Image Comics Community

So here's something:

The other day, I was talking shop with a local comic book store owner, and while we were on the phone, I launched into a tangent about trying to track down an issue of Jeff Smith's Bone back in the early '90s.

I was living in Riverside, CA at the time, and I'd just discovered Bone at Comic-Con in San Diego. I think I bought a pack of the first six issues or so directly from Jeff. After reading those, I was hooked, so I went out looking for the recently-released seventh issue one weekend.

The first store I visited didn't carry it.

Scratch that: They proudly didn't carry it.

"We only order that book for pull list customers," the guy at the counter said, as though that was somehow a good thing.

I noted that both Jeff Smith and the series were the focus of growing acclaim, but that made no difference.

"Books like that never last."

Even though I made it clear I had absolutely zero intention of starting a pull list, but would be more than happy to pay in advance to make sure a copy or two made it onto the new comics shelf, nothing I said could convince this guy to budge in his belief that Bone simply was not worth his time.

I wound up visiting three other local shops and leaving all of them empty-handed before simply waiting until the work week started again and buying the book at a store near Extreme Studios in Anaheim.

It's worth mentioning, I think, that the four stores that didn't carry Bone are no longer in business.

Jeff Smith, meanwhile, and Bone, have gone on to huge success.

In many ways, though, Jeff defied the odds, because in the grand scheme of comics, Bone was neither fish nor foul. Or rather, it was neither a superhero comic, nor a book published by one of the top mainstream publishers.

Thinking about that story after I recounted it, it occurred to me that for some time now, conventional wisdom has been that mainstream superheroes are a virtually unstoppable force in comics – the bread and butter of the comics business.

First there were DC's superheroes, starting with Superman back in the 1930s, and then there were Marvel's, coming of age in the 1960s with the likes of Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four. Other companies – Image very much included amongst them – developed their own superhero comics, but somewhere along the way, a kind of thinking took hold wherein anything that wasn't a superhero comic was greeted with, if not outright suspicion, then something less than unbridled enthusiasm. "All-new and all-different" somehow became viewed as more of a threat than an opportunity.

But here's another something:

Over the last 20 years or so, the vast majority of the lasting new contributions to comics have not been superhero comics.

Just what I came up with off the top of my head is a pretty staggering list of successful non-mainstream/non-superhero titles, and it's far from complete:

Sandman
From Hell
Bone
Sin City
Spawn
Hellboy
Strangers In Paradise
The Invisibles
Preacher
Astro City
Berlin
Stray Bullets
Black Hole
Optic Nerve
Ghost World
It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken
Transmetropolitan
Planetary
Promethea
100 Bullets
Acme Novelty Library/Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth
Age of Bronze
Persepolis
Powers
Runaways
The Goon
Invincible
Sleeper
Y: The Last Man
The Walking Dead
Fables
Blankets
Wanted
Scott Pilgrim
The Umbrella Academy
Fun Home
I Kill Giants
DMZ
The Nightly News
Scalped
Hark! A Vagrant Story
Kick-Ass
Criminal
We3
Mouse Guard
Chew
Daytrippers
Locke and Key
Essex County
American Vampire
Asterios Polyp
King City

Out of the 52 titles I listed, there's only one from the Marvel Universe – Runaways – and while there's a combined 16 books from Vertigo, WildStorm and America's Best Comics, none from DC Comics proper.

There are only 10 superhero comics, less than one tenth of the overall list, and in the case of things like Planetary, Powers, Promethea and The Umbrella Academy, they're only superhero comics by the most superficial definition of the term.

Have their been important comics from Marvel and DC? Of course – Marvels, Kingdom Come, Civil War, All-Star Superman, Ultimate Spider-Man, The Ultimates, etc. – but since they're all based on existing characters, no matter how good they are, they don't meet the criteria of "new."

I've read here and there online that it's somehow unfair to expect Marvel or DC to do anything other than look after their vast back catalogues of characters, because that's the nature of their business. I'd accept that as a fair point if not for the fact that the Vertigo titles listed above – Sandman, Y: The Last Man, Fables, etc. – have been a legitimate source of growth for them over the last 20 years.

Another case in point? When Image Comics started, the company's main stock in trade was superhero comics. Today, books like Saga, The Walking Dead and Fatale are our best selling titles. Not a one is a superhero comic. Not a one is more than 10 years old.

My point in all this?

Simple: Regardless who publishes what – "all-new and all-different" is where it's at these days. And judging by the sheer volume of amazing material published over the last 20 years, that's been the case for a while now.

There will always be superheroes (which is good news for me, actually, because I continue to have a tremendous fondness for them), but I suspect that over time, their perceived dominance over the comics market will diminish, not to their detriment, but as a testament to a greater, more vibrant comics industry. It's a new day rising for diversity in content – and that means a better future for all of us.

Something to think about, anyway. -Eric Stephenson (It Sparkles!)


Eric Stephenson is my comics Jesus. I don't think anyone has ever come as close to expressing how I feel about comics as Mr. Stephenson does on his blog and interviews.

That was incredibly inspiring, Jim. I love comics and although I grew up reading superheroes-- I was just as avid a reader of Savage Sword, TMNT and other books which don't fall into the standard mold of the heroic narrative... hell, I even bought an issue or two of Normalman well before I was really old enough to appreciate its satirical nature; it looked different and that was enough.

It's creators like Jeff Smith, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, Dave Sim and others, that have always inspired me the most. It seems to me that there's nothing more pure than that sort of individual artist expression and when it's successful it's all the more beautiful and inspiring.

Having said that, it's no mystery that the most successful books are superhero comics. Even at Image, of the most long-lived properties, superheroes are predominant amongst the majority (Invincible, Spawn, Savage Dragon, Darkness, etc.). I've also noted the resurgence of the Extreme books, like Prophet, Supreme and others as well; while I recognize the editorial tone of some of these books is moving away from the traditional "superhero" narrative, they essentially utilize that framework of the superhero tradition (costumes, muscles, the conceit of the moral high ground).

All of this is perfectly fine.

But as an aspiring creator, I can tell you I would am reticent to submit something other than a superhero/superhero parody type of property to Image. Looking at the companies total portfolio, it seems that most of the tenured books exist somewhere within the traditional framework or attempts to spoof or Lampoon superhero comics (imo).

I love Bone and have enjoyed it since '94 but, would a book like Bone ever get greenlit at Image? Of course, I mean at the point of inception; I realize that Bone was an Image publication after it'd proven itself in the market via Jeff's self-publishing arm Cartoon Books.

*shrugs* It depends on what Eric Stephenson (as Publisher) and/or the varied Partners want to publish and think they can manage to get a viable sales return upon, I'd venture to say. But there have been a number of books that have had to go the self-publishing route and prove themselves before Image picked them up over the years.

_________________
Coming soon: A new Louis Bright-Raven site, featuring new art, fiction, comics journalism, and original comics.

It only looks that way because Image has been around for so long. Look at their CURRENT line-up and you'll see probably the most diverse line-up in all of comics. Three of their current successes -- CHEW, MORNING GLORIES, and THE WALKING DEAD -- aren't even remotely super-hero books.

I think you'd be doing yourself a disservice by limiting yourself to only submitting super-hero books to Image. If that's all you really want to write/draw, that's great -- but to limit yourself because you think super-hero books have the best shot ... I think that's a mistake. If anything, I think super-hero books face an uphill battle at Image, since Marvel and DC are already scratching that itch for people.

-- Jay

I can't think of one straight superhero parody book currently published at Image.

_________________

Couldn't have answered it better.

Yeah, I have to say that I thought I read that post wrong at first. One of the things that people praise about Image is their diversity and not being just superhero books. Look at their most recent series:

Skullkickers
Rebel Blood
Manhattan Projects
The Secret
Saga
Peter Panzerfaust
Debris
Grim Leaper
Mind the Gap
Near Death
Thief of Thieves
Super Dinosaur
Reed Gunther
Luther Strode (only kinda a superhero book)
Green Wake
The Activity
Danger Club
America's Got Powers
Mudman
Dancer
Pigs
'68
The Red Wing
L'il Depressed Boy
Revival
Hoax Hunters
No Place Like Home
Blue Estate
Epic Kill
Fatale
Planetoid
Etc....

Out of that whole list of recent or upcoming books only 3 of them are superhero books. And out of the older books only Invincible, Savage Dragon, and a couple of the Extreme books are really superhero books. The other Extreme books are sci-fi and other older books like Spawn, Witchblade, The Darkness, Hack/Slash, etc I consider more horror and supernatural than superhero. So I'm perplexed by that poster's assertion.

_________________
My comicartfans.com collection. Lots of Ryan Ottley:
http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=49719

All points well taken, guys. I do have to admit that I have seen a trend over the last few years to move away from the traditional superhero concept and explore other types of material at Image. I find this to be an encouraging development. However, I also want to be mindful of the longevity of these "nontraditional" comics.

It's not simply that I want to use them as a purely sales based model to determine what type of book I should attempt to pitch next. I just want to look at every metric in order to ensure that what I pitch has the best chance of being approved and if it's approved, it has the opportunity to continue for more than a few issues. With that in mind I'm most interested in books that have a few years of viability under their belt...

BTW, when I was using the term "superhero parody" I was referring to books that are in some way feeding off of or anchored in the superhero mythology, I would characterize a book like Powers, The Pro, America's Got Powers as such... anything that seeks to extrapolate upon the premise of the superhero.

I actually think that non-super-hero books have a better chance at getting approved at Image than super-hero books. Again, this is simply because the market is already so filled with super-hero books. It's tougher to find fresh takes on that genre.

-- Jay

You are absolutely correct, Jay.

I often find myself wondering why on earth would I pitch a a standard superhero concept to Image when that genre is in no way in need of additional contributions. Then I say to myself, "Well, I can do things with the genre that Marvel and DC can't". For instance, I can make a Superman archetype who is gay and is married to an Indonesian transsexual... *lol*

There are a number of "twists" that can be applied to the standard superhero formula which could potentially make for interesting reading. But ultimately, they all rely on the underlying premise that the superhero is good, moral elevated, heterosexual, etc. Only a person who has been indoctrinated with these established principals and history of the genre can be titillated by conceptual twists of the order I've just described. Once the novelty has worn off, the book loses it's audience (unless it manages to develop into something more substantive).

I also realize that I could look at every conceivable metric in the world (most consistently selling titles, title with the most longevity, title with the best selling trades, etc.) and use that data to create something that is soulless and without appeal. Uhhh... I've done this by the way and it was shot down.

But to revisit the point Jimmy V. made when he created this thread: Bone is a good book. Bone doesn't look like anything else on the market. Bone is not a a parody, lampoon, spoof or extrapolation of the superhero conceit. Jeff Smith was not a known/established commodity when the first issue of Bone was published through Cartoon Books (I could be wrong on that point, but I don't recall seeing anything from him prior to Bone in the early nineties). Looking at Images publishing portfolio, I see nothing that would indicate that a book like Bone would be approved for publication; a black and white book about anthropomorphic creatures who exist in a feudal society...

So what's my point?

Well, I don't see enough material of a similar nature to Bone being published by Image that would suggest the expansive broad-minded approach to publishing that everyone seems to be clamoring for these days. The undertones of the conversation seems to be,"Look at all this non-superhero stuff." But, just by the conscious act of filtering the dialogue through that lens, the material is already consigned to exist within the framework or superhero/non-superhero. I hope I'm making sense here... It's just that I can't recall seeing a lot of good work (in any medium) where the characterization "nonsuperhero" is part of the discussion or promotional tone.

I also want to be clear that I completely understand that when a proposal for a new project is given consideration, the powers-that-be are ultimately going to ask themselves, "How does this relate to what sells? How will this fare in the shadow of the industry defining superhero genre?"

While I think that's a completely fair and reasonable approach to evaluating a properties viability, I also think that this methodology can keep a lot of worthwhile, audience expanding material from seeing the light of day.

So for my part, as a creative individual I think it is most prudent to present material that suggests originality but looks familiar enough to what already exists (superheroes) to allow it to see print. Once approved, I would then modify and steer my efforts to appeal to a broader audience than the typical superhero comic book consumer; sorta like Senator Palpatine.

Another aspect of this conversation is the limited creative scope of the folks who are pitching ideas. There's no reason we can't get a Sopranos, Game of Thrones or Mad Men caliber book out of Image to compliment Walking Dead. The absence of more Walking Dead caliber books lies solely with the creatives and their (our) ability to conceive and discipline to produce consistently month in and month out.