My evening with Weiner
I’m still going to do the contest Essay. In the meantime, I have something I can post today for my lack of time that I’ve been sitting on since pre-Christmas. Zach submitted his contest topic as “Why are there so few Superhero Webcomics?” We ended up just having a huge AIM convo about it, and I decided I would post it. So without further ado, I present… A Phil Kahn and Zach Weiner discussion.
Topic: Why are there so few superhero webcomics?
Zach Weiner: It’s an interesting discrepancy between web and print.
Phil Kahn: Yep. I can even sum my thoughts concisely: Webcomics are the recent evolutionary step of Indy Comics, or Alternative Comics. Alternative Entertainmant/Art, by basic colloquial definition, is “not mainstream.” And since the mainstream in comics is super heroes, the alternative is not. Generally speaking of course. That, at the root, is why there are so few super hero webcomics.
Zach Weiner: I think you might consider that webcomics don’t have the traumatic history that print comics have.
Phil Kahn: That, I feel, is irrelevant.
Zach Weiner: I mean, if not for the whole CCA bullshit of the fifties, superhero comics may never have been as popular.
Phil Kahn: How so?
Zach Weiner: The entire horror genre (and, to some extent, by association the heavy Sci-Fi genre) was destroyed. Previously it was immensely popular.
Phil Kahn: True. I don’t see what that has to do with superheroes in webcomics, though. Illuminate me.
Zach Weiner: Well, I think the issue to deal with is why they are so popular in comics. Back when comics started detective comics, westerns, horror, adventure, and soap opera-esque comics were very popular as well. One by one, they died out in favor of superheroes
Phil Kahn: Sure. Making them the mainstream. And Indy comics are predominantly alternative comics. Alternative from the mainstream. Hence, lack of super heroes.
Zach Weiner: True, but I don’t think you can blanket term webcomics as Indy comics.
Phil Kahn: I believe that I can. Because they’re all independently produced. By the same definition that an independent film is produced: Without a major studio (publisher). To me, Webcomics are definitively independent. However, they are not all alternative.
Zach Weiner: Yeah, and “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” is considered independent.
Phil Kahn: Who considers that independent?
Zach Weiner: It wasn’t made by a studio. It was just monetarily backed by a bunch of big names.
Phil Kahn: So how are you defining independent?
Zach Weiner: I dunno. It’s tricky really. For example, are KeenSpot comics “Indy.”
Phil Kahn: Yep.
Zach Weiner: So, how could a webcomic not be Indy?
Phil Kahn: Marvel’s Online Comics, for one. Although KeenSpot could be considered non-Indy. As far as Webcomics standards, they aren’t. Because you could consider KeenSpot a studio. Their own book and merch production, distribution, and advertising arms.
Zach Weiner: True, though they don’t really do production in the studio sense.
Phil Kahn: Not much anyway.
Zach Weiner: True
Phil Kahn: In terms of Comics as a medium, Keen’s Indy. Just like Image is Indy.
Zach Weiner: I see.
Phil Kahn: In comics, I think we have to narrow down “Indy” to be synonymous with “creator owned.”
Zach Weiner: I can buy that.
Phil Kahn: While Keen may have exclusive rights to distributing Two Lumps, J. Grant and Mel Hynes still own it. Same with Larsen owning Savage Dragon. Or Kurtz owning PVP, since he’s with Image. Alternative and Independent are not mutually exclusive. You can have one without the other. Forr example, Marvel’s “Mary Jane” books. They’re targeted at youthful girls with romance and high school stories. Alternative, definitely. If we’re willing to accept that “Superheroes” are the mainstream. Now let’s take something like Mindmistress. Mainstream, because it’s a superhero webcomic. Independent, because it’s self-created/owned. Agree?
Zach Weiner: So, you think the reason there are no superhero webcomics is because it’s a rejection of the mainstream?
Phil Kahn: Basically.
Zach Weiner: I think something that might also be considered is that most webcartoonists are not great artists compared to mainstream comic people.
Phil Kahn: Also, I feel, irrelevant. While a good topic. But I don’t think that’s a factor.
Zach Weiner: I think there might be some FEAR of webtoonists of doing a pale imitation of the “real” comics.
Phil Kahn: How do you mean?
Zach Weiner: I would say the mainstream of webcomics, if there is such a thing, is the couple-guys-doing-stuff.
Phil Kahn: Definitely.
Zach Weiner: Partially because of the average age of the toonists, but also because it’s easy to draw.
Phil Kahn: The mainstream of webcomics is gaming comics. Scratch that. Let’s use yours. The mainstream of webcomics is the “Slacker Comic.” 2+ Characters talking about/doing whatever they feel like talking about/doing that day. Or I guess, the Sitcom.
Zach Weiner: Yeah, basically. Even most gamer comics follow that, Certainly all the big ones.
Phil Kahn: Sitcom’s a little general though… Or not. Heh. Sitcom’s not that general. It’s just that there’s so many goddamned people doing it. Like Superheroes. Pretty definitive genre. There’s just a glut. So yes: The mainstream of Webcomics could be the Sitcom. The most popular stuff, by and large, are the episodic adventures of folks standing around and talking. QC, PVP, PA, CAD. Gaming, I wouldn’t say is the mainstream. That’s a subgenre. There just happens to be a glut of that, too. By that same token, you could even say that the mainstream of print books is action. Where Superhero is the subgenre. But it’s subgenres like Superhero and Gaming that have taken such prominence and have such a huge catalogue that they’re considered their own genre. That’s the way I see it anyhow.
At this point, Zach informed me he was on the phone. Which is what allowed me to talk to myself for so long like that. Then I decided to go to bed because I was dogass tired. But it was a stimulating discussion, nonetheless. Even if I do sound like a tremendous blowhard throughout the entire thing.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Superhero books look really good these days, but that’s because they’re back to being a group effort. One guy doing the pencils, one guy doing the inks, one guy lettering, etc… Webcomics, with maybe having a writer/artist dynamic at most, can’t really compete with a team of five dedicated, well trained, pros in that regard.
Some like to compare webcomics to punk music, where any asshole can pierce themselves, learn two chords, and yell at he crowd. And it works. But like how punk music only had The Clash being able to step beyond the limits of the genre, we’ve only got one, maybe two, creators who are able to match the work of the team. And go above the usual masturbatory effort we all put out in webcomics.
But getting to the main thesis, I’d say the real reason very few do superhero comics on the web is that Marvel and DC have that genre well served. Whereas gamers, slackers, non-spandex action, crackers and gyopos pretending to be Japanese, and romance comics are under-served in print.
January 13th, 2006 at 12:17 am
I’d say part of it is observer bias. There are superhero webcomics out there. But among the people who read webcomics and talk about them, most of us are looking for more than JUST superhero comics. And the demand for superhero comics is (mostly) met by the print comics, which have the advantages of some of the most famous characters in the world and teams of writers and artists and publishers. And tie-in movies, animated series, happy meals, etc. There’s less people who want to spend their time reading some random superhero thing when they could go read Batman, Superman, or something by a name writer or artist.
But there’s nothing in print like a lot of webcomics. And with the way distribution is set up, there’s probably not going to be any time soon. With comic shops closing faster than opening, and just Diamond as the distributor, with their policies on minimum orders, getting something new out is hard. Not as hard as say, TV, or movies, but still pretty hard.
January 14th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Fellas…
First, there are some superhero webcomics out there (like mine… sorta…) but they are vastly overshadowed by humor webcomics. I think that the reason that there are so few superhero webcomics has more to do with the audience. The audience for webcomics is much, much more diverse than the audience for print comics. Therefore what’s popular in the world of webcomics reflects that, which is to say that superheroes aren’t that popular. They’re a niche, a subroutine. Superheroes are what mainstream comics sell because mainstream comics pitch to an adult, niche market. They don’t really catch the kids like they used to, and the big 2 (3? 4?) don’t really act like they care to. I suppose that you can argue about Spiderman and Batman toys and whatnot, but that’s trying to build a brand, not attract readers to a comic.
Anyway, I’m reasonably sure that the main reason that there are so few superhero webcomics has more to do with what most people actually want to have, and almost nothing to do with a mass migration of alternative talent.
Sincerely-
Greg Holkan
January 17th, 2006 at 3:03 am
It’s also a question of recognizability. Fans read superhero webcomics because they love Batman or Spiderman, not necessarily just because they love superheroes. Webcomics created independently with superheroes don’t have that recognizable quality, and so people who associate X-men or Superman with their childhood won’t associate a superhero webcomic.
Also, webcomics are often the work of fans, because usually people don’t do extensive research on the audience that they’re trying to reach, more often they just do the stuff that they love. But people who love superhero comics may not feel successful unless they’re publishing the comics that they love in the medium they love to read it in. A lot of people who read superhero comics have their own characters and scripts and want to break into Marvel or DC.
Also, for the most part Superhero comics are deadly serious to a fault, and that doesn’t always fly online. Sure, people read serious comics, but I know that as a reader, I have trouble staying interested in something that’s not at least a little bit funny, and it’s easier to parlay humor into other genres.
As for me, my situation is unique in that I didn’t really read many superhero comics until about a year before I started my own superhero-theme comic. I had the basic basis from my childhood watching tons of X-men, Batman, Superman, and Spiderman cartoons, but other than that, all I’d read were Japanese comics. After I got interested in superhero comics, the “Autobiography in the key of Super” was a natural followup.
January 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
I really like the dialogue going on here. Lots of different perspectives and theories on the topic. Very cool.
I have nothing more to add, really. But I just wanted to say that I’m diggin’ it.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Of course, this is in America. In Japan for instance, about 70% of the population reads comics every day. With that large a slice of the population, comics in that country must service many different tastes. In this country, a stigma has been associated with them for decades, limiting not only the audience (and so the types of stories that could be told) but also limiting the specific creators who could both get involved and be recognized.
There’s a huge debate (okay it’s a little one-sided since it seems that Fantagraphics/The Comics Journal is the only one carrying on about it) in print comics (not comic strips, although they’re often printed too) over the effects of genre on a medium. There’s no real doubt that the Superhero genre has defined print comics for decades, but Webcomics are different.
That’s probably because people don’t have to walk into a comics shop to read webcomics. There are quite a few people reading webcomics who don’t read regular print comics, who could care less about superheroes. A diverse audience can support a diverse medium. Although it could be argued that webcomics isn’t as diverse as some might like to believe, considering the over representation of humor comics. Then again, that’s probably just a reflection of what people want.
Which is fine anyway, since the audience is the whole point anyway. (Err… probably 90% of the time… I concede that the audience can theoretically not be the point in some instances… but that becomes difficult to find… also how do you differentiate between art and therapy? Is there a difference?)
I don’t think that webcomics are really an extension of the Alternative Comics scene from the 60’s. While some cartoonists from this period are producing some work online now, the sense of deliberate violation seems to be missing. Alternative Comics from the 60’s often featured bizarre and fetishistic views of the world, designed to fly in the face of authority or “the man.” Webcomics don’t really do that, it’s not a sense of violation so much as it is the sense of unrestricted freedom. Both can make you giddy, but for different reasons. Penny Arcade is funny, and often broaches strange and twisted subject matter, but it’s really neither as weird nor as disturbing as quite a bit of Robert Crumb’s 60’s work.
The lack of diversity in most print comics seems to be the result of a nasty relationship. Distributors/Production houses think that people only want certain kinds of things. (Or that enough people to turn a profit only want certain kinds of things) Because of this assumption, said Distributors/Production houses only release/create/finance certain kinds of works. Because of the lack of diversity in the market, people begin to associate a medium with a certain kind of work. In comic books, for various reasons, Superheroes became the dominantly associated genre. Because of this, publishers think that most of what people want to read is Superheroes. Because the public thinks that comic book=superheroes, they avoid comics if they don’t want to read about Superheroes. This is problematic, since all it leaves behind are Superhero fans. What happens when Marvel decides to produce a period prairie romance? It doesn’t sell very well, since the fans are interested in superheroes, not a barn dance.
In print, small alternative companies like Fantagraphics have slowly been fighting against that trend and they actually seem to be making headway in the last decade or so. On the Web, we haven’t developed that problem yet. In part because people can probably say something like: “Oh, but this comic’s on the internet, comics there don’t have to be about superheroes.” That coupled with the ADD-compliant nature of the internet seems to make comics online more accessible to more people. This of course means that more kinds of stories can be told.
Foo. Complete thoughts are rough on a person.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Agreed, Greg. And I think that the same reason that independent comics were often so very violent and sexual is the reason that not many webcomics are superhero comics. In the 60’s and 70’s it was a backlash against the prudish and often nonsensical rules of the comics code authority. I think that we have fewer superhero webcomics because even people who like superheroes or superhero comics such as David Willis or even Scott Kurtz don’t want to make superhero comics because Marvel/DC/everyone is already making them. Instead of it being in protest against a rating, it’s protest against a specific genre, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Of course, I could just be talking out of my rear.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Well, I think where we differ is in this: I think the lack of representation of Superhero stories in webcomicdom is simply an accurate representation of people’s interests, not a backlash against the Superhero genre. I love the genre, personally, but I hold no illusions about its importance to most of the world. (said illusions having been beaten out of my younger, more boorish self by total disinterest in my discussion of various comicky-things…)
Part of the vitality the alternative comics scene from the 60’s is indeed derived from the cultural space inhabited by comics and comic strips. Part of what made those strips so subversive was the publicly held notion that comics and comic strips were the domain of children. Possibly what drove some of the artists was a response to the overabundance of superhero works, but I know that in the case of Robert Crumb, the evidence I’ve seen seems to point to that probably not being the case. It seems that the work of Robert Crumb is most probably an extension of the comics he and older brother Charles made as children. (which had more to do with Scrooge McDuck and Bugs Bunny comics than superheroes) Was it really a backlash against the comics code? Most of those people producing underground comix in that time period didn’t work at the major houses. Most of them weren’t interested either. (Well, maybe if a decent paycheck was attached. You can eat Art, but while paper provides fiber, the ink can lead to tummyaches.)
You might be able to make a case for some of the work of Harvey Kurtzman and Will Elder being a reaction to the code (See “Little Annie Fannie”), but some of that work was done for hire for specific clients. (See “Little Annie Fannie” in Playboy…)
On top of that, alternative comics icon Spain had a superheroic character that deliberately used the motifs and concepts found in supehero stories to a subversive end. I don’t think the alt comics scene of way back when was necessarily a response to superhero comics as much as it was a response to a culture war. The cultural attitude towards comics gave that work much of its power.
In the rest of the world, Superhero stories make up a much smaller percentage of the market than in the US. The genre of the Superhero is not to be confused with power fantasies or sci-fi. The latter two are very well represented abroad. I’m reasonably sure that the lack of superhero stories in the world of webcomics is less a reaction than it is a reflection of a more diverse audience’s tastes.
There are too many people doing too many different things to say that so few webcomics about superheroes is just a reaction to the over saturation of the genre in print. I mean, isn’t that kind of a disservice to the people producing work? I realize this isn’t your point, but it could be read as, “You’re not producing a superhero comic because it’s too hard to get noticed in that field.” (Which is advice some well meaning buffoon gave me once. I ignored him, obviously.)
And I too could be talking out of my rear. I am reasonably sure there’s documented evidence of my having done so in the past, and I know for certain that there is a cadre of willing witnesses ready to testify as to the extent of my offenses in the past.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:43 am
Hmmm. I guess I should have done more research into underground and alt comics before I spouted off my mouth. I would like to clarify my comment on underground comics that I misstated in the earlier post. I think that the violence and sex in many underground comics was more a product of the stifling culture that spawned the CCA than the Code itself.
And you’re right, I hadn’t thought about the fact that not everyone likes superhero comics. WHOA. I do find it surprising that so many people who clearly take inspiration from superhero comics don’t do something more along those lines, and I maintain that it’s possible that these already established artists are not interested in ‘competing’ (though you could hardly call it that) in an already flooded market. I also think that, as I (probably?) said earlier, people identify more with familiar characters than the superhero genre in particular.
I’d also like to revisit a point I see you made in an earlier post. Humor comics vastly outnumber serious ones, and there are very few webcomics that don’t have an element of humor to them, which is something that superhero comics don’t as often have. The comics that I’ve read that are clearly directly inspired by superhero comics and very serious about this don’t interest me nearly as much as the superhero comics I do read, partly because I don’t recognize their characters.
Also I don’t really know where I’m going here.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Yeah, I can agree totally with the humor point. I’m not sure what to make of it though. It could be that people prefer webcomics with humor, or it could be that most comics creators are emulating their favorite webcomics (which are probably humor based, given the numbers), or it could be that most comics creators do domedy because they think it will be easier than a drama. I dunno.
I’ve had the argument placed before me that comedy is inherently easier than drama, since comedy is afforded so many more tools with which to work than is drama. I’m not sure I buy that line though, since it sure seems that either a person is funny or they’re not. I’ve seen too many comedians say that it just seems that people can’t learn to be funny. That means that if both are true, then comedy is easier for those with the knack and impossible for the rest of us. Bleagh. Tangent.
A Superhero comic that is well-written and competently drawn should be able to build a following though, right? It can’t be that the only reason people read comics from the big houses is that the characters are recognizable, otherwise the characters could never have gotten off the ground. Although maybe there’s a kind of critical mass that has to gather before a character like that can really take off. Maybe people have to become familiar enough with the character that it can really begin to resonate with a broader spectrum of people. Was it the third Harry Potter novel where the character really began to gain public notice and waves of preteens began to wash over the bookstore with each new installment?
I think the predominance of humor in webcomics is definitely a topic worth exploring in greater depth, partly to see what else the audience might be able to support. How many webcomics are there thhat are primarily drama oriented, with little to no humor at all? How successful are they? Can the audience support something like that long term, or will it remain a “pet project” for that artist? If a webcomic artist wants to be taken seriously, does that artist necessarily have to be a joker?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Humor is easier to execute in a single four panel episode than drama over a series of four panel episodes. Attempting drama in a single installment is great (Kazu Kabuishi’s Copper for example), but it’s a lot more difficult to contain that sort of arc in something so brief. On the internet, the greatest timekiller of all time, people I think generally seek the humor more often. Those of us who are seeking out a dramatic story will find them.
To tell a joke that’s good and quick, you need only the setup, the development, and the punchline. The characters involved need only their surface personalities, and the settting need only be basic (a zoo, for example). The entire strip is read in about 13 seconds, and the laugh is had. This isn’t to say that the humor strip is simple to do and requires no effort, or that it is cheap in any way. But I’m willing to say that overall, there is less time that needs to be spent
Drama involves a lot more elements than humor in a single story. With the characters, you have to deal with not only with surface personalities, but character history, internal monologues, character interaction and tension, etc. The setting is usually more involved, especially with time as an important factor, because drama involves a set of events that take place in a sequence (where the humor strip can be totally non-sequitor every day). Also, when you’re crafting an installment in a dramatic arc, you have to think about how each episode affects future episodes. In humor, continuity needs not be an issue.
The key difference in where the difficulties lie in Comedy and Drama, in my mind, are that Comedy is hard because you have to think of a great many individual self-contained ideas and in Drama you have to work and work and invest in a single united idea. Neither one is better than the other, just different approaches.
It’s definitely harder to support a straight drama on the internet, because of the very nature of the fast-paced internet. The average joe internet user is surfing at the speed of light, and usually wouldn’t be interested in spending that long on a comic, humor or otherwise.
And to me, if an artist wants to be taken seriously, they just need to act like a professional.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:01 am
I don’t think that a strictly-serious superhero comic would be terribly successful on the internet, regardless of whether it was well-done or not, partly because of the reasons that Phil cited when talking about a straight drama, and partly because of my own personal opinions on entertainment. I’m not a huge fan of dramas, despite my crazy-obsession with Law and Order, partly because dramas are more often melodramas. If there’s no comedy at all, it’s not realistic, because life is funny. People crack jokes, situations are ironic. That’s why I hate Soap Operas. (one of many reasons) (In addition, this is not to say that I don’t read dramas at all, but it certainly takes me a lot more inertia to start reading them, because it’s so much harder to introduce a character. Usually dramatic webcomics I read have something else going for them, like fantastic art or something.)
But I know that’s not what we’re arguing here. I’ve seen some not-funny-at-all superhero comics, and I lost interest in them because it takes so long for the story to have a point. I think that relates to the reason that superhero comics still work in print, it’s because you get a huge chunk right there, and you don’t have to have a cliffhanger every day, which is something I struggle with in my own comic. (Either having a cliffhanger every day or a joke every day.)
January 20th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
There’s also the grand tradition of using humor as counterpoint to drama. (See Mercutio’s death scene in Romeo and Juliet) By completely eliminating humor from your toolkit as a storyteller, you make it much harder to successfully engage the reader. The old saying is: “Let ‘em laugh a little, make ‘em cry a lot.”
I guess I was asking earlier if the web is going to support people who want to tell a serious story. (Allow me to underline here, in no way do I think [nemesis] rates as serious literature… That’s not what I set out to do, and its current course definitely reflects that.) I freely admit that with that last rhetorical question, I reached a bit too hard for cutesy phrasing instead of something succinct.
At this point, I feel like I have little left to offer but a friendly shoulder shrug.
January 21st, 2006 at 9:19 am
Hooray! Let’s all shrug. (shrugs)
:) It was nice discussing with you, Mr. Holkan.
January 21st, 2006 at 11:21 am
It was indeed a wonderful discussion. Thanks for going back and forth with me!
January 21st, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Y’all come back now, y’hear?
January 29th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Thanks for the mention!
But consider Mindmistress submitted to Marvel or DC—and they say, “the other identity is mentally challenged??? Too risky. Too possible to offend others”…..
They would turn Lorelei into someone who could just barely get through high school, or something.
I do superhero comics, though, because I rather like the genre, and why shouldn’t I do what I enjoy?
Which should be the motto of ANY webcomic.-