I was about to refer you folks to comicbookresources.com where there’s a nice article about “Fallen Angel,” complete with more artwork from issue #1. And there, on the same page, is a diatribe from Erik Larsen that angrily scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own–which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned…just as any characters created for those same titles now are company owned. Yet in the world of Erik Larsen, creators who labor only in the company owned field are “pûššìëš,” resting on their “fat áššëš” and failing to “show (Erik) what (they’ve) got.”
Now I haven’t bothered with Larsen’s previous columns, despite his swipes at me (and his oh-so-clever use of “But I digress” for transitions.) But the combination of blind irony and blatant hypocrisy on this one, I just have to address…
Over ten years ago, when Image broke away to follow their own muse, their own dream, to no longer “hold back,” I wrote a column which had something of the same tone to it. Except my attitude was that I was unimpressed by the notion that–freed of the shackles of the main companies–all Image was going to do was produce more superheroes. Putting aside questions of ownership, I pondered whether the superhero-choked marketplace really needed MORE superheroes. My feeling was that, if I was going to do creator-owned stuff and had the wherewithal to do whatever I wanted, introducing yet more superheroes would be the furthest thing from my mind.
(This is an attitude that I have backed up in my career. “Sachs & Violens,” “Soulsearchers and Company,” “Fallen Angel,” plus my novel creations such as “Sir Apropos of Nothing” are nothing like my other comic book work.)
Well sir! There was much excoriation and bleats from the Image boys, attributing all manner of vicious motivations to my comments. Superheroes were what made them happy. Superheroes were what they wanted to do?
Okay. Fine.
Yet now Erik is expressing disappointment with the allegedly narrow field of achievement of other creators in terms far more nasty, juvenle and insulting than anything I ever said. Except his complaints apparently stem not from the quality of the work so much as who owns it. If someone else owns the material, apparently, then you’re just not trying hard enough and you’re a wimp and pussy. Which I’m sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven’t owned any scripts they’ve written, ever.
What POSSIBLE motivation could Larsen have for excoriating those who toil in the realm of company owned universes? Could it be…jealousy? Well, let’s check his recent track record: A widely decried and short-lived run on “Aquaman” that seemed to exist primarily to tear down my work on the book, all of which outsold his…and an attempt to get assigned to the Hulk with a take that Marvel didn’t want to touch with a ten meter cattle prod. Maybe he’s the fox dismissing those grapes as just too dámņëd sour.
Or maybe he’s just shilling for Image, with “Show me what you can do” as a naked attempt to get people to bring their potential new series to Image. That being the case, fine. Nothing wrong with trying to drum up business. But why does it have to be done on the level of a mindless jock? I’d say that being the head of a publishing concern and acting like a jáçkášš isn’t the smartest way to elicit support, but certainly the lesson of Bill Jemas has already been learned by everyone. Well…almost everyone.
Know what I think? I think if people are happy writing only Spider-Man or Superman or Batman or whatever…God bless ’em. There are so many people in this country who are laboring at jobs that they despise, where the hëll does ANYONE get off bìŧçh-šláppìņg people who are living out their dreams…the dreams of writing the characters they grew up with? And by the way, having the sheer nerve and determination to brave the staggering odds of breaking in to be able to achieve those goals deserves far more than a dismissive “peachy.” It deserves a “well done you” and “welcome to the club” and “stick with it.” It doesn’t deserve snottiness and arrogance and the towel-snapping bullying of the jock mentality Larsen displays with such facility.
And how about the notion that the people who achieved their goal of crafting new directions for the DCU or Marvel Universe achieved their current station in life without stepping over the bodies of friends in order to do so.
Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy. Producing company owned superhero tales is what makes other creators happy. One is not intrinsically more cowardly than the other.
Just one fan’s opinion.
PAD
• 
Glad it wasn’t just me that was put in mind of the original BID and the Flame war the followed.
The interesting thing as far as I could see was that Larsen appeared to be agreeing with your original position – that he, and his ilk, hadn’t beeing doing their best before and should be ashamed of themselves.
At least I think that’s what he was saying.
Erik Larson, in my opinion, is one of the many undertalented creators operating in the comics field. I simply do not like his work or his attitude towards comics and those who read them. And to this end, I tell him so using the only method he understands: I do not purchase his material. Hit Hhim i the wallet, that’s the only language he will ever understand.
“Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy.”
Prdoucing it on a regular basis apparently plays no factor in that happiness. I guess I should lower my expectations that Savage Dragon, which is months behind schedule since its last issue, will see stands anytime soon. Maybe, like Erik, I’ll change where Savage Dragon sits in my priority list.
fRed
If working on books you don’t own makes you a pussy, then what is he for his Aquaman stint & attempt at doing the Hulk?
Is he a pussy, schizoid, or just being an attention whørë?
Having just read his diatrabe, I think he’s gone off his meds.
BTW – wasn’t he “name withheld” from a few years back?
Another quote from Mr. Larson from the same article:
“So– what’s your excuse? What are you waiting for?
And it doesn’t have to be a Spider-Man knock off or a Batman clone in order to make it in this market. The icons of today didn’t get to be the icons of today by being copies of the icons of yesterday (okay, the Hulk was pretty much a blatant rip off of Mr. Hyde but still– most of them weren’t).”
Okay. And Savage Dragon isn’t the Hulk with a big fin on his head (not that I’m the first to notice that).
See I’m kinda torn with this one. It’s something that I’ve been discussing on one of the message boards.
I’ve always been a Peter David fan, but for a while there I wanted him to write something without using established characters. There was a time when the only thing out and readily available David-written was comic work, using establish characters and Star Trek novels. His original novels were all out of print. I greatly enjoyed Hulk and Supergirl and the Star Trek novels, I just wanted to see him take a crack at some original concepts. Then Sir Apropos came along and the Knight books, and everything was cool, and I was very pleased (not that any writer or creator has any calling to please me).
But then I got thinking that a world without a Mark Bagley drawn Spider-Man would not be a happy place as far as I’m concerned.
But like Peter said, do what makes you happy…
“And it doesn’t have to be a Spider-Man knock off or a Batman clone in order to make it in this market. The icons of today didn’t get to be the icons of today by being copies of the icons of yesterday (okay, the Hulk was pretty much a blatant rip off of Mr. Hyde but still– most of them weren’t).”
Okay. And Savage Dragon isn’t the Hulk with a big fin on his head (not that I’m the first to notice that).”
I didn’t even get into that because by me it was off topic, plus I didn’t want discussion to dissolve into a defense of the quality of “Savage Dragon”–a title enjoyed by quite a few people.
That said, though, Larsen is dead wrong. I mean just flat out wrong. The icons of today became what they are for two reasons: Massive distribution of a low priced product, neither of which exist anymore…and the fact that they ARE copies of the icons of yesterday.
Batman is a combination of Zorro, Sherlock Holmes, and the Scarlet Pimpernel, with a dash of Mary Reinhart’s “the Bat” tossed in.
Superman is George Wylie’s gladiator crossed with Doc Savage, with roots going back to Hercules.
The Flash is based upon Mercury, so much so that the Golden Age Flash’s costume is wearing the classic Hermes helmet.
Thor is Thor. The Justice League is a modern day version of the knights of the round table.
Then again, someone who was baffled by a villain named “Charybdis” and changed his name to “Piranha Guy” can’t be expected to have much of a grasp of classic icons.
PAD
“His original novels were all out of print. I greatly enjoyed Hulk and Supergirl and the Star Trek novels, I just wanted to see him take a crack at some original concepts. Then Sir Apropos came along and the Knight books, and everything was cool, and I was very pleased (not that any writer or creator has any calling to please me).”
And you have no idea how difficult it was getting “Apropos” sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: “Peter’s fans aren’t interested in reading anything that’s entirely his creation.” I was going out of my mind. I’d get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I’d get constant e-mails from fans saying, “When are you going to write stuff that’s your own work?”
PAD
I kept thinking throughout Larson’s latest “wouldn’t it be nice if everyone had a publishing machine in their basement? Just to produce their own work?”
Take this “logic” a step farther…why stop at just writing about your own creation? If you have to rely on some *aritst* to render your work for you, you’re just slacking off. Ditto for the color. Or the binding. Or the distribution. “Using Diamond? Pfah, lazy-ášš, get on your ten-speed and deliver them comics to the 5 and 10 yourself, like they used to in the old days, when comics meant something to people.”
I’m sure it’s nice to be one of the original Image boys, and have the clout to get the financing together to start your own publishing company. But I was really turned off by the way Larson basically slammed every fan who’d ever dreamed of getting their story for their favorite character printed.
Look at it this way…for every Raphael or Michaelangelo, there’s a million guys named Bill that can copy the TMNT’s brilliant works, but their own creations are just ok. And no, Larson is NOT a TMNT. He’s a decent guy that lucked onto some bigger talents, and managed to get his baby printed his way. Good for him. Seeing him piss in everyone else’s pools just makes him look petty.
Part of the challenge (in my mind) in taking on established characters is MAKING them your own. I’d almost want to argue that the only reason Erik Larsen went to Savage Dragon is because his takes on characters were so goddam stupid that no one either wanted to buy them, or publish them. But that would be petty. I enjoyed PAD’s run on the Hulk because he approached a character I found to be intrinsically uninteresting, and made him interesting.
Let’s use Alan Moore and ‘Swamp Thing’ as a test case. Does anyone want to argue that Moore’s run on ST was NOT one of the most influential comic book runs in history? If they do, they are either fools or simply weren’t paying attention. He took a very uninteresting monster book that was not created by him and made it something completely different and spectacular.
To me, taking an established character and making your run on that book so distinctive, so unusual and so superior, that you become the first name out of people’s mouths when they discuss it (whether you created the character or not), then you have done something special. Who gives a dámņ if you created it?
(On the note of creator-owned super hero books, I have to give the highest props to Kurt Busiek and ‘Astro City’. I only recently discovered this, and holy crap am I impressed. It’s the “Firefly” of the super hero world.
And on the note of taking established characters who suck – ok, I realize it may just be me that hates Dr. Strange, Namor and the Silver Surfer – and making them interesting and new, I have to give props to Giffen/DeMatteis for their current run on “The Defenders.” Ðámņ, I love that book.)
“And you have no idea how difficult it was getting “Apropos” sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: “Peter’s fans aren’t interested in reading anything that’s entirely his creation.” I was going out of my mind. I’d get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I’d get constant e-mails from fans saying, “When are you going to write stuff that’s your own work?”
PAD”
That totally sucks, but I can see it happening, now that you mention it.
All brown nosing aside, the name Peter David in the writer’s credit pretty much assures I’ll buy it.
“The icons of today became what they are for two reasons: Massive distribution of a low priced product, neither of which exist anymore…and the fact that they ARE copies of the icons of yesterday.”
Yeah, what PAD said.
I’m at a loss that someone as prominent as Larson is in the comics field can be so ignorant of the actual history of the field he works in. There’s a reason why new superhero creations are hard to sell…the field is saturated with icons, dervites, and “new” creations. What’s a good Big Two print run these days? 100,000? And few folks buying multiple issues? That means that there’s at most about 100,000 customers out there, each with bills, families, expenses, etc., meaning they each can’t buy every single comic produced. It’s Wednesday, you hit your LCS on your lunch break, and you see the latest X-Book, which you’ve been collecting since you were 12, and some brand new T-Men book. It looks neat, but your mortgage payment is coming up, so you just leave it. It may very well be the next Big Comic Thing, but you’re not going to shell out anOTHer $3 to try it out, because you’ve been reading comics for 20 years, you know what you like, and you’ve pretty much seen it all in your time as a collector.
>All brown nosing aside, the name Peter David in the writer’s credit pretty much assures I’ll buy it.
Cool! So that means that the chances of Angel Love returning with a new series again aren’t dead!
Erm… what came first?
Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?
So when he says that a creator should create their own property rather than add to someone else’s creation, is that not the same path that Mr “Better than Marvel/DC writers” took?
Bobb: “Take this “logic” a step farther…why stop at just writing about your own creation? If you have to rely on some *aritst* to render your work for you, you’re just slacking off. Ditto for the color. Or the binding. Or the distribution. “Using Diamond? Pfah, lazy-ášš, get on your ten-speed and deliver them comics to the 5 and 10 yourself, like they used to in the old days, when comics meant something to people.””
Some people are doing a variance of just that…
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=87e21c878d3cfb385a8e66f400c2501a&threadid=447421
“The thing is– people like new stuff. That’s why Clorox Bleach keeps saying that they’re new and improved. People want something new. ” — Eric Larson
And how many titles has Larson created over the last ten years that have lasted more than four issues? In fact, besides Jim Lee, how many of the original seven founders of Image are doing anything that’s turning the comics world on its ear, beyond administration? Jim Valentino is recurrently trying to resurrect his one-shot deal, Shadowhawk, Todd McFarlane still hawks his toys, and Mr. Larson pumps out his original Image title – the only title of his with any renown, but with little industry or commercial impact. What is Larson doing that’s “new and improved”?
I can appreciate the criticism that the comics industry, when it comes to the Big Two, are seeing a somewhat stagnant creative spell when it comes to superheroes stories. Mr. Larson is right that we DO need to see more blood and life in superhero stories, and more options outside of them (I’m enjoying Fables and Y: The Last Man moreso than most of Marvel’s books right now). He also makes the valid point that a corporately-owned character will obviously have editorial safeguards that restrict complete freedom in terms of storytelling. But his arguments seem to stem just from this one point. And the framework for his “encouragement” is so aggressive and inappropriately self-exclusive, considering his unimpressive resume in comics in general and especially in being a force in keeping comics innovative.
Mr. Larsen also seems neglectful of a predisposition for superhero comics — they sell better. So creators, even ones who have good creator-owned ideas, often take work with the Big Two just to build up some “street cred” before they introduce a new, unsolicited product into the market (and yes, a lot of people make it to the Big Two by reversing the order, but that’s a harder battle). Working for a major publisher is also a way to learn some of the kicks of the industry before jumping into the water feet first. This need to strategize may be a bit calculated, but that doesn’t make it less of a need. After all, all seven Image founders were originally Marvel artists. There was nothing that stopped them from entering the comics in the creative-owned marketplace.
As well, many professional artists in the field HAVE to take their lead from the writer — that doesn’t preclude one from developing as a writer if they have such an inclination, but if the artist doesn’t, then working on Batman or working on a creator-owned product is pretty much the same job when sitting at the art table. However, drawing and writing are two different disciplines, and some of the Image boys took some well-deserved shots for thinking that being a good artist entitled them to a “pass” on the other side of the creative process.
Ultimately, creating a character is only the first step in creating a lasting piece of art. There are story events, character progressions, narrative expression, insightful commentaries on life and numerous other ingredients that go into crafting a good story. Being there for step one does not allow one to presume the rest will follow, nor does NOT originating the character exclude one from creating seminal pieces of work (Frank Miller, one of Mr. Larson’s examples, has done it twice).
As a personal note to Mr. Larson, I would say, “Stop telling everyone how to do it, and show us how instead.”
Oh, and, “Be nice.”
I just read Larsen’s article, and I have this to say…
Is he fûçkìņg insane?!
Every single iconic hero out there is based on some legend hero in the past. Most of them stem from the Greek Gods. The figures they represent come from classic stories told long ago.
Secondly, to berate newcomers in the biz because “they don’t have they’re own work” is clearly asinine. These people grew up reading Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, and the mainstreams. They didn’t grow up reading Savage Dragon. The broke into a rough business, because the companies that owned the characters thought that their work was good enough to represent these characters.
Personally, I think Mr. Larsen’s ego is getting a little too big. Ya know, I picked up the first few issues of Savage Dragon. They sucked. It (and Spawn), solidified my opinion that artists of that caliber cannot write worth squat. I paraphrase John Lasseter here when I say, “Pretty pictures are worthless without a good story to back them up.” It’s all about the story, not how well the character is drawn. Savage Dragon is Erik Larson’s baby all right. No arguing that. Will he be a classic icon? Never. A hundred years from now, kids will see a picture of him, and say, “When did the Hulk get a fin on his head?”
Sorry Erik, you just don’t have it.
Peter (et al), let me bounce this back and see if I understand correctly: You’re saying Erik Larsen’s attitude–and message–is childish, aggressive, devisive, narrow, and unsupportive?
When I read his column I had mixed feelings: I support the pep-talk encouraging creators and artists to strive to be their best, but I don’t think that requires that they disassociate themselves with corporate comics. By the end of his column it felt more like a rant than an observation, certainly not “fair and balanced.” It sounded to me like an ultimatum: Do it one way or you suck. And any time I’m confronted with an ultimatum–in conversation–it’s a turn-off. Life is far more complex and beautiful than to be stuffed into a single format.
It is no small thing to congratulate someone for coming in last place, if they have tried. I believe Erik said something about “better to have loved . . .” But is sounds to me like he’s being mighty strict about they kind of love one is allowed to enjoy.
But, though his tone is too confrontational, and his condemnation is not shared by me, I do read a truth resonating in that particular diatribe. It’s just surrounded by a little too much evangalism.
Do good.
For some people, to do good means to strive for purity, for others it means something else. I think Erik clearly made his point that he favors a kind of purity in comics production. I do not think he’s “justified” to piss on anyone else, but he doesn’t need my approval. I support that it’s his column and I’ll simply discard the bits I don’t like.
I can’t help but think he’s got a point, but it’s obscured by his aggression. Too bad, because otherwise it could be a good motivating columnn. Instead it’s just a rant by a guy with some authority.
Nice rebuttle PAD.
And you have no idea how difficult it was getting “Apropos” sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: “Peter’s fans aren’t interested in reading anything that’s entirely his creation.”
Sometimes, I seriously have to wonder if the publishing industry doesn’t know what’s good for them. 🙂
I keep seeing the same thing (when the subject comes up) from Raymond Feist – people ask if he’ll do something other than Riftwar, whether it’s fantasy or sci-fi or whatever. And he keeps having to reply that, even if he wanted to write something else, his publisher isn’t very interested.
That comment about Ray Feist is too bad. I really enjoyed “Faerie Tale”.
And to bring things full circle…
Here is the article about Peter’s new wholly-original concept – the one that got Peter to visit CBR – at the following link:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=5969
Well, at least Larsen didn’t “withhold” his name this time…
Justin
What Larsen is saying isn’t so much as “don’t write for others” as much as it is “don’t write for others all the time and get one of your ideas and concepts out there if only to say that you have your own ideas or that your ideas are still good without any higher up editorial input.” Can’t say i can argue with that.
Don’t get me wrong, for me Peter’s run on Supergirl is my holy grail of comics but its great to see that with Fallen Angel and other such titles he’s able to work without the helping hand of playing on past continuity and ideas. With Fallen Angel Peter created a new universe in which he could play with as opposed to Supergirl where he had to follow the guidelines the DCU lays down and that is far more impressive than just writing another mainstream comics story.
J.K. Woodward:
“So in the first arc, we’ll be revealing that the Fallen Angel is, in fact, Supergirl and…wait, that’s not quite right.”
It was great to hear someone else talk about Fallen Angel with the same enthusiasm as PAD. The article about Woodward and IDW Editor-in-Chief Chris Ryall was a great behind-the-scenes take. Thanks for pointing out the story.
Re: Larsen
I wonder who exactly he’s talking about. Artists, I suppose, back on his whole “artists don’t need writers” kick. Because most of the big name writers at Marvel and DC do have creator-owned titles (Bendis, Millar, Rucka) or projects (Winick). Art, on the other hand, is much more time-consuming. And while Bendis can write five-plus comics a month, Mark Bagley can only do one and a half issues of Ultimate Spider-Man (which is really a remarkable pace).
Erik Larsen’s definition of quality is “do it all yourself.” Thankfully Larsen decided to work in the comics field instead of bridge construction.
What Larsen is saying isn’t so much as “don’t write for others” as much as it is “don’t write for others all the time and get one of your ideas and concepts out there if only to say that you have your own ideas or that your ideas are still good without any higher up editorial input.” Can’t say i can argue with that.
I need clarification on that point, as the grammar is a bit confusing. Do you mean to say that his point is simply “Don’t only create for others, thereby sacrificing your own creative impulses?” Because it sure didn’t read that way to me. It read as “If you only work on characters that are owned by someone else, you’re a pussy, creatively bankrupt, and I fart in your general direction.” Which is his prerogative. However, I think it’s a shallow and misguided comment.
I think Larsen has a point. Look at all these new people taking over some of the key Marvel characters. Like that guy Straczynski who’s been writing Spider-Man and recently took over Fantastic Four. Or somebody named Whedon who’s just muscled in on X-Men. If these guys had any real talent, why don’t they try creating their own characters, maybe for film or television? And I just read about some guy named Damon Lindelof, who’s going to be writing Ultimate Wolverine vs. Hulk. I gotta tell ya, all these newcomers leave me a little bit, well, lost.
There are two very good reasons for working for the big companies on established characters:
1) It puts food on the table for a new artist. If nobody knows who you are, it’s going to be very hard to market your creator-owned work. There are some great places to pitch self-created stuff, but previous work is going to open up the doors, and self-publishing will kill you before you ever get an audience
2) It’s fun. I’ve read plenty of ‘big’ artists and writers say, “I’d love a chance to work on Superman” or “Batman would be my first choice when I my exclusive contract with Marvel runs out.”
And truly, the same thing exists in the TV world. Read Stracyznski’s decade of rants of how hard it was to pitch Babylon 5, and that was after a significant career on prime time dramas. That’s about the closest metaphor, but even there, a TV producer doesn’t own his show.
\
I wonder… are all those writers for soap operas and sitcoms and Star Trek and CSI also “pûššìëš” (and such) for writing stuff owned by someone else rather than creating stuff they own themselves?
I can’t take Larsen seriously. His sole noteworthy claim to originality is a working-class Hulk with a fin on his head.
He can come back and rant when he’s done some original work that’s actually interesting.
I was pretty unimpressed with Larsen’s article, as well.
“Erm… what came first?
Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?”
Savage Dragon, as part of Graphic Fantasy, a self-publishing venture. Pick your potshots more carefully. You went pretty wide on that one.
I just noticed that I said “George Wylie” was the creator of Gladiator. Don’t know where I got that from; it’s Phillip Wylie. Which I probably misspelled, but at least I’m not saying it’s George anymore.
“Angel Love?” That wasn’t me. I write “Fallen Angel.”
PAD
Posted by: Greg O. at September 30, 2005 05:57 PM
‘ “Erm… what came first?
Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?”
Savage Dragon, as part of Graphic Fantasy, a self-publishing venture. Pick your potshots more carefully. You went pretty wide on that one.’
Of course, the Graphic Fantasy was a limited venture before, using Mr. Larsen’s terminology, he became a “pussy” and headed to Marvel for a couple of years before returning and revamping the more commonly recognized incarnation of Savage Dragon for Image.
If anything, the chronology of events dámņš Larsen more than exonerates him — if he was truly the bastion of dedication he presented as the ideal in his article, he never would have abandoned his creation in the first place. Also, the fact that Larsen basically recreated the character (not the visual of the character) from scratch is a strong indication that no one was expected to associate (or even acknowledge) the current Dragon character with the prototype incarnation. (After all, when Larsen was younger, he once imagined Dragon as being a rage-induced alter ego).
Therefore, John W’s comment falls more into the “not aware of a trivial detail of a trivial publication.” The context of his statement is still pretty valid, and Larsen’s hyprocrasy still radiant.
Oh my. Shades of (the lead-up to) Comicfest ’93! Peter, warn me next time before you give me nostalgia whiplash. 🙂
I think what gets me about this whole thing (and what drove me to flippancy a short while ago. And, as it turns out, not even original flippancy) is that Larsen’s work, by and large, ISN’T very original. At all. He pretty much just apes all the dumb tropes from the big guys, with characters that are obviously derivative. It’s not like he’s been writing something like “Powers” or “Astro City” here.
In a lot of ways, I’d have to say he’s a stellar example of everything that’s WRONG with superhero comics these days — whether he’s working for DC or Image: flat, uninventive stories without much sense of care or joy in them, and art that’s not any fun to look at.
I’m with knuckles on this one. If I had one chance to write a comic book that would serve as an example of what I could do, I certainly would not write an established character. It’s hard to write a good story under any circumstances, but what advantages does a company owned book bring? You have to work with established continuity, characters that have been around for decades, and it’s all under the magnifying glass of a fan base that will jump ugly on you if the character so much as thinks something that contradicts anything done since the dawn of time…
Forget that. It’s much easier to work with your own world. I know that Allan Moore will impress me with any book he writes but his Superman 2-part story blew me away, something I didn’t think would ever happen with a character that old.
Now, the fame and rewards are probably easier to achieve with a company book but Larson’s point still fails. As good as Fallen Angel and Maddrox were, I’m more impressed with what PAD has done with Hulk because at th1s point it takes real talent to show us something new on Hulk.
Wow. I must have read something different. I’m pretty sure Erik was aiming the article to the more seasoned professionals who don’t create anything new. He’s wondering were the new Hulks, spidermans, and Batmans, and Wolverines are.
People like Kirkman are great on Marvel Team Up, but on Invincible he stuff absolutely shines. Bendis’ Avengers is great, but Powers absolutely rules. I think if some more of the pros out there gave creator owned stuff a shot we would have some kick ášš comics.
Peter
I have a few thoughts on the subject
having just and i do mean just breaking into the field of comics i have 1 dream
to write a wonder woman story
ive been doing the creator own stuff for years and years i like doing that so much but to be part of the book that started my love of comics that would fill me with a entirly different kind of joy
pardon the typos and what not as i tend to write as i think being disabled it takes me awhile
Wow. I must have read something different. I’m pretty sure Erik was aiming the article to the more seasoned professionals who don’t create anything new. He’s wondering were the new Hulks, spidermans, and Batmans, and Wolverines are.
People like Kirkman are great on Marvel Team Up, but on Invincible he stuff absolutely shines. Bendis’ Avengers is great, but Powers absolutely rules. I think if some more of the pros out there gave creator owned stuff a shot we would have some kick ášš comics.
Er, those examples sorta undermine the point, donnit? For one thing, the company work post dates the original work. For another, the move to the company work has served in a lot of ways to increase sales of the creator owned work. For third, these folks are doing BOTH kinds of work….
I think it’s just plain stupid of him to call people who want to work on company owned characters, Pûššìëš. I mean like PAD said. if you enjoy writing Daredevil or Spider-man or Batman. Then more power to ya. Do what you enjoy. If you enjoy creating new things. Then go for it. He really has no right to say everybody is a pussy who worked or works on company owned characters. He’s also calling himself a pussy. His work on Spider-man, Aquaman, and him wanting to do work on the Hulk. He’s just being childish and stupid.
“Er, those examples sorta undermine the point, donnit? For one thing, the company work post dates the original work. For another, the move to the company work has served in a lot of ways to increase sales of the creator owned work. For third, these folks are doing BOTH kinds of work….”
I don’t understand… I don’t remember reading where Erik wrote anything about doing only one or the other(working at Marvel/DC vs. creator owned). He’s pushing creators to add something new of their own. He NEVER stated that you shouldn’t aim for trying to work at the big two. I believe he was just saying that the pros should aim for more than just that.
Even more ridiculous, Larsen’s argument — which seems to be that stories written for others’ characters are merely painting by numbers and not contributing anything creative or original — is couched in such broad terms that it implicitly encompasses writing for any sort of franchise.
By his logic, no one other than Gene Roddenberry added a unique creative vision to Star Trek — and you can totally tell because episodes like “Darmok” and “The Inner Light” are sooo cliched and overdone by the franchise; Vince Gilligan’s take on Mulder and Scully is in no way different from Chris Carter’s, which is why “Bad Blood” is such a shoddy substitute for Carter’s genius; Jane Espenson’s portrayal of Jonathan in “Superstar” (BtVS) means nothing because she was only writing Joss’s characters; and so on.
…right.
From PAD:
“Erik Larsen … scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own — which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc.”
Erik does attack people who don’t own their own characters, but I think he’s more upset that people don’t create new characters in the first place. That’s why he praises Lee, Kirby, Ditko and company; they created new characters. Erik even gives the old-timers an excuse for not owning their creations. “Years back you couldn’t do your own stuff. The major companies had a stranglehold on the industry and there weren’t any viable alternative.” (That’s actually open to debate, but that’s another thread.)
On the other hand, I was amused to see Erik say this: “There are thousands of stories that will never be told. Thousands of characters that will never be created … so we can have more stories of Aquaman.” He seems to be criticizing people for doing what he himself did.
It’s also interesting to see this from the guy who wiped out your Aquaman work: “It is a drag when the next creative team comes along and ignores everything you set up or undoes it all.”
David Seidman
Well, what is the old saw about opinions and body parts? Larsen is certainly entitled to his – the column has been entertaining for the most part and truthfully I think he’s going out of his way to be controversial in it – so, that being said I take away what I read with a grain of salt.
It’s not a news feature as much as Larsen’s Soapbox. I’m not defending his statements in this case and I think you’ve cited a few arguments which wind up being glossed over today on any discussion of the industry (price point and distribution).
Larsen doesn’t strike me as any less opinionated than let’s say for example Jim Shooter or Bill Jemas for what it’s worth.
So to recap, using the Larsen theorum:
Alan Moore on Swamp Thing and Miracleman: Pussy
Frank Miller on Daredevil and Dark Knight: Pussy
Neil Gaiman on Sandman (rethink of an established DC character), Books of Magic, Black Orchid and 1602: Pussy
Chris Claremont on The New X-Men: Pussy
Roy Thomas and Barry Smith on Conan: Pûššìëš
Walt Simonson on Thor: Pussy
Yeah, I can see that he’s got a point there.
>”Angel Love?” That wasn’t me. I write “Fallen Angel.”
>PAD
I know. I was responding to the poster who said that he’d buy any title with your name attached to it. I figured Angel Love was more fun than using Slapstick.
Fred
I’m no fan of Larsen, but it seems like a lot of people are missing his point. Alan Moore DID create his own stuff (ABC, Watchmen, V For Vendetta). Frank Miller did Sin City. Walt Simonson had Star Slammers.
His point isn’t that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table.
“I’m no fan of Larsen, but it seems like a lot of people are missing his point. Alan Moore DID create his own stuff (ABC, Watchmen, V For Vendetta). Frank Miller did Sin City. Walt Simonson had Star Slammers.
His point isn’t that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table.”
AMEN. I begining to think people are ignoring the point just to bash Erik. Why aren’t other people getting it?!?
I admit I don’t get to as many shows as I would like. And I have met/talked to very few PROS. But of the two being discussed here–One was very nice to me, listened/talked with me, and gave me an experience I will never forget. He Is My Favorite ‘Pro’. I still buy/enjoy his work. His name is PAD.
I have never agreed with anything that Erik Larson has said in the past. Every time I have read one of his opinions all I could do was shake my head. Then a little while ago he said that George Perez draws crap and was overrated and untalented. It was then that I knew Erik was a moron. So this column doesn’t surprise me one bit.