 |
|
closing shots from a grassy knoll (Comments at bottom of page)
This tendency toward over-blown comment is predominant amongst cliquish creators, and with criticism frowned upon, there is little to interrupt the masturbatory sessions of mutual back-patting which give rise to a kind of ‘closed community syndrome’; wherein creators lapse into a blinkered self-involvement, cultivating over-inflated opinions of their abilities, and developing an eagerness to write or draw effortlessly at the expense of dedication. This ‘budding hack’ is fuelled by little more than the desperation for a sense of celebrity, and must be destroyed. Why do you do it? There prevails a misconception among small press creators that they are rebels with suppressed talent, struggling against the might of the inferior mainstream, and producing work of greater substance. This romanticised view also alludes to a notion that any production of material beneath the small press umbrella is somehow 'underground' in nature. Occasionally some elements of the underground do surface. However, in these rare cases, work is generally obsessed with that aspect of underground material preoccupied with fucking or thinking about fucking; or that offers an approach that is zany and over-the-top, wherein little depth of feeling exists and the thrill of wallowing in perverse and twisted situations is essential. In truth, most small press efforts concerned with comics - and comix - bear little or no resemblance to those genuine underground publications that reflect counter-culture sensibilities through the conventions of the comic strip form. The true underground makes no concessions to mainstream publication - more often than not, it is occupied with individual creative expression encapsulated in the discussion of taboo subjects, of jaundiced society, and of a neurosis tinged excavation of the soul. Often work is of a cathartic quality, and at times the motivation for creating a piece of wrenching grotesqueness - that invites the ire of the establishment - is suggestive of a person profoundly unhappy with life. In the subconscious effort to inflict a kind of self-harm, work can resemble somewhat the act of 'small cutting', and maybe is even conceived to ultimately shock the artist themselves out of a detached numbness. These 'cries for help', these exorcised communications, these desperate lunges for attention that might address the real problems that plague the artist - these are not dressed in spandex and bestowed with powers of invulnerability - they are stripped naked, made real, and sent out into an over-entertained world. Why do you do it? Though no immediate financial incentives exist, the lure of creating within the power fantasy superhero genre continues to prove irresistible for the bulk of small press publishers eager for the chance to be adaptable to the strictures of an intrusive company bent on 'product development'. In the current mainstream climate of committee created adventures - where the loudest voice in the creative process is that of the marketing department - it is perhaps conceivable that the freedom small press publishing enjoys might present the opportunity to avoid the derivative stuff of the superhero mainstream. This, however, is not possible: in the mainstream, essentially it is not the scheduled creativity that is crap - it's the subject matter! By its nature, the superhero genre panders to a juvenile audience with set formulas that provide the genre with its labelling. In truth, there is little room for manoeuvre beyond choosing from inspiration provided by 'the five year re-workings cycle'; a cycle that potentially offers fresh creators and readers (of any age) variety of definition of juvenile superhero mythology - adapted and repackaged with 'enhanced' visuals and textual verisimilitude to target specific age groups - before reaching the limits of development and again commencing the re-workings cycle. Why do you do it? Perhaps small press publishers nurture a misdirected optimism, and entertain belief that they can reach an audience not yet caught in the mainstream miasma. Certainly they'll not provoke a greater interest or admiration among readers already familiar with superhero fare - five years of these power fantasies should be enough for anyone, and having moved on, apart from deriving a fleeting sense of nostalgia from the genre, ex-readers should really no longer be able to - nor want to - see beyond those large domineering men and women in spandex - though again, in most non-antithetical small press cases, that 'glimmer of interaction between creator and reader' provides the hook that may bolster endurance. Little else of note could possibly be on offer from a small press scene that fails to escape the restraints of the mainstream by choosing to waste time regurgitating the homogeneous crap that prompts tired comics fans to turn to the alternatives in the first place. In essence, the existence of mainstream work within the parameters of small press publishing dilutes the challenge of contra-comics and further limits both the possibilities and the appeal of the small press and of the comics medium in general. Why do you do it? I understand an exasperation with those whose writing-off of superheroes is based on a dismissive attitude. Something like 'Good Will Hunting' is little more than a vaguely intellectualised origin issue of an X-Man; it's only the absence of Professor X in recruitment mode and with colourful costume that prevents an obtuse public from dismissing it as the 'power fantasy crap' it most certainly is. Similarly, science fiction comics fans "too old for superheroes" often fail to recognise the strong power fantasy element integral to the enjoyment of their preferred genre. My point is that the superhero genre can entertain and interest an audience with little or no experience of 'the five year re-workings cycle', but it would be much healthier for the comics medium if it were recognised not primarily as the source of heroes with special powers and boy-band neurosis. (Have I just described 'Good Will Hunting' again?) I'm not suggesting that the superhero genre is incapable of producing examples of first-rate, complex work; but, fundamentally it exists as disposable entertainment. These substantial works occur in spite of the genre, are the exception, not the rule; and this is reflected in the reluctance of other media to adopt comics' favourite subject matter. Yes, 'Watchmen' is excellent, and proves that the provision of power fantasy through the vehicle of the superhero genre is not necessary; but then, for those very same reasons - and for the inherent satirical quality and portrayal of the superhero in extremis - one would question the legitimacy of the work as being of that genre. Perhaps the connection is purely cosmetic, and the result of a marketing logic dictated by an expectant comics audience. Why do you do it? The small press currently exhibits little ambition beyond reflecting the business of mainstream; and while the mainstream (and 'alternatives') may utilise high production values to colour or elevate the work, the trappings-less format of the small press is equally successful in luring a readership toward certain patterns of appreciation. Whatever semblance of truth the image of small press creator as 'struggling artist' might possess, there remains the fact that the majority of these creators struggle mainly for both professional and mercenary status. While a degree of outside awareness that a person exists in a creative context accounts for a part of the motivation to self-publish, the vanity-buzz of satisfaction derived from such a non-artistic achievement, and the chance to advertise as 'creator' or 'artist', is probably closer to the raison d'etre. This prompts the "it's all just a bit of fun" line of excuse that is used to deflect criticism of piss-poor work. Fuck fun! There are millions of more immediate, funner activities to be had than playing at creator, or at publisher, choosing to avoid the effort of writing or drawing well by self-imposing deadlines. I'd rather see genitals xeroxed and distributed than be subject to this abuse of photo-copying. The disposable, churned-out approach is born of convenience and disinterest, and is often the work of talented illustrators in osmotic reflection of the poor quality of script. Given the prospect of slaving over a drawing-board for longer than their enthusiasm can sustain the effort, ideally an illustrator much prefers to labour-on in the knowledge that they are creating a work of substance and worth, rather than a work of quick-fix entertainment that may well be engaging, but that is not involving and that ultimately is instantly forgettable. Yet still the shite-on-automatic continues to flow. Still there is no ambition to tap the human condition; or to effect change in the reader beyond prompting a moment of aesthetic pleasure derived from some attractive panel-to-panel consistency. Why do you do it? The small press plods on with its reliable 'mix' of creators economical with their imagination, pacing their creativity over the maximum number of pages and stories and issues. Blaise Paschal once wrote "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short". This quote is concerned with density, the investment of time, and control of space - values not on many creators' agenda. No; no concentration of ideas here; no wit and humour and emotion all invested into one exclamation of enthusiasm that bursts with inventiveness and verve. No; just platform comics by conventional thinking creators who write and draw like they crave the page-productivity/rate of prolific hacks. They provide endless forests of violent image and text with no deliberation on the themes of social unrest and of that individual sense of 'being restrained' that leads to displays of violence, and which reflects the occasional darting thought of even the most content person. Edge-less and comfortable, polished but pedestrian - even the best of the small press mainstream employs a formula of emotion-by-numbers. Creators have nothing to say, and are maximising page-count in an all-out-craft attempt to justify some pathetic Sixth Sense type twist-ending. Dialogue occurs simply as required padding to benefit this twist, and devoid of either emotive or didactic elements, or even a hint of personal revelation, story-telling craft alone seems the sole hook - beyond direct supply - to engage or involve the reader. In essence, the writer is relegated to the role of art-assistant, and though an able illustrator capable of thoughtful composition and with sound design sense and technical know-how, may produce a sequential work that is lovely to look at, this work rarely exceeds the functional requirements of realising a derivative script - and even if it did, in the absence of strong writing it would regularly have to provide something new to maintain interest. Even the dullest of reader can only marvel at an illustration style for so long. Why do you do it? It's easy to make efforts seem competent to an obtuse audience. Seduced by that sense of involvement with the creator, the work often appears to spark with gleeful energy. Invariably, readers are delighted enough with small press publishers who actually recognise the limits to bleeding imposed by a photocopier, or if sloppy looking page layouts and awful framing styles are not in evidence; or if the lettering is legible. They are easily satisfied, and disappointed not-in-the-least that material fails to transcend the mundane and colour those universal problems of paranoia and identity with a pleasant vigour, or that work smacks of a Green Mile/Phenomenon desperation to be considered worthy. Fans of power-fantasy are simply blinded by lack of regular intellectual stimulation, and resort to an ingrained preference for mainstream values when faced with out-of-the-ordinary material, oblique beyond immediate calculation. There's safety in numbers, I guess. In truth, the small press should never concern itself with 'numbers' - the mainstream exists to serve the largest numbers with material least offensive to that audience. Ideally, the small press should cater to individual tastes; have cult appeal, not mass appeal; and should exist not as a display for transitional creators with mainstream ambition, or as a venue for publicly honing their craft, but as a genuine artistic preference to mainstream involvement; as a legitimate platform; as a thriving community/network of visionary subversives and no-men who utilise the potential to produce the kind of work that absolute freedom allows, and in any form, in any mix of their choosing - the sky's the limit! Don't let flying heroes limit your sky. 'Nuff Said! Originally published as Leaflit #30. © John Robbins 2001 Comments are welcome and will be posted here. Email them in. The first two paragraphs, which were in the original text, were eroneously missing from this online posting until April 23rd so all comments before that time may need to be read with this in mind. The monkey, again from the original text, was also added on this date. The bearing this has is debatable. May 4th 2001 John; I suspect your reasons for writing 'Closing Shots' were perhaps to galvanise a higher level of artistic quality from the small press comics scene through annoying enough people into looking closely at what they are doing with their work. I wouldn't have bothered. People who write and draw superhero comics will not suddenly start looking inside themselves and begin creating works of artistic merit because you tell them to. Now, if you were Todd MacFarlane...! The small press has always been full of poor quality work. As with most alternative subcultures it merely mirrors the output of the mainstream. A high percentage of all comics printed, small press or large are not worth the paper they are printed on. This is an unfortunate fact, and a result of the traditional low-brow subject matter (and not just superheroes) that the genre has revolved around since its inception. There will always be uninteresting, generic small press comics because there will always be people who want to work in the uninteresting, generic mainstream. Its a shame, but you won't change it. However, if your intention was (as I suspect) to provoke discussion on the subject, you have clearly succeeded! I am interested though, to know where it is that you consider small press ends and mainstream begins. A handful of publishers like Amok, L'Association and Drawn & Quarterly regularly print thousands of copies of high quality, varied, expressive work by some fantastic creators with complete artisic freedom. I consider these publishers to already hold a "legitimate platform", yet they probably often "Think about numbers". Am I Clearly the rhetoric of Closing Shots was partly tongue in cheek, perhaps part of a manifesto for stirring up trouble. (Not always a bad thing) Occupying the artistic high ground and throwing rocks at those below can indeed be a mildly diverting pastime, and indeed there was a smile on my face as I read parts of your essay. It is however, a well trodden path that you walk, that personally, I wouldn't have bothered taking. I wouldn't have wasted the creative energy. I don't read superhero comics, I don't waste my time on them. After giving anything promising a chance, I don't read any comics that fail to spark my creative energies. Why would I? Why would I care if they existed or not? I too have read Watchmen , dig deep enough and its sentiments are not dissimilar to parts of your essay. As I said, a well trodden path. I don't even know what 'Good Will Hunting' is, (Apart from poor English) It obviously falls out of my field of vision. I am not knocking people for creating comics I am not interested in. I'm just not likely to ever read them, and even less likely to try and change them. I too believe it is better not to create at all than to create something below one's abilities. I believe that all artists owe it to themselves to stretch themselves with every new piece of work, but I apply this rule only to myself. I don't waste my time on others. Clearly, like me, you are saddened by the lack of inspirational work coming out of the small press scene at present. Surely however, you are much better off trying to attract new creators to the genre by making more quality work visible, rather than attempting the impossible and trying to change what is already there. I too have no idea "Why do they do it?" but I also find myself wondering why you waste the time asking? I also have more interesting questions to ask about what you consider to be the criteria required to create valid or worthwhile art. I would contend that whilst all out gut-wrenching catharsis is a very good vehicle for creation, it is by no means the only way. Unfortunately I don't have the time to go into this now, and I'm not sure this is the right place. Maybe some other time! April 21st 2001 Although I don't have my superb Collins paperback too near, I define 'underground' to mean 'out of visibility. Were one has to go out of the regular mundane to find. Therefore all 'small press' is underground. As to what 'small press' is, well.. it's a very big world. I'm glad that 'Closing Shots' is getting this feedback. In the year and a half, I've been doing trs2, John's thirty 'Leaflits' have accounted for the majority of favourite reading in the small press. (As to how that definition changes with the internet, gosh) 'Closing Shots' is a high density work, and even more provocative than John's usual. God, I nearly had a cardiac arrest when this came in. Calming down, and re-reading it now, I'm clearer that this is definitely if not moreso valid as a piece of art than as a professor's lecture. But before I re-realised that, here are some comments: Neill states, "Surely, if you're going to make the effort to create and publish your own work off your own bat, putting yourself out of pocket to do so, you're entitled to publish exactly whatever the hell you want." Yeah, I can see both aspects. Honestly, my eyes are beginning to hurt reading s/p books of every facet. And as the Community Centre's 'Photocopier Of The Year 1999', I know. I know. (Damn clickers) But there is a commodity much much more important than money, and that is time. I would happily happily part with a few hundred pounds for an extra month in my life. I think that's what John is getting at. If you are going to shell money out of your own pocket, spend wisely. Make your product as good as it possibly can be. And when you've done that, do it again. And again. I've been promised the photocopier will still be there when I'm done. Matthew makes some interesting points. Do people really want to read Peter David's comics if they're greyscale, too small, not available from the comic shop/Diamond Distribbles and lacking the hope of action figures, cartoons, regular spin-off booklets (not to mention regular booklets)? The action figures could be by Todd Mc Farlane, the cartoons by Paul Dini and spin-off booklets! God, Straczynski, could be Kubert, could be Alex Ross, could be Paul Jenkins, but no they're never going to do THE JOCK: YOURCITY or MY CHERONNA or TALES FROM TALAMANDER or AMAZING SPECTACULAR ARMOURED ANT ADVENTURES. Small press with 'mainstream' values on an uneasy schedule cannot possibly hope to compete, the exception being Martin Eden's The O Men (Due to productivity, and walking between worlds). The only answer is to play the game on our own terms and on a different playing field. When I look at comics as Andrew the TRS2 guy, there is no distinguishing between those who are doing it as a hobby and those who are actively seeking paid work in the area. The dividing line is drawn by what I percieve as talent dedicated block capitals large font full research library in your face. I've reviewed 'Closing Shots' elsewhere, but in the meantime, here are just a few more remarks. "There prevails a misconception among small press creators that they are rebels with suppressed talent, struggling against the might of the inferior mainstream, and producing work of greater substance" I am a small press creator. I am not a rebel, I am a conformist. The mainstream is only inferior when I go in search of an inferior mainstream. Some of my work is of greater substance, a lot of it isn't. I note there is nothing specific for comparison here. We can note that the prosecution (Robbins) pits Andrew Luke against the force of an endless universe, and therefore ill-defined goals. The bugger. I therefore state for the jury, that his tongue must be in his cheek. I move for contempt of court. By obtaining sensible observations concerning noble and decent acts and mixing them with those designed to trigger anger, I do believe Mr. Robbins has led us to look further into the nature of our art. The bugger. "Ideally, the small press should cater to individual tastes; have cult appeal, not mass appeal; and should exist not as a display for transitional creators with mainstream ambition, or as a venue for publicly honing their craft, but as a genuine artistic preference to mainstream involvement; as a legitimate platform; as a thriving community/network of visionary subversives and no-men who utilise the potential to produce the kind of work that absolute freedom allows, and in any form, in any mix of their choosing" I would like to take this opportunity to announce my new range of DoUC Comics, which I have been secretly working on in my shed over the past two years. There are 9 and three quarters already published and the remaining parts of the seventeen book set are due in the next ten minutes. They are A1 size yet fit into the standard envelope without folding. They are invisible and without form until squirted with fairy liquid and costs eight pounds, forty-nine pee. Cheques are not accepted, and anybody sending a cheque will be recorded as being a bourgeoise government spy spreading religion and tabloids. Or just send John some money for his Leaflits. We'll get him addicted to booze, fags, crack cocaine and the all-enticing pleasures of sex with an eyepatch poodle if we make an effort! April 18th 2001 What up John? I, Peter Hammerson of Bionic Comics consider my Small Press pagent interuppted. Bad timing actually, the stunt motorcyclists were about to come on. Oh well, on to your word list entitled... "Closing Shots from a Grassy Knoll" Hmm, your title makes you seem as if you think you're striking some sort of death blow to the small press. Taking us down from a distance, safely tucked away in a corner with a high powered rifle and a sucker in a depository across the road. Somewhat of an exageration I think. I quote: "There prevails a misconception among small press creators that they are rebels with suppressed talent, struggling against the might of the inferior mainstream, and producing work of greater substance. This romanticised view also alludes to a notion that any production of material beneath the small press umbrella is somehow 'underground' in nature." You're entire argument seems to be based upon this premise. That the Small Press thinks it's hard but actually isn't. I've been self-publishing comics for about two years now and as far as I'm aware I'm 'Small Press'. At least, no one's told me any different I'm not a rebel, my talent isn't suppressed, I'm not struggling against the might of the inferior mainstream, I'm not producing work of any greater substance. The closest I've been to the Underground is seeing a large tattooed man at the Fez Club's metal night. Does your argument still apply to me and others like me? Am I allowed to produce super-hero comics? I guess I am. In essence, you're saying that super-hero books are great providing they know their place and stay out of your Underground playpen. My message to people reading this is: Ask yourself, "Do you want to be 'Underground'?" If you do, take notice of what John says. Cut your arms, excavate your soul and use words like 'verisimilitude'. If you don't want to be 'Underground', ignore him, draw what you like and have fun doing it. Pete Hammerson April 16th 2001 I'm sorry if the following may seem obtuse or idiosyncratic, but I'm working from a perspective of (a) an education that got me 7 GCSEs, all C grade (b) someone who hasn't really read small press comics for quite a while (c) a person who gained what little fame he had by saying everything was 'rubbish', and since 95% of everything is rubbish, regularly basking in the warm glow of righteousness. Well, I can see where you're coming from about small press creators knocking out third-generation copies of their 'mainstream' comic fancies - after all, that's what most of them started off by reading. If they still like these 'adolescent power fantasies' by adulthood, then it obviously does something for them. So any comics fan who is 'creatively' inclined will start off doing their own comics which are obviously influenced by what they read and liked (can anyone remember Rol Hirst's 'The Jock'? Ooh, I knew you could). The main point of all this is : The majority of the small press community (or should that be 'gestalt of cliques?) is male, between 20-40 (and aging all the time, I think), and is usually interested in other 'active minority fan things' (eg Star Wars and other sci-fi, 'cult' film appreciation, and even Buffy The Vampire Slayer, god help us). And so, if your creative base is made of roughly similar people - then what do you get? Yes, roughly similar kinds of small press comics. If such things are not to your taste, I can't really blame you, as 'cut-n-paste on pop culture comics' aren't my thing either. But such things seem to be inherent in the creation of SP comics, and in the world of 'fandom' (not just comics) as a whole. April 14th 2001 For readers interested in work produced in the 'closing shots' of a paper-based small press publishing era - and haven't seen them - I recommend John Robbins/Sean Mac Robbin's series of Leaflits. April 11th 2001 Composing a reply to an essay at this time of the morning, & the way I feel at the moment (ill) is possibly a foolhardy exercise, but, i feel it needs to be done. My 1st impression from the opening paragraphs was that you have simply not looked hard enough & the argument regarding the nature of 'underground' comics was correct in it's initial assertion, (don't give a fuck) but you then limit the scope to 'underground comics' are created by fuck-ups; which is... foolish. OK - so a lot of people create small press superhero comics. I am lucky in that I do not see a lot of them. It is a genre that is not really in my field of reference, I did not grow up with them. Many people did - so when they start creating comics as the urge takes them, and they start with these fields of reference. I see nothing inherently wrong with this, & those practitioners who opt for this may develop on to create more interesting works as they persist & develop. Those that do not persist will cease to be of bother. Publishing these initial efforts on a small scale is also a good way of getting some peer assessment. To decry all without individual analasys is blind. There may just be an ambition to work in the mainstream, but hell, Nothing is ever as simple as we like to fool ourselves.... Ah, such is the quality of black & white when on paper. I am now interested in looking at the comics that you yourself may have created, as I am not familiar with your work as far as I am aware. I have to wonder why you feel inundated with superhero small press comics though? Is there a particularly active core of people in your locale that the local comic shop feels obliged to stock? What has generated this ire? As with that other glorious throwaway medium; you have the choice not to look at it (a weak, but never the less relevant counter-argument when you seem to be going out of your way to single out one area). I have also muttered about such things as the creative process (and the seeming lack of) in an article called "Why for you do this?" - it can be seen online here. However - good ol' bonkers Andy has scanned at a resolution that may make reading a tad difficult ;) Hmmm - a book of traced Frank Miller elbows... that would not necessarily actually be a comic, but an 'art book' - which is a whole different kettle of haddock. As to the eternal question of why, well, why bother writing the article, why bother responding - it's something to do with passion, I think (& a good dose of 'look at me!'). There was a very good article on such a subject in a Canadian Zine called 'Broken Pencil' however - the URL is useless as I cannot find it transferred from print to web as yet. Right April 2nd 2001 Dear John, "Ideally, the small press should... exist not as a display for transitional creators with mainstream ambition, or as a venue for publicly honing their craft..." Well, why on earth not? Surely, if you're going to make the effort to create and publish your own work off your own bat, putting yourself out of pocket to do so, you're entitled to publish exactly whatever the hell you want. If someone derives a sublime, sexual-spiritual thrill from tracing Frank Miller drawings of elbows, and wants to share the results with the world in a bumper 80-page elbow-based spectacular, more power to them. You may not have any desire to read the results, and guess what... you don't HAVE to! As you say, self-publishing offers an unrivalled opportunity for creative freedom. You may scorn or despise what people choose to do with that freedom, but attempting to shame or coerce people into following your own high-minded artistic agenda with interminable rants like 'closing shots' seems to me sadly futile. "Fuck fun"? I find it very hard to agree... what's WRONG with fun? Anyway, you'll have to excuse me. I don't know you and have never spoken to you, and have probably come off as combative here. Apologies if it seems so. It seems your intention was to encourage people to produce more creative and personal comics, which is of course a laudable goal. I just felt the general tone was less encouraging than bullying. What, exactly, are you so mad about? It may sound a little facile, but what's wrong with 'live and let live'? Why do YOU do it? Regards, |
That glimmer of interaction between creator and reader that small press publishing offers is increasingly emerging the sole element or hook that provides the ammunition for seduction of an audience. The majority of material currently flowing from the small press is almost wholly reliant on this element and would fail dismally to either satisfy or entertain if removed from the context of direct supply. It is ironic then that the very element which provides the small press with its greatest advantage over mainstream publication is responsible for a deluge of creators unable to discern encouragement from genuine praise as they glow with the effusive adulation of an audience primarily reacting to ‘the personal touch’ of direct supply. Ultimately, creators starved of constructive criticism and/or opinion that closer resembles the true worth of their work, relax into a satisfied stupor and fail to strive to improve the quality of their output with anything resembling the necessary conviction.