Following the Influences, not the Influenced

[bartl]

Imitating creators rather than following their influences is a part of what has been causing the downward spiral of doom in comics. I recall discussions (in which Grant was one of the key voices) about it happening in comics writing. Stan Lee, for example, used what he learned in advertising, soap operas, and classic literature to make the MARVEL AGE OF COMICS. Far too many later writers used, well, Stan Lee (and his successors). The result is comics written by fans, for fans, with hurtles big enough to new readers to keep them from being able to replace the readers who stop buying.

Stan Lee made fun of Martin Goodman's style of publishing whatever was selling well for other companies, but he turned around and did the same thing; he just did it better. He went to other media, examined what actually made things SELL (rather than just what the top sellers contained), and put it into his own work. I wish more comics creators tried doing THAT, rather than just trying to take from other writers.

I recall a time that I made a twist on a Sir Isaac Newton quote in a comics group to make an ironic statement, and Grant was the only person there who recognized the quote (not to mention the source, as well). It did not make me feel good about the future of comics (but made me appreciate Grant more).

[ChrisMRich]

Imitating creators rather than following their influences is a part of what has been causing the downward spiral of doom in comics. I recall discussions (in which Grant was one of the key voices) about it happening in comics writing. Stan Lee, for example, used what he learned in advertising, soap operas, and classic literature to make the MARVEL AGE OF COMICS. Far too many later writers used, well, Stan Lee (and his successors). The result is comics written by fans, for fans, with hurtles big enough to new readers to keep them from being able to replace the readers who stop buying.

Stan Lee made fun of Martin Goodman's style of publishing whatever was selling well for other companies, but he turned around and did the same thing; he just did it better. He went to other media, examined what actually made things SELL (rather than just what the top sellers contained), and put it into his own work. I wish more comics creators tried doing THAT, rather than just trying to take from other writers.

I recall a time that I made a twist on a Sir Isaac Newton quote in a comics group to make an ironic statement, and Grant was the only person there who recognized the quote (not to mention the source, as well). It did not make me feel good about the future of comics (but made me appreciate Grant more).

Let me guess? 'The shoulders of giants', etc, etc? That's the one that would most seem to apply to the state of comics today and be most suitably for ironic usage, especially since Newton himself was using it with heavy irony and more than a little insult intended.

Sorry, massive confluence of multiple aspects of being a hopeless geek. :)

Seriously, I couldn't agree more. Though I'd simplify it a stage by saying a writer should have as broad and eclectic a base of influences as possible. In the more complex sense, I agree completely about letting oneself not only be influenced by one's own influences but also theirs... but in the simplest sense, the broader one's base of influences one builds from the more one has to work with. And the more likely that the combination of those influences will produce something a little bit original.

[bartl]

Let me guess? 'The shoulders of giants', etc, etc? That's the one that would most seem to apply to the state of comics today and be most suitably for ironic usage, especially since Newton himself was using it with heavy irony and more than a little insult intended.

You got it. What happened was that another writer had written something which he considered rather bold. As I'm still friendly with that writer, I will not say who it was, or what was written, but my comment was on the order of, "If you have gone beyond what other writers have written, it is because you have stood on the shoulders of midgets."

[Brenz]

I kind of like the "turn what you hate into something you like" approach. I think it was Irving Berlin who said "If you hate elevator music, write better elevator music" or somesuch. If kung-fu films bore you, come up with a kung-fu concept you'd want to see, etc.

But if you're only going back as far as Stan Lee, you haven't really gone to the influence. The idea is to go back far enough to the master that your current favorite couldn't entirely emulate, or did a different take on, and then you do your own version that strives to both capture what's great, and do what your primary influencer didn't/couldn't do. (as well as the final influencer)

[ChrisMRich]

I kind of like the "turn what you hate into something you like" approach. I think it was Irving Berlin who said "If you hate elevator music, write better elevator music" or somesuch. If kung-fu films bore you, come up with a kung-fu concept you'd want to see, etc.

But if you're only going back as far as Stan Lee, you haven't really gone to the influence. The idea is to go back far enough to the master that your current favorite couldn't entirely emulate, or did a different take on, and then you do your own version that strives to both capture what's great, and do what your primary influencer didn't/couldn't do. (as well as the final influencer)

There's an inherent danger in the 'turn what you hate into something you like' approach, though: regardless of how much you hate something, people may very well like it for a reason. And if you completely remake a genre too much, you might come up with something that the fan base for which you're writing doesn't like. Writing just for yourself can be very satisfying, but you need to have some connection to something that someone else wants to read to be successful.

To go back to Stan Lee as an example again, the man was a hack in many ways. He let his artists supply most of the actual plot and concentrated on scripting and editing, sure. But he also knew how to turn a concept into a marketable concept. He knew how to write for his audience.

Compare that to Garth Ennis or Warren Ellis, both really brilliant writers far more talented than Stan Lee on a creative/literary level. But they write for themselves, and they frequently use the 'turn what you hate into something you like' approach... which often leaves a lot of people who liked what they hated really cold. Worse, far too often their hate shows in the final work.

And that's the real risk of turning something you hate into something you'd like: your hatred of the subject matter can show and offend/alienate the people for whom you're writing.

I don't believe that many elements of the current fan culture in comics are healthy, nor do I believe every story should make the fans happy. I think comics need to be good and I prefer good comics to comics catering to my prejudices: but I also recognize there's a difference between catering to my prejudices and writing something I will enjoy and want to read more of. If you hate kung fu movies and want to write a kung fu movie that you'd enjoy, you still have to make it something that someone who enjoys kung fu movies will pay to see or you defeat yourself. I've seen the disdain some really brilliant writers have for their own subject material, and it very often has me leery of reading their stuff despite their immense talents.

[bartl]

But if you're only going back as far as Stan Lee, you haven't really gone to the influence. The idea is to go back far enough to the master that your current favorite couldn't entirely emulate, or did a different take on, and then you do your own version that strives to both capture what's great, and do what your primary influencer didn't/couldn't do. (as well as the final influencer)

Can you give me an example of that raising sales in comics?

[Steven Grant]

You got it. What happened was that another writer had written something which he considered rather bold. As I'm still friendly with that writer, I will not say who it was, or what was written, but my comment was on the order of, "If you have gone beyond what other writers have written, it is because you have stood on the shoulders of midgets."

I think the misquote I made once was, "If I have been able to get this far, it is by stomping on the dreams of morons."

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

I think the misquote I made once was, "If I have been able to get this far, it is by stomping on the dreams of morons."

- Grant

Better than fluffing them, I suppose.

Though less lucrative.

[Steven Grant]

Depends on how you do it. Some morons will pay good money to have their dreams and other parts stomped on...

- Grant

[bartl]

Getting back on topic, what aspects of successful media today do you think would translate well into comics?

[Paul McEnery]

Depends on how you do it. Some morons will pay good money to have their dreams and other parts stomped on...

- Grant

Thanks for that image. I haven't previously imagined you with spiked heels on.

[bartl]

Thanks for that image. I haven't previously imagined you with spiked heels on.

Or listen to this...

http://www.daveamason.com/april/mp3/kinkyboots%2Emp3

[Steven Grant]

Getting back on topic, what aspects of successful media today do you think would translate well into comics?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Thanks for that image. I haven't previously imagined you with spiked heels on.

And you still shouldn't.

I prefer drover's boots, the ones with squared, stiff toes and the massive thick square heels. They make for better, more comprehensive impact zones.

- Grant

[Lorendiac]

Stan Lee made fun of Martin Goodman's style of publishing whatever was selling well for other companies, but he turned around and did the same thing; he just did it better. He went to other media, examined what actually made things SELL (rather than just what the top sellers contained), and put it into his own work. I wish more comics creators tried doing THAT, rather than just trying to take from other writers.

Here's something that I've said before, and it seems relevant to your basic point:

Way back around early 1991 - before I had ever even heard of "Image" - I was reading an interview with Frank Miller in which he was asked about what influence he thought "Dark Knight Returns" had actually had upon the rest of the industry since it was published in the mid-80s. The following is NOT word-for-word; just my best effort to remember and paraphrase the general idea of what he said.

I think it's had the wrong sort of influence, unfortunately. I look at 'grim-and-gritty' stuff coming out now and I think what happened several different times was that a couple of guys in a story conference somewhere were trying to figure out why their own books don't sell half as well as DKR did. So they flipped through it, glancing at the pictures, and one of them said, "Hey! He's got some really brutal, realistic violence in different scenes! Actual bleeding, and broken bones, and stuff!" And another guy said, "Yeah! And some of his other pages are full of cute little television-screen-shaped panels with talking heads in them!" "That's it! That's what our comics need from now on to be really hard-hitting and popular! Graphic brutality, and talking heads on television!"

It seemed to me at the time that Miller's point was that they were completely missing the parts about such trivial elements as "writing style" and actually having something to say beyond providing visual entertainment with lots of nasty fight scenes and TV screens and stuff.

I have quoted this to other people over the years, in comic shops for instance, and more than once I've been told that the early issues of Todd McFarlane's Spawn were a classic example of the brutality and talking-heads-on-television formula. Which is interesting, because I'm positive Spawn was not yet being published when Miller gave that interview. So he must have been thinking of something else, but Todd nonetheless continued the trend which he was decrying.