How To Save Comics
So last week I was asked what I thought about the recent Robert Kirkman video. The text break-down of his concept is also at that link, and worth checking out. I thought it would be interesting to get Brian Clevinger in on this, so we will both be sharing our thoughts on this. Brian’s response can be seen over at atomic-robo.com.
For those of you who may not be familiar with Robert Kirkman, he is a comic book writer of considerable talent and popularity. He is probably best known for being part of the creative efforts behind Invincible and The Walking Dead. In addition to several other Indie credits, Robert was a regular writer for Marvel Comics until recently. He is now a partner at Image Comics.
I am going to assume that you have watched the video already, as I have no intention of wasting my time summarizing it -I’ve got a book to draw here.
My first reaction was that every comic book creator has basically felt the same thing at one time or another. And after spending some time pondering the issue, I still, more or less, agree with the core of Kirkman’s argument. In principle anyway. But in some ways I can’t help but feel like it’s an overly simplistic way of looking at the comic book industry.
I should note here that Kirkman himself said that he doesn’t have all the answers, and that in large part he just wanted to start a conversation -which would presumably plug the holes, so to speak.
I keep asking myself, which is better; working for Marvel/DC, or doing your own creator owned book? To answer that you need to define what your motives and goals are, and also what sort of an artist you are. (For the sake of this piece I’m lumping writers and us art monkeys into one group -artists.) It’s weird to think about it, but there are a lot of artists out their who’s original ideas are not that great. Or they are good, but not good enough. The comic book industry is insanely competitive, and if your work is not good enough to rise into the top tiers, lacks mass appeal, then there is just no way to make a living at this. However, if your talent is mated to a well known title like Spider-Man or Batman, you can do just fine. The product sells books as much as the names attached to it at the time.
For many artists, a nice run on a popular Marvel or DC book is what they want. Many then move on to other jobs, outside of comic books -some much better, and some not. It’s not that Marvel/DC are the end goal -but they are the end goal for that phase of their careers. For some people anyway.
What has always bothered me about the mania that people seem to have for working with the Big Two, is that at the end of the day, what do you really have to show for it? You don’t own the property. You don’t receive any kind of royalties. Everything that you have done, you signed over to some corporation that owes you nothing.
Now, the flip side to this is that Marvel and DC compensate you with a very respectable page-rate for your efforts. Oh sure, people tell you all the time that there is no money in comics -but I calculated what my annual income from Marvel would have been if I had been asked to stay on Punisher War Journal. Even getting entry-level rates, it was a significant amount. Granted, I ink my own work, so I got more per page, but I also did more work than someone who only pencils or inks. Even cutting that in half however, it was not bad. Sure you could make more doing lots of things -but most comic book people aren’t qualified to be computer programmers or mechanical engineers. Most of us come from blue collar stock, and in those terms, working for Marvel or DC is a pretty sweet gig. Especially when you consider that you work from home drawing or writing comic books.
Putting money aside, lets look at this from the creative fulfillment angle. Can you ever get the same sense of satisfaction working on a corporate controlled book that you can from doing your own thing? I don’t think so. Because, when you work on something that you own, there is literally a part of you in that work. There is an emotional investment that you just can’t make to a work-for-hire job. 20 years from now Artist-X is not going to be remembered for their work on Spider-Man. The only name really associated with that character is Stan Lee. And that’s what tips the argument in Kirkman’s favor for me. I don’t just want to draw comics. I want to create them. If you’ll excuse what might be seen as arrogance, I want my creations to have a life beyond me.
So is Kirkman right? Creator-owned books are where it’s at? Maybe. But consider where he’s coming from. Like Miller and Moore before him, who both basically said the same thing, he is coming off a successful run from one of the Big Two. Which means he probably has a very comfortable buffer in his checking account, and now benefits from a built-in audience. For those of us starting off in the world of Indie comics, it is a really rough ride, financially.
It is my opinion that there are dozens of Indie books out there that are light years ahead of anything Marvel and DC are doing, but nobody knows about them. So how do we fix that? I have no idea. But I know I watch Fanboys plop down $100 and $200 dollars a month to buy some really shitty superhero comics, with mediocre artwork, and tepid writing, done by guys who don’t really give a rat’s ass about it, beyond the pay check they are getting. Yet they won’t risk the $3 to try something new. How do we as comic book creators do something about that? We’re certainly not exploiting the Internet the way we should be. And how do we reach new audiences? The traditional comic readers clearly aren’t interested, so how do we get new, younger readers?
I really did like what Kirkman was saying about changing the focus of superhero comics. At one point in time these were aimed at children. And as those children grew up so did the superheroes -sort of. But as a result, new generations of kids never got into comics. These books are just not accessible. Partially it’s the content, and partially it’s the impenetrable continuity.
There are damn few books out there that justify their own existence. Not in terms of sales -they make profits, so the companies keep making issues. I mean in creative terms. There just are no more Spider-man stories that need to be told. Superman could have retired to Tampa years ago. It can be argued that as long as the stories are fresh you can keep on trucking. But the problem with that is the unavoidable baggage you pick up over time. Hence all the stupid ret-con crap. Every story, and every series should have a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that superhero comics have had their time and they should go away. Not at all. It’s just the way in which they are handled that irks me. But look at books like Powers, Top Ten, and Promethea. But the monthly (maybe) soap opera garbage that is 99% of superhero comics is just crap, not worth the paper it is printed on, in my opinion.
In large part, I think that’s why manga enjoyed a massive surge in popularity the last few years. That seems to have peaked to some degree but the fact remains that more kids read manga than then do American comic books. It’s that whole begining, middle, end thing. It certainly isn’t the quality of the work -it’s hard to consider product made in a studio sweatshop environment artistic in any real sense of the word. So how do we make our domestic product more appealing? What lessons can we learn from manga?
I could ramble on, but three pages is more than enough. So I’ll end by saying that in large part I agree with Kirkman. I think he raised some good points, and I think he left a lot of questions unanswered. But I think he got a very good, and desperately needed conversation started.
At the end of the day, it’s all about ownership and creative control for me. Atomic Robo is my dream job -I collectively call the shots with Brian, and we don’t have to do anything we don’t like. But I would still like to land the occasional gig with the Big Two. Because that kind of works makes it possible to afford to do my own thing.
Sorry this has been sort of rambling. I’m tired and I don’t have the time I really need to clean it up. But hopfully we can talk about it some more and I can clarify anything I said that might be confusing.

I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write an entire article on the subject. I think it’s really interesting to get different perspectives from creators occupying seperate areas of the field.
Your point about people working on an established property not really being associated with it in the future is probably true, but I wonder if in creating a new aspect or addition to a franchise, the creator would be associated with it over an entirely independent book. Jim Starlin, for instance, will probably always be remebered for his Warlock run and The Death of Captain Marvel over Cosmic Guard and even Dread Star. Do those works have less value because they were created for Marvel instead of him retaining the rights? Interesting to ponder.
You bring up a really good point. I think you are right, that an individual can have a big impact on an existing book. Outside of comic books look at Doctor Who -each new Doctor brought their own, unique, interpretation to the character.
For me, Jim Lee will always be associated with the X-Men. But his work at Image never interested me. Why? Because it was nothing but his own personal version of the X-Men. Which brings me back to something i touched on earlier; just because you are a good artist or writer, does not mean that you’re any good at creating original material. Though in Lee’s case (and most of the original Image crew) they knew damn well that they were just rehashing their previous work at Marvel. It was a calculated decision, because they knew it would make them money.
Many artists have poured their hearts and souls into work they’ve done for the Big Two. Kirkman himself just did a project with Cory Walker at Marvel where he created more characters than he has done in the multi-year run on Invincible. And he said he was happy to do it.
Something to consider is what we are willing to give up. For me, I several ideas that I am actively looking to sell, and then there are things like Robo that i wouldn’t give up the rights to for all the tea in China. At the end of the day, this a job, and we in the industry need to make a living at it.
But can Jeff Smith’s recent Shazam book at DC hold a candle to Bone, or his new book, Rassl? I don’t think so. So the door swings both ways.
Really, my only issue with comics, the Big Two in particular, is how they pump out weak monthlies and drag readers into those pointless and unsatisfying “Events” like this stupid Skrull thing going on right now. If they invested the time in crafting really quality books that came out less frequently I think that after an adjustment period they would do much better, and we the readers would be better served.
Such a paradigm shift would never make it past the marketers. It would cut into their cross-title story line business model. There is no profit in quality. Only in quantity.
I too agree with some of RK’s points. But it’s a bit easy to say when one has just been made a partner with a different company. We all pull moves that seem hypocritical, at times, but RK’s success on Marvel Zombies turned into MZ2. But then he thought MZ3 was overkill and didn’t want anything to do with it.
Where is the line in the sand ‘do not cross’?
(my opinion is MZ should have been 1 issue, at the most).
I’ve enjoyed much of RK’s Marvel work, along with his Image work and it seems rather unfortunate that he’s (seemingly) slammed the door closed on every going back.
Scott, your Punisher 2 issues were a blast, it would be fun as hell to see you play with the Marvel characters again. While doing Robo and anything else you have in store for us, of course.
I had a really great time working on Punisher.
I too would love to be able to keep a foot in both camps.