Comics "From" THIS NAME, "Created by" THIS NAME... Written and drawn by... THOSE OTHER NAMES
David_D
Posts: 3,884
An promo that popped up on CBR caught my attention. Not so much the production values of the trailer itself, but rather that it advertised that it was a comic from George Pelecanos. A name I know from his TV work, and while I haven't read his novels, I know they have a strong reputation. So I thought, cool, I would be for reading a comic by him.
But... then there's the problem.
Following the ad to the page that tells more about the series we find that this is a comic "from" George Pelecanos. "Created by" Pelecanos. There is are bios for "Creator" Pelecanos, and "Artist" Mack Chater.
Oh, and it is actually written by someone called Andi Ewington. Who it seems wrote it. But doesn't merit a bio. And it is not "from" him, or "created by" he or the artist. All of the "creating" of this comic book was done by Pelecanos, who neither wrote the script or made the art.
Rubbish. A very lame trend. (And, in fairness, I don't blame Pelecanos for the way 451's website presents this. I also wouldn't hold him to the same standard of what the "creator" term does and should mean in comics that, say, I would hold a comics insider like Kirkman to). And also a bummer as I was hoping Pelecanos had written a comic. I would have checked that out. But, we're supposed to be excited that he came up with the idea for a comic?
It would be one thing if this were an adaptation of one of Pelecanos' novels. As far as I can tell (though happy to be corrected if I am wrong) it is not. Rather, it seems like he came up with an idea for a comic, others made a comic, and now he is the sole creator, and it is "from" him.
I wonder whether we would accept a novel that is "from and created by" Pelecanos, but has a "Prose by" credit for someone else? Or a series created by credit for someone who didn't actually write the pilot episode that launched the show?
Lame. Comics should be better than that.
But... then there's the problem.
Following the ad to the page that tells more about the series we find that this is a comic "from" George Pelecanos. "Created by" Pelecanos. There is are bios for "Creator" Pelecanos, and "Artist" Mack Chater.
Oh, and it is actually written by someone called Andi Ewington. Who it seems wrote it. But doesn't merit a bio. And it is not "from" him, or "created by" he or the artist. All of the "creating" of this comic book was done by Pelecanos, who neither wrote the script or made the art.
Rubbish. A very lame trend. (And, in fairness, I don't blame Pelecanos for the way 451's website presents this. I also wouldn't hold him to the same standard of what the "creator" term does and should mean in comics that, say, I would hold a comics insider like Kirkman to). And also a bummer as I was hoping Pelecanos had written a comic. I would have checked that out. But, we're supposed to be excited that he came up with the idea for a comic?
It would be one thing if this were an adaptation of one of Pelecanos' novels. As far as I can tell (though happy to be corrected if I am wrong) it is not. Rather, it seems like he came up with an idea for a comic, others made a comic, and now he is the sole creator, and it is "from" him.
I wonder whether we would accept a novel that is "from and created by" Pelecanos, but has a "Prose by" credit for someone else? Or a series created by credit for someone who didn't actually write the pilot episode that launched the show?
Lame. Comics should be better than that.
Comments
I get you though, that it is like you are watching bait and switch play out right on the cover.
The current trend has a history.
Now back to our regularly scheduled conversation.
I remember reading some Marvel books in the 70s and over a two-year span you might see scripts by Wein-Wolfman-Thomas-Conway-Mantlo, all writing in a style reminiscent of Stan Lee, and chronicling the adventures of characters created by Lee and Kirby and owned by a corporation. You were buying the Marvel brand, basically, and hoping that month's writer was providing something roughly to the standards and style you were used to. Is that kind of similar to the situation you are describing?
But I think the difference here is that, at least in the case of Patterson, Patterson likely wrote a lot of novels himself and built up his brand as a novelist before the success of that brand led him to basically build a studio and hire all those co-authors. And I don't know Patterson's work, but he has basically had a main character that has been running through so many of these novels, right? So it is may be more along the lines of, 'Look! There is another Jason Bourne novel!' even though co-authors (or other authors entirely) are now writing what has become a franchise character.
I think the difference for me is that, in the case of this Pelecanos comic, the whole pitch is not that some known and established Pelecanos character has come to comics. Or that a novel of his is being adapted. Rather, the Pelecanos brand is that he's a great writer, with a fan base that knows him from his noir novels, and from writing on some of the best-written shows on television (The Wire). So his brand is that he's a great writer. And 451 is basically saying to us-- "Hey! Look! We got Pelecanos from those novels and The Wire [who, I believe, has never written for comics before] to come do a comic with us!" And for a second you go, "Cool! He's a great writer! And he's doing comics!"
Except he's not *actually* writing the comic. So then what's the point? Is he working in a new medium by not actually doing the thing he usually does and is known for, which is to write? Am I supposed to be excited by that? Is his brand that he comes up with killer ideas and has other people execute them? So, to me, that is the difference. It feels like they are making all this hullabaloo and buying pop up ads on CBR to advertise that they have Pelecanos as a consultant. Or maybe that people are adapting a pitch of his for something that was going to be a TV show or movie, and then didn't get made.
It is dropping a name associated with a certain talent, but then in the fine print you see he is not actually using that talent in the way we associate the word "writer" in comics. Bait and switch. It would be like saying that coming to a certain theater next season is a new production of Macbeth, "FROM acclaimed actor Daniel Day Lewis". "Ooooo".
"Oh, but actually he won't be in it. And he didn't direct it. But we can assure you he had many meetings with the guy who is going to play the part. His name is hidden under that big bio for DDL..."
That is what this feels like to me. I know it is nothing new in comics. But I would hate to have it become more frequent. (Especially when, as in some Image books that have done this, we end up with supposedly "Creator-Owned Comics" for which the single, titular creator is neither writing or drawing from the start.)
If the book is good I'm not going to complain about who did the heavy lifting and who had the idea to do a comic.
The Pelecanos comic almost has to be an old tv/movie pitch that he really liked and thought would have a better shot at TV/movie if he made it into a comic.
And, yes, I do think there is something to be said for the difference between an adaptation of a published work versus the realization or adaptation of a previously unpublished work. But we don't know the full extent of Pelecanos’ involvement here—whether he gave Ewington a plot and some notes, or a fully detailed screenplay with dialogue to adapt, or if he's had hours of story conferences with Ewington and they've hammered out the story together with the experienced comic book writer being the one to put the finish on it so that the artist has a script that will work.
So is it bait and switch? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Should you get excited about it? Well, if you're going to buy a comic solely based on Pelecanos’ name, you probably have an expectation of certain language, rhythms, etc. Some of that will feel a little different simply based on the differences in the mediums (pacing, inner monologue, etc.), no matter how involved Pelecanos is, but I'm sure this will at least feel like what you're expecting in some ways. That will be Ewington’s job anyway.
I don't know. In some ways it bugs me, and in some ways it doesn't bother me at all. Want to talk about Stan Lee’s ghost writers instead?
And, to be clear, in this specific example, it is not something for me to personally get too upset about, I get that, I am not saying this one example is a huge thing; and I take your and others' point that at least in this case 451 is telling us that someone else is the writer (as opposed to using ghost writers).
I only bring it up as a sort of trend-spotting thing. And it especially grabbed my attention as this was a project that they produced and placed trailers for, and the main thing they are selling is Pelecanos' name. Once I knew it wasn't really him, I knew I was no longer hooked to try it, so it is not like I ended up getting taken for anything beyond a minute of my time.
It is more that I think the word "creator" in comics means something. And one of the things that is great about comics is how few, especially relative to other narrative mediums, people are involved in making a thing. Often as few as one. And I love the idea of "creator-owned" comics made by the owners. I think comics fans have supported and paid more attention to that over the last 20-25 years than perhaps the fans of some other storytelling media have.
And so I just get wary of things that might continue to erode the conventions of what it is to be the "creator" in comics, that's all. To be honest, it makes me hope (and I feel bad for the people who actually MADE this comic when I wish this, though hopefully they got a page rate, and maybe they don't get royalties anyway) that enough people, including Pelecanos fans they might be trying to draw in, will see through this, and not order. And if it doesn't sell like he was hoping it would, then maybe next time he will actually put his name on a George Pelecanos comic written by George Pelecanos. And see how THAT goes.
So, again, I am not saying they should be shot at sunrise. Just that I see this as another thing watering down the idea of what a creator in comics is. A trend I hope shrinks rather than grows, because hopefully comics readers are smart enough to see through it.
Very well put. Though I think that your desire to drag these Philistines naked into the street and humiliate them is a little extreme ;).
So to be quite honest, I don't agree with the idea that the comics medium is up on some pedestal when it comes to the purity of creation—or that it necessarily should be. Yes, I generally prefer to see a strong artistic vision in the comics I read, but I don't need that in every comic I read. Comics at its base is a commercial venture. It is also an artistic venture. And it can be, and usually tries to be, both. And there's no shame in that.
My feeling is that when the artistic vision is strong and true, it will show in the final product. If not, that will show as well, and that's what is most important.
And speaking from experience here, don't ever suggest that artist isn't doing it all by themselves when you're interviewing them for a major gaming website at SDCC and surrounded by handlers and translators. :)
because if it was I would love you more than the time I read The Review or the time you posted your wife's trend setting Sharknado cosplay.
But I also, started really loving comics and paying attention to the business of comics at a time when the idea of creator ownership was getting more attention (even enough attention for a suburban kid buying comics in the 1990s without the Internet to learn about it).
I'm not saying that comics always earns a place on a pedestal. But sometimes I don't mind aspiring to put it there. I can't speak for the fandom of film fans, TV fans, music or sports fans, because I don't spend enough time in those circles to really judge them. But what I do know from spending so much time around comics fan discussions is that there has been a lot of attention paid to authenticity. To giving proper credit where it is due. To work created with the creator's vision as intact as possible. And in the idea of supporting the idea of creators owning the work they create. I don't know this, of course, but I would be surprised if there was as much knowledge and discussion in film or TV fan circles about how much, if any, ownership the creator of a work has over the work. (Again, I don't really know, just my guess). But from reading Peter David articles, on paper, in CBG, articles, interviews, etc., I was checking the fine print in the indicia when I was not even old enough to drive. And I don't think that makes me that unusual of a comic fan. I actually think there is quite a bit of attention that gets paid to comics not backsliding to be as dirty as a business as it once was.
Of course comics are a commercial venture. And I am not saying all comics need to be about artistic purity and creator ownership. Hell, I'm loving the Star Wars comics Marvel is doing right now. How many degrees removed from original creative intent are THOSE? I think what rubs me the wrong way about this one comic from 451, and others like it, is that to me it is watering down a term that meant something in comics-- the creator, and the creator-owner-- and it feels like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
So, again, if I am wary, it is not because I don't know or have forgetting the history. It is because I *do* know it, and I remember the battles to make things better. And, in large terms, I think (and hope) they are. Far from perfect or pure. But better than it used to be. So if I am strict about what I think "creator" should mean, it is because I feel like that has been a hard-won (if even won) battle in this medium.
I get where you're coming from. I buy more creator-owned comics than corporate-owned comics for a reason after all. And I'm a stickler for giving credit where credit is due. All my books have been about creators. But I’m not going to slam a comic and its creative team/publisher when I don't know the details.
Let's say for instance that this is a story that Pelecanos has tried to get made into a film or show with no luck, and doesn't feel it's right for a novel, or maybe simply doesn't have the time to write it himself, but he just doesn't want the story to go to waste. So, boom, “Let's do a comic.” And he may be paying Ewington more than he's ever made on a comic, just so he can finally get this story in front of the public, and if it gets enough attention to be turned into something else, so much the better—if not, at least it's out there. There are writers who think that way, and to them I say go for it.
And there are lots of artists who have a story they want to tell, but don't have the confidence in their writing ability, or don't have the time to do it all themselves, so they go out and find a writing partner, maybe an inker and a colorist. As soon as they bring others in, it's no longer just their vision. It's going to be a different story on some level, but it can still be great. I point to Hellboy and its spin-off titles as a prime example. I don't think anyone questions that Mignola is the creator of that world, despite the fact that he has a small army of writers and artists helping him tell its story.
Or perhaps this series is being done for far more cynical reasons.
But without that behind the scenes information, I'm not going to judge the intent. I think there's plenty of room in comics for all of those situations anyway. Like I said, I think that it will show in the final product, and readers can judge the book on its own merits. And it might turn out to be a great story despite any possible cynical intentions (at least from our positions) from Pelecanos.
(And to be clear, I'm not at all saying there shouldn't be collaborations in comics, or that the Mignolas, Willinghams, and Ennis' of the world can't invite in others to extend a world they've built. This is a different thing, though. From the very first time we meet these characters and this world, Pelecanos doesn't have both feet in. I think that shows a different level of commitment than where Mignola was at when Hellboy first became a thing.)
I guess I just think it would have been better had someone convinced Pelecanos that, actually, when people from other mediums- including various novelists, filmmakers, musicians, and others in the past- often, I would argue, usually, they see the work through to the end. Which is to say, if they are a writer, then they write it. I can think of many examples when that has been the case, sometimes to great fanfare and success. (The Kevin Smiths, Greg Ruckas, and Gerard Ways, for example). I can think of no example when someone of name has lent their name, not been the actual writer or artist of the work, and it has been anything remarkable.
I take your point that we don't know the behind the scenes. But I do think that- when a professional writer, a writer who is usually the writer, in novels the only writer- is comfortable giving that credit to someone else, then that says a lot about how much writing he did or didn't do. The message that Pelecanos sends to me by that feels like- ' I didn't write this, but my name goes on the top, and that's good enough for comics. Not like it is one of my real books'.
I'm sure he doesn't mean it to come across that way, but it does to me. I wish he cared enough about this to be the only writer needed for it. But, so it goes.
To reiterate, though, I admire the way you see it. You are definitely looking for the upside.