Over at Comic Book Resources, Tony Daniel tries to explain the recent re-emergence of the Writer/Artist at DC Comics (Daniel, David Finch, JH Williams III, Scott Kolins and Jeff Lemire being the main suspects):
For the last decade or so, the industry has been writer-driven. But as an artist, and also a writer, I know the art needs to be good inside the book. That’s what’s going to help sell the book, especially to new readers. You want them to open up the book, or see view the digital file on their mobile device or what-have-you, and say wow! This is a visual medium, first and foremost. That seems to have been forgotten.
Yes, we need great stories and great writers. But when people think comic books, they think of the characters jumping off the page. They think of amazing images, larger than life heroes and villains and details. So if you have an artist who writes well, you then have someone who has those types of creative sensibilities that could hopefully translate to a winning combination.
Firstly: Good writers can’t have creative sensibilities that allow them to take advantage of comics’ visual dominance? Secondly: Have comics really forgotten that they’re a visual medium? I’m not sure that’s even vaguely true; even just looking at the mainstream superhero market, I can think of a lot of books that are all about the art, occasionally at the expense of the writing (Hi, Thor). But nonetheless, Daniel is at least making an attempt at addressing the issue, and perhaps a look inside the mass mindset of DC editorial these days, as well.
Personally, I’d assumed that the rise of writer/artists at DC was due to both Bob Harras’ ascendance to Editor In Chief (Letting artists write worked out pretty well for him at Marvel, after all) and it being a potential carrot to use to get hot artists moving over from Marvel, where I can’t think of any writer/artists who perform both duties on the same book (Sure, they have Jeff Parker, Jonathan Hickman and other creators who do both, but almost all of them have been pushed towards one role and not both). But what do you think?
April 19th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I don’t take much stock in what Daniel says anyway. On his best days, his art is only okay, and his writing is pretty bland from what I’ve seen.
I think you’re closer to the mark with the Bob Harras hypothesis. I’d still be more inclined to believe you even if someone talented, like JH Williams III, said the same thing as Daniel.
April 19th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
He also seems to be saying that the artist sells the book over the writer: “I know the art needs to be good inside the book. That’s what’s going to help sell the book, especially to new readers.”
I guess Morrison, Johns, Bendis, etc. don’t sell books.
This looks like Daniel trying to justify himself when his own writing is average at best.
April 19th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Daniel’s argument is totally unconvincing if you ask me. If DC wanted to shift the industry focus back to art, it seems like the last thing they would do is turn their artists into writers. No?
The carrot argument seems like a much more logical explanation.
April 19th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
People won’t buy a book with good writing if it has horrible, horrible art. People will buy a book with horrible, horrible writing if it has good art.
I think that’s the gist of what he’s saying, and I think he’s right.
April 19th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
I can understand your concerns, because of the artist-dominance that created Image Comics, etc., but I don’t think this is any worse a situation than the writer controlling everything. Comics are inherently a visual medium, and the artist/writer concept goes back all the way to the beginning of comics. Consider Will Eisner, Alex Raymond, Milt Caniff, etc. – all great examples of artists who also wrote a good story. In many ways, the separation of the two roles leads to crap work just as much, as you see quite often in the overwritten scripts of Bendis and others. The writing barely seems to fit the drawings and might have been better if the artist had developed the story as well.
I enjoy seeing new voices. If that new voice is an artist – fine. If it’s a writer that desires to be an artist – that is also fine. I just want good comics, and sometimes, in order to find those great moments, you need to give creators a chance to grow and step outside of their box a bit. Consider what comics would be like today if Marvel and Dc hadn’t embraced Frank Miller’s desire to write and draw!
April 20th, 2011 at 7:52 am
How about this? Most of DC’s artists have a hard enough time staying on schedule without trying to write a book too.
April 20th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Daniel’s explanation makes no sense. The real reason it’s done is to get artists who’d otherwise have no interest in working at DC to do so. Both Marvel and DC struggle with getting “hot” artists to actually turn in their frigging work, but Marvel has a deeper talent well, so DC has to do whatever they can to keep artists like Finch/Williams/etc., on their books. What’s amazing is that guys like Scott Kollins and Tony Daniel, who are pretty mediocre, get that same treatment.