(Commentary) With nothing better to do, let's dig into the inbox and see what the readers had to say this week, shall we? I'm still getting email containing speculation as to why DC doesn't seek out more publicity than it does, originally raised by this entry concerning Wonder Woman's new haircut. Our first correspondent writes:
"I would suspect there are two related reasons why DC doesn't work the mainstream press to the extent Marvel does. DC is not crawling back from a well-publicized bankruptcy. Marvel is, and therefore needs to tell the outside world, 'Hey, we're still here and we're coming back!' And the other reason is that DC ain't going anywhere. That is,
Time-Warner may reorganize it, reshape it, move it under some other division or otherwise restructure, but they aren't going to sell it. Marvel, at some point, is going to be sold or acquired -- by Sony, Fox, Paramount, Fantagraphics... somebody. Whereas DC functions largely off vertical integration, Marvel's future (and future business liaisons) depend if not on the kindness of strangers, then certainly on the perception that the company is a hot, going-places operation.
"There also might be a third reason, having to do with the personal style of the folks involved. Back in the glory days, Marvel got a lot more press than DC because Stan Lee gave a much better interview than Mort Weisinger or anyone up at National Periodical Publications, and because Stan, by his own admission, loved that spotlight. But I think the main explanation is that Marvel would love to be a big conglomerate swoop down, buy them, and reward the current management with lucrative contracts... whereas DC is already owned by a big conglomerate. Someday, we all will be."
Meanwhile, one of last week's letters on the subject brought this response:
"It's not quite true that a 'DC editor almost got fired when he changed Batman to Azrael.' The editor in question was Denny O'Neil, and it's this type of 'big event' that was encouraged by Jenette Kahn and Paul
Levitz to generatre interest and improve sales.
"What did happen was that a few executives at Warner Bros. were taken aback by the press reports of Superman's 'death'; both because DC itself was taken completely by surprise at the magnitude of the press coverage, and because most Hollywood executives wouldn't know that death is rarely permanent in comics, and they weren't told in advance. In fact, when Superman became the 'electric blue Superman', Warner Bros. was warned in advance and thought nothing of it (though the change gave a short unexpected boost to newsstand sales).
"In general, I think DC is more careful to pick and choose what it spends its' PR capital on. A sequel to THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, or a new Neil Gaiman work, for example, will pay off if well promoted in the real world. A six month storyline in WONDER WOMAN... will anyone care? I suspect they were surprised that the AP story was picked up as widely as it was.
"(As a side note, the reason that the change was specified as just a short-term one might have been because the character is still partly owned or controlled by the Marston estate, and DC wanted to avoid any misunderstanding.)"
This entry about Tokyopop's latest job opening prompted our next correspondent to write:
"Nice to see Tokyopop willing branch out from the reprint business into real publishing.
"However, this gives me pause:
" 'Provide editorial guidance for creation and production of original manga graphic novels as well as innovative new book formats.'
"The cynic in me wonders what people should submit first, the card game or the comic book? But I'll admit that's unfair until further notice. Still, should we celebrate another corporation coming in and directing people's creativity to fit an overall vision? Does this move comics into a mainstream, diverse publishing model much like the larger book industry? For their business it's a wise move though. You too can become a Manga artist!
"Yes, I know: 'Don't dismiss the Romance readers,' but again I add 'Don't
expect much else from them either.' "
I'm not entirely sure there's enough information in the above quote upon which to base an opinion one way or the other, to be honest with you; "innovative new book formats" could mean just about anything. Hell, the company that pays my bills is releasing one of those little point-of-purchase mini-books later this year, reprinting Tony Millionaire's strip from the TCJ Summer 2002 Special, which actually fits the same definition. Furthermore, I have no real animosity towards those card games the kids like, as they at least seem to provide some sort of fun activity to while away the hours. I mean, we're not talking about foil-embossed hologram covers meant to fool impressionable youngsters into thinking they're valuable if collected, or the like. My only real concern would be whether or not the creators of these new works hold the copyright and maintain an interest in the ancilliary licensing -- comics need more work-for-hire thievery like they need more foil-embossed hologram covers.
My endless search for a good conservative cartoonist seems to have summoned conservative cartoonist Chris Muir, who writes as follows:
"I caught your search for conservative toons out there and noted 'Tom Tomorrows' quote on conservative humor:
" 'I think there are no good conservative cartoonists. Good humor is about the real underdog taking on the powerful. That's what satire is about. Conservative humor is picking on people who have less than you. That's not satire, that's just mean.'
"Rigid belief and orthodoxy never make it as humor, sport.
" 'Tomorrow' is uninformed. Makes sweeping generalizations. A snobbish arrogance masquerading as intelligence. Taking up the mantle 'of the people' whilst mocking them as ill-educated peasants.
"I could go on, but his very statement speaks for itself. This is why 'cartoonists' of this bent are being surely left behind in the country's zeitgeist and why these truly 'bent' cartoonists produce such dated material.
"Much anger, and little wit do not humor make."
I'm suspicious of people who try to lay down hard, fast rules about what does and does not make for good humor. I should point out, however, that it's exactly this kind of rigid dogma-in-place-of-wit that makes such strips as Mallard Fillmore and The Leftersons such chores to read, as well. It's not a liberal or conservative thing, per se -- I would note that having grown up in Arizona's cranky-conservative climate and then moved to smugly-liberal Seattle to take my present job, I'm astonished by how similar the two extremes are in their utter insufferability. You know who'd win in a gunfight between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter? Everybody else.
The syndrome's not limited to politics, either; the first few years of Alison Bechdel's Dykes to Watch Out For struck me as essentially riffs on whatever The Advocate was profiling the week before she drew a given strip, and the result was exactly the kind of dull, didactic stridency that makes my eyes glaze over. Eventually the soap-opera nature of her strip took center stage and Dykes became a reasonably interesting comic, but I wouldn't reread those early strips if you paid me.
Our next correspondent offers more on the subject of Joe Sacco's success in the British booksellers' market:
"The change in placement for graphic novels in bookstores [occured] when Jimmy Corrigan won the Guardian First Book award.
"The previous year's winner, White Teeth, was a smash after winning, the book trade expected the same from Jimmy.
"So they stacked it in New Fiction. Did the trick, and made it easier for the likes of Palestine, From Hell and Ghost World to be stacked in other places as well..."
Hey, whatever gets your foot in the door; it's nice to see the Guardian Prize do comics some good above and beyond putting well-deserved cash in Chris Ware's pocket. Finally, it's time to take a look at this week's ¡Journalista! Fuck-Up of the Week™. It's a two-parter, each having to do with the first item in this entry. Our first entrant begins by quoting from the item in question:
" 'The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Michael Sangiacomo notes that, unlike World War II, the comic-book industry seems largely to be sitting this one out. Of course, comic books have sat out every war since WWII (with the half-exception of Vietnam, which was protested in the undergrounds), but never mind that.'
No, Mike did mind that, very much -- explaining how, aside from The 'Nam, wars were barely touched upon in the mainstream, rather than glossing it over as your blogging suggests."
I didn't actually mean to imply that Sangiacomo had said otherwise, but instead meant to summarize the gist of it to the readers. Did a piss-poor job of it, didn't I? If that were the item's sole flaw, of course, I wouldn't be wasting my time with the mea culpas -- which brings us to our final correspondent:
"I noted with some interest your aside in today's ¡Journalista! about DC, Chop-Chop, and racial caricature.
"I probably won't be the only one to point out that DC didn't publish BLACKHAWK in the 1940s; Quality Comics (home of PLASTIC MAN) did. DC licensed the book in the late 1950s, when Quality went out of the comics biz, and then later bought it outright.
"DC was far from sinless on the racial relations front, but from what I've seen, their comics of the period were relatively restrained in terms of caricature, and stuff. Some of them look shocking today, but they're sedate alongside the output of Timely/Marvel, MLG/Archie, and even Fawcett."
After thinking about it for a bit, our correspondent returned with a final thought:
"..and, as a follow-up, I should make explicit what I only implied: when BLACKHAWK moved to the DC imprint, Chop-Chop got toned down considerably, a process that continued for many years after. Except for historical reprintings, the old Chop-Chop is long gone."
And there you have it; another week's worth of email successfully dealt with. 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.
