I just watched a fun little documentary film called Stripped (2014) made by David Kellett and Frederick Schroeder about comic strip creators. The film features interviews with veteran artists whose careers were born in the syndicated market as well as contemporary cartoonists whose work never graced a newspaper but instead found an audience in cyberspace. Every artist interviewed generally seemed to agree (editing notwithstanding) that the digital revolution resulted in an explosion of fresh, bold creative work in the medium and even provided a path for both new and established artists to make some kind of living in response to the shrinking newspaper market. Although Greg Evans, creator of Luan, does say that the Web is “pennies to the syndicate’s dollars,” several voices in the film did echo most, if not all, of the major talking points that critics like me tend to ascribe solely to those “tech-utopians” we like to remind our readers are not creators themselves.
These comic strip artists talked about adaptation, new models, new revenue streams, P2P relationships, the whole shebang. And I admit that I haven’t thought about comic strips in years because it’s been that long since I last spread a Sunday Times across the dining table. (Plus, I’m not really over the demise of Bloom County.) But having watched this film, it makes a certain amount of sense that the comic strip might (and I mean might) fare better in the digital age than other media. Or to look at it another way, what can work well for comic strips is instructive with regard to what does not work for other media, including of course comic books and graphic novels, which are different animals altogether.
As I say, I hadn’t thought much about this medium in this context, but several qualities unique to the comic strip do seem well suited by the new-model mantras of our times. In fact, the first image that popped into my head was one of those spreadsheets used to compare and contrast products or services. While there are always exceptions, if we’re going to consider these columns honestly in a way that reflects general rules, this is how it might look:
Each of the media listed might theoretically receive a check in every box, but I think it’s notable that comic strips seem to run the table, at least from a casual observation. Stripped also highlights a tradition of adaptation among these artists, citing the interesting fact that the comic strip as a medium was the result of a class of talented book engravers put out of work by the invention of photography. And though the digital revolution may require some adapting by the contemporary comic strip creator, it does seem less like the kind of radical and unsustainable metamorphosis our new-age gurus presume to demand of creators in other media.
Comic strips are serial in nature, traditionally change daily, and are short-form experiences, which are all attractive qualities to a Web-based audience one hopes to draw consistently to a single site. Comics are also typically produced by a single creator who almost never relies on skilled outside labor to complete the work. And because comics create unique, iconic images, they are natural foundations for potential merchandise opportunities that can become primary rather than ancillary sources of revenue. Fan interaction is, of course, possible with any medium, but based on what I gleaned from the documentary, I got the sense of a natural symbiosis between creating a daily dose of humor or poignancy and regular interaction with loyal readers.
Overall, the qualities of the comic strip that seem to complement the opportunities of the digital age also appear to make them resistant to the threat of the digital age — piracy. And I imagine comics could be relatively piracy resistant, inasmuch as there is no inherent reason a fan won’t go to an official site to see the day’s strip rather than an unlicensed site, when both options are free and equally accessible. Nevertheless, some “fans” still fail to honor artist’s requests to not repost works without permission; and predatory site owners do scrape official comics hosts just as they do with photographs, lyrics, or just about any other asset they can use to siphon web traffic that a creator has legitimately earned for herself.
This is relevant because so many of the new-model theories presuming to tell creators how they should produce and distribute their works are repeated either as justifications for piracy or as proposed workarounds to render piracy irrelevant. Yet, we continue to see that even as low-cost or free alternatives for accessing media are employed, either outright pirate sites or semi-legal predatory sites continue to hijack valuable traffic away from producers. Meanwhile, even if the comic strip artist does prove to be one of the best poised to diversify and take advantage of the digital revolution, the piracy apologists and “copyright is dead” crowd remain eager to cut off alternative revenue sources, like merchandising, which would be meaningless without a legal framework for licensing.
No question the comic strip is an interesting medium to watch, but there are a lot of assumptions floating around out there that what might work for one medium or creator will work for all others, and this simply isn’t the case.
Really interesting piece, thanks! Some rather disjointed thoughts:
I think you’re absolutely right to suggest that we really do need to recognise how dissimilar the different creative sectors can be. That isn’t to say that there’s never lessons to be drawn (I’m strongly of the view that the independent music scene could learn a lot from the comic/graphic novel convention circuit in terms of community building). But you can’t just take what works somewhere else and transplant it elsewhere. That even applies within single sectors. I don’t know as much about the comic strip side of things. But when it comes to comics/graphic novels, there’s a massive difference in the experience of working on corporate owned properties for DC or Marvel, publishing creator owned works through Image and being entirely self-publishing. (And none of those things are mutually exclusive. A lot of creators will do the “work for hire” as a way of funding their indie comics).
Even the qualities you list work very differently in the various sectors and within them. Fan interaction does exist in comics, music and film. But if someone is a big fan of Kieron Gillen (one of the bigger names in comics at the moment) and wants to meet him, all they need to do is go to a convention he’s at. He even frequently DJs the parties and is notably hungover the next day. Whereas I think it’s obvious that Orlando Bloom can’t party with his fans in the same way, even if he wanted to.
On the effects of comic strips on the Internet, I think it’s definitely the case that niche strips have been able to find an audience. Take The Order of the Stick a popular webcomic about the humourous adventures of a Dungeons & Dragons adventuring party. That wouldn’t have had a chance of getting syndicated in the old days, because the humour doesn’t appeal to a broad enough audience. Whereas these days it’s got a dedicated fanbase and a wide range of merchandise.
However, it’s important to remember that we generally hear about the success stories in these discussions. I’m sure there’s far more webcomics that aren’t even getting daily hits, let alone making their creators any money.
Speaking of merchandising, as well as the right to merchandise, I think we should also remember and respect those creators who want to exercise their right not to merchandise. That’s at least as important. Bill Watterson is one of the best known examples of that. And the bootleg merchandise there was around prior to the net. That gets really complicated when you have non creator owned properties. Alan Moore’s hatred of people adapting his creations is well known, but he doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on there because he doesn’t own most of his earlier works. (I did enjoy Watchmen, but I did feel a bit guilty watching something I knew the creator of the characters didn’t want to exist. Whether creators should have more moral rights over their work then media companies who own it is a complex and different subject though).
Finally, when it comes to fans, I think it’s valid to say that stuff seems to be settling down. There were some early teething problems, but these days non-commercial usage is being resolved in a friendly manner. Very few comics/graphic novel creators (and even owners) have an issue with cosplayers Both films and television and also authors are increasingly ok with fanfic. (Credit there goes to both sides. Authors are making clear their conditions for using their work in that way. And the most prominent fanfic communities are trying not to use any work by a creator who has said they’re opposed to fanfic). The webcomic Garfield Minus Garfield exists with Jim Davis’ full blessing. Sites like World of Spectrum are trying to contact game creators and are very good about taking down games at request. The only sector still dragging its feet is the music industry with sampling and that’s only really the major labels. So, really, I think this one is resolving itself. Too many people who write about things like fanfic are still talking as if we’re in the same position we were 15 years ago. Whereas actually it’s a success story. It shows what can be accomplished if everybody comes into the discussions assuming good faith. If any legislation is needed there (I’m still in favour of strengthening fair dealing in the UK when it comes to derivative creative works, probably through compulsory licensing. Which I know isn’t something you support!) it’s mostly going to be the minority of commercial cases where it comes into play.
Thanks, Sam. You raise many interesting subtopics as usual. Some of these crossed my mind while writing, some are new details; and it’s always good to have you add insight to these discussion. I think if we can all agree that there is no one-size-fits-all business model, then I’d like to think we can all agree that most choices remain in the hands of the producer. Unfortunately, the conversation has been led far from agreeing even to this basic premise, which gives the “other side” license to generalize about processes and businesses in which they are not engaged. I agree that fellow creators often find paths to deal with one another fairly, but of course they’re not typically the ones fouling up the discussion about rights or unlicensed uses. The conversation is too often being skewed by site owners (some huge site owners), who are just in the business of monetizing traffic.