake in TV GUIDE; I understood that it couldn't be
>helped. But if a new TYRANT got solicited tomorrow, I'd order it -- it's so
>good that this reader, at least, will take it when he can get it, explanations
>or not.
>I don't think Steve owes me an explanation. I think it could be good sense and
>good promotion to supply one. But I don't think those are responsibilities
>owed to the audience, and if he doesn't supply one, I won't feel as if he's
>violated some unwritten contract.
Um...you do know that he HAS come online, and HAS offered an
explanation, don't you?
-Mute.
________________________
Elayne Riggs
> I also don't understand why people drop books because
> they are late. If you would buy a book released on time, then why not buy it if
> its late? Is there something about waiting for the book to come out that
> diminishes its inherent quality?
Actually, yes, sometimes. If it's a continuing story and you're waiting
months between issues and the storyteller hasn't bothered furnishing a
"what has come before" or you just plain can't remember what's going on, I
can see where that would make you think twice about continuing to support
the project.
Another reason I tend to be big on self-contained stories if there's a
chance the schedule's going to be shot...
- Elayne
Iain Brown
KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote in message
news:19990319110026...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
>
> (i.e., I don't care how many
> readers would be delighted to have Wolverine join the T-Bolts; it ain't
gonna
> happen).
Of course not, he'd never fit in.
Sabretooth on the other hand.....
Iain
KurtBusiek
Date: Fri, Mar 19, 1999 3:41 PM
Message-id: <36f2...@news3.us.ibm.net>:
>>kurtb...@aol.comics (KurtBusiek) wrote:
>I don't think Steve owes me an explanation. I think it could be good sense
and
>good promotion to supply one. But I don't think those are responsibilities
>owed to the audience, and if he doesn't supply one, I won't feel as if he's
>violated some unwritten contract.
>>Um...you do know that he HAS come online, and HAS offered an explanation,
don't you?>>
I didn't, as it happens. I know he's part of that Comicon.com thing, so I
don't find it surprising if there's an explanation there. But I don't care; it
won't affect my buying TYRANT if and when it pops up again, in whatever format
he cares to do it in.
So you could just pick another example of a late book that hasn't gotten an
explanation, if that makes the point more clear. Or you could stick with this
one -- if Steve truly owed me an explanation, then he should have found me with
it, regardless of whether I visit Comicon.com or wherever he's posted it. If
he oes the readers an explanation, then he owes it even to the ones who don't
have internet access, or even those who don't have computers.
Since I don't think an explanation is required, I'm hardly going to insist he
do that. But if one _was_ considered a responsibility, why would it extend
only to those who have access to one method of communication?
kurt
Mute
>>>From: mute...@hotmail.com (Mute)
>>>kurtb...@aol.comics (KurtBusiek) wrote:
>>I don't think Steve owes me an explanation. I think it could be good sense
>and
>>good promotion to supply one. But I don't think those are responsibilities
>>owed to the audience, and if he doesn't supply one, I won't feel as if he's
>>violated some unwritten contract.
>>>Um...you do know that he HAS come online, and HAS offered an explanation,
>don't you?>>
>I didn't, as it happens. I know he's part of that Comicon.com thing, so I
>don't find it surprising if there's an explanation there.
Yeah, it's been on his page there since the start, and he's also
talked about it a bit in postings on the message boards there.
Basically, when Capital went under, he decided that the Direct Market
was a lame duck and decided not to lose any money in it that he hadn't
already committed. The material that would have been in Tyrant #5-6
(which he had already noted was proceeding in a non-linear fashion on
his drawing board) is still in progress, to be published in a
squarebound book when it's all done.
>But I don't care; it
>won't affect my buying TYRANT if and when it pops up again, in whatever format
>he cares to do it in.
Luckily enough!
>So you could just pick another example of a late book that hasn't gotten an
>explanation, if that makes the point more clear. Or you could stick with this
>one -- if Steve truly owed me an explanation, then he should have found me with
>it, regardless of whether I visit Comicon.com or wherever he's posted it. If
>he oes the readers an explanation, then he owes it even to the ones who don't
>have internet access, or even those who don't have computers.
>Since I don't think an explanation is required, I'm hardly going to insist he
>do that. But if one _was_ considered a responsibility, why would it extend
>only to those who have access to one method of communication?
Oh, I don't think it should. I'm inclined to think in this instance
that he *did* owe an explanation of sorts through other channels, as I
had ordered and paid for the next Tyrant and two or three issues of
Spider-Baby Comix -which was material he already had ready to print,
and which had been intended to subsidise his current work- and then
sat there for month after month, scanning the order forms* and just
seeing all of them get later and later, but never being cancelled by
the publisher. I would have taken them being cancelled as an
indication that they weren't going to come out, and accepted that. I
found the actual situation frustrating and aggravating, especially
when I didn't get my money back for about two years...
Mute
*that's right. I didn't eat, I didn't bathe...just sat there looking
in the back of Previews...
Nat Gertler
>
> Oh, I don't think it should. I'm inclined to think in this instance
> that he *did* owe an explanation of sorts through other channels, as I
> had ordered and paid for the next Tyrant and two or three issues of
> Spider-Baby Comix -which was material he already had ready to print,
> and which had been intended to subsidise his current work- and then
> sat there for month after month, scanning the order forms* and just
> seeing all of them get later and later, but never being cancelled by
> the publisher. I would have taken them being cancelled as an
> indication that they weren't going to come out, and accepted that. I
> found the actual situation frustrating and aggravating, especially
> when I didn't get my money back for about two years...
But if you're doing a Previews-based mail order, he's not the one that
took your money. Diamond's not crazy: the publisher doesn't see money
until after the book ships.
sel...@my-dejanews.com
kurtb...@aol.comics (KurtBusiek) wrote (snips not identified):
>I'm still frustrated at losing a bunch of charming, quirky
> characters in mid-story, just as I'm still frustrated that the Stern/Byrne CAP
> was ended too soon, that the last seaso of PICKET FENCES was so bad, due to
the
> departure of the main writer/producer, that TYRANT ain't coming out any more
> after being told for months that the next issue would be finished, and so on.
Heck, I have every issue of Acclaim/Valiant. And you think YOU feel bad?
> And that frustration makes me less likely to give my full trust to creators on
> a work-for-hire book, to be confident that I'll get the next episode or next
> season of my favorite shows at the same pace and quality
"Less likely to give my full trust." Heh.
>But if a new TYRANT got solicited tomorrow, I'd order it -- it's so
> good that this reader, at least, will take it when he can get it, explanations
> or not.
Amen, Brother Busiek! And I'll be subscribing to SHADOWMAN, Volume 3 at my
comics shop. Maybe this time, I won't get burned.
ant'ny
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
KingMobUK
am effectively buying a product from is the publisher. It's down to the
publisher to ensure that their customers are happy, meaning that they are
responsible for making sure that the books ship on time or offering
explanations as to why they don't.
Unless the creator is also the publisher, I do not expect the creator to pop up
on-line or anywhere else and offer me explanations. Things happen and people
have lives, even comic book creators <g>. Seeing as the creators are employed
to write X number of books in X amount of time by the publisher I feel it is
really down to the publisher to ensure creators produce work in a timely
manner, or else to ensure that fill-ins are provided/explanations offered. As
Kurt Busiek says - I do not feel that as a fan I have a right to a direct
pipeline into a writer/artists private life, but I *do* expect publishers to
have a responsibility to their customers. I also accept that it is quite often
*not* the creators fault if a title is late.
I suppose this could be viewed as a harsh and terribly business-like way to
assess what is essentially a creative art, but the comics industry is also a
business and as with anything else I expect to receive what I order in the
promised time or get an explanation from the supplier.
I *have* on occasion dropped books that persistently ship late with no apology
or explanation, but I generally do so without being necessarily annoyed with
the creative team specifically. It's more an irritation with the cavalier
attitude of the publisher to the consumer.
Marcia
Columns Editor - Sequential Tart Webzine (http://www.sequentialtart.com)
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
kurtb...@aol.comics (KurtBusiek) wrote:
> I do, too -- that's why I do the explaining I do, when it's
appropriate. Where
> I draw the line is with the earlier assertion that such things are a
> responsibility. For all that Peter David may come online or write a column
> about why he left a series, or why a fill-in got slotted in, or any such
> development, I'd be flabbergasted if Sal Buscema did the same. If an issue of
> SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN, during Sal's run, wasn't by him, I simply assumed he
> was ill, or on vacation, or had fallen behind due to other work and so they
> brought in someone else, or whatever. I didn't feel Sal owed me anything
> beyond the best he was capable of on the pages he drew.
While I don't expect anyone to provide detailed explanations, or personal
information, the failure to do so will not only hurt business but also the
professional reputation of the responsible parties. A company dropping a
title in mid-story is difficult to narrow down to an individual so there
is generally less comment. But an individual who fails to meet
commitments will cause damage to their reputation. An explanantion may
prevent such damage. Providing or not providing an explanation needs to
be weighed with this partly in mind.
B. Martin
JohannaLD
>I think it's implicit in the form of the continuing story and the commercial
>nature of the presentation of such stories that the audience doesn't get
>a guarantee of completion,
No, but I'm referring to the implicit (and often explicit) promise of
"Continued Next Month!"
>It is hoped on both sides that a serial story will continue
>to conclusion without interruption or delay -- but the risk that it won't is
>and has always been implicit in the production of these things.
In any human activity, there is risk. I'm just suggesting that if a
creator can't fulfill their promise, they should take the course of
action beneficial to both themselves and the fans, and let the fans
know when they can expect to see the rest of the story.
>All that's regrettable, but I don't think Latham and Lechowick had a
>responsibility to come onto the Internet and explain the reasons behind
>this to me.
I think that the producers would WANT to spread as far as possible
the message that fans of the first show could get some story
fulfillment out of the second show. It's good for the fans, and
good for their ratings.
>In the final analysis, what readers are buying for their money is a physical
>object.
A physical object that contains a story that fires their dreams.
If all fans cared about were paper, ink, and staples, you can get
those cheaper elsewhere. :)
Scott Bailey
>In article <36F2044A...@earthlink.net>,
>>Scott Bailey wrote:
>>
>>> If a book is consistently late, drop it.
>>Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Not only do I not agree with James' idea that creators owe the fans an
>>explanation over lateness, I also don't understand why people drop books
because
>>they are late. If you would buy a book released on time, then why not buy
it if
>>its late? Is there something about waiting for the book to come out that
>>diminishes its inherent quality?
>>I know it can be frustrating at times, but it has never affected my
opinion of a
>>story.
I never said that it lessened its quality, nor did I indicate it affected my
opinion of the story. You can see my quote above. I'll restate: If the
book is consistently late, and late books bother you, drop it.
>thad a doria wrote in message:
>Exactly. When you go back and re-read Thunderbolts years from now, will
>you have a little post-it note reminding you how late it was? Only if
>you're deranged. When I read my Camelot 3000 tpb, the fact that the
>conclusion was 10 months late doesn't diminish the story's quality in the
>slightest.
But right now, as I await each issue, it pisses me off. Lateness has no
bearing on the merits of the story. It does, however, directly affect my
opinion of the overall product. I can feel that way.
Look, if a publisher can't meet a monthly deadline, schedule the thing for
every other month, or quarterly. Solicit and publish the thing in a
mini-series once you have all four issues complete! I don't care about
getting a book out monthly, just when it is supposed to be out. Why Homage
doesn't just put Astro City on a bimonthly or quarterly schedule is beyond
me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Scott
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
> bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu wrote:
> >
> > While I don't expect anyone to provide detailed explanations, or personal
> > information, the failure to do so will not only hurt business but also the
> > professional reputation of the responsible parties.
>
> Even when the explanation is "I spent all month playing Super
> Kung-Fu Monkey Death Car"?
>
> Folks working within the business know that there are all sorts of
> reasons why things are late, and aren't likely to assume the worst
> about a single member of the creative team for an occassional late
> project.
I am not assuming the worst. There is the likelihood of a damaged
reputation, whether by a small or large increment. One doesn't have to
jump to the worst to be concerned about the issue. There is no black and
white issue here.
In any capacity, you miss a deadline and you may suffer some damage. Just
rouitine aspect of working.
Providing an explanation is simply one sensible method of ameliorating
potential damage.
There is also the concerns of how late? ...how frequently is somebody
late? ...and other concerns.
B. Martin
Nat Gertler
>
> Why Homage
> doesn't just put Astro City on a bimonthly or quarterly schedule is beyond
> me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Which is an interesting example suggesting how little difference such
things make, as Astro City *is* on a bimonthly schedule and that
doesn't seem to have changed your reaction...
Nat Gertler
Mark Evanier
>In any human activity, there is risk. I'm just suggesting that if a
>creator can't fulfill their promise, they should take the course of
>action beneficial to both themselves and the fans, and let the fans
>know when they can expect to see the rest of the story.
ME: The problem here is that creators don't make their promises of
delivery to the readers. We make them to our editors, publishers,
collaborators, etc.. When it gets to the bookstores is a function of
many people, including engravers, printers, binders and shippers that
we have nothing to do with.
I'm finishing a script this evening. When the book will finished and
in stores is something over which I have only a limited amount of
control. I don't even know when it will be solicited or printed...and
neither does the artist.
You buy your comics from a store that buys them from a distributor
that buys them (in essence) from a publishing company. I would
suggest that is the proper chain of inquiry and responsibility if a
book is late.
David J. Snyder
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>I think that the producers would WANT to spread as far as possible
>the message that fans of the first show could get some story
>fulfillment out of the second show. It's good for the fans, and
>good for their ratings.
>
emphasizing the new shows tie to the old show too much.
-Dave
--
"Being called an idiot tends to take people out of the dating mood."
"Well, it actually kind of turns me on."
"I fear you."
-Buffy and Xander, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
KurtBusiek
Date: Fri, Mar 19, 1999 11:59 PM:
>>I'm referring to the implicit (and often explicit) promise of "Continued Next
Month!">>
Yes, I know. And sometimes, with all the best will in the world, it isn't.
Just like other forms of serial fiction not continuing, or being delayed,
regardless of creator hopes and fan expectation.
>>I'm just suggesting that if a creator can't fulfill their promise, they
should take the course of action beneficial to both themselves and the fans,
and let the fans know when they can expect to see the rest of the story.>>
I don't ever recall arguing that such a course is not a good idea. I've only
argued that it's not something that the creator owes the readers. But no
matter how many times I say that, I get responses suggesting that people are
choosing to read something else into my statements.
>> think that the producers would WANT to spread as far as possible the message
that fans of the first show could get some story fulfillment out of the second
show.>>
I'd hope so. I didn't say otherwise. But I don't think they _have_ to. I
don't think it's a _responsibility_. I don't think it's part of some implicit
_contract_ with the audience that they provide such an explanation.
But then, I've said this before.
>>A physical object that contains a story that fires their dreams.>>
If it's good, yes.
kurt
KurtBusiek
Date: Sat, Mar 20, 1999 12:27 AM:
>>Why Homage doesn't just put Astro City on a bimonthly or quarterly schedule
is beyond me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.>>
A good thing, too, since it _is_ on a bimonthly schedule at the moment, and has
been since I recovered enough to start writing it again.
kurt
Carl Fink
> . . . Is there something about waiting for the book to come out that
>diminishes its inherent quality?
No, but it diminishes *my enjoyment* of a book if I wait a year
between installments (CAMELOT 3000). If a book is chronically enough
late, I won't buy it, because I won't enjoy it.
Exception: Phil Foglio, whose stuff I'll buy even when a story takes
longer to finish than my college career (BUCK GODOT).
And I'd buy D'ARC TANGENT #2 now. That's got to be fifteen years
late.
--
Carl Fink sci...@iconsf.org
Science and Technology Programming, I-Con 18
Stony Brook, New York, April 9-11, 1999 www.iconsf.org
Carl Fink
>That's not the case, though. When a book is very late, it is made
>returnable within the direct market. The return of copies that the
>retailer would otherwise have been stuck with is, in effect, a
>discount... and the cost of that goes to the publisher (and, in the case
>of a royalty or profit-share situation, the creators).
That's not the case, though. :-)
See, the retailer had to keep cash around to pay for the books that
weren't actually shipped, so he/she didn't buy other comics, and in
fact just plain has less merchandise to sell. Returnability doesn't
totally reimburse the retailer. Speaking as an ex-retailer.
Sure, it costs the publisher something, I guess. Just not enough to
actually stop the ridiculous lateness rate we're seeing.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>
Steve Simmons
> From: joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) Date: Fri, Mar 19, 1999 2:12 PM:
>
> > Agreed. But I think there's another consideration when you're
> > talking about a serial medium -- and that's the continuing story.
>
> I think it's implicit in the form of the continuing story and the
> commercial nature of the presentation of such stories that the
> audience doesn't get a guarantee of completion . . .
Creators owe zero to fans. Zero, zip, nada.
Fans owe zero to creators. Zero, zip, nada.
When a creator consistantly abuses the reasonable expectations of the
fans -- that shipments will be somewhere near their schedules, that
stories will actually have worthwhile plots, that artwork will be worth
lingering over, etc, etc, etc, then fans vote with their feet and stop
buying the book.
I buy serial books (comics, book series) when I have a reasonable
expectation that the author will not leave me hanging. For folks like
Dave Sim or George R. R. Martin (cf his recent `Songs of Fire and Ice')
there is good solid history to indicate that the books will come out
in reasonable time and with reasonable story. For some publishers/
writers/artists, that's not a good bet -- and I no longer buy things
from those people unless and until there is a finished story. As
an example, I won't be buying any more of David Gerrolds `Chtorr'
books until they're all published. I like 'em a lot, but the point
has come where I simply don't believe they'll ever get written.
These things -- reliability, honesty with the reader, etc -- are often
what people say the creator owes the reader.
Crap.
It's what the prospective seller owes the prospective buyer. But that's
not art, it's business.
the big damonski
Mark Evanier wrote:
> I did note that someone implied that creator-owned books are more
> prone to lateness than the other kind. I don't know that that's
> true...and if it is, it may be more a problem of small publishers than
> creator-ownership.
>
well, lets' put it this way-
even if compnay books are late more than creator owned books,
when creator owned books are late, they tend
to get very very late-
hellshock, starchild, the tick, hepcats.
>
> And I might point out that during one ten year period, there was one
> Marvel title that never resorted to a fill-in writer or artist. In
> fact, it had the same folks writing, drawing and even lettering it
> every month and it was never late. It was a creator-owned title.
well, it's easy to do if they used the same joke over and over again!
--
first major lie of the 200 campaign-
"I am not a politician"- Elizabeth Dole.
the big damonski
KurtBusiek wrote:
> I think a creator's responsibility is to create the best comics he or she can.
> And that's it. That's what the creator owes the reader for the cover price of
> the comic.
>
> While I tend to explain thigs like latenesses, I do it because I want to. If I
> thought it was demanded of me, I'd refuse -- when you buy comics I write,
> you're buying those pages; the best I can deliver at that moment. You're not
> buying any sort of ongoing mortgage on my private life.
>
how much would that cost?
>
> Besides, I'd never get the books done if I had to find a way to reach all the
> readers with an explanation. What about the ones who don't read Usenet? What
> about the ones who don't have computers? What about the ones who read the
> Spanish editions, and don't get the same lettercols?
yes to all, but don't worry about the french.
> I don't even speak
> Spanish.
>
that's okay, you're american.
you're suposed to just assume they speak english.
>
> My responsibility is to do the job as well as I can, and hope I bring you back
> for more. Not with my winning personality, or my affable online manner, but
> with the content of the books.
i'd buy more of your comics if your sparkling personality infused every page.
Alan Travis
> Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net> happened to mention:
>
> > I also don't understand why people drop books because
> > they are late. If you would buy a book released on time, then why not buy it if
> > its late? Is there something about waiting for the book to come out that
> > diminishes its inherent quality?
>
> Actually, yes, sometimes. If it's a continuing story and you're waiting
> months between issues and the storyteller hasn't bothered furnishing a
> "what has come before" or you just plain can't remember what's going on, I
> can see where that would make you think twice about continuing to support
> the project.
Not me. If I'm liking a book enough to buy it, then I will a) usually know where we
had left off (in the rare occurences that I can't recall, a simple flip through the
book brings it all back in moments) and b) won't find the book inferior simply because
of the amount of time passed between issues.
What percentage of your enjoyment stems from the actual material and what percentage
comes from the circumstances of your exposure to the story?
> Another reason I tend to be big on self-contained stories if there's a
> chance the schedule's going to be shot...
Makes it easier to skip the fill-in issues. ---Alan
Alan Travis
> From: Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net>
>
> > Is there something about waiting for the book to come out that
> >diminishes its inherent quality?
>
> If it's a continuing story, yes. The increased frustration
> in waiting for it can affect the reaction to the material.
Well, I guess we have to disagree here. The fact that I had to wait so long for
Astro City didn't affect my interest in the story. I can't think of a time that
it has been a factor in my judgment.
> Additionally, reading comics is sometimes like going to the
> movies -- as long as it's ok, it doesn't really matter if
> you get title A or B. The experience itself is part of
> the pleasure you're getting.
Hmm... I know what you're saying, but it's never been enough to override my
feelings of about the material. If it's a good book, then I'm going to enjoy
it, regardless of how long it took to get to me. I've never set a book down and
thought that I would have felt more fulfiilled had it only come on time. Of
course, I also tend not to know when a book is late. I don't pay much attention
to when books are supposed to be out.
> >I know it can be frustrating at times, but it has never affected my opinion
> >of a story.
>
> You've never read something and thought "this
> certainly wasn't worth the wait"?
Yes, but if it came out on time and I hadn't liked it, I would feel the same
displeasure with it. I just wouldn't be able to whine about the lateness at the
same time.
---Alan
Mute
Oh, I know- but if he had cancelled it, I would have gotten my money
back then, instead of being left in limbo.
-Mute.
________________________
Roger Langridge
::>While I don't expect anyone to provide detailed explanations, or personal
::>information, the failure to do so will not only hurt business but also the
::>professional reputation of the responsible parties. A company dropping a
::>title in mid-story is difficult to narrow down to an individual so there
::>is generally less comment. But an individual who fails to meet
::>commitments will cause damage to their reputation. An explanantion may
::>prevent such damage. Providing or not providing an explanation needs to
::>be weighed with this partly in mind.
Wellll... an individual who fails to meet his professional commitments
in *any* field owes an explanation, but not to the general public as a
rule... usually to his or her *boss* (in the case of a comics
professional, to the editor, who is representing the publisher).
That's where the professional reputation issue comes in, mainly --
one's career success depends heavily on whether you have a reputation
for punctuality among editors, and if you don't, whether it was
because you're a lazy bastard or whether it was because your wife died
of cancer that year. What readers think of your punctuality (or
otherwise) is rarely a factor in one's professional reputation,
unless you are in fact a publisher.
There's another factor going on here too -- if you're a much-loved,
fan-favourite creator, you can offer any explanation for lateness to
your readers, no matter how ludicrous or transparently fictional, and
the fans will lap it up because they desperately want to believe
you're also a wonderful human being. But how many fans care that Vince
Colletta never blew a deadline in his life? Now *there's* a
professional reputation to be reckoned with. (My point being that the
people who assume the creators owe something to the fans in this
regard are running a risk of being awfully selective about who owes it
to them, and about what it is they actually owe.)
That's my opinion, anyway...
Roger Langridge
kiwi...@zoo.co.uk
Markus465
> The main problem with lateness is the fact
>many fans do get angry about it (see Hepcats) and many creators get
>mad when fans don't rush out and buy the comic after long delays (see
>Hepcats).
This has been a debate on comics for as long as I've read them, 20-some-odd
years. Fans should not get angry at the creators when a book is late any more
than creators get angry when people stop buying the book because it is late.
Neal Adams' Continuity Comics were habitually late and there is no doubt in my
mind that is what caused people to stop buying the comics. Hell, even
Retailers stopped ordering them and one Retailer even told me they went out of
business when they didn't! When an issue came out, I bought it because they
were good comics.
Obviously, if fans stop reading a book because it's continually late, the book
couldn't have been that good to begin with.
jnorthey also said:
>When a creator just keeps delaying and tells fans how little he thinks
>of them (see Hepcats/Martin Wagner) then the reverse happens.
My question has always been, why are these people doing comics if they truly
don't care about the fans? They buy the product and support the creator and
must like his/her product.
I can certainly understand why Martin is upset, but a constant sales figure in
the 4-5000 range is nothing to sneeze at.
Mark S.
Jim Murdoch
And sales on the book for us are actually above what they were before
the hiatus. The problem was having to explain over and over to people
why KBAC was missing, when T-bolts, Avengers and Iron Man were coming
out every month.
Jim
Comic Madness
Unkinder and Ungentler in 99
Dale Hicks
>
> But right now, as I await each issue, it pisses me off. Lateness has no
> bearing on the merits of the story. It does, however, directly affect my
> opinion of the overall product. I can feel that way.
Interesting. I have no problems with the lateness of books.
It affects the way that I buy them, but when a book ships late,
I don't even notice it. There was a time when I had noticed
that there was a very busy week for me, getting several of
my DC faves all on the same day, but the synchronization was
inevitably lost.
Me, I sit back and wait patiently for Kabuki and KBAC, knowing
that the next issue will be a quality one. I would not suggest
that Mack produce a comic just to do one, lest I get a book
that is like #6 instead of the very nice #7.
I buy KBAC in the TPB format, so I haven't even noticed Kurt's
drop in the schedule. I expect the next installment to be
well-done, however.
I wonder if it's not a byproduct of the times. When I was
introduced to comics, they weren't this monstrous mass of
serialization where plots were introduced to be dealt with in
months to come. The example that pops in my mind is the story
"Soljer's Private War" in LSH. A standalone that has nothing
to do with anything else and can be enjoyed by its own merits.
I dunno. I'm also split on that because I love the soap opera
of Maison Ikkoku (which has no inherent risk other than that
I might have to learn Japanese to finish the story) and Sandman.
Luckily these novellas are collected in a medium more suited
to their storytelling style.
--
Cranial Crusader dhi...@gibralter.net
JohannaLD
>ME: The problem here is that creators don't make their promises of
>delivery to the readers.
Most of the time, yes ... but I've seen any number of people online
plugging upcoming projects.
>You buy your comics from a store that buys them from a distributor
>that buys them (in essence) from a publishing company. I would
>suggest that is the proper chain of inquiry and responsibility if a
>book is late.
All I'm saying is, it makes sense for a creator to promote her work
in as many venues possible. Along those lines, additional promotion
consisting of "the book's late because the publisher's behind, look for
it in another two weeks" seems to be a smart thing to do to keep your
audience interested.
JohannaLD
>It affects the way that I buy them, but when a book ships late,
>I don't even notice it.
Since I preorder titles, I consider that a commitment to buy. In
order to keep track of what I'm committed to pay, I have to track
what I've ordered, when it's due, and when it's out. It quickly becomes
very clear which titles have late shipping problems.
This may only be a factor if someone buys more than just DC and
Marvel, although lateness was very much an issue in DC shipping
three recent related titles out of order (GL, GL: New Corps, and
Anarky).
>Me, I sit back and wait patiently for Kabuki and KBAC, knowing
>that the next issue will be a quality one.
I've quit recommending Kabuki to people as strongly as I was,
because their question, if interested, is "when's the next one out?"
and I can't answer that.
>I wonder if it's not a byproduct of the times. When I was
>introduced to comics, they weren't this monstrous mass of
>serialization where plots were introduced to be dealt with in
>months to come.
This is probably a large factor. To beat the Hepcats example into
the ground, Mr. Wagner made a big deal out of his grand plans for
an overarching storyline. That raised expectations in readers, so
they were understandably frustrated when those plans never came
to fruition. Unfortunately, it also has an effect on all other creators
who later make similar announcements; it's likely that they won't
be believed because of previous examples.
JohannaLD
>The fact that I had to wait so long for
>Astro City didn't affect my interest in the story.
Whereas friends of mine have switched to TPB or dropped it all
together because of the delays. I understand that you don't feel
that way; I suppose the question is are there more people like
you, or more people who need the more regular "hit".
>If it's a good book, then I'm going to enjoy
>it, regardless of how long it took to get to me.
Part of my problem is that I consider few current comics great.
There's a large number of good or mediocre works, and those aren't
generally good enough to be worth the wait. They're tolerable on
schedule, though.
Alt_Real
>>I wonder if it's not a byproduct of the times. When I was
>>introduced to comics, they weren't this monstrous mass of
>>serialization where plots were introduced to be dealt with in
>>months to come.
>
>This is probably a large factor. To beat the Hepcats example into
>the ground, Mr. Wagner made a big deal out of his grand plans for
>an overarching storyline. That raised expectations in readers, so
>they were understandably frustrated when those plans never came
>to fruition. Unfortunately, it also has an effect on all other creators
>who later make similar announcements; it's likely that they won't
>be believed because of previous examples.
>
>
>-- Johanna
>Comics Worth Reading -- http://members.aol.com/johannald
Another name I think we are going to sadly add to Martin Wagner's
lot is Bill Willingham. I do not believe we will see any more issues
of Pantheon as fairly recently it showed up on an invoice as
initial orders cancelled. Lone Star Press seems to be defunct
as they haven't had any listings in Previews in months. So in
addition to not seeing any more Coventry (Fantagraphics) from
Willingham we also no longer have Pantheon. This really sucks.
At one point I heard word that Willingham was going to do a
series for Vertigo, but I do not see any such project on DC's
1999 schedule.
Ralph Mathieu
Alternate Reality Comics
Las Vegas
Scott Bailey
in message <36F32F9F...@gertler.com>...
>>Scott Bailey wrote:
>>
>> Why Homage
>> doesn't just put Astro City on a bimonthly or quarterly schedule is
beyond
>> me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
>
>Nat Gertler wrote
>
>Which is an interesting example suggesting how little difference such
>things make, as Astro City *is* on a bimonthly schedule and that
>doesn't seem to have changed your reaction...
I'm not sure what you are saying. I don't buy AC. I was just using it as
an example of a comic that was consistently late. So my suggestion was to
change its shipping schedule. Since I don't buy it, I was unaware of its
new schedule; therefore my reaction remained unchanged as you astutely
observed.
Scott
TomRipley
>I am not assuming the worst. There is the likelihood of a damaged
>reputation, whether by a small or large increment. One doesn't have to
>jump to the worst to be concerned about the issue. There is no black and
>white issue here.
>
>In any capacity, you miss a deadline and you may suffer some damage. Just
>rouitine aspect of working.
>
>Providing an explanation is simply one sensible method of ameliorating
>potential damage.
>
>There is also the concerns of how late? ...how frequently is somebody
>late? ...and other concerns.
This is why I no longer buy Ash. The first issue was one of my
favorite single issues ever; I lost track of how many times I read
that book. Then the delays started. New issues were solicited and
then shipped months late, mini-series were started then delayed, or
solicited then delayed... I really enjoyed the work, but got tired of
losing track of the storyline because the last issue had been four or
five months ago. And to the best of my knowledge, they never once
owned up to the problem, constantly soliciting new product, constantly
adding books to the lineup (which were then free to be extremely late
themselves), constantly spending time schmoozing at conventions or
taking on cover assignments while their own series was left to
founder.
Some in this thread seem to be absoving the creators to any
responsibility to their fans, to the point of even blaming Capital or
Diamond for any animosity due to merchandise that is ordered then
delayed. I'd say it all rests with the creators. If Ash hadn't been
perpetually late, no one would be arguing over orders or money tied up
or when a cancellation would finally be allowed. If you solicit a
book to come out monthly (or bimonthly, or whatever), then that's when
it should come out. (And obviously if a car wreck or some other
catastrophe happens, a delay or cancellation is understandable. But
how many late comics are actually caused by something any more drastic
than overcommitment, or creator apathy?)
(Put more succinctly, I order from Westfield, meaning I'm paying
months in advance for my books, much like a store. Is it Westfield's
fault that Matt Wagner is late on Mage? Was it Westfield's fault that
I ordered issues of Ash that came in four months after they were due?
Looks to me like some here want to kill the messenger, instead of the
guy who wrote it.)
Finally, many in this thread keep mentioning how absurd it is to
expect a creator to "come onto the internet and apologize". I agree,
but with a different reason: why would you expect such a thing to
happen on the 'net in the first place? Kurt's had problems with Astro
City, and has explained some of the problems -- in the actual comic,
on the letters page where such things would be seen by *all* readers
of the comic. Had Quesada & crew bothered themselves to explain the
problem in Ash's letterpage, I might have held on for a few more
months. Perhaps there was some catastrophe behind the scenes that
caused them to get so far off-schedule, but they never even tried to
communicate with the fans about it. Late for a good reason I can
understand; late with no reason, and "Hey! We're adding three new
books to the schedule!", I just don't get at all.
Tom
--
"I never watched baseball on tv. It's slow & boring.
I'm not a fan. Never was." -- Jeff Kent, starting
second baseman, San Fransisco Giants (SI interview)
JamesWSch
>I also don't understand why people drop books because
>they are late.
Because I have to budget what I'm gonna buy each week usually 2 months in
advance. If a book is consistently late for whatever reason I eventually
replace it in my budget.
James S.
TomRipley
>From: "Dale Hicks" <dhi...@gibSPAMLESSralter.net>
>
>>It affects the way that I buy them, but when a book ships late,
>>I don't even notice it.
>
>Since I preorder titles, I consider that a commitment to buy. In
>order to keep track of what I'm committed to pay, I have to track
>what I've ordered, when it's due, and when it's out. It quickly becomes
>very clear which titles have late shipping problems.
Especially when your Westfield invoice conveniently points out that
out of twelve late books, six start with "Mage", and three are "Stray
Bullets". And yet both these creators keep soliciting new product,
month after month. Collectively, I've got nearly thirty dollars tied
up in these two, for books that are up to six months late. Despite
how much I liked the stories, I can't even remember where they left
off, and can't think of a single reason why I should bother ordering
them again.
JamesWSch
>think that while creating a
>story is appreciated, when a book becomes very late (past it's
>solicitation date) then the creator should provide the fans with a
>reason why they have to wait.
I don't think as a fan I'm owed an explanation if a book's late. Though it
would certainly build a lot of goodwill from me towards the creator if I got
one. Maybe even enough to make me try to rework my budget.
James S.
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
<Alt_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Another name I think we are going to sadly add to Martin Wagner's
> lot is Bill Willingham. I do not believe we will see any more issues
> of Pantheon as fairly recently it showed up on an invoice as
> initial orders cancelled. Lone Star Press seems to be defunct
> as they haven't had any listings in Previews in months. So in
> addition to not seeing any more Coventry (Fantagraphics) from
> Willingham we also no longer have Pantheon. This really sucks.
> At one point I heard word that Willingham was going to do a
> series for Vertigo, but I do not see any such project on DC's
> 1999 schedule.
In the case of Pantheon, I thought they had announced that all of the
stories were in the can already. I seem to recall the publisher writing
that this was critical before agreeing to solicit the first issue. Is
this not true?
B. Martin
Alt_Real
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu wrote in message ...
This may be true, but probably what happened was orders from
stores were too low to continue printing them. Too many stores
are uneducated about the books offered in Previews, are not in
tune with what their customers would like, and order too conserv-
atively.
zombie
says...
> Actually, yes, sometimes. If it's a continuing story and you're waiting
> months between issues and the storyteller hasn't bothered furnishing a
> "what has come before" or you just plain can't remember what's going on, I
> can see where that would make you think twice about continuing to support
> the project.
I agree with you here. I read ~$150 worth of comics every month. Plus
books, magazines, movies TV, etc. That's a lot of stories to keep
straight in your head.
--
Erik Veit **** zombie at best.com **** http://www.best.com/~zombie
zombie
says...
> On 19 Mar 1999 23:59:46 GMT, joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) posted:
>
> >In any human activity, there is risk. I'm just suggesting that if a
> >creator can't fulfill their promise, they should take the course of
> >action beneficial to both themselves and the fans, and let the fans
> >know when they can expect to see the rest of the story.
> ME: The problem here is that creators don't make their promises of
> collaborators, etc.. When it gets to the bookstores is a function of
> many people, including engravers, printers, binders and shippers that
> we have nothing to do with.
This thread is becoming confusing. It started out as a discussion for
creator-owned books (Danger Girl). Are we now talking about WFH? Don't
then the obligations, if any, move from the creator to the publisher?
I think we need to be clear which scenario we are talking about.
zombie
Ray Elliot
zombie
dhi...@gibSPAMLESSralter.net says...
> Me, I sit back and wait patiently for Kabuki and KBAC, knowing
> that Mack produce a comic just to do one, lest I get a book
> that is like #6 instead of the very nice #7.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. I am suggesting that they do
not solicit the very good book that they want to publish until they are
ready to deliver on their commitment.
Alan Travis
> >The fact that I had to wait so long for
> >Astro City didn't affect my interest in the story.
> Whereas friends of mine have switched to TPB or dropped it all
> together because of the delays. I understand that you don't feel
> that way; I suppose the question is are there more people like
> you, or more people who need the more regular "hit".
Aren't there delays with TPBs? Don't you have to wait for enough
issues to come out to form a TPB?
I would guess from the large number of posts asking where their favorite
book is or wanting an explanation from tardy artists that I am in the
minority with my indifference.
>If it's a good book, then I'm going to enjoy
>it, regardless of how long it took to get to me.
> Part of my problem is that I consider few current comics great.
> There's a large number of good or mediocre works, and those aren't
> generally good enough to be worth the wait. They're tolerable on
> schedule, though.
See, we're still missing something here. You say that the books aren't
great. They are good or mediocre. They aren't good enough to be worth
the wait. They are tolerable on schedule.
I say that if they are good enough to buy at all, it shouldn't matter if
they are on time or not. If they are mediocre, don't buy them. Why
should you accept mediocrity simply because it's punctual?
I'd rather read a great book that comes out sporadically and seemingly
at random than a okay book that's out every second Wednesday of the
month. I'd rather read a good book that comes out sporadically than a
mediocre and punctual book at all.
I don't know what week of the month Authority comes out. I don't know
how late Avengers is. I don't know how many times Leave It to Chance
#12 has been resolicited. I know it has. I don't have a clue as to
when I should expect it. Instead of being mad that it's not out week to
week, I don't think about it until the week is turns up.
The fact that I've waited months and months since the last issue won't
even cross my mind as I happily plunk down my cash. If I don't like it,
I'll form my opinions from the material presented and not from the vague
idea that something better should have come my way given the amount of
time it took to get here.
---Alan
Pat Meadow
other people have done, Cliffhanger will have to be used as the basis
for the problem, is that they just keep soliciting the damn material
when they know damn well that the stuff won't be out in the time they've
given themselves.
Why? Probably for the same reason McFarlane hasn't done the damn smart
idea of not soliciting Spawn for a month or two so the damn book can
catch up to it's shipping problems. Because I've been told, they get
their money based on the initial orders for the book, not when the book
comes out. So they need that money by say Jan., they'll solicit the book
for that period, get their money, and then take their sweet time to get
the book out case, the bills are paid and they can go play video
games.(Yes you Joe!)
And, has been stated before, they don't seem to care to explain why
they're taking their time to do the book. Is it necessary? Like Kurt
said on here, no, it's not. The fans will continue to be there for the
book when it finally does come out because we want to read it and enjoy
it and know that they put their best efforts in the book.
But, if they want to make themselves seem more human to the fans and not
like the Gods they sometimes tend to think they are cause they're
actually a good artist and came up with an interesting story, they
should explain why they can't get their head out of their asses and
work. Even Jae Lee came out and admitted, "Guys, I really can't come up
with a good story for Hellshock and I found out I'm not as good a writer
as I thought so I'm gonna stop and go back to just pencilling."
And look what happens. Inhumans is actually keeping schedule. And
selling too.
What we need is Joe and J. Scott to say "Yep, I can't stop finding other
things to do to prevent me from doing the work. I want to bastardize my
product with major merchandise tie-ins and have Joel Schumacher make a
horrid movie version of my comic. But of course, our blame must lay with
those damn video games we find much more interesting then our own work,
and in Joe's case, must find more things to steal from. Oh and to be
totally pissed of at Humberto for actually defying our own set of rules
and actually getting his book out on a regular schedule. That wasn't the
plan man!"
And in newest news, Campbell seems to have pulled the plug temporarily
on Art Adams's Dynamic Forces Danger Girl exclusive story for now
planning on releasing it themselves later in a special one-shot.
It's a good idea in the sense it will now be at a cheaper price, but I
think he did it cause Adams actually did the book in a regular amount of
time. Pissed him off that someone could actually do his book better than him.
Mind you, I'm still a fan and still plan on getting the books. Yes, I'll
wait for them, but I'll be pissed off doing it!
Said my peace. Let the comments go.
Elayne Riggs
> While I don't expect anyone to provide detailed explanations, or personal
> information, the failure to do so will not only hurt business but also the
> professional reputation of the responsible parties.
Or the parties who aren't responsible but that some fans believe to be so?
Sounds like a no-win situation to me.
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> I am not assuming the worst. There is the likelihood of a damaged
But by being so sure you know who's responsible, and whose reputation
should suffer, you do seem to be making some unsupportable assumptions.
Remember Mark Evanier's post about how it could be a production problem or
a coloring thing or whatever? By asserting the artist's rep will suffer
you appear to be assuming that the artist is responsible, even when you
are aware that's not always the case. So it seems to me, based on what's
been said on this thread, that a damaged reputation isn't necessarily the
fault of anything an artist may have done as much as the fault of some
fans who assume and speculate too much about aspects of the business to
which they're not privy.
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> Some in this thread seem to be absoving the creators to any
> responsibility to their fans...
Not at all. Some are simply saying the responsibility is to give the fans
the best stories they can produce. And there is no responsibility beyond
that. Saying "telling the best story you can" isn't saying "you have no
responsibility to your fans," it's specifying the one responsibility the
creator *does* have.
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> This thread is becoming confusing. It started out as a discussion for
> creator-owned books (Danger Girl).
No, this thread is spun off from a discussion on the Danger Girl thread.
This thread is strictly about what creators feel they owe their fans.
So far every creator who's weighed in with an opinion seems to have said
"We owe our fans the best work we can do, period."
Hope this clears up any confusion.
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> Elayne Riggs wrote:
>> Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net> happened to mention:
>>
>> > I also don't understand why people drop books because
>> > they are late. If you would buy a book released on time, then why not buy it if
>> > its late? Is there something about waiting for the book to come out that
>> > diminishes its inherent quality?
>>
>> Actually, yes, sometimes. If it's a continuing story and you're waiting
>> months between issues and the storyteller hasn't bothered furnishing a
>> "what has come before" or you just plain can't remember what's going on, I
>> can see where that would make you think twice about continuing to support
>> the project.
> Not me. If I'm liking a book enough to buy it, then I will a) usually
> know where we had left off...
Yeah, well you're not Sieve-Brain. :) As I've mentioned before, my brain
keeps track more of real-life things than fictional situations. (Even
growing up watching TV, I could tell folks the actors' names more often
than I could supply plot synopses!) A few months after I read most books
I don't know that I could supply all the plot details. That's one of the
things that makes it so much fun for me to read them again. :)
> What percentage of your enjoyment stems from the actual material and what percentage
> comes from the circumstances of your exposure to the story?
With me it's usually more the former than the latter, but I suppose
everything's mood-dependent.
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
>> months between issues and the storyteller hasn't bothered furnishing a
>> "what has come before" or you just plain can't remember what's going on, I
>> can see where that would make you think twice about continuing to support
>> the project.
> I agree with you here. I read ~$150 worth of comics every month. Plus
> books, magazines, movies TV, etc. That's a lot of stories to keep
> straight in your head.
And I guarantee you, Erik, that you and most other rac* participants do it
better than I do! :)
- Elayne (getting about time to reread those Oz books...)
BritReid
>>My question has always been, why are these people doing comics if they truly
don't care about the fans?<<
Cash. Lettuce. Sheckels. Moolah. The Green Stuff.
When you see toys, t-shirts, bumper stickers, bookends and other goodies for a
character who's made only a couple of appearances, it stinks of opportunism.
Someone like Kurt Busiek is the rare exception. He created Astro City, nurtured
it along on a fairly regular schedule, unfortunately developed a serious
illness, but as soon as he could he got right back up on the writing horse and
began a "catch-up" phase. No tempremental "I'm burned out and I need a rest
after a year" bull@#%$! And, did you notice that it's only recently that any
merchandise based on Astro City has begun to come out? (And well-done
merchandise at that!) With Busiek, the stories came FIRST!
Most creators, however don't give a damn. They just want you to buy all the
goodies they grind out along with the occasional comics story. They're not
artists, they're merchandisers. Don't make them rich.
Praise and buy the good ones (like Busiek). Don't buy the bad ones. It's as
simple as that.
-B
Carl Fink
<amtr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I say that if they are good enough to buy at all, it shouldn't matter if
>they are on time or not. If they are mediocre, don't buy them. Why
>should you accept mediocrity simply because it's punctual?
You are fully entitled to feel that way, Alan. The thing is, neither
Johanna nor I feel that way -- and we're also entitled to our
preferences.
For *us*, it matters how often the parts of a serial appear. Is that
really so hard to understand?
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."
-Martin Luther on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun
Dale Hicks
> In article <01be72ef$39a1ae40$d972f0d0@celeron>,
> dhi...@gibSPAMLESSralter.net says...
> > Me, I sit back and wait patiently for Kabuki and KBAC, knowing
> > that the next issue will be a quality one. I would not suggest
> > that Mack produce a comic just to do one, lest I get a book
> > that is like #6 instead of the very nice #7.
>
> I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. I am suggesting that they do
> not solicit the very good book that they want to publish until they are
> ready to deliver on their commitment.
Okay. The posts I was reading were griping because they couldn't
follow the story in the interim, or that they were just so impatient
that the wait was getting them irritated.
All of the replies to my post seem to have changed the focus, moving
the argument to more of a retailers' problem. Me, I don't pay for
the comics until they're in my hand, so if the next comic comes out
the week it's supposed to or 5 weeks later, it doesn't affect me.
Maybe I should have more empathy for the retailer's position, but
since the whole reworked distribution system annoys me, I don't.
I subscribe to the titles, and purchase what comes in. For the
specials, in general I don't preorder, but rather grab whatever
comes in that catches my eye. I don't subscribe to the notion that
I need to purchase my comics sight unseen, and I won't do it. When
a retailer won't sell to me without me browsing the stand, that's
when I'll quit reading.
--
Cranial Crusader dhi...@gibralter.net
JohannaLD
>Aren't there delays with TPBs? Don't you have to wait for enough
>issues to come out to form a TPB?
Yes, but it's a different kind of waiting, since most TPBs contain
at least one complete story. You don't have to wait for part two
of the story after you've read part one.
>Why should you accept mediocrity simply because it's punctual?
Because sometimes I just want the experience of reading a new
comic. Or catching up with a character I like.
Although given that I now have more comics new-to-me than I'll
ever be able to read, maybe I should give up reading current comics.
But then what would I talk about with y'all? :)
zombie
says...
> > creator-owned books (Danger Girl).
>
> No, this thread is spun off from a discussion on the Danger Girl thread.
So far, we haven't said anything different...
> This thread is strictly about what creators feel they owe their fans.
Fine. But the answer is likely different depending on if it is WFH or
creator-owned.
> So far every creator who's weighed in with an opinion seems to have said
> "We owe our fans the best work we can do, period."
For WFH? Or for creator-owned? Or for both? They didn't say. And I
believe it could possibly change their positions.
Alt_Real
John Northey wrote in message <36f6bd5a...@news.sentex.net>...
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 11:46:36 -0800, "Alt_Real"
><Alt_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Another name I think we are going to sadly add to Martin Wagner's
>>lot is Bill Willingham.
>
>Now, I'd never list Willingham with Martin Wagner as I've yet to hear
>of Willingham blaiming fans for not supporting his title, plus he has
>produced a lot more than 13 issues over 10 years. Shame Comico and
>him had such horrible friction (and that he didn't retain rights to
>his title) as I felt Elementals was one of the best superhero titles
>ever. It just amazed me when I first read it, and kept doing so
>whenever Willingham was writing it until the final version which just
>died out. Pantheon showed promise of reaching that level but if it is
>dead now it will be a shame. At least he never took 100 issue
>subscriptions from his fans (has Wagner refunded any of those yet? ...
>hell hasn't froze over yet so I guess not).
>
>
>John Northey.
>Crazy Canadian and creator of the Fans of Teri Sue Wood site.
>http://www.sentex.net/~jnorthey/TSW
You're right I am sorry to lump Willingham in with Martin Wagner.
I guess I just meant we will never see the end to Coventry or
Pantheon. You're doubly right in that Willingham hasn't blamed
fans. Hope he's doing okay.
Alan Travis
> You are fully entitled to feel that way, Alan. The thing is, neither
> Johanna nor I feel that way -- and we're also entitled to our
> preferences.
If I have ever given you the idea that I don't think you are entitled to your
preferences, I would not only be sorry, but I would be shocked and amazed.
> For *us*, it matters how often the parts of a serial appear. Is that
> really so hard to understand?
Relax, Carl. You're not on trial here. We're all just having a
conversation. Is that really so hard to understand? I understand that you do
feel that way. I'm saying I don't understand why. It doesn't make sense to
me. Hence, we are entering into discussion to explore our feelings about it.
---Alan
Alan Travis
> Yes, but it's a different kind of waiting, since most TPBs contain
> at least one complete story. You don't have to wait for part two
> of the story after you've read part one.
Well, sometimes you do get a cliffhanger (the second Preacher trade).
Also, the reader certainly knows that more has happened in the life of
the characters that they don't know about. I see what you are saying,
though., and I do find myself following some books only in trade format
(Preacher again).
> >Why should you accept mediocrity simply because it's punctual?
>
> Because sometimes I just want the experience of reading a new
> comic. Or catching up with a character I like.
So, would you rather have it be on time but a fill-in? On time but two
pencillers to make it by the deadline? Or late and the product of the
main creative team?
> Although given that I now have more comics new-to-me than I'll
> ever be able to read, maybe I should give up reading current comics.
> But then what would I talk about with y'all? :)
Don't give up on current comics simply because the industry can't afford
to lose any readers.
---Alan
John Northey
<Alt_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Another name I think we are going to sadly add to Martin Wagner's
>lot is Bill Willingham.
I gotta say, Willingham seems to have been born under an unlucky star
or something. First he loses control of Elementals at Comico (after
doing some great issues), comes back (does some amazing issues in v2),
loses control again, comes back (mediocre issues in v3), Comico dies.
Now he does Pantheon (which he said is partially an Elementals rip-off
but developed into more) and the company dies out on him after no one
notices the quality stuff he is doing again.
Sheesh!
Mute
>Most creators, however don't give a damn. They just want you to buy all the
>goodies they grind out along with the occasional comics story. They're not
>artists, they're merchandisers. Don't make them rich.
Unless you happen to like the merchandise, of course.
-Mute.
________________________
JohannaLD
>Also, the reader certainly knows that more has happened in the life of
>the characters that they don't know about.
I'm not sure what you mean here -- are you saying that the TPB
readers know that the story continues from where they are
now? I don't see that as a problem.
>So, would you rather have it be on time but a fill-in? On time but two
>pencillers to make it by the deadline? Or late and the product of the
>main creative team?
I would rather creators fulfill their promises.
To specifically answer your question, it depends on whether
we're talking about a self-published indy or a mainstream title.
The former, I'll probably wait, although if the delays become
consistent, the title will drop off my favorites list. The latter, I'd
rather see a fill-in or additional creators, because most
mainstream books are mediocre anyway.
>Don't give up on current comics simply because the industry can't afford
>to lose any readers.
Then the industry should quit putting out the poor comics they do.
Off Colour
>To specifically answer your question, it depends on whether
>we're talking about a self-published indy or a mainstream title.
>The former, I'll probably wait, although if the delays become
>consistent, the title will drop off my favorites list. The latter, I'd
>rather see a fill-in or additional creators, because most
>mainstream books are mediocre anyway.
Wow. If Byrne marketted his comics like this I might actually pick one
up.
"Because most mainstream books are mediocre anyway!"
:)
Chris
"Busiek is a weak Yanqui pig...
And he doesn't have a compound and a private army."
- Warren Ellis; suffused with power and drunk off his arse at 2am
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
<fire...@DELETETHIS.panix.com> wrote:
Exactly, but this is true for everyone in a business ultimately servicing
the general public. You don't really expect fairness from the general
public, do you?
B. Martin
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
<fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu happened to mention:
Bascially, this is going to happen whether you or I lile it. Creators
have to be aware of this. One way of stopping the commentary is to
provide an explanation. Nobody has to cooperate, but still there may be
damage done fair or unfair. Just a matter of doing business.
B. Martin
Kevin J. Maroney
>You're right I am sorry to lump Willingham in with Martin Wagner.
>I guess I just meant we will never see the end to Coventry or
>Pantheon. You're doubly right in that Willingham hasn't blamed
>fans. Hope he's doing okay.
Fantagraphics has said, in effect, that whenever Willingham wants to
return to _Coventry_, they'll start publishing it again. It was
profitable for them, even if not as profitable as Willingham would
have liked.
I don't know how long this offer will extend, though. I mean, sometime
before 2025, Fantagraphics will probably decide, "Screw it. No one
wants to see _Conventry_ #4 anymore."
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Marc Fleury (read JOHN & CORI!)
<fire...@DELETETHIS.panix.com> wrote:
>TomRipley <prisone...@usa.net> happened to mention:
>
>> Some in this thread seem to be absoving the creators to any
>> responsibility to their fans...
>
>Not at all.
I'll say it. Creators don't have any responsibility to their fans.
>Some are simply saying the responsibility is to give the fans
>the best stories they can produce.
I don't see that as a responsibility of the creators. Obviously, it
would be in their interest to do so, but that's the point -- it's in
*their* interest. A creator makes a work as good as s/he can because
s/he gets something (money, fame, more work, etc) for doing so.
I, as a creator, would *love* to please my fan(s)! It's great to hear
that someone enjoyed my book, and I hope that they enjoy the next one
as well. It's strange to think that I got a nice little thrill when I
saw that Randy Lander has my book JOHN & CORI on his pull list. I
certainly hope that he likes the next issue as much as the previous
ones. But am I *required* to write stories that he'd like? Of course
not.
Randy didn't particularly like the story "Go Ghoti!" in issue #1.
Frankly, neither did I. Even my my own admission, that story wasn't
"the best story that I could produce". In fact, I don't think that
*anything* I write is the best that I could theoretically produce. If
I had spend another couple of weeks on it, if I had thought this point
or that point through, if I had put in more gags, less gags, whatever
.... the stories would have been better. But then, the comic wouldn't
have come out in February, so then Randy never would have seen *any*
of it, which would have been a shame (he gave it 8/10).
Creators offer a product for sale. Readers either buy it or they
don't. That's it.
Marc Fleury
http://www.panel1.com/abdo/jnc
Elayne Riggs
>> So it seems to me, based on what's
>> been said on this thread, that a damaged reputation isn't necessarily the
>> fault of anything an artist may have done as much as the fault of some
>> fans who assume and speculate too much about aspects of the business to
>> which they're not privy.
> Bascially, this is going to happen whether you or I lile it. Creators
> have to be aware of this. One way of stopping the commentary is to
> provide an explanation.
To whom? Where? And what happens with the folks who don't see the
explanation?
Nobody's said it's not good business practice to consider an in-book
explanation of lateness. They're just saying the fans aren't necessarily
OWED such an explanation. They're owed the creators' best work, period.
- Elayne
Randy Lander
>
> On 21 Mar 1999 14:50:23 GMT, Elayne Riggs
> <fire...@DELETETHIS.panix.com> wrote:
>
> >TomRipley <prisone...@usa.net> happened to mention:
> >
> >> Some in this thread seem to be absoving the creators to any
> >> responsibility to their fans...
> >
> >Not at all.
>
> I'll say it. Creators don't have any responsibility to their fans.
On the flipside, fans don't have any particular responsibility to the
creators either. Martin Wagner's tirade about how fans lost interest
seemed to indicate that he thought his fans owed him something beyond
buying the book when it came out.
> I, as a creator, would *love* to please my fan(s)! It's great to hear
> that someone enjoyed my book, and I hope that they enjoy the next one
> as well. It's strange to think that I got a nice little thrill when I
> saw that Randy Lander has my book JOHN & CORI on his pull list. I
> certainly hope that he likes the next issue as much as the previous
> ones. But am I *required* to write stories that he'd like? Of course
> not.
Hey now, let's not go crazy here. Think what a wonderful world it would
be if everyone would just think of Randy first.
Okay, think what a wonderful world it would be for *me* then. ;)
--
The above are the opinions of one Randy W. Lander. Had they been the
Biblical Truth, your bushes would be on fire.
---------------------------------------------------------
rwla...@snapjudgments.com <*> http://www.snapjudgments.com ICQ #6993546
John McMahon
> To whom? Where? And what happens with the folks who don't see the
> explanation?
One of your main arguments has been that Creators (or their publishers)
are more answerable to the retailers then the fans themselves, so maybe
information should be passed onto the fine folks who stand to go out
of business if they keep getting jerked around.
After all, I'd imagine that these are the guys who have to deal with the
most number of queries and they have the most to loose in the long term.
Namely, their business.
J.
---
insanerantings.com
Free web hosting. No banner adverts. Trust Me. I am your friend.
onelist.com/subscribe/memo
Memos From The Road To Obscurity; because someone has to.
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
<fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu happened to mention:
> >> So it seems to me, based on what's
> >> been said on this thread, that a damaged reputation isn't necessarily the
> >> fault of anything an artist may have done as much as the fault of some
> >> fans who assume and speculate too much about aspects of the business to
> >> which they're not privy.
>
> > Bascially, this is going to happen whether you or I lile it. Creators
> > have to be aware of this. One way of stopping the commentary is to
> > provide an explanation.
>
> To whom? Where? And what happens with the folks who don't see the
> explanation?
>
> Nobody's said it's not good business practice to consider an in-book
> explanation of lateness. They're just saying the fans aren't necessarily
> OWED such an explanation. They're owed the creators' best work, period.
And I have never said fans are owed anything. I have said it makes
business to do so and I have said it borders on being unprofessional if
creators don't consider the consequences to fans when making business
decisions.
B. Martin
WindyTWise
>
>> Bascially, this is going to happen whether you or I lile it. Creators
>> have to be aware of this. One way of stopping the commentary is to
>> provide an explanation.
>To whom? Where? And what happens with the folks who don't see the
>explanation?
>Nobody's said it's not good business practice to consider an in-book
>explanation of lateness. They're just saying the fans aren't necessarily
>OWED such an explanation. They're owed the creators' best work, period.
(I've taken either side in this argument from time to time, so take that in
mind when reading my response)
Creators owe their best work if they are self publishing. They don't always
deliver, but we always hold out hope.
Creators owe their best work **that the publisher will reproduce** IF the
creators are trying to sell their work to (or through) a publisher/studio.
Sometimes, the creator and the publisher part ways on what is "best." The
publisher's rep in this is usually a senior editor.
Erik Larsen is parting from Aquaman after what he feels was his best work was
left on the cutting room floor. One can assume that Mr. Larsen's work that was
actually published in the Aquaman issues that preceeded this announcement
**wasn't** what **he** considered his best work.
So, in an effort to give fans of Erik Larsen the best that Erik Larsen can
provide, he choose to end his relationship with that title.
So, Elayne, this one case proves your point.
(bet you thought I was going the other way on this, didn't ya? :) )
Actors can get this way, too. There are those that will take ANY part... I
think Michael Caine is a great example of an actor willing to get any work, and
some of it really was just plain bad... and what's more, he freely admits it
today.
I'm sure there are some comic book/studio creative types that are in that boat.
Where creative freedom means unlocking those "golden handcuffs."
When a title is pub'd by a big publisher, there should be enough forethought
and a big enough staff to see that a serially driven title comes out every
month, or whatever schedule is set down and advertised. This is in the best
interest of the comic shop owners, (and nearly everyone else) obviously.
A smaller publishing house and/or one that is more driven by individual forces
will obviously have more difficulty with scheduling - and I'll assume that any
small publisher that consistantly provides timely sequential serial stories is
a thing to be cherished by their respective fans.
But here's my primary point in this:
There are several titles that were either published on a timely schedule or
promised to publish on a timely schedule, and then (for whatever reason)
announced a movie deal based on the characters - and then for varied reasons,
the comic books that "originated" those characters got delayed.
I suspect, but can't prove, that if a similar thing happened to a character
property at a large publishing house, such as DC or even Marvel, the comic
books based on those characters wouldn't miss a scheduled ship date by more
than a month.
It makes sense that the creators of characters previously published by a
smaller publishing house (or self published) and that have nailed down a movie
deal for their characters are spending quite a bit of time on hammering out how
the movie will deal with the characters - lest the movie screw over the vision
of the creator.
This (if it would ever happen --GASP!)
would mean that the percent of time the creator worked on the upcoming comic
books would decrease.
Shoot, the book might not even come out for a while until the movie deal is
better shaped.
Now, this means the creator isn't providing the best EFFORT to the fans of the
comic book, but IS providing his/her best effort to the (future) fans of the
characters...
... as those characters will be seen (potentially) my many, many more people in
the theatres.
This would mean, (to me, at least) that the creator IS giving his best effort
to the fans as is possible.
Even if that means the comic book (based on those characters) is very, very
late.
The comic book fan won't see it this way.
The comic book fan can often be a fanatic, a zombie, and will actually credit
themself (in no small part) for "making" a creator.
When a different visionary takes the helm of the characters involved in this,
and makes a movie, for example, the new visionary (sometimes called the
director) might not have the same view as the original creator.
The comic book fan is then dissapointed in the movie version of the comic book
characters.
I'd hazzard a guess and say that this happens to oh, about 90% of the comic
book fans of the movie version... :)
That being said, I am still very much the cynic. I am well aware that some
studios and publishing houses and movie studios and other larger corporations
that deal in large scale publishing will actually have certain things they look
for in a new production.
Those large publishers/studios will have criteria that while perhaps trite,
produce a stable income based on set formulas.
And when any creator follows similar formulas, it shows how calculating some
creators can be. Not a bad thing, mind you.
But it verges on the edge of making me (personally) and perhaps others of
feeling, well, manipulated.
That feeling tends to tick me off. If you are going to manipulate my feelings,
you had best do it in a manner where I can't tell it's happening 'til
afterwards.
Walt Stone
Yes!
T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents live!
Announcement of news within the month...
Tom Spurgeon
kmar...@crossover.com wrote:
> "Alt_Real" <Alt_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >You're right I am sorry to lump Willingham in with Martin Wagner.
> >I guess I just meant we will never see the end to Coventry or
> >Pantheon. You're doubly right in that Willingham hasn't blamed
> >fans. Hope he's doing okay.
>
> Fantagraphics has said, in effect, that whenever Willingham wants to
> return to _Coventry_, they'll start publishing it again. It was
> profitable for them, even if not as profitable as Willingham would
> have liked.
>
> I don't know how long this offer will extend, though. I mean, sometime
> before 2025, Fantagraphics will probably decide, "Screw it. No one
> wants to see _Conventry_ #4 anymore."
Probably. Although we'll wait forever for Pim and Francie #1.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Martin Wisse
CORI!)) wrote:
>On 21 Mar 1999 14:50:23 GMT, Elayne Riggs
><fire...@DELETETHIS.panix.com> wrote:
>
>>TomRipley <prisone...@usa.net> happened to mention:
>>
>>> Some in this thread seem to be absoving the creators to any
>>> responsibility to their fans...
>>
>>Not at all.
>
>I'll say it. Creators don't have any responsibility to their fans.
And I think you're wrong when not discussing creative matters.
When a creator has promised a 48 page issue next month he
owns his readers a 48 issue next month.
Martin Wisse
--
You have permission to read as much sarcasm into that statement as you like,
so long as you start with "lots".
-Ailsa Murphy in rasfw.
Alt_Real
PatDOneill wrote in message <19990322213122...@ng109.aol.com>...
>>From: nom...@bellsouth.net (Brandon Blatcher)
>
>>>When a creator has promised a 48 page issue next month he
>>>owns his readers a 48 issue next month.
>>
>>What if it's a a sub standard 48 page issue next month vs a professional
>>quality 48 page issue the month after next?
>
>If the creator cannot produce a 48-page professional quality product on a
>monthly basis, then he shouldn't promise (that is, solicit) said product as
a
>monthly title.
>
>
>Best, Pat
>
>The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do
not
>represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
It would be interesting to see Wizard magazine do a feature on lateness
which is one of the biggest problem in the industry. Wizard will have in
their price guide section books that aren't even close to having shipped
and they promote books that are habitually late. I realize that Wizard is a
money making venture and they are giving most of their audience what
they want, but I wish there was less emphasis on books that just have
surface, titillating qualities.
Alan Travis
> From: Alan Travis <amtr...@earthlink.net>
>
> >Also, the reader certainly knows that more has happened in the life of
> >the characters that they don't know about.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here -- are you saying that the TPB
> readers know that the story continues from where they are
> now? I don't see that as a problem.
I don't either. Just brought it up.
> >So, would you rather have it be on time but a fill-in? On time but two
> >pencillers to make it by the deadline? Or late and the product of the
> >main creative team?
>
> I would rather creators fulfill their promises.
Wouldn't it be nice. Of course, things do happen. We all know that it's not
always the artist's fault.
> To specifically answer your question, it depends on whether
> we're talking about a self-published indy or a mainstream title.
> The former, I'll probably wait, although if the delays become
> consistent, the title will drop off my favorites list. The latter, I'd
> rather see a fill-in or additional creators, because most
> mainstream books are mediocre anyway.
I would agree on the former, although lateness would not cause the title to
fall off my favorites list. If it came out on time but was obviously rushed,
I would drop it off my favorites list. Per the latter, I would rather they
let the books fall behind and allow the creative team do the work. Avengers
is a good example. It's been late for months. Tom Brevoort didn't put
another penciller on half the book to give Perez time to catch up and I'm
glad. He set a time in the future when he could get a quality creator to do
a fiil-in (or 3) so the original creative team could catch up. I think he
handled it perfectly. Looking back over the run, you won't have the chaos
and mixed quality of last minute fill-ins and rushed pencilling jobs. It
gives the book a more consistent feel.
> >Don't give up on current comics simply because the industry can't afford
> >to lose any readers.
>
> Then the industry should quit putting out the poor comics they do.
>
> -- Johanna
> Comics Worth Reading -- http://members.aol.com/johannald
Are there no comics at your web site? ---Alan
Brandon Blatcher
(Martin Wisse) wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:02:39 GMT, ab...@kingston.net (Marc Fleury (read JOHN &
>CORI!)) wrote:
>
>>On 21 Mar 1999 14:50:23 GMT, Elayne Riggs
>><fire...@DELETETHIS.panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>TomRipley <prisone...@usa.net> happened to mention:
>>>
>>>> Some in this thread seem to be absoving the creators to any
>>>> responsibility to their fans...
>>>
>>>Not at all.
>>
>>I'll say it. Creators don't have any responsibility to their fans.
>
>And I think you're wrong when not discussing creative matters.
>When a creator has promised a 48 page issue next month he
>owns his readers a 48 issue next month.
What if it's a a sub standard 48 page issue next month vs a professional
quality 48 page issue the month after next?
--
-Brandon
PatDOneill
>>When a creator has promised a 48 page issue next month he
>>owns his readers a 48 issue next month.
>
>What if it's a a sub standard 48 page issue next month vs a professional
>quality 48 page issue the month after next?
If the creator cannot produce a 48-page professional quality product on a
Randy Lander
>
> If the creator cannot produce a 48-page professional quality product on a
> monthly basis, then he shouldn't promise (that is, solicit) said product as a
> monthly title.
Oh dear God help me, I agree with Pat. ;) Once or twice is a blown
deadline, which happens to the best of us. Continually soliciting issues
that you *know* you aren't going to produce on time is breaking the
promise you made to fans.
I pretty much agree with Busiek's take. The creator owes the fans the
best story they can deliver. But I would add, "and to be as honest as
possible about when they expect to deliver that story."
Nat Gertler
>
> Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, I know- but if he had cancelled it, I would have gotten my money
> back then, instead of being left in limbo.
Then it sounds like you're having issues with your mail order company.
Marc Fleury (read JOHN & CORI!)
>"Marc Fleury (read JOHN & CORI!)" wrote:
>> I'll say it. Creators don't have any responsibility to their fans.
>
>On the flipside, fans don't have any particular responsibility to the
>creators either. Martin Wagner's tirade about how fans lost interest
>seemed to indicate that he thought his fans owed him something beyond
>buying the book when it came out.
I agree completely. Wagner's reaction was absurd.
Marc Fleury
http://www.panel1.com/abdo/jnc