Gerry Conway: "Cancel all superhero comics!"

[Digifiend]

Gerry Conway, former Punisher writer, wants all superhero comics cancelled, and the publishers to do graphic novels and kids comics instead.
https://bleedingcool.com/comics/puni...perhero-comic/

[Reviresco]

I love Gerry Conway's work, and I agree with _some_ of his analysis of the history that brought the industry to this point. However, his solution betrays a lack of knowledge of various attempts by the publishers and Diamond, and the present retail situation.

[Holt]

That's a very sensationalist reading of what he was saying. His actual explanation of how we got to this point was very well reasoned, imo.

For a variety of self-enforcing reasons, publishers have defined the primary audience for mainstream comics as, in effect, long term fans and potential collectors. Hence, fan-oriented naval gazing continuity, tri-annual "events", reboots, collector-oriented variant covers, etc. Every single one of these marketing ploys is designed *solely* to appeal to existing readers. Even reboots, ostensibly intended to offer "jumping on" points to new readers, actually require familiarity with previous iterations to provide interest. New readers aren't welcomed by the existing creative strategy at the two mainstream publishers— if anything, new readers are actively *discouraged* by the publishers' frantic pursuit of motivated, existing readership. The clubhouse is closed. Stay out.

Publishers, of course, will disagree with this analysis and say they're always trying to provide on-ramps to new readers. But any serious look at what they're offering, in the main, reveals a decided tilt— in fact a massive tilt— toward privileging the existing readership. And this makes sense, in a way, because of a cultural creative shift in the editorial direction of the publishing houses that can be traced back to the era I'm from— the late 1960s, early 1970s.

In the mid 1960s, around 1967, DC Comics offered a weekly tour of their offices during the summer. I went on the tour (and like others, Len Wein and Marv Wolfman among them, became a regular). At one point I had a conversation with then-editor Julie Schwartz. We were talking about a Green Lantern story, and I made some fanboy comment about what I hoped would happen. Julie paused and looked at me. "How old are you?" "Fourteen," I said. He snorted. "Too old. You're not my reader." And he walked off.


I later learned that at DC (and also at Marvel) in the 1960s the commonly accepted view of the comic book readership was a kid (undoubtedly male) between the age of 9 and 13. What today's book publishers would call Middle-Grade Readers. This makes sense. If we're honest about it, the basic, root appeal of superhero stories is to that part of ourselves that lives in a pre-sexualized, pre-adolescent dream state in which anything is possible. It's the world of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Like "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (or Philosopher's Stone if you want to be pedantic), young adults and adults can enjoy superhero stories too, and even want those stories to evolve and mature, just as the Potter books evolved and matured. But. But. But Regardless of what appeal the first Potter book might have for older and existing readers…its primary readership was intended to be, and remains, Middle-Grade, 8 to 12. And the same used to be true for comics, particularly superhero comics. Until my generation came along. Yeah, we Boomers f**ked it up, as usual.

When I and my cohorts replaced the creatives who'd given the comic book business massive success in the 1960s, folks like Stan Lee and Julie Schwartz, we brought with us our Boomer self-obsession. We didn't want to create comics for kids. We wanted comics for *us.* That's the origin of comic book superheroes' shift from Middle-Grade readership in the 1960s to Young Adult readership in the 1970s, and Adult readership in the 1990s and beyond— the refusal of Boomer creatives and editors like myself and others to Let It Go. We redefined the readership comics were aimed at— coinciding with a shift in distribution that allowed that redefinition to stick. The result is a dead end for comic book publishing as a business. How would I change this?

[Username taken]

That's a very sensationalist reading of what he was saying. His actual explanation of how we got to this point was very well reasoned, imo.

Exactly.

His reasoning is very sound here and I largely see a lot of sense in what he's saying.

And what's happening in the market today pretty much bears out what he's positing here.

[Reviresco]

He is working the presumption the current industry is a dead end. I don't think he is overlooking the things you listed (he probably blames them) but I do think the problem is what he has presented is an end goal with no suggestion of how to get there. Plenty of people come up with product ideas, but the successful ones come up with ideas to get people to buy their product.

Yes, I agree, that's the presumption he appears to be working from. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that presumption -- people have been saying that for decades -- but I can see where he's coming from.

I do think he's overlooked some things in his solution. For one thing, Marvel at least, has had, and still has, a focused line of simplified comics aimed at kids. Marvel Age, Marvel Action, etc. And it has an overpriced line, the main line, for adults.

The idea of getting comics into other places than comic book stores isn't new and has been tried repeatedly with no success. Conway seems to be ignoring the fact that there just isn't the retail space for comics, or anything printed, for that matter, that there was before the direct market. He seems to be ignoring that's the whole reason we have a direct market, and it's the direct market that saved Marvel and DC back in the 80s and 90s.

[skyvolt2000]

Yes, I agree, that's the presumption he appears to be working from. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that presumption -- people have been saying that for decades -- but I can see where he's coming from.

I do think he's overlooked some things in his solution. For one thing, Marvel at least, has had, and still has, a focused line of simplified comics aimed at kids. Marvel Age, Marvel Action, etc. And it has an overpriced line, the main line, for adults.

The idea of getting comics into other places than comic book stores isn't new and has been tried repeatedly with no success. Conway seems to be ignoring the fact that there just isn't the retail space for comics, or anything printed, for that matter, that there was before the direct market. He seems to be ignoring that's the whole reason we have a direct market, and it's the direct market that saved Marvel and DC back in the 80s and 90s.

Part of that issue is WHO is being used.

If all those attempts are gpoing to be the ususual suspects. That kid is not going to have a hissy fit if he sees a book with Carol, Panther, Black Bolt, Miles or Widow. Unlike the adults who get offended.

You know what you get with 20 X-Men and Batman books? Books collecting dust on shelves and discount bins.

There is retail space-what some stores do is be SELECTIVE in who gets it.

I'll give you an example-excluding Barnes & Nobles-do you know how hard it is to find a black male lead novel that is not thug life or sports at places like Wal-Mart and Target? I've had to online order thsoe books.
And this is an issue I have seen with Marvel and DC books. It's not books like Moon Girl, it's books like Thor, Dr Strange and at times Supoerman.

[Reviresco]

Exactly.

His reasoning is very sound here and I largely see a lot of sense in what he's saying.

And what's happening in the market today pretty much bears out what he's positing here.

What's happening today is because of Covid, the shutdown, and DC's attempt to do away with the comic book stores.

[PCN24454]

To be fair, there’s a reason why so many adaptations and reboots exist.

[dkrook]

What's happening today is because of Covid, the shutdown, and DC's attempt to do away with the comic book stores.

Wow...definitely not seeing where you are getting that, from what he said. Gerry is pretty much on the money. He making a sharp reference to the insularity and regressive minded culture taken root in the industry, specifically the big two. Marvel isn't catching it as bad right now, but they are going down the same path. If you were to compile the major gripes of the medium, I think they hit close to the core of what he's saying.

[Username taken]

What's happening today is because of Covid, the shutdown, and DC's attempt to do away with the comic book stores.

I wasn’t referring to the current situation exclusively.

[cranger]

I love Gerry Conway's work, and I agree with _some_ of his analysis of the history that brought the industry to this point. However, his solution betrays a lack of knowledge of various attempts by the publishers and Diamond, and the present retail situation.

He is working the presumption the current industry is a dead end. I don't think he is overlooking the things you listed (he probably blames them) but I do think the problem is what he has presented is an end goal with no suggestion of how to get there. Plenty of people come up with product ideas, but the successful ones come up with ideas to get people to buy their product.

[gurkle]

The problem is that, as he says, the big two superhero companies have been dominated since the '70s by grown-up superhero fans who did everything they could to make superhero comics more "mature." Stan Lee and Julie Schwartz thought of children as their primary readers (though Lee in the '60s was also building a teenage audience and even tried to reach adults from time to time). Kevin Feige makes his movies for family audiences. But most superhero comics for decades have been aimed at a shrinking number of superhero comics addicts, and that has bled into everything - the art, the writing, the way stories are structured and told. You can't just reverse that by deciding to try and reverse it. It will really take a major rethinking, not just of distribution, but art and storytelling.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Gerry Conway has become that Old Guy Shouts at Sky meme from The Simpsons.

It's not that he's completely inaccurate, or invalid, but his ideas and suggestions is extreme, and unworkable. Were it to be implemented would not in any sense bring about the turnaround he wants.

As for the historical sketch he traced:
-- I don't think it's true at all that Stan Lee wanted just kids to read his book. He was trying throughout his editorial to target a more mature readership and was thrilled that Marvel Comics were popular with college kids, and hence his many lectures on campuses. So this idea that boomers ruined it, that's giving himself and others a little too much credit. It was inherent to Marvel's brand in the '60s that comics grow up. Stan Lee kept trying to get sophisticated types involved with Marvel, so I don't think it's fair to say that he was the same as Julius Schwartz (and considering that Schwartz was a creep at DC, not sure we need to be refer to him).

-- Marvel Comics' sales were pretty strong and big in the '80s, between the direct market and the bust (skimmed over by Conway, not coincidentally, because this was when he Wein and Wolfman left Marvel for a decade plus, so yeah not easy to acknowledge how cool the party got when you left). This was the decade of SECRET WARS'84, the one comic event that did more to rope in new readers than anything since Kirby left. This was the era of Claremont and X-Men, MacFarlane and Jim Lee. It was Marvel's corporate relationship with artists and driving them to Image, which created problems.

-- This idea that continuity is somehow a barrier to new readers is dubious. The fact is that any long running series or stuff gets continuity. Neil Gaiman's The Sandman has continuity, as does SAGA, as does WicDiv. Game of Thrones the TV Show, was the biggest thing on TV and it was a very continuity heavy series. If Continuity was such a big turnoff how come Claremont's X-Men did so well in the '80s, or Hickman now. Or for that matter Lee-Kirby in the '60s. Continuity in the intensified way was introduced by Lee-Kirby when before it wasn't in any case the norm.

-- The fact is that when comics were at its biggest market share across the board in the '50s, superhero was not the dominant genre. In a free marketplace without censorship and other forces fencing stuff, superheroes fell out in favor of EC Comics, Donald Duck Comics, Pogo, and so on. So Conway's essay suffers from a sense of entitlement about the superhero genre=Comics. The truth is that the superhero genre isn't inherently going to always be a big mainstream thing.

-- The larger point that Conway skirts is the fact, that ultimately comics writers and creators need to unionize to negotiate better deals for them now that their stuff is valuable IP stuff. The attempt at reformism at trying to keep the ship float isn't going to improve stuff for them.

That said...I do in fact think bringing comics to Walmart, Target, Costco is a very good idea. Changing the distribution model for comics is important, but cancelling all superhero titles and existing events is overkill.

[The Overlord]

Gerry Conway has become that Old Guy Shouts at Sky meme from The Simpsons.

It's not that he's completely inaccurate, or invalid, but his ideas and suggestions is extreme, and unworkable. Were it to be implemented would not in any sense bring about the turnaround he wants.

As for the historical sketch he traced:
-- I don't think it's true at all that Stan Lee wanted just kids to read his book. He was trying throughout his editorial to target a more mature readership and was thrilled that Marvel Comics were popular with college kids, and hence his many lectures on campuses. So this idea that boomers ruined it, that's giving himself and others a little too much credit. It was inherent to Marvel's brand in the '60s that comics grow up. Stan Lee kept trying to get sophisticated types involved with Marvel, so I don't think it's fair to say that he was the same as Julius Schwartz (and considering that Schwartz was a creep at DC, not sure we need to be refer to him).

-- Marvel Comics' sales were pretty strong and big in the '80s, between the direct market and the bust (skimmed over by Conway, not coincidentally, because this was when he Wein and Wolfman left Marvel for a decade plus, so yeah not easy to acknowledge how cool the party got when you left). This was the decade of SECRET WARS'84, the one comic event that did more to rope in new readers than anything since Kirby left. This was the era of Claremont and X-Men, MacFarlane and Jim Lee. It was Marvel's corporate relationship with artists and driving them to Image, which created problems.

-- This idea that continuity is somehow a barrier to new readers is dubious. The fact is that any long running series or stuff gets continuity. Neil Gaiman's The Sandman has continuity, as does SAGA, as does WicDiv. Game of Thrones the TV Show, was the biggest thing on TV and it was a very continuity heavy series. If Continuity was such a big turnoff how come Claremont's X-Men did so well in the '80s, or Hickman now. Or for that matter Lee-Kirby in the '60s. Continuity in the intensified way was introduced by Lee-Kirby when before it wasn't in any case the norm.

-- The fact is that when comics were at its biggest market share across the board in the '50s, superhero was not the dominant genre. In a free marketplace without censorship and other forces fencing stuff, superheroes fell out in favor of EC Comics, Donald Duck Comics, Pogo, and so on. So Conway's essay suffers from a sense of entitlement about the superhero genre=Comics. The truth is that the superhero genre isn't inherently going to always be a big mainstream thing.

-- The larger point that Conway skirts is the fact, that ultimately comics writers and creators need to unionize to negotiate better deals for them now that their stuff is valuable IP stuff. The attempt at reformism at trying to keep the ship float isn't going to improve stuff for them.

That said...I do in fact think bringing comics to Walmart, Target, Costco is a very good idea. Changing the distribution model for comics is important, but cancelling all superhero titles and existing events is overkill.

But something like Game of Thrones or Saga or most Manga do not have continuity that has existed since the 60s, all of those are things go for a couple of years and have a defined ending. The continuity in Marvel and DC comics makes way less sense than those other works. There is no good starting point for those comics for kids today.

How would Marvel and DC continuity be a selling point to kids nowadays?

I wouldn't agree with everything he says, but I feel he's more right than he is wrong.

Comics have suffered for a long time because of people wanting their stories about super powered people in colorful tights to be more mature.

Well the thing is kids today are different from kids in the 60s, I do not think just returning to the Silver Age is the solution, that is just appealing to older fans again.

I think copying the business model of YA novels and Manga is a good idea, appeal to pre-teens by seeing what appeals to them now and really Manga and YA books appeal to kids and adults nowadays.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But something like Game of Thrones or Saga or most Manga do not have continuity that has existed since the 60s, all of those are things go for a couple of years and have a defined ending.

Game of Thrones was on the air for as long a time between FANTASTIC FOUR #1 and when Gerry Conway came to work for Marvel. Marvel practised continuity in that decade and it became big and dominant, so how exactly was continuity and serialized storytelling the problem exactly?

The continuity in Marvel and DC comics makes way less sense than those other works. There is no good starting point for those comics for kids today.

It's an open question if a "starting point" in comics is even necessary or useful, or if it has ever worked to start with. Historically comics fans came into stories in medias res and became fans and continued reading, and then following those Ed. Notes little boxes to seek out back issues.

The first time I read a Spider-Man comic that was Stan Lee's Newspaper strip. Read that when I was 8. In that Peter was old, married to Mary Jane, and she knew his secret identity. By the reigning logic, I shouldn't have become a fan of Spider-Man introduced this way and yet I did. 8 year old me like a married superhero and found Spider-Man relatable nonetheless. Did it matter I didn't know for ages that Spider-Man was bitten in high school? No fact is most readers didn't in the days before internet and wikipedia since the majority of stories in Spider-Man continuity are set long after he graduated high school in Issue #28. Until the Raimi trilogy and the rise of the internet and social media, that newspaper strip became the primary introduction for Spider-Man around the world. Far more eyeballs on a daily basis saw that then any monthly 616 comics.

A lot of people will point to the success of Ultimate Marvel and Ultimate Spider-Man as an example of a "starting-point" working. But here's the thing, Ultimate Marvel was the exception...in the mid-90s, Heroes Reborn was an attempt to make Marvel accessible to new readers and streamline continuity it failed. Spider-Man Chapter One by John Byrne which came a year before was something similar...it too failed. Ultimate Spider-Man was a success for many reasons -- the decline in quality in the main ASM books under Howard Mackie, the zeitgeist of the new millennium and the hook of a comic called "Ultimate Spider-man" set in 2000, Bendis' writing style which (whatever your views) was absolutely the voice of the public in that time. None of the later books in Spider-Man intended to be a starting point, whether it's Spidey or Marvlel Action Spider-Man or whatever, were as successful as USM nor do they outsell the main 616 Books.

Again, Conway's point and his suggestions operate on assumptions that don't hold up to empirical evidence.

How would Marvel and DC continuity be a selling point to kids nowadays?

Would they want a version of Superman that's dumbed down for them, or do they want the only Superman left in comics with real legitimacy? The Post-Crisis Clark who opposed Lexcorp's CEO, proposed to Lois, fought Doomsday died and came back, married Lois, led the JLA against the White Martians, fought Manchester Black, defeated Darkseid with a song, came back as dad to Jonathan Kent. The Superman dumbed down for them -- whether it's JMS' Earth One Superman, or the New 52 Superman didn't find any popular audience, as opposed to the Lois and Clark series with Jon that people truly loved.

Continuity gives value to the characters. Remember...the audience today knows these characters and are already introduced to them via merchandise when they are babies, cartoons and movies when they are a little older, and games and so on. Comics are in no position to serve as introductions, the only thing of value they have is in fact the continuity which defines the value of their characters. Rather than seeing Continuity as an enemy or a mountain of stuff to process think of continuity as value. 616 Spider-Man is the most consistent character in Marvel and the reason for that is that he's had a defining story every decade...and each defining moment happened to the same character. In the case of the X-Men...Marvel's most valuable team, it matters (as Ed Piskor's wonderful Grand Design demonstrated) that the team went from O5 to Giant Size X-Men, to Claremont's long run, to Jim Lee's X-Men, to Morrison's X-Men, and now Hickman's X-Men. It's the same team defined and given value by all this continuity.