|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 7, 2021 8:06:07 GMT -5
If someone is selling a story broken into 6 pieces, and they put out parts 1, 2 and 3 of 6 for sale, most reasonable people would expect them to also sell parts 4 - 6 within a somewhat reasonable timeframe. This is not entitlement. It is common sense. If any business enters an existing market with preexisting expectations or standards and fails to either meet them or to provide a compelling explanation for why they did not, they are not going to do well. That is not entitlement. That is business. Expecting businesses to deliver on what they promise, either explicitly or implicitly based on mutual understanding and common knowledge, is not entitlement. Being upset and taking your business elsewhere when a company does not meet promises or standard expectations is not entitlement. It is no more entitled for a reader to want an author to finish a story they’re intentionally selling in pieces as it is for a creator to want readers to buy their partial story in an incomplete format because it’s more convenient for the creator. Deciding you don't want to buy something based on knowing that is all well and fine. It's also fine to voice frustrations like, "Man, I wish we had more" but it's not fine when you take it further and voice complaints about creators, "not living up to their end of the bargain" or that they "owe it to the audience" or that there exists a "social contract" for them to finish, or that you deserve an explanation for delays, or that you're a "patron" of theirs. None of those complaints or comments are true or justifiable in anyway shape or form. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 7, 2021 8:35:45 GMT -5
You could only buy what has been published and released. There will come a day when the monthly schedule will be extinct and there will be graphic novels of completed stories. It would be interesting to see how many customers just buy the trade without buying any of the issues prior to the trades release.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 7, 2021 9:34:15 GMT -5
If someone is selling a story broken into 6 pieces, and they put out parts 1, 2 and 3 of 6 for sale, most reasonable people would expect them to also sell parts 4 - 6 within a somewhat reasonable timeframe. This is not entitlement. It is common sense. If any business enters an existing market with preexisting expectations or standards and fails to either meet them or to provide a compelling explanation for why they did not, they are not going to do well. That is not entitlement. That is business. Expecting businesses to deliver on what they promise, either explicitly or implicitly based on mutual understanding and common knowledge, is not entitlement. Being upset and taking your business elsewhere when a company does not meet promises or standard expectations is not entitlement. It is no more entitled for a reader to want an author to finish a story they’re intentionally selling in pieces as it is for a creator to want readers to buy their partial story in an incomplete format because it’s more convenient for the creator. I haven't previously gotten involved in this conversation, but these comments by impulse absolutely sum up my opinion on the matter. The word "entitlement" has been thrown around a lot in this thread, but expecting a creative person to follow through on a promise they have made either explicitly or by implication, is not entitlement in my book. It is merely a reasonable expectation. As someone who is a creator of content myself (albeit music, not comics), and who in a few months time will be launching an early-bird ordering scheme for an as-yet-unrecorded album, in which fans of my previous work can preorder the new album and will get the finished product with additional bonus material that will not available when the record hits shops, I absolutely feel an obligation to deliver on that (and rightly so). My band has already said that we will release our new album before the end of 2021 and, in my view, even that statement on social media forms something of a "contract" between us and our fan base. If we fail to deliver on that stated intention, even without the early-bird scheme, I would feel as if I had misled our fans and would absolutely think it's fair enough if their interest in us waned or they got annoyed. I wouldn't think that was entitlement on their part; I'd call it a reasonable reaction to my broken promise. A fan base is a precious, precious thing and creators should never take it for granted. If you promise something, either explicitly or by inference, you should deliver on it in the stated or implied time frame (barring anything like severe medical problems etc). That's just good manners and good business sense. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 7, 2021 9:40:23 GMT -5
If someone is selling a story broken into 6 pieces, and they put out parts 1, 2 and 3 of 6 for sale, most reasonable people would expect them to also sell parts 4 - 6 within a somewhat reasonable timeframe. This is not entitlement. It is common sense. If any business enters an existing market with preexisting expectations or standards and fails to either meet them or to provide a compelling explanation for why they did not, they are not going to do well. That is not entitlement. That is business. Expecting businesses to deliver on what they promise, either explicitly or implicitly based on mutual understanding and common knowledge, is not entitlement. Being upset and taking your business elsewhere when a company does not meet promises or standard expectations is not entitlement. It is no more entitled for a reader to want an author to finish a story they’re intentionally selling in pieces as it is for a creator to want readers to buy their partial story in an incomplete format because it’s more convenient for the creator. I haven't previously gotten involved in this conversation, but these comments by impulse absolutely sum up my opinion on the matter. The word "entitlement" has been thrown around a lot in this thread, but expecting a creative person to follow through on a promise they have made either explicitly or by implication, is not entitlement in my book. It is merely a reasonable expectation. As someone who is a creator of content myself (albeit music, not comics), and who in a few months time will be launching an early-bird ordering scheme for an as-yet-unrecorded album, in which fans of my previous work can preorder the new album and will get the finished product with additional bonus material that will not available when the record hits shops, I absolutely feel an obligation to deliver on that (and rightly so). My band has already said that we will release our new album before the end of 2021 and, in my view, even that statement on social media forms something of a "contract" between us and our fan base. If we fail to deliver on that stated intention, even without the early-bird scheme, I would feel as if I had misled our fans and would absolutely think it's fair enough if their interest in us waned or they got annoyed. I wouldn't think that was entitlement on their part; I'd call it a reasonable reaction to my broken promise. A fan base is a precious, precious thing and creators should never take it for granted. If you promise something, either explicitly or by inference, you should deliver on it in the stated or implied time frame. That's just good manners and good business sense. It's certainly good manners and business sense not to take your fans for granted, I'm not disputing that, and I'm not saying it's wrong for fans to become disinterested and frustrated if the creators don't meet the stated deadlines...but fans complaining that they're owed more, or that they deserve answers for missed dates? That goes beyond frustration, which is reasonable, and into entitlement which is really rude. To use your example, if your record company paid you x amount of money to produce the album and you both agreed on a date for it to be done by and you miss it then they are deserving of an explanation because they are legitimately due a product from you in a time frame that both parties agreed to and that you were paid to meet. You have actual obligations to them and their concerns on meeting the deadline are then reasonable. Your fans though? That's a different story. Sure, an explanation to them about why you missed your date would be considerate, and definitely a good business situation if you want to keep their interest...but you don't really owe it to them and they have no real claim to the work where one could say they deserve updates and so any claims from them saying otherwise would be unreasonable and would reflect a definite air of entitlement. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 7, 2021 13:03:15 GMT -5
Hard disagree. The expectation in comics is if you knowingly sell a story in a multi issue format you will finish it at some remotely reasonable point. That is an inherent, innate part of the deal. Creators and fans know this. There is absolutely an expectation it will be finished, and that is not entitlement. That is part of what they’re selling, and if they can’t follow through, they’ve broken the expectation, not the reader.
As has been said many times in this thread, absolutely no one here is saying there is any kind of binding legal obligation that you keep mentioning. The expectation is more of a soft understanding than a binding one, but it’s no less real. It plays out in the form of loss of reputation, taking sales elsewhere, etc.
I also already clarified earlier in the thread, but since it keeps coming up, I said the word patronize in a quick offhand manner. I am not literally saying a single reader who buys one issue of a comic book is a patron of the arts in the traditional sense, though if the Patreon model is adopted that will change that.
We’re just going in circles now. If you still think that expecting creators who set the expectation of a multi part story to eventually finish is entitlement, we will never see eye to eye on this. I think that is firmly incorrect. Agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 7, 2021 14:20:31 GMT -5
Hard disagree. The expectation in comics is if you knowingly sell a story in a multi issue format you will finish it at some remotely reasonable point. That is an inherent, innate part of the deal. Creators and fans know this. There is absolutely an expectation it will be finished, and that is not entitlement. That is part of what they’re selling, and if they can’t follow through, they’ve broken the expectation, not the reader. As has been said many times in this thread, absolutely no one here is saying there is any kind of binding legal obligation that you keep mentioning. The expectation is more of a soft understanding than a binding one, but it’s no less real. It plays out in the form of loss of reputation, taking sales elsewhere, etc. I also already clarified earlier in the thread, but since it keeps coming up, I said the word patronize in a quick offhand manner. I am not literally saying a single reader who buys one issue of a comic book is a patron of the arts in the traditional sense, though if the Patreon model is adopted that will change that. We’re just going in circles now. If you still think that expecting creators who set the expectation of a multi part story to eventually finish is entitlement, we will never see eye to eye on this. I think that is firmly incorrect. Agree to disagree. It was never about not wanting or expecting creators to finish what they started, I've said time and time again that feeling disappointed and taking your business elsewhere is totally fine if you don't like the schedule(or lack there of) it's about saying they owe you things, that you're due anything, social contracts, obligations or anything else like that...none of those things are true and I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is about that. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 7, 2021 15:08:12 GMT -5
So we’re basically splitting hairs with a scalpel under a magnifying glass debating the difference between an “obligation” versus a business keeping their word and doing what they commit to. I fundamentally disagree that nothing is owed in a non-binding sense at least in the comic book example.
Unless someone has some new explanation or something else to offer, I think we’ve beaten this horse to death.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 8, 2021 7:09:00 GMT -5
It's not splitting hairs though, there's a big difference between just being disappointed and deciding to be more wary with what you buy and thinking that a creator owes you something. One is a reasonable reaction and the other is entitlement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Mar 8, 2021 9:07:37 GMT -5
Can we get specifics on what series people are talking about to get more of an idea? (Also any delays in 2020-2021 I'm going to disregard, because with Covid there are so many issues affecting production and distribution)
The OP mentions Lazarus, Black Magick, Wytches, Southern Bastards and Velvet.
Black Magick had a long hiatus between the various arcs, I don't know why, but I assume conflicting schedules or wanting to have a complete story before they release the individual issues. When the individual arcs come out, they usually are either monthly or bi-monthly for the 5-6 issues they release at a time.
Can't tell anything about Wytches and Southern Bastards.
Lazarus: stuck to a monthly/bi-monthly schedule for 2013-2015. Took a six month break (which I think was announced but I have to recheck my issues) and then continue bi-monthly till 2017, where it was temporarily replaced with the 6 issue series Lazarus+66 (last issue of that one was 2-3 months late. Series was partly because the artist was unavailable during that time)), returning to 2 issues as Lazarus and then switched to a quarterly format with Lazarus: Risen. I don't see any long term hiatus except for the time between between Lazarus and Lazarus: Risen. The switch to Risen was announced though.
Velvet: The first series is done, Brubaker and Epting said so in the final issue as the story was wrapped up. They want to return to the series at a later point, but had another project planned first and both also had seperate projects planned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 8, 2021 11:42:08 GMT -5
Can we get specifics on what series people are talking about to get more of an idea? (Also any delays in 2020-2021 I'm going to disregard, because with Covid there are so many issues affecting production and distribution) The OP mentions Lazarus, Black Magick, Wytches, Southern Bastards and Velvet. Black Magick had a long hiatus between the various arcs, I don't know why, but I assume conflicting schedules or wanting to have a complete story before they release the individual issues. When the individual arcs come out, they usually are either monthly or bi-monthly for the 5-6 issues they release at a time. Can't tell anything about Wytches and Southern Bastards. Lazarus: stuck to a monthly/bi-monthly schedule for 2013-2015. Took a six month break (which I think was announced but I have to recheck my issues) and then continue bi-monthly till 2017, where it was temporarily replaced with the 6 issue series Lazarus+66 (last issue of that one was 2-3 months late. Series was partly because the artist was unavailable during that time)), returning to 2 issues as Lazarus and then switched to a quarterly format with Lazarus: Risen. I don't see any long term hiatus except for the time between between Lazarus and Lazarus: Risen. The switch to Risen was announced though. Velvet: The first series is done, Brubaker and Epting said so in the final issue as the story was wrapped up. They want to return to the series at a later point, but had another project planned first and both also had seperate projects planned.
As far as I can tell, most of those books went on hiatus because the creators (writers usually) were working on something else (usually superhero books for the big two). In the cast of Lazarus and Black Magick (which are somewhat back to publishing on a sorta normal schedule last I checked), Greg Rucka also seems to be getting busier doing TV and film work.
I'm not complaining that creators have/choose to take other assignments -- particularly writers, who usually have the bandwidth to write several books a month. I get that DC and Marvel work often pays the bills in ways that creator-owned doesn't. At the same time, I'm not as sympathetic as I once was to that argument. Maybe if you're a second or third-tier creator at Marvel or DC and your creator-owned work is a passion project that has to be subsidized by superhero work. But guys like Rucka, Scott Snyder, Jason Aaron et al., are top-selling writers, and often times their creator-owned work sells just as well as their superhero stuff.
This is one of the reasons why I really respected Robert Kirkman's comic work. Even with the massive success of TWD, he still wrote 2-3 books, and those books released every month. Before you object -- yes, I realize Kirkman is not the norm (and you could argue that the very success of TWD is what allowed him to do that). I'm not saying you have to be Kirkman. But it would be nice if creators could find a way to better balance their output between creator-owned and Big Two. I just really respected that Kirkman recognized that comics is the medium that gave him all this success, and that he still chooses to prioritize writing comics when he could be doing TV work and finding more ways to monetize his IP.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 8, 2021 11:48:08 GMT -5
Kirkman wasn't always monthly. I recall The Walking Dead and particularly Invincible being late multiple times. Kirkman was always apologetic about it and discussed what happened and what to expect/plans to address it going forwarded in the letters columns, though, which was a great way to respect the emotional, time and financial investment of fans without forcing the creative team to an unattainable monthly schedule.
He did more or less get TWD back to monthly-ish after getting behind. I believe Adlard use to ink his own work, and to finish out the series on time they brought on another inker to keep the art consistent and schedule roughly on time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 8, 2021 12:04:32 GMT -5
Kirkman wasn't always monthly. I recall The Walking Dead and particularly Invincible being late multiple times. Kirkman was always apologetic about it and discussed what happened and what to expect/plans to address it going forwarded in the letters columns, though, which was a great way to respect the emotional, time and financial investment of fans without forcing the creative team to an unattainable monthly schedule. He did more or less get TWD back to monthly-ish after getting behind. I believe Adlard use to ink his own work, and to finish out the series on time they brought on another inker to keep the art consistent and schedule roughly on time.
OK -- I didn't follow TWD or Invincible for the entire runs, but during the time I did he was pretty monthly. I do remember when the All Out War storyline was releasing that they went bimonthly and he had to get an additional inker to make sure the book released on time. In any case, I still appreciate the fact that he still focused on his regular comics output when he could have chosen to play Hollywood big shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 8, 2021 12:07:39 GMT -5
Kirkman wasn't always monthly. I recall The Walking Dead and particularly Invincible being late multiple times. Kirkman was always apologetic about it and discussed what happened and what to expect/plans to address it going forwarded in the letters columns, though, which was a great way to respect the emotional, time and financial investment of fans without forcing the creative team to an unattainable monthly schedule. He did more or less get TWD back to monthly-ish after getting behind. I believe Adlard use to ink his own work, and to finish out the series on time they brought on another inker to keep the art consistent and schedule roughly on time. OK -- I didn't follow TWD or Invincible for the entire runs, but during the time I did he was pretty monthly. I do remember when the All Out War storyline was releasing that they went bimonthly and he had to get an additional inker to make sure the book released on time. In any case, I still appreciate the fact that he still focused on his regular comics output when he could have chosen to play Hollywood big shot.
Yep, totally agree! He did a really good job with it. I forget who said in the thread, but it's a good example of mutual respect. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 8, 2021 12:36:52 GMT -5
I posted a reply on the larger argument, but I deleted it. Once you're out in the weeds arguing word definitions it's just not fun any more. Folks have thoroughly covered this ground already, and I've said my piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 18, 2021 7:45:46 GMT -5
I find that most of the time with indy books (especially lately). it the creators make more money on Marvel/DC work, or TV, than their creator owned stuff... which, often is more a labor of love (until it gets picked up for TV or a movie and makes it big). They don't need many issues to get that to happen in alot of cases, so it's understandable.
Totally different than authors promising and not delivering, IMO.
|
|
