Go, Read: Analysis Of Recent DC Comics Moves

A pair of you forwarded this Tumblr-driven exchange of ideas about the nature of recent changes at DC Comics. The back-and-forth (a limited one, but still) was triggered by the announcement that Andy Khouri has been hired as an editor by DC. Khouri has been critical of some of the content of DC's books after their 2011 New 52 relaunch, and in the initial essay Khouri's hiring had been described as a sop to some sort politically progressive forces without the long-term interests of DC Comics at heart.

The response by Phil Sandifer in the linked-to post is brutal and pretty fun as far as these type of exchanges go. It basically argues (with numbers) that DC has lost all of the sales momentum it gained via the 2011 publishing mega-stunt, notes in don't-even-argue-this fashion that much the content deserved to be criticized, contends that other players in the market increased their market share in a growing market by pursuing policies more in line with Khouri's and his publication's advocacy positions and concludes announced changes to the DC line were thus necessary, not foolish or even political abstractions in play. I enjoyed reading the piece.

I'd probably quibble with a couple things. I think in 2011 DC was going after an audience beyond its traditional one, it was just more of a male gaming-interested, sexualized/violent pop-culture invested audience, a perceived "right next door" audience that resembled the traditional superhero base in most ways except age and perhaps income. This was a specific choice, I think, over more comprehensively targeting a newer, broader audience that includes more female readers, younger readers, and readers of a diverse background more across the board. Part of that was the nature of the stunt. I don't know anyone that's going to buy 52 #1 issues, but I sure know it isn't my high school classmate Angie whose daughter is reading the new Batgirl comics. Part of what hasn't worked may be a misjudged interest in that targeted audience taking on yet another set of expensive purchases over the long haul; another may be a miscalculation as to how suitable certain characters were to this treatment beyond subtly debasing them.

One problem that seemed to reveal itself as the roll-out on the New 52 books continued is that there was seemingly only that original-Image-books-as-kids market being pursued, with maybe a slight effort in the direction of prestige-treatment superhero fans at the top of the line. There was a resounding sameness to those New 52 books. Marvel does this a bit, too, but their "universe" is more cohesive at its core and thus better allows for different perspectives under the bigger tent that is the overall narrative. And even Marvel has had problems producing a lot of titles that keep readers issue after issue (some of this may be their own fault, as the demand on creators to make more issues than is physically problem may strain their talent pool and drain their comics of a creative continuity that Image can offer nearly every time out). There are problems all over, even if they aren't as directly dire as DC's. I would suggest there are probably some deeper structural issues in play that might be beyond resolution by the right editorial approach.

It's probably also worth noting that DC's corporate culture has recently been to do things kind of halfway. Even the New 52 relaunch contained elements of the old books when that was considered maybe something they didn't want to put at risk, and there was a lot of storytelling across the board where you would have these supposedly new characters but the dramatic stakes depended on them being 70-year-old icons in whose history and stature you're fully invested. While it seems like there are a lot of potentially fun superhero books with that new soft reboot post-Convergence -- and I'm grateful for every job that's going to an eager creator that's never had that shot, and I'm happy for every kid that gets to experience a bit more of themselves in these universes that meant something to me when I was that age -- there are also a ton that don't seem to be changing at all, some defiantly so. We'll see how it works out.

I'm all for a diverse array of comics with these big companies because it beats monolithic, ultimately demeaning expressions of culture. I'm all for diversity in hiring across the board it's flat-out and fundamentally the most right thing to do and you just can't limit yourselves to a specific talent pool in what is a ruthless marketplace for eyeballs and attention. I have a hard time generating a lot of affection for commercial properties as the most important vehicle for this, but I know a lot of people disagree. As is the case with all comics, I hope for the best comics we can get and the highest return to the artists possible. I think smart editorial hires and rational creative directions serve that goal. What's to argue?
 
posted 9:55 pm PST | Permalink
 

---

 
Daily Blog Archives
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
 
Full Archives