(Commentary) Let's take a long-overdue look at the weblog email that's piled up over the last couple of weeks, shall we? Back on March 25th I linked to a flurry of national press DC Comics got for announcing that it was changing Wonder Woman's hairstyle, and expressed confusion as to why the company didn't try to get its name in the public spotlight more often. Our first two correspondents reply:
"In response to why DC doesn't use the press the way Marvel does you missed the obvious. DC doesn't HAVE to use the press, Marvel does.
"DC is part of a mega-corporation. It doesn't need press. DC has been around long enough that it is now the wise old man of comics. As a lot of old men know, you just go about your business and do the best you can. Eventually, with enough time and effort you will get noticed. (They put in enough time on Wonder Woman and now they've gotten noticed.)
"Marvel does not put a lot of time or effort into most of their products. That's why they were in bankruptcy and why they might be again if their movie business fails. Or if Sony fails to purchase them. They are the small child running willy-nilly about their business. Marvel is not wise.
"Marvel has chosen the business tactic of oversaturation. It seems like not a day goes by when either Joe or Bill don't have their faces in a microphone. They have chosen the HEY! LOOK AT ME!!!!! approach.
"DC has gone the solid path, focussed on their product and kept their heads down."
"In short, DC is getting respect. Marvel is not."
I'm not sure I buy this argument. DC may be the "wise old man of comics", but these days that and a buck-and-a-half will buy you a cup of coffee. Marvel's been generating a lot of buzz among investors, has managed to pay down a phenomenal amount of debt left over from the Perelman days (an impressive feat, when you think about it), and has skillfully used public relations to increase its visibility and goodwill among everyone save comics-shop retailers. DC, by contrast, tends to just sort of sit there, still coasting on the residual fan loyalty leftover from the 1990s -- the last time the company did anything significant to earn its place at the table. Frankly, I think our second correspondent may be a bit closer to the heart of the matter:
"Because editors have been punished when they did. I don't have a link or a source handy, but I do recall reading a pro saying an DC editor almost got fired when he changed Batman to Azrael. There was also some heat when Superman 'died.' Licensing is big money to these companies and the corps over them that handle it don't like the icon's changed.
"I suspect it's for that very reason they mention right away that the Wonder Woman change is only going on for 6 months. It's designed for a quick boost in sales and that's it. Although I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of it, DC will be kicking themselves because the new WW will sell better than the old one."
Our next correspondent had this to say about a story from March 26th, concerning Joe Sacco's excellent performance in the British bookstore market:
"Just as an addendum to your story on Palestine selling well in Waterstones, I wonder how much of that is due to sensible placing for once? I don’t know how things are in the States, but here in the UK graphic novels are shelved with science fiction regardless of genre, even in big stores like Borders where they carry a comparatively large stock of them, so typically Maus and Ghost World rub shoulders with endless Star Trek novelisations. However, I was heartened to note that when I went into Waterstones in Charing Cross the other day, Palestine displayed prominently alongside other books on the Arab-Israeli conflict, background on Iraq and histories of the Middle East. Just as pleasing was that there was also none of the usual staff apologia about it being a comic book -- it was written up simply as journalism."
The situation here in the States has until recently been virtually identical to the one you describe. There's been a gradual change in how the general public has begun to perceive the graphic novel, a change brought about in large part by a continuing stream of good works that are worthy of consideration above and beyond what you'd give to your average Avengers collection. The recent creation of a seperate filing category for graphic novels by the bookstore trade should continue this trend.
A quick link to an essay by T. Campbell, in which I characterized his piece as sitting on the pro-side of the "Team Comics" fence, brought the following response from the author:
"While I'm flattered to be mentioned in ¡Journalista!, I don't think the point of my piece really came across in the coverage. The 'Team Comics' movement is, as I understand it, an inclusive group of those interested in comic books.
"Artistic subcommunities are much smaller and more exclusive, built around a theory or a style, like the underground comix movement in its early days or the 'manga divisions' found in various art colleges around the nation.
"There is indeed a 'Team Webcomics' spirit in some corners, but that's another article."
So noted. Moving on: an entry from March 29th noted that of Bill Mauldin's famous "Willie and Joe" team, it was Joe, not Willie, who represented the native tribes to the WWII-era American soldiers in the comics. As our next writer notes, the case isn't quite that clear-cut:
"Regarding your piece about Mauldin's Willie and Joe 'error' and the statement you made that follows: '(Note: The article has it wrong -- Joe was the Native half of the famous duo, and is undoubtedly the character Billey inspired.)'
"A quote from Mauldin's intro to Bill Mauldin's Army. My copy is the 1983 Presidio Press reprint. Here it is:"
" 'Confusion will be compounded by the fact that I switched the soldiers' names in mid-career. During training Joe was a smart-assed Choctaw Indian with a hooked nose and Willie was his red-necked straight man. As they matured overseas during the stress of shot, shell, and
K-rations, and grew whiskers because shaving water was scarce in mountain fox-holes, for some reason Joe seemed to become more of a Willie and Willie more of a Joe.'
"So, in fact, the characters at some point switched identities."
Huh. I'm currently reading through Mauldin's post-War memoir, Back Home, and I could've sworn it referred to Joe as the Choctaw, but thumbing through it just now, I can't find a single such reference. I'll leave your citation as the last word on the subject.
Our next letter:
"Less cursing please.
"Maybe 'cos you've got to write your excellent pieces in some sort of web void, or are frustrated that no-one's listening, but we are. I'm not to say that the swearing has to stop, but I've noticed it getting worse. Calm down and continue."
Let the record show I did not respond with the obvious zinger.
I must confess this attitude confuses the living hell out of me. I've simply never understood the prickliness some people seem to exhibit over words that describe aspects of the human condition with such grace and economy as, say, the word "fuck". For what it's worth, what you read here in ¡Journalista is the edited version of how I speak in everyday life; apparently, my everyday conversational tone would burn at least a few of my readers' ears off. Given how on-the-fly this weblog usually gets written, I'm afraid you're probably going to have to endure me as I am if you wish to continue reading. The alternative is to start a weblog of one's own, where a better class of people than myself can read without encountering anything to offend their ears. In any event, generations of white-trash blood have left me with little sympathy for such prissy bullshit -- no offense.
Our last email this time out quibbles with how I characterized the figures from Marvel's 10-K report for 2002:
"From your comments on Marvel's annual report:
" 'Newsstand and bookstore net revenues grew by just 5% last year -- a surprisingly low figure when one considers just how much growth the manga publishers and some indy publishers have seen in this arena in recent years.'
"Er, no. I think you must have misread something here. Buried way down in the small print, here's the gross revenue figures:
" 'Publishing's revenue increased by approximately $15.0 million or 30% to $64.5 million (from $49.5 million in the 2001 period) due to an increase in sales of comic books and trade paperbacks to the direct and mass markets. Revenue from the direct market (specialty comic retail stores) increased approximately $9.6 million to $48.9 million in 2002 (from $39.3 million in 2001) and consists of sales of comic books and trade paperbacks. Revenue from the mass market (now including Borders and Barnes & Noble bookseller chains) increased approximately $5.9 million to $7.0 million in 2002 (from $1.1 million in 2001) and consists of trade paperbacks only. According to the publication Comics & Games Retailer, Marvel maintained approximately a 41% share of the North American comic market sold through specialty comic retail stores in 2002, which compares to a 38% share in 2001.'
"That means, by my count, newsstand and book store revenues were up by 536% year on year, with direct market revenue up 25% and overall revenue up 30%.
"Not sure what they're deducting to get to 'net revenue', but the gross figures look pretty sound -- and Marvel's trade paperback wing seems to have achieved growth in the bookstore market."
Looking over my notes, I can see that the mistake I made was the inexplicable loss of three words: "Newsstand and bookstore net revenues grew by just 5% of publishing revenue last year", though after redoing the math just now I discovered this to be wrong, too; the actual figure is more like between 10-11%. Upon reflection at this early hour of the morning, I'll be damned if I can remember where the hell I pulled that five-percent number from. Consider this your ¡Journalista! Fuck-Up of the Week™.
Like the sidebar says, send email to weblog@tcj.com -- all email is considered anonymous unless you volunteer otherwise, and assumed printable unless you say otherwise.
