|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 13, 2021 0:34:48 GMT -5
In the past ten years, the bulk of my monthly floppy purchases had shifted from superhero DC/Marvel titles to Image, Boom, and other independent publishers and creator-owned books. Apart from a few notable exceptions, I had gotten really frustrated with all shenanigans the Big Two were pulling to inflate their sales every year -- re-numberings, reboots, killing characters off, ever-increasing event books, etc. I liked the idea that creator-owned, independent books were telling self-contained stories with character development and a defined endpoint, and I wanted to encourage that by purchasing the books in monthly format.
However, over the years, I've gotten really frustrated with the publishing schedule for these books. I was OK with the idea of creators not sticking strictly with the monthly format if it meant that it gave them the freedom to tell a quality story. But a lot of the books I was reading seemed to just disappear for months at a time (I'm looking at you, Black Magick and Lazarus). Others simply dropped off the face of the planet without finishing their runs (*cough* Wytches *cough* Southern Bastards *cough* Velvet). Given that I was purchasing these books in a monthly format, the long interruptions really put me off of buying single issues. If this was how it was going to be, I'd rather just wait for them to finish the whole story and then pick it up in a collected format.
So with creator-owned making up the bulk of my monthly single issue purchases, the lack of regularity has basically caused me to give up monthly comics. I now read way more digital and trades for current comics (though I still pick up pre-90s comics in back issue format).
Has anyone else felt disappointed with creators not keeping up with their creator-owned titles?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2021 1:22:51 GMT -5
In the past ten years, the bulk of my monthly floppy purchases had shifted from superhero DC/Marvel titles to Image, Boom, and other independent publishers and creator-owned books. Apart from a few notable exceptions, I had gotten really frustrated with all shenanigans the Big Two were pulling to inflate their sales every year -- re-numberings, reboots, killing characters off, ever-increasing event books, etc. I liked the idea that creator-owned, independent books were telling self-contained stories with character development and a defined endpoint, and I wanted to encourage that by purchasing the books in monthly format.
However, over the years, I've gotten really frustrated with the publishing schedule for these books. I was OK with the idea of creators not sticking strictly with the monthly format if it meant that it gave them the freedom to tell a quality story. But a lot of the books I was reading seemed to just disappear for months at a time (I'm looking at you, Black Magick and Lazarus). Others simply dropped off the face of the planet without finishing their runs (*cough* Wytches *cough* Southern Bastards *cough* Velvet). Given that I was purchasing these books in a monthly format, the long interruptions really put me off of buying single issues. If this was how it was going to be, I'd rather just wait for them to finish the whole story and then pick it up in a collected format. So with creator-owned making up the bulk of my monthly single issue purchases, the lack of regularity has basically caused me to give up monthly comics. I now read way more digital and trades for current comics (though I still pick up pre-90s comics in back issue format). Has anyone else felt disappointed with creators not keeping up with their creator-owned titles?
I prefer quality over quantity, so I'd rather wait than get rushed comics. I don't care if books come out monthly, quarterly or whatever, as even with books I buy in single issues, I don't read things as they come out except for first issues. I read the first issue when it comes out, then read the rest when I have a stack to read (whether the arc is complete or not). It's just they way it is with me. I think monthly is an arbitrary and unnatural frequency for comics anyways, and no one remembers the delays once a collected edition comes out (you don't hear people saying how they gave up on Watchmen because the delays in the final 3-4 issues ruined the series for them even though there were massive delays in the completion of it's "monthly" run). Monthly is an expectation fans have, not an inherent part of comics publication. It only continues to exist in modern American comics because creators get paid page rates and need to have issues come out regularly to get paid and make ends meet instead of the rights to publish a book from them being bought from them by publishers with advances and royalties the way "real" book publishers do (something that is changing as more major book publishers are getting in the OGN game and offering contracts with advances and royalties to creators instead of page rates allowing them to make ends meet while the book is being created and released once it is all in the can, usually as an OGN). If comic publishers would modernize their payment structures to creators, creators could wait to publish a project when it is completed without delays, instead they are forced to play the publishers archaic monthly release schedule game. Keeping a schedule wouldn't be an issue if creators could earn money while doing the work instead of getting paid afterwards "on the back end" but comic publishers want to shoulder zero risk on their products (retailers and creators bear all the risk burdens, publishers are guaranteed their payments through Diamond/Lunar, Diamond/Lunar guaranteed their money from retailers). Writers can do multiple projects at once to get around this, most artists cannot (not and still produce art that meets the audience/market expectations in terms of detail-those panels featuring just figure work with zero background details that were quite common in Gold/Silver/Bronze books by artists churning out multiple books a month which sped up production process would not fly with modern customers-whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable, but it is what it is). So now I don't feel any disappointment because I don't have expectations of the creative process being able to fit into a one-size-fits-all production/publication schedule that dominates modern comic publishers. If you take out fill-in issues, guest-artists, reprints, and all the other cheats publishers used in the Gold/Silver/Bronze/Copper Ages of comics, comics have never really been able to maintain a monthly release schedule with a consistent creative team over an extended period of time unless the artist was Kirby. Add in the fact that on many creator-owned books the art is done by a single hand rather than assembly line style separation of pencils and inks it takes longer that way, and that guest inkers, pencillers, fill-in issues, inventory stories, unexpected reprint issues, etc. all are not on the table as options to keep that schedule, it is hardly surprising creator-owned books do not maintain monthly schedules for extended periods of time. It is more surprising when the can do so. -M
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 13, 2021 12:08:59 GMT -5
MRP, everything you say is valid. And I understand creators need to supplement their income by taking work-for-hire projects. Still, I think that the argument to support creator-owned books by buying them monthly (which numerous creators have indicated as being their preferred and optimal way to support their work) is undercut when they don't produce them in a timely fashion. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that they need to produce 12 books a year every month without pause. But when books take indefinitely long breaks on the order of years, people lose interest. At that point, why release monthly at all? Why not just go with an extended series of graphic novels or something else? As you pointed out, the monthly model is a legacy system with a lot of problems. So then work outside of it.
Besides this, the ability of some creative teams to produce work on a regular schedule, even if not completely monthly, is evidence that it can be done. And you don't need to be Robert Kirkman making boatloads of money off a wildly successful TV show to do. Brubaker and Phillips put out their books pretty regularly, even as they took big breaks between projects.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 13, 2021 12:20:06 GMT -5
I pretty much completely agree with MRP. I'm fine with Brubaker & Phillips moving into (largely) graphic novels. Apparently that works for them and that's great. I'd certainly love more Southern Bastards, but I'll live if I don't get it.
My question is, does it bug you to have to wait for a couple years for the next installment of your favorite detective novel series or SF series or what-not? The expectation for comics is monthly because that's what U.S. consumers have become accustomed to having. But it's not set in stone.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2021 14:19:35 GMT -5
MRP, everything you say is valid. And I understand creators need to supplement their income by taking work-for-hire projects. Still, I think that the argument to support creator-owned books by buying them monthly (which numerous creators have indicated as being their preferred and optimal way to support their work) is undercut when they don't produce them in a timely fashion. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that they need to produce 12 books a year every month without pause. But when books take indefinitely long breaks on the order of years, people lose interest. At that point, why release monthly at all? Why not just go with an extended series of graphic novels or something else? As you pointed out, the monthly model is a legacy system with a lot of problems. So then work outside of it. Besides this, the ability of some creative teams to produce work on a regular schedule, even if not completely monthly, is evidence that it can be done. And you don't need to be Robert Kirkman making boatloads of money off a wildly successful TV show to do. Brubaker and Phillips put out their books pretty regularly, even as they took big breaks between projects. Years can pass between novels in a series and no one loses interest. Same with movies. And some TV series (BBC series like Sherlock and Dr. Who come to mind). Some of those even end on cliffhangers, yet fans wait. But comics, nope can't happen. Fans have to get their fix or they move on to the next new shiny. And supporting the books monthly to support creators is the best of a bunch of bad options. It's the best way to do it (as creators say) because of the limitations of the system they have to work in. How many fans would sign up to contribute to a Patreon for the artist or a crowdfunding platform for a project instead? Sales on OGN's aren't as good as first issues of serialized books in the direct market (though Bru/Phillips are starting to challenge this). The system is limited for a number of reasons, but the buying habits of its customer base being a monolithic entity combined with traditional comic publishers not wanting to rock the boat of market expectations are the biggest limitations, and those are self-imposed. The frustrations I have are with the system/industry, not the books and creators trying to navigate it as best they can. -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 13, 2021 14:27:57 GMT -5
MRP, everything you say is valid. And I understand creators need to supplement their income by taking work-for-hire projects. Still, I think that the argument to support creator-owned books by buying them monthly (which numerous creators have indicated as being their preferred and optimal way to support their work) is undercut when they don't produce them in a timely fashion. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that they need to produce 12 books a year every month without pause. But when books take indefinitely long breaks on the order of years, people lose interest. At that point, why release monthly at all? Why not just go with an extended series of graphic novels or something else? As you pointed out, the monthly model is a legacy system with a lot of problems. So then work outside of it. Besides this, the ability of some creative teams to produce work on a regular schedule, even if not completely monthly, is evidence that it can be done. And you don't need to be Robert Kirkman making boatloads of money off a wildly successful TV show to do. Brubaker and Phillips put out their books pretty regularly, even as they took big breaks between projects. Years can pass between novels in a series and no one loses interest. Same with movies. And some TV series (BBC series like Sherlock and Dr. Who come to mind). Some of those even end on cliffhangers, yet fans wait. But comics, nope can't happen. Fans have to get their fix or they move on to the next new shiny. And supporting the books monthly to support creators is the best of a bunch of bad options. It's the best way to do it (as creators say) because of the limitations of the system they have to work in. How many fans would sign up to contribute to a Patreon for the artist or a crowdfunding platform for a project instead? Sales on OGN's aren't as good as first issues of serialized books in the direct market (though Bru/Phillips are starting to challenge this). The system is limited for a number of reasons, but the buying habits of its customer base being a monolithic entity combined with traditional comic publishers not wanting to rock the boat of market expectations are the biggest limitations, and those are self-imposed. The frustrations I have are with the system/industry, not the books and creators trying to navigate it as best they can. -M I haven't really done the Patreon thing, but I've supported a number of Kickstarters for creators that I love, including John Ostrander, Tom Mandrake, Karl Kesel, Sam Glanzman, etc. It's not ideal, but it's better than those ideas dying unrealized.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 13, 2021 23:18:35 GMT -5
I haven't followed any for years; but, my frustration was more with books that died because the creator couldn't keep it going financially. I loved Hepcats, but discovered just before Martin Wagner basically let it die. he stopped self publishing, then was going to do it with Antarctic, but that just turned into reprinting the Double Diamond issues. He just couldn't afford to continue and then just seemed to lose interest in finishing the story.
I miss Eddie Campbells Bacchus (aka Deadface); but, he was juggling other things and I think mostly ran out of story ideas. There was a short-lived one, called Tales From the Bog, that I really loved, but they only did a few issues.
Patty Cake is another I miss and Scott Roberts bounced around a few publishers, with it.
Really miss Greg Hyland's Lethargic Lad, which kind of petered out.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Jan 14, 2021 12:12:30 GMT -5
Generally delays with creator-owned books are rarely an issue of the creator losing interest in the work.
Usually causes are one of the following: - Creator-owned work generally sell less than Big Two work (though longterm it may be more profitable). To make ends meet, artist and/or writer needs to pick up contract work to meet ends made and has other obligations which hits the publication schedule. - the work doesn't break even and requires too much investment on the creators' part to keep going. - To use a beloved Iain Banks term "Outside Context Problems": health issues, family matters, a Corona crisis, fallout between the creative team over various reasons.
I kinda think the Dark Horse method might be the most viable when you want to avoid these issues and still have creator owned work (Hellboy, Beasts of Burden, Grendel etc.) Release miniseries when you have material and moment where creators are available, otherwise don't expect anything but be happy when it arrives.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2021 15:05:35 GMT -5
I just hope that the Reckless model by Brubaker and Phillips can become a big enough success that other creators would have the possibility of doing original graphic novels rather than just monthly books.
Unfortunately, I worry that they are going to be the exception to the rule. But one can hope.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 14, 2021 16:25:45 GMT -5
I hope more creators try different release models, or other methods that allow them to release more reliably or without having to take work-for-hire gigs to make ends meet. The thing is -- there's never been a better time for creator-owned material. Image Comics has really raised the profile of creator-owned books, and with movie and TV studios looking to find the next big media franchise, creator-owned books are the potential goldmine that everyone is looking at.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 14, 2021 21:49:51 GMT -5
For me, it's not the delay so much as the fact that some stories go unfinished. I get the reasons, but I don't have to like them. For the mid-level publishers (Like Image, Boom, Dark Horse, etc) I tend to get 1 issue to check out, then wait for trades, unless it's a book like Usagi I know is coming out. For really small publishers, I'll buy the singles in the hopes the support will help get it to the end.
And yes, I have the same issues with Books... Patrick Rothfuss? George RR Martin? I try not to read stuff that's not 100% complete, though between book clubs and my own impatience I don't succeed that often.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 15, 2021 15:01:42 GMT -5
I get the frustration, I've felt it often from George R. R. Martin on his Song of Ice and Fire( I've been a long suffering fan since 1998) to my lamentations on the hiatus of Frank Barbiere's Five Ghosts but when I find myself obsessing about it too much and getting a little annoyed I just think on Neil Gaiman's words, "George R.R. Martin is not your bitch," and I come back to Earth and realize I'll get my fix when I get my fix and nothing that I can say or do will make that come faster.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jan 15, 2021 16:57:41 GMT -5
I have pondered and discussed this question at length, if mostly to myself. On the one hand I hear and agree that "George R.R. Martin is not your bitch." You cannot force the creative process, and creators are of course people. On the other hand, I feel like patronizing an artist and support their work is kind of an unspoken mutual deal. Hypothetically and using this as a starting point, how many people would have bought into a book series of an author if they knew in advance the author would take 20 years to write 5 out of 7 books and never finish* them? How many people would have bought the books and given that author the success, fame and fortune that goes with it of they knew they'd never get the finished product? Again, it's obviously not a given that Martin won't finish, and he is certainly not required to finish them, and I know he is trying, but at the same time, surely we can acknowledge that it is frustrating as a fan to buy into a series, invest financially and emotionally and be left hanging.
GRRM is not my bitch, and I am not going to be one to harass him online to finish a series. One, that's not how I roll, and two, selfishly, I don't see how that is going to help motivate him to finish. Lose lose, that strategy. That said, I've also initiated a personal general rule now to not start a new novel series until it's finished directly because of A Song of Ice and Fire. Just as authors are entitled to be their own people and not jump on command, I also don't need to allow myself to become invested in something to never get a payoff, either. It goes both ways.
As to comics, while no one is required to work on a monthly schedule, the floppy is still generally a "monthly" periodical format, so that is at least where expectations are benchmarked. Back when I collected, I expected more give and take with that with indie books than big two, but I still mostly bought those in trade paperbacks anyway, at least until I caught up. I switched to monthlies only because I was eager for every morsel, but it was pretty unsatisfying being left with part of a story, particularly since most books were written with a 6-issue story arc in mind. It would be just as frustrating to watch an hour long TV show but you only got 10 minutes a week.
I like the idea of releasing directly as trades instead of monthlies, although that is likely riskier due to the higher investment if you don't like it. Maybe the Patreon or Kickstarter model will help with that. I can see how there are no great options, and it's a shame that the monthly format is best for creators because that's not necessarily the best for the customer. I've been burned enough times on things not being finished that I am hesitant to start something without knowing there is at least some guaranteed amount of completeness.
*Obviously not saying he will never finish, just riffing on one of the common concerns people cite
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 15, 2021 21:07:18 GMT -5
He's never going to finish. He has no idea what to do with the story... I think that's clear. If it was a matter of the book being worked on and just taking a long time, it'd be fine. That's not what's happening with Martin.. he's written other stuff in the same universe, just not the next book. Not to mention the TV show. People probably wouldn't harass him so much if he gave a reasonable answer when people ask about it... the various books have had SO many scrapped release dates.
With Rothfuss, its the fact that he claimed the entire trilogy was written when the first book came out.. clearly that was a lie, and he seems to not even be trying.
Getting back on topic, I wonder if the popular book store comics (Like Dogman and the Raina Telgainer stuff) get paid like prose book authors, with an advance and a %... perhaps at some point that model will kick in for comics as well... I'd much rather see a trade twice a year (or even once) than wondering if the next book is going to come out.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 23:29:40 GMT -5
On the other hand, I feel like patronizing an artist and support their work is kind of an unspoken mutual deal. [/font][/quote] You are not patronizing his work, you are buying a product, the book you paid for. Any expectation of future rewards for buying the book is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the consumer. Making a commercial transaction to acquire a product does not make you patron of the arts, nor entitle you to anything further from the artist. You already got what you paid for. Did the product bring you enough enjoyment to make the money you paid worthwhile? If yes, you got your money's worth, end of transaction. If no, then don't buy further products of that type, but still end of transaction. I find the idea that buying a product entitles you to future compensation from creators or say in their future creative decisions to be one of the more irrational and annoying aspects of fandom. If I pay a mason to construct a chimney, I don't expect that my payment entitles him to build a wall for me as well. If I pay a mechanic to fix my car, it doesn't entitle me to future consultations with him. In neither case am I a patron of theirs, a customer sure, but I am buying a good or service, which once rendered ends the transaction. Why are commercial artists considered to be different? Now if you are funding his workspace, materials and providing him room and board while he works, without expectation of a concrete product that is to be put on the market for purchase by anyone, then you are a patron of the arts. But buying a book (or a comic, or a movie or an art print or whatever) doesn't qualify you as a patron. You're not investing in futures, you are buying a commodity you have in hand. That's it. -M
|
|