A quick dissertation on one of my points of editing philosophy. I believe I've mentioned the point before, but haven't necessarily elaborated on why:
As Editor, Your First Loyalty Is To The Book.
While you want to have good, productive relationships with all of the people who work on your various titles, at the end of the day, the editor's first loyalty in any given situation should be towards the title. What is best for it in the long run and the short run.
This can be a tough thing to do, especially because you do develop friendships with the people you work with, and nobody wants to tell their friends no, they can't do a certain story, or even worse, that they're now out of a job because you feel the need to bring somebody else in. But asa comic book editor, you're going to be called upon to make these sorts of decisions and have these sorts of conversations every day.
There's an underlying belief in everything we do, based on no concrete evidence in particular: Good Comics Will Sell Well. If you make it good, then people will respond. Doesn't always work out quite this way, but there you go--it's the best mission statement you can have. And in that mission, you are allied with the creative team. But there's a difference in perspective. The writer's job, for instance, is to worry about his story. Whatever's best for his story is the course that the writer should pursue. Or, to put it simply, the writer most often thinks in the short term. But as the editor, you have to keep the long-term in mind as well, and not yield to the temptation to do lasting damage to the title for the sake of short-term sales. (Which isn't to say that all short-term sales boosters or radical status quo changes are inherently bad--only that you've got to be able to tell the ones that are apart from the ones that aren't.) The editor is supposed to think long-term, because the editor is the person with the best chance fo being there long-term.
But the job, in its most basic form, is to Make Comics That Sell, that people like. The nebulous part of the equation is that notion that Good Comics Sell. Therefore, if you make good comics, comics that you yourself really like, then you've got a good chance of finding an audience and fulfilling your ultimate mandate, making the books sell.
A correlary to this is the absolute fact that, as the editor, You Cannot Save Everyone. Comics are a cyclic medium, tastes change, and creators who made a steady living in the field one year can find themselves on the outs with the industry the following year. Your talent and your creativity is your currency when you're a creator, but the field is a machine that chews up ideas and stories and is always hungry for more. And newer.
It's brutal, but it happens--and it happens to almost everybody eventually. For example, say what you will about Chris Claremont, but he's the only writer of his generation who's still actively writing in the field. Everybody else from Chris's "graduating class" maybe does a project now and again around the field, maybe something for a smaller publisher now and again. But their days of making the majority of their living from writing comic books has come to an end. The same can be said of the "graduating class" of John Byrne--everybody else has fallen by the wayside, more or less. (The one saving grace seems to be creators who leave the monthly grind--and sometimes the industry--at their peak. There'll always be interest in, say, a new Alan Moore project, but that's partly due to the fact that he largely walked away from doing monthly books in the late '80s. Same for guys like Neal Adams, or Jim Steranko, or James Robinson.)
More later.
Tom B
my logo is an x
Posted by tarhaun on 2006-08-14 19:57:36
Good Comics? Tom,
Isn't it true, though, that unfortunately there are exceptions to the good comics rule? I mean, Superman, Batman and Spiderman will ALWAYS be at the top of the field because of WHO THEY ARE. It seems to me that there hasn't been a true headliner superhero created since the '70s with Wolverine. I can't think of another superstar hero that has come out since him. So how much of putting together a star comic is simply getting the star characters?
Have you ever done any research into why some heros "stick" and become elite characters while others linger on the threshold or below?
Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2006-08-14 21:08:30
Good Comics Selling Tom B (master of all he surveys...er, edits),
To my mind (which may be warped or functioning improp-impr--improperly) perhaps your point falls into the art vs. commerce debate.
It is the eda-toor's job not only to aid in the breaking and telling of good stories, but, to also see those stories are commercially viable. You could have the greatest story ever told pitched, but if said story would alienate legions of fans, odds are it won't see the light of day. Obviously editors aren't psychic (job security would not be a worry then) so they must trust their gut. As you stated, quality does not always ensure sales and vice versa.
A response to your post brought up a valid point- the status of a character(s). This is not a back-handed swipe at any company or line of books- but some characters have several books because that character sells- not because there are so many incredible stories demanding to told. I would guess your gig is a slippery slope, but that's why they pay you the big bucks (do they? I hope so).
Posted by JAK8 on 2006-08-14 22:07:11
But where are they now? While it is almost indisputable that Claremont and Byrne are the only ones left of their respective "classes" I still get the feeling that saying others are not in the game because the fanbase is looking for something new is a gross oversimplification.
The first thing you have to ask is "where are they now?" I know very little of the whereabouts of any classic creators that are not in the business now. If they are making a lucrative career of some other creative endeavour then it isn't fair to say they don't have enough continuous creativity for comics.
Did they even want to be in comics. I know that the "just for kids" stigma can even be felt by creators. Are they going to be more personally satisfied with a career in some other field?
Now the real proof of the pudding is in this question for you Tom. Can you honestly say that there are quality creators from back then that still pitch for work regularly? If not then saying that they became less creative is not fair. They aren't even trying anymore.
Posted by dingogary on 2006-08-15 08:21:56
You didn't talk about Miller and Mignola (par tough thing...?
c'mon say it again...tough thing ? are you a tough guy ?
OKAY....this one was from "The van " but I'm not sure, and there's another one, really funny with this strange taxi driver.....
Posted by notapotatoe on 2006-11-11 06:56:20
Array
Enter a response to this blog post:
About this blog: Ramblings and musings from the mind of Tom Brevoort. "It won’t be clean. It won’t be fun. It mostly won’t be coherent."
About the author: Tom Brevoort is Executive Editor for Marvel Comics, and oversees such titles as New Avengers, Civil War, and Fantastic Four.
)
save this link
