I know, I know, this doesn't look good for me. I'm turning into some terrible DC apologist.
But okay, let's unpack that statement for a minute, because there's a lot of stuff, in comics in general, and at DC in particular, I feel no need to defend, and quite often an overpowering need to scream about. Or just hide under a rock and ignore because it's too depressing. That said, my perception of a weird media bias against DC and in favour of Marvel bugs me to an increasing degree. Basically because I feel like it doesn't hold people accountable in the way they should be held to account, and I think it ends up ignoring success stories and examples of positive attempts at change. It's just...since I think this narrative is broken, I worry all we're doing is holding a biased conversation that won't get us any actual improvement.
So...I kind of didn't talk a lot about this for a long time because it's not a popular opinion, and because it's hard to defend a thing without it seeming like you're excusing everything it does, which isn't my intention.
But I was reading a recent article from ComicsAlliance on DC comics' New 52 and how many had been cancelled, and comparisons to Marvel's Marvel NOW initiative (which isn't a reboot but is a sort of...relaunch/rebranding initiative) all about how Marvel are doing it so much better. Based on...basically nothing I could understand and it mostly seemed to harp on about how DC can't possibly sustain publishing 52 titles a month and how it needs a new tactic to reach new readers, all the while ignoring the fact that DC no longer publishes 52 titles a month and they're trialing a new tactic of weekly comics. Which may be the world's stupidest idea. Who knows! But it is super weird this article didn't even talk about it!
And it struck me: here is a place where I think I can demonstrate my point and achieve some kind of catharsis. What the fuck is this article:
http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-new-52-47-cancelation/
I'm going to break it down point by point and hopefully illustrate why I think it's biased.
My goal is not to point out that therefore DC is all roses and happy shiny editors who never pointlessly intefere in otherwise successful books. My point is not to say that there are no problems with audience outreach. My point is that the underpinning logic of this article is broken. In some really weird ways. That seem predicated on a lot of generous assumptions about Marvel's business tactics based on three months of solicitations and wilfully ignoring everything earlier than December 2013. In ways that seem indicative of fandom and the comics press' general tendency to award Marvel for effort and punish DC for failure.
This is long. This is really fucking long. I tried to cut it down, I did. I couldn't. I was too filled with the need to destroy it.
The short version is: the article's assertion that Marvel is more patient when it comes to allowing its new titles to find a footing and flourish is divorced from any reality involving sales data, and while I'm very pleased they're making an effort to change their behaviour and actually publish titles featuring women and poc in the title roles, these books are younger than some of the food in my cupboards and not a numerical improvement on what DC tried to do with its reboot, so forgive me for wanting to see how many are still standing next year and whether they're replaced by similar titles, before I believe Marvel have cracked the secret code to making the comics industry less shitty. Plus, you know, that whole thing where the dude keeps commenting on DC's current sales tactics while never actually mentioning DC's newest sales tactic.
That really is the meat of it. But if you want to read that in vastly more detail (I don't really recommend it), then follow the cut.
( This article. This fucking article. )
But okay, let's unpack that statement for a minute, because there's a lot of stuff, in comics in general, and at DC in particular, I feel no need to defend, and quite often an overpowering need to scream about. Or just hide under a rock and ignore because it's too depressing. That said, my perception of a weird media bias against DC and in favour of Marvel bugs me to an increasing degree. Basically because I feel like it doesn't hold people accountable in the way they should be held to account, and I think it ends up ignoring success stories and examples of positive attempts at change. It's just...since I think this narrative is broken, I worry all we're doing is holding a biased conversation that won't get us any actual improvement.
So...I kind of didn't talk a lot about this for a long time because it's not a popular opinion, and because it's hard to defend a thing without it seeming like you're excusing everything it does, which isn't my intention.
But I was reading a recent article from ComicsAlliance on DC comics' New 52 and how many had been cancelled, and comparisons to Marvel's Marvel NOW initiative (which isn't a reboot but is a sort of...relaunch/rebranding initiative) all about how Marvel are doing it so much better. Based on...basically nothing I could understand and it mostly seemed to harp on about how DC can't possibly sustain publishing 52 titles a month and how it needs a new tactic to reach new readers, all the while ignoring the fact that DC no longer publishes 52 titles a month and they're trialing a new tactic of weekly comics. Which may be the world's stupidest idea. Who knows! But it is super weird this article didn't even talk about it!
And it struck me: here is a place where I think I can demonstrate my point and achieve some kind of catharsis. What the fuck is this article:
http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-new-52-47-cancelation/
I'm going to break it down point by point and hopefully illustrate why I think it's biased.
My goal is not to point out that therefore DC is all roses and happy shiny editors who never pointlessly intefere in otherwise successful books. My point is not to say that there are no problems with audience outreach. My point is that the underpinning logic of this article is broken. In some really weird ways. That seem predicated on a lot of generous assumptions about Marvel's business tactics based on three months of solicitations and wilfully ignoring everything earlier than December 2013. In ways that seem indicative of fandom and the comics press' general tendency to award Marvel for effort and punish DC for failure.
This is long. This is really fucking long. I tried to cut it down, I did. I couldn't. I was too filled with the need to destroy it.
The short version is: the article's assertion that Marvel is more patient when it comes to allowing its new titles to find a footing and flourish is divorced from any reality involving sales data, and while I'm very pleased they're making an effort to change their behaviour and actually publish titles featuring women and poc in the title roles, these books are younger than some of the food in my cupboards and not a numerical improvement on what DC tried to do with its reboot, so forgive me for wanting to see how many are still standing next year and whether they're replaced by similar titles, before I believe Marvel have cracked the secret code to making the comics industry less shitty. Plus, you know, that whole thing where the dude keeps commenting on DC's current sales tactics while never actually mentioning DC's newest sales tactic.
That really is the meat of it. But if you want to read that in vastly more detail (I don't really recommend it), then follow the cut.
( This article. This fucking article. )