“At least 95% of all pitches I look at SUCK.”

Really? More than Sharknife? The ins and outs of the industry is always fun to discuss, but I’m really getting tired of the, “Hey, we’re dicks and it’s fun!” approach.

Rudiger,

Yes, more than Sharknife. FYI – Sharknife has actually done rather well and has already sold through several printings. Not every book is for everybody, but as a published product, it has succeeded.

Regarding the quality of pitches, I can promise you that if you could see the stuff we see, you would agree with me. You should read Troy Hickman’s recent post here. The hypothetical pitch he gave looks like about half of the pitches we receive. Throw in some furries, some demon porn, some tentacle rape, and some scary fan fic superhero work, and you may get a better idea of what I am talking about.

And I will admit that my comment looks harsh, but my motivation for saying it isn’t to be a dick. It is to get people’s attention so that they can better understand what editor’s see. And one of the biggest problems we see is the inability of creators to honestly critique their own work.

The greatest joy I get from this industry is helping to nurture talent and helping them achieve their dreams. We help as much as we can. We do portfolio reviews at conventions. Several editors do editor’s days at various schools to help students. The resources are out there for people who look for them.

My ultimate goal is for this column is for it to help people.

Randal C. Jarrell

Mr. Jarrell,

First, thanks for the kind words and the link to my little column. I didn’t know I was getting such readership in my little corner of the ‘net.

Second, I think you’re very right about the William Hung Phenomenon. I generally hang out at Digital Webbing in the writer’s showcase, and I see aspiring new writers post scripts that are just brain-melting;y bad, and when you point out their flaws, they get huffy and defensive. I’m sorry, but if you can’t master extremely simple things such as a stable format, spelling and grammar, then you’re not ready, despite what your friends and family may think.

Rudiger, we’re not dicks. Well, generally not. However, most of the stuff that comes to us sucks. If I’m not mistaken, you posted some awesome art over at DW. I invite you to come into the writer’s showcase and just read some of the stuff posted there, from pitches to scripts. Then you’ll get an idea of what we get on a regular basis.

I’m known to be pretty blunt in my assessments not because I’m a dick, but because no one else is being honest. I don’t like the word “but.” Whenever I hear the word “but,” it tells me everything that was said before it was bs, and here’s the real problem coming. “But” does an inadequate job of softening a blow, because people often don’t hear the “but,” they hear “that was good.” They have trouble separating themselves from the work. Editors aren’t being mean to you, and we’re not saying you’re a bad person. We’re saying that this story isn’t publishable in its current form, and you have a lot of work to do before it gets there.

However, as a nutshell, that’s not really helpful to a writer/artist, is it? You want to know specifically what to work on, don’t you? That’s when we pull out the laundry list and start going down it: your spelling and grammar tell me you haven’t mastered 7th grade English; you’ve gone into detail about how the lesbian zombie lovebirds can’t get it on, but you haven’t said anything about the story; your character has no arc; you wrote a Superman/Wolverine gay porn fanfic, and we don’t publish either one of those characters; your perspective and anatomy are extremely off, because the Hulk’s forearm is bigger than his thigh, and it’s back at the vanishing point… You’ve seen the art threads and the problems therein. This is what gets sent to us.

I run a second column over at Project Fanboy called The Proving Grounds, where I edit scripts that are sent to me. I ask those that are interested to come by and get a sample of scripts that are submitted to us, and the things we do in order to try to bring those scripts up to snuff.

Thanks again, Mr. Jarrell. I really appreciate it, and I’ll be watching this space from here on.

-Steven Forbes

Something to consider is that somewhere out there, in the midst of all this ‘overwhelming negativity’, the next big creator to bust onto the scene is working hard at his craft, taking all this free advice to heart.
Something to also consider is that every generation of comic book creator had to come up in the same kind of harsh ‘tough love’ environment we see today. In fact, they had it tougher because resources like this didn’t exist.
To a guy that believes he can, no amount of nay-saying is going to stop him and little gems like this article will be invaluable to him.
To a guy that believes he can, when he hears that 95% of all submissions received by editors suck, he’s happy because now he knows he only has to compete with that other 5%.
To a guy who believes he can, there is no such thing as being offended because he knows that when he’s good enough, the criticism he hears today will give way to praise and opportunities tomorrow.

If you’re honest with yourself, there is only one reason why you’re not making comics right now. It’s simply because you’re not good enough at your craft yet; if you were, someone would hire you in an instant. Take this opportunity to learn.

If anyone is insulted by this, you should read the article again because I think you’ve missed the entire point.

This is a really helpful piece. The link to the Rude/Toth critique was absolutely incredible. Thank you for sharing that. I’m really looking forward to the pitch segment, now, as I think that may be where I’d like the most clarification.

My trouble comes from not necessarily the self-delusional Hung-phenomena, but from the professional creators or publishers who claim the work is good, but not for them. The criticism I encounter comes mostly in the form of, “I’m sure X will like it.” After several indy publishers, one has to wonder how you differentiate between an honest suggestion, buck passing, or maybe it just not being the right time?

I think the analogy in this article is faulty. The author warns potential/wannabe comic creators to not be William Hung, whom he considers to be self-delusional in his talent.

Only problem is William Hung was successful, no matter how badly he sings “objectively” (whatever that may mean in art). I don’t watch American Idol much (a bit in the third season, not at all since), and yet even I know who William Hung is. He has albums and videos. He is famous. Maybe not for the reasons he thinks (or if he’s really smart, he may know he’s bad but just markets himself well to be so bad he’s good), but he has made I would assume is a pretty good income from simply not listening to what other people think and just going ahead on pure passion. Perhaps that determination and pure passion is what resonates with people, despite his being tone deaf.

If anything, William Hung is the triumph of pure passion and self-confidence.

The more apt analogy would’ve been the thousands of rejects American Idol goes through during the initial auditions. These people all probably think they sing well, but don’t and don’t get anywhere.

But William Hung is the exception that actually counters this article’s main thesis.

Sorry, but the author of this article tried too hard to be clever, but the ideas and structure of this article just didn’t stack up to make a convincing or logical point. It’s basically just an interesting title (like a tabloid headline), but a weak article logically and structurally.

Naturally Oni Press (and many other publishers) would love to work with just talented creators as it makes their jobs easier. But I think it takes a really creative and talented company to take someone who doesn’t have the whole package (the four basic things the author mentioned) but just one strong one (in this case: passion) and make them successful. Now that’s a great publisher to be with.

What if this belief is what keep these people going?

Would you like to take this away from them?

As long as it keeps you interested and creative I say go for it.

It’s one of the best things you can do with your time.

It also keeps you away from drugs

Sorry Jamie but I disagree with your citing of a failed comparison. We are assuming we know William Hung’s motivation for going on AI. If it was solely to be famous, regardless of why – which seems to be your eval – then true he did succeed. But if it was so he could be appreciated as a true music creator and performer based on skill and talent – which I believe is the real reason, the fame is a consequence of that – then no, he did not. The man is a joke, albeit a popular one.

However, few people – Goof notwithstanding – enter comic book creation to become famous. They do it to make a meaningful contribution to the medium and, oh yeah, to tell a story. “Success” as it were is then nothing more than getting the work publish in some form that resembles the original creation. We’re talking about entry level creators here, not those already established. In that respect I think the original comparison is very valid.

As for Alex Toth’s notes, I opted to try to read the story first before reading his notes. I don’t agree with everything he said (I think some of his critique is based on his personal taste and bias on what the comic medium must do/be) but he was right on the money most of the time.

I’m not a professional so while reading it I didn’t know how to put my opinions into succinct words like Toth did but I noticed a lot of things wrong with the framing including the poor introduction of the characters (and poor focus on the star), the too-oft-used birds eye view, and the behind-the-character perspectives. And I would never call an artist lazy since I can’t draw squat.

The problem with trying to get feedback is that too many people are looking to pass off judgment as “critique” instead of actually evaluating a piece of work. I did a very very bad thing once to prove this point on a forum frequented by some fairly well known small and medium level publishers/editors. While I often got good feedback on my STORIES, it seemed that equally as often people were predisposed to wanting to see a story told only the way(s) they wanted and that was it.

So I took a few pages of a script from a rather boring Nightwing one-shot written by Chuck Dixon (at the time only a couple of years old) and posted it as is, except for changing the characters’ names and details to match my story. I chose it specifically because it had a few panels with several things going on at once (an oft-levied criticism I receive, sometimes rightfully so) and had a splash page which used a ghosting technique that I had lifted word-for-word from the script into my own work before – and had been blasted for using because it was “too busy”.

The pages were massacred as expected and it proved my point – regardless of someone’s position or experience sometimes a criticism is just an opinion. It opened my eyes to critiquing critiques I received going forward.

David said:
“The pages were massacred as expected and it proved my point – regardless of someone’s position or experience sometimes a criticism is just an opinion. It opened my eyes to critiquing critiques I received going forward.”

There is some truth to this. No two editors will have the same tastes or preferences. The opinions editors give tend to be based on their aesthetic preferences and professional experience. Though we all have different tastes, there are some universal things that are more objective (ex: proper use of blue line boards, use of non-photo pencils, scanning techniques, etc…)

When giving portfolio reviews, I always try to explain that my comments or notes will be a reflection of my preferences or our company’s aesthetic direction. What works for Oni may not be the same as what works for the good people at Top Cow or Marvel or SLG. I have seen plenty of very talented artists that I was thrilled to talk to, but found their art to be outside of our aesthetic direction. In these cases, I am always more than happy to direct them to a publisher more appropriate to their material.

So yeah… there is no universal set of guidelines for criticism. The commercial needs and the creative needs of each company, editor, and project are different so it would make sense that there would be no standard set of rules that applies to all equally.

But one thing I have learned is that true quality always manages to find a way. If you are really talented, especially if you are an artist, you will be “discovered”. It is way way harder for writers, but that is for a different column.

Randal C. Jarrell

As someone who has pitched to Oni, I find the recent trend of Oni staffers publicly ridiculing bad pitches to be very uncomfortable.

The only people who deserve the “brutally honest” approach are the ones whose heads are so far in the clouds or in desperate need of a humility lesson. Let’s face it, most of the time “brutally honest” is a weak cover for being a dick. When sub-par submissions pile up on your desk every day, I guess you can become jaded pretty quick. Keep the snarky comments internally, because making fun of them at cons doesn’t make your company look very professional. While the panel does make many good points, you can easily turn parts of How Not To Break Into Comics into How Not To Run Your Publisher.

That said, I’d rather listen to Jarrell’s borderline condescending than de Guzman’s incessant whining. It’s hilarious to hear someone talk about knowing the company you’re submitting to, then complain about getting so many horror/vampire submissions. What do you think you’re going to get when part of your marketing is through Hot Topic?

A.D. Ipose said:
“As someone who has pitched to Oni, I find the recent trend of Oni staffers publicly ridiculing bad pitches to be very uncomfortable.”

A.D.,

I am not trying to be disrespectful. I am trying to highlight mistakes people commonly make and negative trends people continue to fall into that hinder their chances at professional growth. I want people to succeed. After all, as a publisher, if our creators and their projects don’t succeed, we don’t.

But to clarify…
As I said earlier, 95% of the pitches we get are wildly inappropriate tales of furries, demon porn, tentacle rape, and some scary fan-fic superhero work. Seriously… it is about 95%. Only 1 in 20 (if even that) of the pitches we get remotely resembles what WE tend to publish or have some potential as a publishing venture.

And when it comes to art, the vast majority of the art we look at either isn’t what we are looking for or is also inappropriate. Here are some good examples: I have a great deal of love and respect for the works of Art Spiegelman and Jeffrey Brown, but neither would be appropriate for something like WASTELAND or QUEEN & COUNTRY.

But sadly, beyond just appropriateness, there is the unfortunate fact that many many pitches and proposals we look at just aren’t where we need them to be in order for us as a company to publish them. During portfolio reviews, we try to spell this out by telling the artist how exactly they could improve or areas they can work on.

My next column is about subject matter and appropriateness, so I will expand on this later. I had hoped to include this subject in this column, but felt the column was too long for it all.

It should be said that we still manage to have a full publishing schedule. And so do many many other publishers. Good material is out there. Talented people are doing professional quality work. It does get discovered. But the only way you can go from the “bad” column to the “good” column is with some painfully honest constructive criticism that has to start with the creators themselves.

Randal C. Jarrell said;
“I am suggesting creators be more “brutally honest” with THEMSELVES when critiquing THEIR OWN works. The whole concept of being delusional comes from people not being honest with themselves.”

I agree. I think too often that a creator thinks that having a reason for doing X in a story is enough instead of thinking it through to the next step – which is to ask is it a GOOD reason?

I hold my hand up as guilty on that one. It took some very honest critisms from some friends over time for me to see that while I might be able to justify and explain why such and such was a certain way in a story, it did not mean it was an effective or good way to tell the story.

Wait, I take that back about the vampires — there was a story in Nightmares and Fairy Tales with a vampire in it that was not played for laffs. In any case, the point still stands. You do need to know something about the publisher you’re submitting to.

I agree that what we say in public does need to be moderated — I felt a little bad after the Comic-Con panel, to be honest. It’s easy to get laughs at the expense of the inept. It’s harder to find talented creators and help them develop their skills, which is editing is really all about.

K-Mo:

I know what you mean, and sometimes information comes across that way.

Try looking at my column Bolts & Nuts, which was referenced at the beginning of the article. Here’s another link: http://www.projectfanboy.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=79

In it, I try to give information as well as pointers.

Hope it helps.

-Steven

Taking a page from Randy and Jennifer’s book, here’s a tip on how not to break into comics: publicly dressing down editors who might one day be deciding whether or not to hire you.

I wonder how many talented people will read this and begin to doubt themselves. I think it’s one thing to think this kind of stuff but another to openly discourage people from trying. If the worst part of your job is to read some bad comic pitches every day, then I envy you because that would be the best part of most of our jobs I think.

“As someone who met many William Hungs at NYCC…”

…There were *that* many geeks running around wearing that costume?? Egads, I will *never* complain about the stormtroopers en masse again!

“Why are you so hostile and rude?”

Jennifer, I could ask you the same question after listening to this.
thecomicbooks.com/Audi/2008SDConHowNotToBreakIntoComics.mp3

I’m not knocking the advice. Most of it is great. It’s the way it’s presented that makes you look bad, more so than Randal. You may want to rethink your approach since it doesn’t reflect well on you, personally or professionally.

Oh yeah,

I forgot to add, I was wondering if I was another case of William Hung or the 95 percent.

Please don’t hold back, I can take it, but please tell me your reasons as well.

I’ve had a bit of a fixation since my last post. I’ve been trying to imagine the “constructive criticism” that the notoriously curmudgeonly Alex Toth would have offered a book as rudimentary and derivative as Scott Pilgrim.

So you’re saying you’re just waiting for a really good furry, demon-porn, tentacle-rape pitch to come along, Randal?

I remember that I actually DID pitch something to you guys at the APE this year(there’s actually a link to what I pitched you guys in my name with this post).

I think I’m pretty good-Obviously I do, I tried submitting it to you guys-but I haven’t heard back from Oni yet and at this point, after almost 5 months, I’m assuming you guys aren’t terribly interested. If that IS the case,Randall, would it be unprofessional to ask what was unpublishable/ straight-up bad about it? I’m still learning.

AAAAAHHHH I’m not going to be at Wondercon this year. Stupid Model U.N!

That’s totally fine, though, if you just email me the notes. I can most definitely wait a week.

Man, this column and it’s comments are great! I think there have been a lot of valid points, and some great counter points.

Having been one of those guys that consistently goes to San Diego Comic Con every year to pitch and network I do feel the pain of having my artwork torn to shreds. Writing style as well. And you know what? I’m ok with it. In fact a lot of times I look forward to it. Because I have one or two friends here who are perfectly honest with my work here. Going to a con and talking to these editors is like talking to a hundred of those two guys, each with their own perspective.

Here’s the deal – these people in the position you (and I) want, and you’re not. Deal with it. Everyone I’ve seen here complaining are the same guys who rush to sign up to be interviewed by everyone in the portfolio reviews and is never around when their name is called. They want it, but they want it handed to them. I sat there last year nearly everyday last year with my buddies Tom and Steve and listened to countless names of people who no showed. Everyday of the con. No, I can’t say everyone who’s complained or sounded like a smug dick is like that… but it sure sounds like it. The guy who shows up right as the editor is packing up, 10 toys in his arms, a portfolio and outraged that he’s been called but won’t be seen because it was 89 people ago and the editor is beat.

Last year after Comic Con I didn’t hear a whole lot afterwards. I won’t even lie, I made some great contacts with artists and writers but not a lot from companies. The fact of the matter is, is that I’m an unproven commodity and while I do good work… I haven’t proven I can do the job yet. And so are you. So you know what I did? I quit working up tons of submissions and went on to writing my own webcomic. I started putting my freelance illustration out there. I’ve made gig art, I’ve made tons of stupid cartoon logos for companies, and I kept working on my own comic. Yeah, it was demoralizing and this article is a lot of the same I’ve kept hearing. But dammit, I love me some comics. I can’t imagine doing anything else!

Sure, it gets me down, but I’m not quitting. And why should I? This last year one of my pieces was featured in the New York Times, and now I’m friends with one of their editors with the options to do more illustration for them. While I love illustration, my heart lies in comics. And I’m close to launching my webcomic and therefore proving myself the artistic commodity that editors want to see.

Contrived as it sounds, you gotta really want it kids. Grace gets you a long way in this world, and from my experience a thank you will get you a smile and a better chance next time you go to pitch. I apologize if I sound like a dick myself, but it’s just the reality of it all. And reality kind of sucks sometimes. But I have to tell you, I chased James Lucas Jones down just to hand him my little ashcan last year. As put off as he was (he was a bit overwhelmed as everyone is at SDCC) when I cruised by the booth later I stopped by just to shake his hand and say thank you for even taking it. A little of that kindness will go a long way, and from my pov he looked genuinely pleased (if not surprised) that he actually got a thank you.

So be NICE, listen to these guys and use this damn internet to get your name out there! That’s what it’s here for! They don’t have to be doing this, ya know?

And as an aside, Thank you Randall. Again, great column.

“Here’s the deal – these people in the position you (and I) want, and you’re not. Deal with it.”

Can’t say this is true, at least on my end. How about as a counter to not be a William Hung, how about how not to be a Simon Cowell? Both sides can share equal blame, and I understand this after being on both sides. The creative field has management who can’t begin to understand the work it takes to produce the end product. It’s easy for them to talk down to potential talent. I’m not envious of the bitter and jaded editors and art directors. Why would I want to work with someone that piles their personal baggage on me? Forget dealing with it. There are people who do understand the creative and business end. They keep a clear head, stay grounded, don’t mock, and most importantly, remain positive and open-minded. Instead of gripes, they give real constructive criticism that inspires rather than pushes away.

“I wonder how many talented people will read this and begin to doubt themselves”

This reminds me of the story about the violin student. He goes to see a famous violinist for a critique. The famous violinist asks the student to play, and after just hearing a few moments of the student playing he tells him to stop.

“You do not have the fire to be a successful violinist” the Master says.

The student goes home and puts the violin away, because he is sure the Master is right.

Years later the former student finds himself meeting up with the old Master once again. He says to the old Master, “You only heard me a few notes, but you knew I didn’t have the fire to become great. I have lived a good life and have a good job, but I have always wondered how you knew I would not succeed at the violin?”

And the Master replies, “because if you truly had the passion, nothing I said would have convinced you otherwise.”

Hey Randall, I’m not sure if you’re still reading this blog but last Wednesday you said that you would dig up the notes on my pitch and get back to me in a week. I was just wondering what the status of that was. Thanks for your time.