18 March 2006
Never-ending stories

Last week I explained that, in my view, the comic medium has the potential to be the first new literary genre for centuries. I stand by that. But, if that’s the case, why hasn’t the medium already received greater recognition than it has?

Movies didn’t really exist until the first years of the 20th Century and yet, within decades, the medium was widely accepted as both a means of popular entertainment and a medium capable of producing thought-provoking works of art. No mean achievement for a medium working in black and white and without sound.

Comics came into being, at least in the form we know them today, at roughly the same time. And yet, although - like the movies - they quickly established themselves as an important part of popular culture, they are only now beginning to achieve any kind of wider recognition. What’s been holding them back?

On-going problem

Sadly, for those of us who believe in the potential for the comic book medium, the vast majority of output is still of a very poor quality, at least when judged by the same criteria used to assess other literary forms.

One of the key reasons for this, I would argue, is the success of the majors (by which, for the purpose of this column at least, I mean DC and Marvel). Their success is built in large part on the promotion of the on-going title as a staple of the medium. The commercial benefits of this are obvious. In fact, the benefits are so obvious that the vast majority of independent creators want to do nothing more than to emulate this formula. The height of their ambition is to create a character of their own who can be trotted out month after month in a new adventure.

Commercial logic, however, doesn’t guarantee a quality of product. Early comics quickly became the equivalent of pre-TV soaps. Character design was perfunctory and a new character needed nothing more than his own skin-tight costume (preferably with a cape) and a super power or two (preferably, but not necessarily, unique). Worse still, story-lines became repetitive. A new villain might be encountered each month but none ever seriously threatened the over-riding need to restore the hero’s world to its status quo by the end of the issue.

Strength of character

Some progress has, of course, been made since those early days, particularly in the design of increasingly sophisticated characters. Whilst this is not solely due to the influence of Stan Lee at Marvel, there are few who would begrudge him the lion’s share of the credit.

Although still crude by today’s standards, even Marvel’s early characters seemed more real than most of the DC stalwarts who had preceded them. Marvel recognised that readers of comics had grown more sophisticated over the years and responded by writing more sophisticated characters for them. Marvel’s heroes had character flaws. They had lives. Not just token lives which they could drop every time danger threatened but real lives with work problems, relationship issues and – most revolutionary of all – even feelings of resentment about their own special abilities.

Despite Spidey’s strap-line, Marvel’s heroes did not automatically accept that great power brings a great responsibility to don a tight costume and combat evil.

By allowing the characters’ private lives to intrude into their activities as costumed heroes, Marvel opened the door to stories of far greater depth and complexity. No wonder DC chose to follow suit. However, Marvel only changed one aspect of the product. Like DC’s titles, Marvel’s comics were also on-going in nature and, although the stories improved, the fundamental flaws inherent in an on-going title had still to be addressed.

Death or dishonour

The readers of comics have continued to grow in sophistication since Marvel’s innovations first revolutionised the medium and despite some attempt to grow with them, another step-change is now required if comics are to offer a quality of story-telling on a par with other media.

At heart, most comic story-lines are still soap operas. No matter how many times Hero X fights and defeats Villain Z, we know both are going to survive. The hero can’t be killed (or even seriously injured) because he or she needs to be back next issue. Similarly, the villain needs to survive so that he can return with another dastardly plan, same time next year. An on-going title demands this and the stories are weaker for it. As long as a title has to restore the status quo every two-to-three issues, how can it grow? How can the quality improve?

If you see a great movie or read a great novel, there is always the possibility that the hero will suffer some great life-changing event or even die (and often, they do!) In an on-going title, you know this is not going to happen. Consider the “death” of Superman? Did anyone really expect DC was going to discontinue its flagship title? Of course not. The only question was how the writer would resurrect him. The death of the Jason-era Robin? Let’s face it, he was an unpopular character and, arguably, the title was even stronger without him. And yet, even so, Dennis O’Neill can still be heard apologising for Jason’s death and reminding people that it wasn’t DC’s decision to kill him, but the readers’. Why?

If the story is stronger for the death or retirement of a major character (including the title character), then it should be included. To be ranked on a par with other forms of fiction, the requirements of the story have to be allowed to take precedence over the need to publish another identikit issue next month.

Standing alone

It can’t happen, of course, not in an on-going title. The better stories, therefore, will lend themselves more naturally to a stand-alone format - one-shots, mini-series or graphic novels. In a series of 3 – 6 issues, there’s no reason why the lead character can’t die, lose limbs or be left with serious brain damage as a result of his titanic struggles against evil. And, even if he is fortunate enough to survive unscathed, at least the reader isn’t on advance notice that this is going to be the case from Page 1.

The bad news is that, given their reliance on on-going titles to cover their huge corporate costs, the majors are unlikely ever to invest as heavily in short-run series as they are in on-going titles. The good news, at least if you’re an independent creator, is that this leaves the field clear for you. So, my call to arms this week is for all independent creators to stop trying to create that hero who’s going to run for the next 50 years and keep you in the manner to which you’d like to become accustomed and write, instead, a great two-part story. The medium needs more quality, not quantity.

[The substance of this article first appeared in a slightly different form at Comic Avalanche on 19 January 2005 and is reproduced by kind permission of Mr Avalanche. The views and opinions expressed in this column are entirely those of the author. If you wish to agree or disagree with any of the views expressed in this column, please leave your comments in the Forum].