PeterDavid.net

Glad it wasn't just me that was put in mind of the original BID and the Flame war the followed.

The interesting thing as far as I could see was that Larsen appeared to be agreeing with your original position - that he, and his ilk, hadn't beeing doing their best before and should be ashamed of themselves.

At least I think that's what he was saying.

Erik Larson, in my opinion, is one of the many undertalented creators operating in the comics field. I simply do not like his work or his attitude towards comics and those who read them. And to this end, I tell him so using the only method he understands: I do not purchase his material. Hit Hhim i the wallet, that's the only language he will ever understand.

"Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy."

Prdoucing it on a regular basis apparently plays no factor in that happiness. I guess I should lower my expectations that Savage Dragon, which is months behind schedule since its last issue, will see stands anytime soon. Maybe, like Erik, I'll change where Savage Dragon sits in my priority list.

fRed

If working on books you don't own makes you a pussy, then what is he for his Aquaman stint & attempt at doing the Hulk?

Is he a pussy, schizoid, or just being an attention whore?

Having just read his diatrabe, I think he's gone off his meds.

BTW - wasn't he "name withheld" from a few years back?

Another quote from Mr. Larson from the same article:

"So-- what's your excuse? What are you waiting for?

And it doesn't have to be a Spider-Man knock off or a Batman clone in order to make it in this market. The icons of today didn't get to be the icons of today by being copies of the icons of yesterday (okay, the Hulk was pretty much a blatant rip off of Mr. Hyde but still-- most of them weren't)."

Okay. And Savage Dragon isn't the Hulk with a big fin on his head (not that I'm the first to notice that).

See I'm kinda torn with this one. It's something that I've been discussing on one of the message boards.

I've always been a Peter David fan, but for a while there I wanted him to write something without using established characters. There was a time when the only thing out and readily available David-written was comic work, using establish characters and Star Trek novels. His original novels were all out of print. I greatly enjoyed Hulk and Supergirl and the Star Trek novels, I just wanted to see him take a crack at some original concepts. Then Sir Apropos came along and the Knight books, and everything was cool, and I was very pleased (not that any writer or creator has any calling to please me).

But then I got thinking that a world without a Mark Bagley drawn Spider-Man would not be a happy place as far as I’m concerned.

But like Peter said, do what makes you happy...

"And it doesn't have to be a Spider-Man knock off or a Batman clone in order to make it in this market. The icons of today didn't get to be the icons of today by being copies of the icons of yesterday (okay, the Hulk was pretty much a blatant rip off of Mr. Hyde but still-- most of them weren't)."

Okay. And Savage Dragon isn't the Hulk with a big fin on his head (not that I'm the first to notice that)."

I didn't even get into that because by me it was off topic, plus I didn't want discussion to dissolve into a defense of the quality of "Savage Dragon"--a title enjoyed by quite a few people.

That said, though, Larsen is dead wrong. I mean just flat out wrong. The icons of today became what they are for two reasons: Massive distribution of a low priced product, neither of which exist anymore...and the fact that they ARE copies of the icons of yesterday.

Batman is a combination of Zorro, Sherlock Holmes, and the Scarlet Pimpernel, with a dash of Mary Reinhart's "the Bat" tossed in.

Superman is George Wylie's gladiator crossed with Doc Savage, with roots going back to Hercules.

The Flash is based upon Mercury, so much so that the Golden Age Flash's costume is wearing the classic Hermes helmet.

Thor is Thor. The Justice League is a modern day version of the knights of the round table.

Then again, someone who was baffled by a villain named "Charybdis" and changed his name to "Piranha Guy" can't be expected to have much of a grasp of classic icons.

PAD

"His original novels were all out of print. I greatly enjoyed Hulk and Supergirl and the Star Trek novels, I just wanted to see him take a crack at some original concepts. Then Sir Apropos came along and the Knight books, and everything was cool, and I was very pleased (not that any writer or creator has any calling to please me)."

And you have no idea how difficult it was getting "Apropos" sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: "Peter's fans aren't interested in reading anything that's entirely his creation." I was going out of my mind. I'd get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I'd get constant e-mails from fans saying, "When are you going to write stuff that's your own work?"

PAD

I kept thinking throughout Larson's latest "wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a publishing machine in their basement? Just to produce their own work?"

Take this "logic" a step farther...why stop at just writing about your own creation? If you have to rely on some *aritst* to render your work for you, you're just slacking off. Ditto for the color. Or the binding. Or the distribution. "Using Diamond? Pfah, lazy-ass, get on your ten-speed and deliver them comics to the 5 and 10 yourself, like they used to in the old days, when comics meant something to people."

I'm sure it's nice to be one of the original Image boys, and have the clout to get the financing together to start your own publishing company. But I was really turned off by the way Larson basically slammed every fan who'd ever dreamed of getting their story for their favorite character printed.

Look at it this way...for every Raphael or Michaelangelo, there's a million guys named Bill that can copy the TMNT's brilliant works, but their own creations are just ok. And no, Larson is NOT a TMNT. He's a decent guy that lucked onto some bigger talents, and managed to get his baby printed his way. Good for him. Seeing him piss in everyone else's pools just makes him look petty.

Part of the challenge (in my mind) in taking on established characters is MAKING them your own. I'd almost want to argue that the only reason Erik Larsen went to Savage Dragon is because his takes on characters were so goddam stupid that no one either wanted to buy them, or publish them. But that would be petty. I enjoyed PAD's run on the Hulk because he approached a character I found to be intrinsically uninteresting, and made him interesting.

Let's use Alan Moore and 'Swamp Thing' as a test case. Does anyone want to argue that Moore's run on ST was NOT one of the most influential comic book runs in history? If they do, they are either fools or simply weren't paying attention. He took a very uninteresting monster book that was not created by him and made it something completely different and spectacular.

To me, taking an established character and making your run on that book so distinctive, so unusual and so superior, that you become the first name out of people's mouths when they discuss it (whether you created the character or not), then you have done something special. Who gives a damn if you created it?

(On the note of creator-owned super hero books, I have to give the highest props to Kurt Busiek and 'Astro City'. I only recently discovered this, and holy crap am I impressed. It's the "Firefly" of the super hero world.

And on the note of taking established characters who suck - ok, I realize it may just be me that hates Dr. Strange, Namor and the Silver Surfer - and making them interesting and new, I have to give props to Giffen/DeMatteis for their current run on "The Defenders." Damn, I love that book.)

"And you have no idea how difficult it was getting "Apropos" sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: "Peter's fans aren't interested in reading anything that's entirely his creation." I was going out of my mind. I'd get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I'd get constant e-mails from fans saying, "When are you going to write stuff that's your own work?"

PAD"

That totally sucks, but I can see it happening, now that you mention it.

All brown nosing aside, the name Peter David in the writer's credit pretty much assures I'll buy it.

"The icons of today became what they are for two reasons: Massive distribution of a low priced product, neither of which exist anymore...and the fact that they ARE copies of the icons of yesterday."

Yeah, what PAD said.

I'm at a loss that someone as prominent as Larson is in the comics field can be so ignorant of the actual history of the field he works in. There's a reason why new superhero creations are hard to sell...the field is saturated with icons, dervites, and "new" creations. What's a good Big Two print run these days? 100,000? And few folks buying multiple issues? That means that there's at most about 100,000 customers out there, each with bills, families, expenses, etc., meaning they each can't buy every single comic produced. It's Wednesday, you hit your LCS on your lunch break, and you see the latest X-Book, which you've been collecting since you were 12, and some brand new T-Men book. It looks neat, but your mortgage payment is coming up, so you just leave it. It may very well be the next Big Comic Thing, but you're not going to shell out anOTHer $3 to try it out, because you've been reading comics for 20 years, you know what you like, and you've pretty much seen it all in your time as a collector.

>All brown nosing aside, the name Peter David in the writer's credit pretty much assures I'll buy it.

Cool! So that means that the chances of Angel Love returning with a new series again aren't dead!

Erm... what came first?

Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?

So when he says that a creator should create their own property rather than add to someone else's creation, is that not the same path that Mr "Better than Marvel/DC writers" took?

Bobb: "Take this "logic" a step farther...why stop at just writing about your own creation? If you have to rely on some *aritst* to render your work for you, you're just slacking off. Ditto for the color. Or the binding. Or the distribution. "Using Diamond? Pfah, lazy-ass, get on your ten-speed and deliver them comics to the 5 and 10 yourself, like they used to in the old days, when comics meant something to people.""

Some people are doing a variance of just that...
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=87e21c878d3cfb385a8e66f400c2501a&threadid=447421

"The thing is-- people like new stuff. That's why Clorox Bleach keeps saying that they're new and improved. People want something new. " -- Eric Larson

And how many titles has Larson created over the last ten years that have lasted more than four issues? In fact, besides Jim Lee, how many of the original seven founders of Image are doing anything that’s turning the comics world on its ear, beyond administration? Jim Valentino is recurrently trying to resurrect his one-shot deal, Shadowhawk, Todd McFarlane still hawks his toys, and Mr. Larson pumps out his original Image title - the only title of his with any renown, but with little industry or commercial impact. What is Larson doing that’s “new and improved”?

I can appreciate the criticism that the comics industry, when it comes to the Big Two, are seeing a somewhat stagnant creative spell when it comes to superheroes stories. Mr. Larson is right that we DO need to see more blood and life in superhero stories, and more options outside of them (I'm enjoying Fables and Y: The Last Man moreso than most of Marvel's books right now). He also makes the valid point that a corporately-owned character will obviously have editorial safeguards that restrict complete freedom in terms of storytelling. But his arguments seem to stem just from this one point. And the framework for his "encouragement" is so aggressive and inappropriately self-exclusive, considering his unimpressive resume in comics in general and especially in being a force in keeping comics innovative.

Mr. Larsen also seems neglectful of a predisposition for superhero comics -- they sell better. So creators, even ones who have good creator-owned ideas, often take work with the Big Two just to build up some "street cred" before they introduce a new, unsolicited product into the market (and yes, a lot of people make it to the Big Two by reversing the order, but that's a harder battle). Working for a major publisher is also a way to learn some of the kicks of the industry before jumping into the water feet first. This need to strategize may be a bit calculated, but that doesn't make it less of a need. After all, all seven Image founders were originally Marvel artists. There was nothing that stopped them from entering the comics in the creative-owned marketplace.

As well, many professional artists in the field HAVE to take their lead from the writer -- that doesn't preclude one from developing as a writer if they have such an inclination, but if the artist doesn't, then working on Batman or working on a creator-owned product is pretty much the same job when sitting at the art table. However, drawing and writing are two different disciplines, and some of the Image boys took some well-deserved shots for thinking that being a good artist entitled them to a "pass" on the other side of the creative process.

Ultimately, creating a character is only the first step in creating a lasting piece of art. There are story events, character progressions, narrative expression, insightful commentaries on life and numerous other ingredients that go into crafting a good story. Being there for step one does not allow one to presume the rest will follow, nor does NOT originating the character exclude one from creating seminal pieces of work (Frank Miller, one of Mr. Larson's examples, has done it twice).

As a personal note to Mr. Larson, I would say, “Stop telling everyone how to do it, and show us how instead.”

Oh, and, “Be nice.”

I just read Larsen's article, and I have this to say...

Is he fucking insane?!

Every single iconic hero out there is based on some legend hero in the past. Most of them stem from the Greek Gods. The figures they represent come from classic stories told long ago.

Secondly, to berate newcomers in the biz because "they don't have they're own work" is clearly asinine. These people grew up reading Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, and the mainstreams. They didn’t grow up reading Savage Dragon. The broke into a rough business, because the companies that owned the characters thought that their work was good enough to represent these characters.

Personally, I think Mr. Larsen's ego is getting a little too big. Ya know, I picked up the first few issues of Savage Dragon. They sucked. It (and Spawn), solidified my opinion that artists of that caliber cannot write worth squat. I paraphrase John Lasseter here when I say, “Pretty pictures are worthless without a good story to back them up.” It’s all about the story, not how well the character is drawn. Savage Dragon is Erik Larson’s baby all right. No arguing that. Will he be a classic icon? Never. A hundred years from now, kids will see a picture of him, and say, “When did the Hulk get a fin on his head?”

Sorry Erik, you just don’t have it.

Peter (et al), let me bounce this back and see if I understand correctly: You're saying Erik Larsen's attitude--and message--is childish, aggressive, devisive, narrow, and unsupportive?

When I read his column I had mixed feelings: I support the pep-talk encouraging creators and artists to strive to be their best, but I don't think that requires that they disassociate themselves with corporate comics. By the end of his column it felt more like a rant than an observation, certainly not "fair and balanced." It sounded to me like an ultimatum: Do it one way or you suck. And any time I'm confronted with an ultimatum--in conversation--it's a turn-off. Life is far more complex and beautiful than to be stuffed into a single format.

It is no small thing to congratulate someone for coming in last place, if they have tried. I believe Erik said something about "better to have loved . . ." But is sounds to me like he's being mighty strict about they kind of love one is allowed to enjoy.

But, though his tone is too confrontational, and his condemnation is not shared by me, I do read a truth resonating in that particular diatribe. It's just surrounded by a little too much evangalism.

Do good.

For some people, to do good means to strive for purity, for others it means something else. I think Erik clearly made his point that he favors a kind of purity in comics production. I do not think he's "justified" to piss on anyone else, but he doesn't need my approval. I support that it's his column and I'll simply discard the bits I don't like.

I can't help but think he's got a point, but it's obscured by his aggression. Too bad, because otherwise it could be a good motivating columnn. Instead it's just a rant by a guy with some authority.

Nice rebuttle PAD.

And you have no idea how difficult it was getting "Apropos" sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: "Peter's fans aren't interested in reading anything that's entirely his creation."

Sometimes, I seriously have to wonder if the publishing industry doesn't know what's good for them. :)

I keep seeing the same thing (when the subject comes up) from Raymond Feist - people ask if he'll do something other than Riftwar, whether it's fantasy or sci-fi or whatever. And he keeps having to reply that, even if he wanted to write something else, his publisher isn't very interested.

That comment about Ray Feist is too bad. I really enjoyed "Faerie Tale".

And to bring things full circle...

Here is the article about Peter's new wholly-original concept - the one that got Peter to visit CBR - at the following link:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=5969

Well, at least Larsen didn't "withhold" his name this time...

Justin

What Larsen is saying isn't so much as "don't write for others" as much as it is "don't write for others all the time and get one of your ideas and concepts out there if only to say that you have your own ideas or that your ideas are still good without any higher up editorial input." Can't say i can argue with that.

Don't get me wrong, for me Peter's run on Supergirl is my holy grail of comics but its great to see that with Fallen Angel and other such titles he's able to work without the helping hand of playing on past continuity and ideas. With Fallen Angel Peter created a new universe in which he could play with as opposed to Supergirl where he had to follow the guidelines the DCU lays down and that is far more impressive than just writing another mainstream comics story.

J.K. Woodward:
"So in the first arc, we'll be revealing that the Fallen Angel is, in fact, Supergirl and…wait, that's not quite right."

It was great to hear someone else talk about Fallen Angel with the same enthusiasm as PAD. The article about Woodward and IDW Editor-in-Chief Chris Ryall was a great behind-the-scenes take. Thanks for pointing out the story.

Re: Larsen

I wonder who exactly he's talking about. Artists, I suppose, back on his whole "artists don't need writers" kick. Because most of the big name writers at Marvel and DC do have creator-owned titles (Bendis, Millar, Rucka) or projects (Winick). Art, on the other hand, is much more time-consuming. And while Bendis can write five-plus comics a month, Mark Bagley can only do one and a half issues of Ultimate Spider-Man (which is really a remarkable pace).

Erik Larsen's definition of quality is "do it all yourself." Thankfully Larsen decided to work in the comics field instead of bridge construction.

What Larsen is saying isn't so much as "don't write for others" as much as it is "don't write for others all the time and get one of your ideas and concepts out there if only to say that you have your own ideas or that your ideas are still good without any higher up editorial input." Can't say i can argue with that.

I need clarification on that point, as the grammar is a bit confusing. Do you mean to say that his point is simply "Don't only create for others, thereby sacrificing your own creative impulses?" Because it sure didn't read that way to me. It read as "If you only work on characters that are owned by someone else, you're a pussy, creatively bankrupt, and I fart in your general direction." Which is his prerogative. However, I think it's a shallow and misguided comment.

I think Larsen has a point. Look at all these new people taking over some of the key Marvel characters. Like that guy Straczynski who's been writing Spider-Man and recently took over Fantastic Four. Or somebody named Whedon who's just muscled in on X-Men. If these guys had any real talent, why don't they try creating their own characters, maybe for film or television? And I just read about some guy named Damon Lindelof, who's going to be writing Ultimate Wolverine vs. Hulk. I gotta tell ya, all these newcomers leave me a little bit, well, lost.

There are two very good reasons for working for the big companies on established characters:
1) It puts food on the table for a new artist. If nobody knows who you are, it's going to be very hard to market your creator-owned work. There are some great places to pitch self-created stuff, but previous work is going to open up the doors, and self-publishing will kill you before you ever get an audience
2) It's fun. I've read plenty of 'big' artists and writers say, "I'd love a chance to work on Superman" or "Batman would be my first choice when I my exclusive contract with Marvel runs out."

And truly, the same thing exists in the TV world. Read Stracyznski's decade of rants of how hard it was to pitch Babylon 5, and that was after a significant career on prime time dramas. That's about the closest metaphor, but even there, a TV producer doesn't own his show.
\

I wonder… are all those writers for soap operas and sitcoms and Star Trek and CSI also "pussies" (and such) for writing stuff owned by someone else rather than creating stuff they own themselves?

I can't take Larsen seriously. His sole noteworthy claim to originality is a working-class Hulk with a fin on his head.

He can come back and rant when he's done some original work that's actually interesting.

I was pretty unimpressed with Larsen's article, as well.

"Erm... what came first?

Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?"

Savage Dragon, as part of Graphic Fantasy, a self-publishing venture. Pick your potshots more carefully. You went pretty wide on that one.

I just noticed that I said "George Wylie" was the creator of Gladiator. Don't know where I got that from; it's Phillip Wylie. Which I probably misspelled, but at least I'm not saying it's George anymore.

"Angel Love?" That wasn't me. I write "Fallen Angel."

PAD

Posted by: Greg O. at September 30, 2005 05:57 PM

' "Erm... what came first?

Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?"

Savage Dragon, as part of Graphic Fantasy, a self-publishing venture. Pick your potshots more carefully. You went pretty wide on that one.'

Of course, the Graphic Fantasy was a limited venture before, using Mr. Larsen's terminology, he became a "pussy" and headed to Marvel for a couple of years before returning and revamping the more commonly recognized incarnation of Savage Dragon for Image.

If anything, the chronology of events damns Larsen more than exonerates him -- if he was truly the bastion of dedication he presented as the ideal in his article, he never would have abandoned his creation in the first place. Also, the fact that Larsen basically recreated the character (not the visual of the character) from scratch is a strong indication that no one was expected to associate (or even acknowledge) the current Dragon character with the prototype incarnation. (After all, when Larsen was younger, he once imagined Dragon as being a rage-induced alter ego).

Therefore, John W's comment falls more into the "not aware of a trivial detail of a trivial publication." The context of his statement is still pretty valid, and Larsen's hyprocrasy still radiant.

Oh my. Shades of (the lead-up to) Comicfest '93! Peter, warn me next time before you give me nostalgia whiplash. :)

I think what gets me about this whole thing (and what drove me to flippancy a short while ago. And, as it turns out, not even original flippancy) is that Larsen's work, by and large, ISN'T very original. At all. He pretty much just apes all the dumb tropes from the big guys, with characters that are obviously derivative. It's not like he's been writing something like "Powers" or "Astro City" here.

In a lot of ways, I'd have to say he's a stellar example of everything that's WRONG with superhero comics these days -- whether he's working for DC or Image: flat, uninventive stories without much sense of care or joy in them, and art that's not any fun to look at.

I'm with knuckles on this one. If I had one chance to write a comic book that would serve as an example of what I could do, I certainly would not write an established character. It's hard to write a good story under any circumstances, but what advantages does a company owned book bring? You have to work with established continuity, characters that have been around for decades, and it's all under the magnifying glass of a fan base that will jump ugly on you if the character so much as thinks something that contradicts anything done since the dawn of time...

Forget that. It's much easier to work with your own world. I know that Allan Moore will impress me with any book he writes but his Superman 2-part story blew me away, something I didn't think would ever happen with a character that old.

Now, the fame and rewards are probably easier to achieve with a company book but Larson's point still fails. As good as Fallen Angel and Maddrox were, I'm more impressed with what PAD has done with Hulk because at th1s point it takes real talent to show us something new on Hulk.

Wow. I must have read something different. I'm pretty sure Erik was aiming the article to the more seasoned professionals who don't create anything new. He's wondering were the new Hulks, spidermans, and Batmans, and Wolverines are.

People like Kirkman are great on Marvel Team Up, but on Invincible he stuff absolutely shines. Bendis' Avengers is great, but Powers absolutely rules. I think if some more of the pros out there gave creator owned stuff a shot we would have some kick ass comics.

Peter
I have a few thoughts on the subject
having just and i do mean just breaking into the field of comics i have 1 dream
to write a wonder woman story
ive been doing the creator own stuff for years and years i like doing that so much but to be part of the book that started my love of comics that would fill me with a entirly different kind of joy
pardon the typos and what not as i tend to write as i think being disabled it takes me awhile

Wow. I must have read something different. I'm pretty sure Erik was aiming the article to the more seasoned professionals who don't create anything new. He's wondering were the new Hulks, spidermans, and Batmans, and Wolverines are.

People like Kirkman are great on Marvel Team Up, but on Invincible he stuff absolutely shines. Bendis' Avengers is great, but Powers absolutely rules. I think if some more of the pros out there gave creator owned stuff a shot we would have some kick ass comics.

Er, those examples sorta undermine the point, donnit? For one thing, the company work post dates the original work. For another, the move to the company work has served in a lot of ways to increase sales of the creator owned work. For third, these folks are doing BOTH kinds of work....

I think it's just plain stupid of him to call people who want to work on company owned characters, Pussies. I mean like PAD said. if you enjoy writing Daredevil or Spider-man or Batman. Then more power to ya. Do what you enjoy. If you enjoy creating new things. Then go for it. He really has no right to say everybody is a pussy who worked or works on company owned characters. He's also calling himself a pussy. His work on Spider-man, Aquaman, and him wanting to do work on the Hulk. He's just being childish and stupid.

"Er, those examples sorta undermine the point, donnit? For one thing, the company work post dates the original work. For another, the move to the company work has served in a lot of ways to increase sales of the creator owned work. For third, these folks are doing BOTH kinds of work...."

I don't understand... I don't remember reading where Erik wrote anything about doing only one or the other(working at Marvel/DC vs. creator owned). He's pushing creators to add something new of their own. He NEVER stated that you shouldn't aim for trying to work at the big two. I believe he was just saying that the pros should aim for more than just that.

Even more ridiculous, Larsen's argument -- which seems to be that stories written for others' characters are merely painting by numbers and not contributing anything creative or original -- is couched in such broad terms that it implicitly encompasses writing for any sort of franchise.

By his logic, no one other than Gene Roddenberry added a unique creative vision to Star Trek -- and you can totally tell because episodes like "Darmok" and "The Inner Light" are sooo cliched and overdone by the franchise; Vince Gilligan's take on Mulder and Scully is in no way different from Chris Carter's, which is why "Bad Blood" is such a shoddy substitute for Carter's genius; Jane Espenson's portrayal of Jonathan in "Superstar" (BtVS) means nothing because she was only writing Joss's characters; and so on.

...right.

From PAD:
"Erik Larsen ... scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own -- which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc."

Erik does attack people who don't own their own characters, but I think he's more upset that people don't create new characters in the first place. That's why he praises Lee, Kirby, Ditko and company; they created new characters. Erik even gives the old-timers an excuse for not owning their creations. "Years back you couldn't do your own stuff. The major companies had a stranglehold on the industry and there weren't any viable alternative." (That's actually open to debate, but that's another thread.)

On the other hand, I was amused to see Erik say this: "There are thousands of stories that will never be told. Thousands of characters that will never be created ... so we can have more stories of Aquaman." He seems to be criticizing people for doing what he himself did.

It's also interesting to see this from the guy who wiped out your Aquaman work: "It is a drag when the next creative team comes along and ignores everything you set up or undoes it all."

David Seidman

Well, what is the old saw about opinions and body parts? Larsen is certainly entitled to his - the column has been entertaining for the most part and truthfully I think he’s going out of his way to be controversial in it - so, that being said I take away what I read with a grain of salt.

It’s not a news feature as much as Larsen’s Soapbox. I’m not defending his statements in this case and I think you’ve cited a few arguments which wind up being glossed over today on any discussion of the industry (price point and distribution).

Larsen doesn’t strike me as any less opinionated than let’s say for example Jim Shooter or Bill Jemas for what it’s worth.

So to recap, using the Larsen theorum:
Alan Moore on Swamp Thing and Miracleman: Pussy

Frank Miller on Daredevil and Dark Knight: Pussy

Neil Gaiman on Sandman (rethink of an established DC character), Books of Magic, Black Orchid and 1602: Pussy

Chris Claremont on The New X-Men: Pussy

Roy Thomas and Barry Smith on Conan: Pussies

Walt Simonson on Thor: Pussy

Yeah, I can see that he's got a point there.

>"Angel Love?" That wasn't me. I write "Fallen Angel."

>PAD

I know. I was responding to the poster who said that he'd buy any title with your name attached to it. I figured Angel Love was more fun than using Slapstick.

Fred

I'm no fan of Larsen, but it seems like a lot of people are missing his point. Alan Moore DID create his own stuff (ABC, Watchmen, V For Vendetta). Frank Miller did Sin City. Walt Simonson had Star Slammers.

His point isn't that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table.

"I'm no fan of Larsen, but it seems like a lot of people are missing his point. Alan Moore DID create his own stuff (ABC, Watchmen, V For Vendetta). Frank Miller did Sin City. Walt Simonson had Star Slammers.

His point isn't that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table."

AMEN. I begining to think people are ignoring the point just to bash Erik. Why aren't other people getting it?!?

I admit I don't get to as many shows as I would like. And I have met/talked to very few PROS. But of the two being discussed here--One was very nice to me, listened/talked with me, and gave me an experience I will never forget. He Is My Favorite 'Pro'. I still buy/enjoy his work. His name is PAD.

I have never agreed with anything that Erik Larson has said in the past. Every time I have read one of his opinions all I could do was shake my head. Then a little while ago he said that George Perez draws crap and was overrated and untalented. It was then that I knew Erik was a moron. So this column doesn't surprise me one bit.

"His point isn't that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table."

No, his point is that anyone who is happy to be doing Spider-Man and/or Superman and isn't aspiring to anything beyond that is gutless.

Not only do I think that one has to be a considerable dick to go around insulting people simply because they're doing what they love, but the point is also completely wrong. I worked on the Hulk for over a decade. Am I to understand that in the course of all those issues, I never brought "anything new to the table?" Never provided fresh or different perspectives on the Hulk? Never changed the character, explored new sides to him? Never introduced any new characters? Where are the new Wolverines? Wolverine was created AS AN OPPONENT FOR THE HULK.

Erik's doesn't have a point. He has a false premise: That anyone who is working exclusively in an ongoing series with a pre-existing character is not contributing anything of value or worth...that they are cowards...and that, for some reason, they should feel compelled to prove their worth to Erik Larsen by--let's just say it--producing work that Image can publish, lest they continue to be pussies.

All of this is not true. It is historically not true. It is demonstrably not true. And it is insultingly not true.

PAD

Very well said. Bravo.

I just took a very unscientific poll. I went back to the bar I just left and asked everyone there "Who is Peter David?". Most people yelled out the writer of the Hulk.(A few said Sachs & Violens, Fallen Angel. Some even said Star Trek) I was surprised considering the people I hang out with. I then asked "Who is Erik Larson?"--Total Silence.

BID> In the 3rd Spider-Man Movie--I just heard that Hayden-Church will be playing the Sandman and Topher Grace will be playing Venom. If this is true, my niece--my four year old niece-- should be able to kick Venom's ass

Heheh, I knew Larsen's column would prove to be worth it for the trainwrecks alone.

Has anyone pointed out that most of his characetrs are thinly veiled analogues of famous characters yet? His Captain Marvel rip off even LOOKED like a blond Captain Marvel, Jr.

Nothing much to add to what Peter has already said so well...but it occurs to me that one of the reasons that comics are still in the cultural ghetto as far as most are concerned is that too many of the creators act like high schoolers. I'm sure that there are film directors and other movie folk who in their hearts are just as much of a dick as Mr Larson but most of them are smart enough to keep it to themselves. Off the top of my head, I can only recall Sean Penn doing something similar--slamming Nicholas Cage for not taking enough challenging roles, or something equally idiotic. And the near universal reaction was "Shaddup, punk!"

If this were coming from someone of significant accomplishment it would be easier to take seriously, though I'd still disagree. From Eric Larson? I have no personal beef with the guy but his work has never elicited strong feelings either way from me. If you're going to throw around insults at your peers you had better make sure that most of them aren't your betters.

Dave: Well, considering that Venom will have to be just about entirely CG anyway, having Topher Grace as Eddie Brock could work if they make him an Anti-Peter as well as an Anti-Spider-Man. If it's true.

Sorry for perpetuating a digression. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...

-Rex Hondo-

"His point isn't that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table."

Even if this is his point - just who is he talking about? I've been through a list of writers that I follow and I can't think of a single one who hasn't been involved in producing a wholly original piece of work (in as much as such a thing can truly exist). He brought up DC's Countdown in his examples, but every writer involved in that have had their own creator-owned projects.

While I agree with the overall sentiment that there is and should be more to comics than superhero properties, I think Larsen's taking pot shots at imaginary tigers.

You really have to be appalled at how unintelligent Larsen’s reasoning is. Because someone may have not left behind a creator-owned character like he has, then all one has done is “a few pretty pictures” or “some fill-in issues” or “a cool cover or two”. To him “an impressive run on a title” is not good enough. No, the only measuring stick by which a creator’s career can be judged worthy is by having created a creator-owned character. You really have to admire the lengths one has to go to to come up with this type of fallacious reasoning.

Apparently it doesn’t occur to Erik that the vast majority of creators simply do not experience the type of hyped-up adulation that he and the Image Founders received in the last decade, and that because the industry is so different today that that sort of artist celebrity doesn’t exist right now, it is unlikely that anyone might do so again, so he’s pretty lucky that he enjoyed that. The fact of the matter is that Erik and the other Image guys were lucky that they were in the industry at a time when they could sell anything they put their names on, and it is for that reason that Image and their books worked. It’s idiotic to say that anyone else today would necessarily get the same assurance of success. He seems to be under the impression that everyone should create a Savage Dragon or whatever. Never mind that many, if not most artist, genuinely have no interest in writing, but merely want to be a part of the storytelling process by illustrating a writer’s stories (I am reminded of Harrison Ford’s comments that he has no interest in directing, just working with good ones himself). It simply doesn’t dawn on Larsen that some creators simply aren’t interested in reinventing the wheel, but feel genuine enjoyment in being a part of a good story.

His profane, judgmental attitude towards those who have taken a different career path than he has—something that most creators do not have as much control over as he had—and his insulting statement that those who do work for hire need to “grow up” is simply mind boggling in its ignorance and its arrogance.

Yeah, Erik, you really created something new. Between your total ignorance of anatomy, your inept use of cross-hatching, and your oh-so mature renditions of female characters with watermelon breasts and bee-stung lips, you’re a regular Leonardo Da Vinci.

Michael Brunner: BTW - wasn't he "name withheld" from a few years back?
Luigi Novi: Yes. He admitted so in the letter pages of The Savage Dragon.

I have a theory. After whatever power struggle resulted in putting Larsen at the top of Image, how has the company done? Didn't he talk about bringing in new and different books? Was he able to pull that off? I honestly don't know, a lot of what Image publishes doesn't interest me and over the years, it has seemed like they start with fanfare and then disappear quietly.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is struggling to get people to bring their books to Image. Too many have gone to Image and then left when it didn't work out as advertised. And I can't imagine that little things like keeping deadlines are a source of strife at Image.

Let me come to Mr. Larsen's defense (not that he needs me). Yes, he worked in mainstream comics before moving to Image, and yes he continues to occasionally do a few mainstream titles. However, his principal craetive focus for the last 12 years has been his Savage Dragon comic, which he writes, draws, and inks himself. I've read all 100 plus issues, and it's a very enjoyable comic. It's also one of the longest creative runs on a comic (next to of course, Dave Sim's Cerebus).

As an Image creator and publisher, he has been welcoming of new and talented creators to his company, including Erik (Age of Bronze) Shanower, Rob Kirkman, Brian Bendis, and Warren Ellis. While Image might have started out as a mainstream superhero company, it has certainly evolved into more than that.

Now, should he be criticizing creators that spend their life working for the big 2? Probably not. However, I think both Erik and Peter in a way are in their own way trying to encourage writers and artists to think outside the box and create more innovative comics.

I've enjoyed Erik's Dragon and was especially interested to see where the current Dragon /Bush/Kerry election storyline *Did I mention it was late? ;)* was going.

Erik as always come across as very reactionary though, when I originally read this piece, I had to wonder whether he was simply attempting to stir things up, hoping to get a number of responses from pros..... maybe to draw more to Image? It came across as a poor man's Quesada statment, which is pretty damn poor.

Fred

Appropriate that Larsen's column is called "One Fan's opinion.

Appropriate because he's a prime example that a great fan does not necessarily a great creator make.

Clearly, he does (to use his own words) "understand the desire to clutch on to the security of a guaranteed page rate." Yet, clearly, he himself is not above (again, using his own words) "sucking on the corporate tit" occasionally.

These are the first words of Larsen's I've read in years, be it "opinion" column or a comic. And, it reminded me why that is. I think I'm good for another few years without them.

You see this is why I hate traversing the internet. It’s broken my fan boy heart to learn that the talented people that brought me some well incredible, incredible hulk stories aren’t the best of friends.

Anyway I think this issue is part of a larger one which is that comic book fans and or comic book retailers don’t support books that shy away from the Superhero genre. Even if a comic book creator wants to create his or her own universe the market place provides no real incentive for them to do so. In the five years I have returned to reading comic books I have seen really great books as well as really great companies die due a lack of interest from comic book fans. Until the average person who reads both Batman and Spider-man starts picking up books like Fallen Angel the comic book medium will never move beyond decades old characters wearing spandex.

The only solid point Erik has ever made was the one at the end of his drawing pencil.

So what if a guy doesn't feel any great need to go out and recreate the wheel? I grew up with guys ached to break into comics with every shred of their being. You know what most of them wanted to do? They wanted to write or draw the next great Batman or Spider-Man story. They wanted to play in the heads of the charecters that they grew up reading and enjoying themselves.

It's not a bad thing. It's not even a comic book thing. How many actors talk about not feeling that thay've made it until they do Shakespeare at one of the major stages in England or some other major show on Broadway. Why is that so different then a comic writer saying that he really won't feel that he's made it until he writes (fill in the blank) at the big two?

PAD wrote:

> Thor is Thor.

Well, damn. And here I thought he was Raoul the Talking Cat.

>All of this is not true. It is historically not true. It is demonstrably not true. And it is insultingly not true.

And that, my dear sir, is absolutely true. I find it interesting that anyone who gets paid writing (which is what I am more interested in than anything else) is degraded because they do work for hire.
Hey, getting paid for writing? That's a dream gig. As far as I'm concerned.
I sorta do understand what Mr. Larsen is trying to do, but at the same time he did it badly.

- T

Yes.

The comics industry would be much better off if Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Mike Mignola, Erik Larsen, Jim Lee, Todd McFarland, Paul Chadwick, Colleen Doran, Kyle Baker, Warren Ellis, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, Dave Sim, Dave Gibbons, Brian K. Vaughan, Carla Speed McNeil, Jeff Smith, Terry Moore, Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Sergio Aragones and Peter David only worked on company owned characters for their entire career.

Bring Back Zot: Let me come to Mr. Larsen's defense (not that he needs me). Yes, he worked in mainstream comics before moving to Image, and yes he continues to occasionally do a few mainstream titles. However, his principal craetive focus for the last 12 years has been his Savage Dragon comic, which he writes, draws, and inks himself.
Luigi Novi: The issue is not really whether or not Erik has done that. The issue is whether those who have not done this are “pussies,” “pathetic” “cowards” or in need of “growing up,” as he asserted in his column.

Bring Back Zot: Now, should he be criticizing creators that spend their life working for the big 2? Probably not. However, I think both Erik and Peter in a way are in their own way trying to encourage writers and artists to think outside the box and create more innovative comics.
Luigi Novi: It is the height of euphemism to refer to his insulting and condescending column as “encouragement.”

Whatever otherwise legitimate points Erik ever has is usually overshadowed by the utterly unprofessional and anti-intellectual language and fallacious reasoning with which he conveys it, whether it’s the irrelevant letter in Wizard with which he responded to David Michelenie’s assertion that he was the sole creator of Venom, or his ridiculous Name Withheld letters in CBG, or this newest incoherent rant of his.

Jerry C: So what if a guy doesn't feel any great need to go out and recreate the wheel?
Luigi Novi: Hmmm…now that sounds familiar…. :-)

PAD,
I think history has proven all this true. Image comics bombed horribly and can now be found in 2 for a dollar bins whereas PAD stuff is continually being reprinted in trade paperbacks to support demand.
Matt

"Yes.

The comics industry would be much better off if Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Mike Mignola, Erik Larsen, Jim Lee, Todd McFarland, Paul Chadwick, Colleen Doran, Kyle Baker, Warren Ellis, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, Dave Sim, Dave Gibbons, Brian K. Vaughan, Carla Speed McNeil, Jeff Smith, Terry Moore, Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Sergio Aragones and Peter David only worked on company owned characters for their entire career."

You miss a key point here. No one is saying that you should only work the big two and never work your own gig. The argument with Erik's statements is that there is nothing wrong with or nothing lesser about anyone who wishes to do so. I love some of the great work done by all those guys on their own creations. I've loved many of the projects that they did for the big two as well.

Hello Peter and everyone,

I just wanted to commend you on the work you've done so far. I picked up a copy of "The Hulk" today because I wanted an example to follow while I write my own first novelization of a movie (for money!). Any pointers, references or advice? If anything at all, thanks for a point of contact with this site!

mj

Eric Larson was very lucky - he followed a very succesful McFarlane on Spiderman, where his similar style and a decent run got him good publicity in time for the founding of Image. Now, point is - I recall just after Image was founded it had made a big deal out of creators rights and offered other creators a place for their expression. This led to a number of others taking up the challenge and creating their own concepts for image... only to be uncerimoniously turned away! One of these was Jerry Ordway with his 'Wildstar' character, if a genuine talent like Ordway could be spurned by Image what exactly does that say?!

If the world was as simple as Larsdon makes out everyone would be creating their own characters... It's a very old and cynical argument.

"Jerry C: So what if a guy doesn't feel any great need to go out and recreate the wheel?
Luigi Novi: Hmmm…now that sounds familiar…. :-)"

Yeah. But I meant that it's fine with me if a guy wants to write Superman rather then going out and creating his own Superman clone. If you want to write Captain America then do it. Don't turn out a book that is Captain America with a different name but a script that only requires a name change to be printed as CA. I, and many others, won't waste our time on cheap clones of icons that we like. Dig?

Wow...
I've heard that kind of "if you don't do things the way I like things being done" thing forever down here, where we do not have a comic book industry. Nice to know where our guys are getting it.
I will never understand the need to bash on people working in other people's characters. As someone else said, Frank Miller's Dark Night Returns is still one of Batman's finest stories, and we can put examples out all night if we want. And sure, some completely original books out there are awesome too (I'm in love with The Walking Dead right now, although it's not exactly completely original). Why Larsen can't see that the two things aren't mutually exclusive?
If he was ranting about people copying scripts that were done before, I would understand it. Even if he was ranting about people not reading original characters because they're too busy reading whatever the Big Two are putting out, I would understand it.
But his whole rant sounds more like "You're not producing the comic books I want to read, so you're not worthy" than anything else. It's really pathetic.

Just to clarify, only the writer, artist/writers are the people Erik was refering to, correct? Because if not it seems unfair to call all of the artist who couldn't write them selves out of a wet paper bag cowards And what about the inkers? Having finally gotten achieved my dream and gotten a work for hire job inking a comic for a company thats about to spring into existance, am I a coward? incedently the comic I'm inking is called Bullet Time written by Steve Forbes and penciled by Dave Simons. I must say Daves art is awesome. Is Dave a coward for working on this title? It's differnt, not established characters, but written by Steve. Sigh. Maybe Erik is just one of those people who get pissed off if someone is happy and doing what they love. We all know people like that.

JAC

Eh, I think Erik just wanted attention, pure and simple. That's why he worked to create an opinion he knew would piss people off, and express it in as crude and offensive a way as possible. He wanted people talking about him, and the simplest way to do that is say something stupid and infflamitory.

I mean, look how well it worked for Bill Bennett...

Okay, I went and read Larsen's little rant.

In my own relatively-unbiased opinion (as in I had never heard this man's name before, and am only vaguely familiar with the character he's so proud of), he is so full of shit it's turned his roots muddy-brown.

Is Ronald D. Moore a "pussy", a "coward", because the situations and characters he's dealing with on Battlestar Galactica were originally created by Glen Larson, back in the '70s? All he's done is completely rewrite the backstory, and explore the darkness potential in their situation (oh, and change the gender on some of the characters - big whoop) - but since he didn't make the characters up out of whole cloth, I guess the past season-and-a-half is nothing to be proud of later, whereas Joss Whedon's Western-thinly-disguised-as-space-opera is some great original work, because at least Joss invented the characters, or at least pressed the templates into action himself...

Now, for those of you who just started slavering and cutting that last phrase for pasting, I'm not saying that enjoying Firefly is some sort of sign of great moral degradation, or anything - but I think we can agree that BSG is markedly better as science fiction, and as television, despite the fact that the original (sucky) concept was someone else's.

Similarly, from what little I've seen of this "Savage Dragon", while the character conception may be Larsen's own, I'd have to say that for sheer originality and skill of writing, it's not a patch on PAD's "Tempest Fugit" storyline. PAD may not have created the Hulk, but in those few issues, he made the character his own once again.

For that matter, does Larsen's rant mean that if one creates a character, but cedes control to the publishing company (not an uncommon arrangement, as I understand it), one is no longer creating? Are the characters PAD created in "X-Factor" somehow lessened in originality because the company owns them, rather than PAD himself?

As for myself, I can't draw, ink, or write to save my life. The only original characters I've created in comic-style are for role-playing games like "Champions" (Frostfire, the Target, Mass, Wetware). Since they were original, from out of the interior of muh own haid, does that make them somehow inherently superior to, for instance, PAD's run on "Aquaman"? I don't think so...

Okay, my first thought upon reading Larsen's
"article" was that he really shouldn't be writing things to be posted on the internet when he's that drunk.

But, I noticed something else on the comicbookresources page which might help explain Larsen's rant: Angel Medina, penciler of Spawn, has just signed an exclusive deal with Marvel. Larsen does expicitly deride those involved the "'Big Two's corporate pissing contest" (and to be fair, that's not an entirely inaccurate characterization of the "exclusives" battle). Image's chief may just have gone off because he's mad at losing talent to a rival company.

And while there may be a point to be made that SOME individual comic writers/artists/etc. should try harder, Larsen's blanket condemnations are so over-the-top as to be useless. And, while I'm not offended by the use of most "bad words", his "bullshit"s, "fucking"s, "fat ass"es, and "pussy"s aren't exactly conducive to making his point in an essay for a professional site. Further, to quote the man:

"And sure, you can find a publisher who will pay you a paycheck to do your creator-owned project for their company, and they'll take a big hunk of your ownership and the rights, but you'll still have your security blanket to cling to.

You big baby.

Why don't you get off your fat ass and do something?"

He's NOT just saying that creators should also create their own original concepts. That isn't good enough for him; that's not what he's arguing for.

On the positive side, I was able to read a good Fallen Angel article ... albiet one with an alarming headline. Reading it termed a "mini-series" was worrysome - but, to quickly assure anyone who may not have read the piece yet, there are several references to story arcs, and by the end of the article, it is stated that, presuming good sales, IDW intends to publish Fallen Angel for as long as PAD wants to write it. So, cool.

"Yes.

The comics industry would be much better off if Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Mike Mignola, Erik Larsen, Jim Lee, Todd McFarland, Paul Chadwick, Colleen Doran, Kyle Baker, Warren Ellis, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, Dave Sim, Dave Gibbons, Brian K. Vaughan, Carla Speed McNeil, Jeff Smith, Terry Moore, Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Sergio Aragones and Peter David only worked on company owned characters for their entire career. "

and i'll miss you most of all, straw man.

Speaking of blanket statements ...

Jonathan (the other one) wrote:

"but I think we can agree that BSG is markedly better as science fiction, and as television, [than Firefly] despite the fact that the original (sucky) concept was someone else's."

I've tried to watch the new Battlestar Galactica several times. It's never been able to hold my interest for more than a couple of minutes.

Now, as far as whether "Firefly" or "Battlestar" is "better" science fiction, I won't necessarily debate that with you (though when/if you see
"Serenity", it may be more SF than you expect ...). I do have a good amount of science fiction novels among the books on the bookshelf beside me (though many of them are more Robert Heinlein than "way out in deep space totally driven by theoretical concepts and devices" type-SF). And I have seen a great deal of the Star Treks - I would probably buy some Deep Space Nine seasons if they weren't $100 a pop, while I still find some of TNG, mainly most of the first season, pretty unwatchable. And, Star Wars has been a MAJOR part of my imagination since I was a kid [No, I wasn't named after Skywalker - I came first; and he's not really one of my favorite characters, either :)] - though Lucas himself doesn't call it "science fiction". But I'm not drawn to shows or films, at least at this stage in my life, just because they're SF. You may very well have more of a background in science fiction, and/or thoughts on what "real" SF is, than I, so I'll conceed that point to you if you want.

But please don't presume to speak for me and say that your BSG is "markedly better television" than Firefly. IMHO, the latter show is filled with compelling and endearing characters and interesting situations which led me to re-watch the episodes several times on tape before buying the DVD set, and led me to go see an - excellent - sequel film on its opening night. Your BSG, on the other hand, I personally don't find as watchable as the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica, LET ALONE Firefly.

And I don't mean to put down your show by that. I know how it can rankle me when someone insults Buffy the Vampire Slayer or one of my other favorites. I'm not saying that the new Battlestar Galactica isn't a well-written, produced, acted, maybe even great show; I just personally cannot get into it. While with Firefly, I certainly, certainly could. So please don't assume that we all can and must agree that BSG is "markedly better television", because I, to speak only for myself, can't and won't.

::As an Image creator and publisher, he has been welcoming of new and talented creators to his company, including Erik (Age of Bronze) Shanower, Rob Kirkman, Brian Bendis, and Warren Ellis.::

IIRC, Jim Valentino brought in Bendis when he was trying to push past superheroes. It seems like Jim Lee and Homage brought in Ellis, since Ellis was writing Stormwatch (and GASP! not something creator owned). I remember reading about the other Image founders displeasure with Valentino's esoteric choices for new creators, too, although I can't back that up.

::I sorta do understand what Mr. Larsen is trying to do, but at the same time he did it badly.::

I think if I had been Mr Larsen, I'd have simply said, "I think creators who don't try their hand at their own creations are missing a heck of a lot of hard work and headaches, but a lot of fun, too!"

It's too bad his head is too far up his ass for him to get the words out.

Something occurred to me as I read these posts.

Didn't half the original Image guys work on books that Peter David wrote?

If not for the good stories that Peter wrote, Image probably would not have come into existence and the Image guys would never have gotten so rich.

Maybe they should be paying him royalties in honor of his making them famous.

If not for the good stories that Peter wrote, Image probably would not have come into existence and the Image guys would never have gotten so rich."

I wouldn't go quite that far. However, when Bob Harras first showed me Todd's artwork, he said, "Do you think you can work with this guy? Because if not, I'll get you someone else." And I looked at his artwork and said, "Yeah, there's something there beyond being a Byrne clone. Let's work with him, see if we can improve can improve his storytelling."

So if I'd gone the other way, I don't know that he'd NEVER have gotten a rep. But it would have taken him longer.

PAD

I guess I don't understand what's the big deal about this particular column--compared to his others. Yes, I get that people are offended, but Larsen didn't, this time, call anyone out by name. He could have just as easily been yelling at himself in the mirror while dictating his column to his computer. As I showed on the Bendis! board the President/Publisher of Image made some highly inappropriate commentary in his previous postings.

I thought his David Mack comment could have been interpreted as a put down because Mack doesn't publish at Image due to his move to Icon. And I kind of thought women in general would be up at arms about the weird vagina digression. Apparently not, though. Read Larsen's archive or go to the Bendis Board if the discussion interests you. I kind of wonder if the reason no one cared to discuss the topic at BMB's board was on account of how so many are trying to break into the industry (myself included) and don't want to cause any controversy with the gent in power. On the other hand, it took a lot of words for me to get to the point and maybe no one read far enough down to bother with it.
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=33379

Question:

When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?

Peter mentioned Wolverine in Hulk but that was 30 years ago. Out of the characters Larsen mentioned I think Speedball is the latest and that's roughly 20 years ago. Liefeld co-creations of Deadpool & Cable were 15 years ago at least.

But since then?

Maybe that's why Larsen wants people to self publish original characters. Because the industry can use some new exciting characters.

Last weekend I along with many other cartoonists/writers/artists had a table at the SPX show in Bethesda, MD.

Among the wares for sell were hundreds of original and new characters and books.

Hmmm... I didn't see Mr. Larsen there.

If Erik truely believes in what he says, why wasn't he at the show mining new creators with new characters to publish under Image.

Or am I giving Mr. Larsen too much credit.

Probably because Larsen doesn't do much of the mining himself. I'm pretty sure Image staff have lots of submissions to go through as is without looking for more. Especially after Diamonds new terms.

But who knows, maybe somebody from Image was there. IIRC they found a lot of the Flight creators via convention browsing.

Currently Erik is away visiting his grandfather celebrating his 100th birthday.

When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?

Now, the question is, are you asking about "great" characters or "marketable" characters?

Well, not being a regular comic reader (only trades), the first that immediately pops to mind is Hush, from the Batman books. That's been, what, a year or so ago?

-Rex Hondo-

"When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?"

How about Buzz from Peter's Supergirl book? I'd still to see Peter come back and work on some DC book and have Buzz appear. Same thing with Wally. Oh and Twilight. And Cutter and Mattie and Comet/Andy. Sigh. I miss that Supergirl book.

>Superman is George Wylie's gladiator crossed with Doc Savage, with roots going back to Hercules.

Partly disagree. Wylie's character? Sure, if you're thinking the original Supes. And Hercules? Sort of. But Doc? No, he's more of a Batman inspiration: very athletic and superbly competent but still human and very much an independently wealthy gadgeteer. Too, Supes operates with the blessings of the police whereas Doc, as with the early Batman, sometimes was at odds with them.

>I'd get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I'd get constant e-mails from fans saying, "When are you going to write stuff that's your own work?"

Sad to see it isn't just the film studios who are so massively unclear on the concept. In connection with which, a Brazilian friend translated an article for me out of one of their major magazines. It theorized that one big part of the reason Hollywood has turned out so many stinkers of late is that most major studios have been bought out by big companies which now run them as they do all their other businesses, not bothering to think that the creative process in film making simply cannot be handled in the same way. The article just might have a point there.

>I kept thinking throughout Larson's latest "wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a publishing machine in their basement? Just to produce their own work?"

Unfortunately, it isn't everyone who can be as fortunate, or as deservedly successful, as Belgian comic book writer/artist Jean Graton who now has his own publishing house whereby he now controls every aspect of the creation/publishing/printing of his long-running [no pun intended] race-car driving character Michel Vaillant.

"But Doc? No, he's more of a Batman inspiration: very athletic and superbly competent but still human and very much an independently wealthy gadgeteer."

Clark Savage - Clark Kent
Man of Bronze - Man of Steel
Fortress of Solitude - um...

Savage was a superman in the original tradition - Superman was just that extrapolated to the nth degree.

I maybe wrong.... but all of Image comics sucked. Tomb Raiden Gen 13 what kinda crap was that? I think the last Image comic I bought was Jim Mahfood or whatever that was. The only reason Image was popular was because of Marvel otherwise we wouldn't have ever been a Erik Larsen. It takes alot of guts and money now to do something like Dave Sim's cerebus. You gotta be bold and original without faking your pages. It's a tough act to follow or not follow.

Hey Peter, I just heard OJ Simpsons will be selling photos for 95$ a pop at NecroComicon.

Now let me take a stab in the dark here...

Boy, does Larsen love to start shit or what? LOL... you can always count on him to, once in a while, just try and piss the entire comics 'community' off for the hell of it. I remember a few years back he had some pretty derogatory stuff to say about comics readers and comics in general that pissed ME off so bad I dropped whatever I was reading he had to do with back then (Nova? Defenders? That Fantastic Four maxi?) and wrote a couple letters to Marvel steaming and ranting about his complete disregard and lack of respect for the entire medium and the few people left to support it. Ah... glorious days of hazy innocence.

And this time around, I suppose he's mainly trying to get people to throw pitches at Image - albeit in not a very elegant manner - or maybe just to increase the hitcount on his column, who knows. At least we get a nice little pissing contest out of it.

That said, his previous column (about superheroes and aging) was pretty damn good.

Again--OJ Simpson=NecroComicon=Los Angeles.

Me=Necronomicon=Tampa.

PAD

What ghoul wants an O.J. Simpson autograph?

You know, I’m betting Larsen hasn’t been to the Mocca show in NYC. It’s one of the reasons I have to take his comments with a grain of salt. The Mocca event is so different from any mainstream comic con I’ve ever been to. Not just in the material on display but also in the demographics of the people attending the show.

Every time I’ve walked away from a Mocca show, I have the feeling that there is a vital, thriving and artistic community using comics as a means to express themselves - but, it’s a very different beast from the material put out by the mainstream companies. Web comics also are an interesting alternative to what is put out by mainstream publishers but, throughout his rant (and I may be reading into this), I get the sense Larsen just hasn’t seen a lot of this material.

I know for a while one of Erik Larsens favorite comic books (that he went to the comic shop to buy, take home and read) was Fantagraphics Minimum Wage.

Speaking of Doc Savage, this is off the main topic, but it's a theory I've wanted to bring up for some time...(And it does come back around to theme of originality.)

Another comics tradition that can be traced back to Doc Savage, in part, is the "team of experts." (Other pulp heroes had teams of assistants, such as the Avenger, but Doc's was particularly prominent.) If you reduce Doc's role as the central character and spread some of his attributes around the other characters, you wind up with a team like the Challengers of the Unknown, which can be traced forwards on the one hand to the Fantastic Four and through them to the original X-Men and Doom Patrol, and on the other hand to DC's various groups like the Sea Devils and Cave Carson's crew. (And though Monk and Ham weren't the first duo to bicker and play practical jokes on each other, they weren't the last either, as the Thing and Human Torch demonstrate.)

Jonathan (The Other One) writes:

I think we can agree that BSG is markedly better as science fiction

Well, no. The new series is, even more than than the original, which is saying quite a lot, crap.

The sheer, lazy effrontery with which the producers completely failed to even make the slightest gesture toward giving even a semblance of a culture to the 12 Colonies is a sickening display of contempt for the audience.

In science-fiction, Job One is world-building. If your world doesn't work, your story can't. And the world the new BG has given us is LA circa 2005.

I don't demand perfection in the world-building of my sf -- hell, I'm a Whovian! I'll accept worlds built of wobbly cardboard! -- but I do demand that at least an effort be made.

The new BG didn't even pretend to look busy! Off-the rack suits, cigarettes, all the tropes surrounding cancer and doctor-patient relationships, the exact form of the US government and separation of powers, presidential swearing-in ceremonies, liquor, 24-hour days and cheap battery-powered wall-clocks from K-Mart.

Moreover, it re-uses iconic images without a thought to what those iconic images mean: re-staging the LBJ swearing-in on Air Force One without thinking about what it implies about the character of the new President, for example.

The new BG isn't science fiction at all. It's a mediocre exercise in transplanting a couple of different genres of "mainstream drama" into a spaceship, and hoping that moving starfields or aircars outside the window will fool an audience into believing that it's sf, and that it's good, when it is in fact neither.

The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I've previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who've fallen for it.

The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I've previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who've fallen for it.

Yes, because if someone has an opinion different than yours, then obviously they've been duped into having it...

This has turned into an odd pissing match between the PAD army and Larsen.

Look, I was not a fan of the original Image crew, back then I thought of it as a war between Writers and Artists.

But Image now is a great place, with new ideas and yes new heroes. In terms of creativity, it is leaps and bounds ahead of the big two.

I hate to get all negative and self evident as well but the comics industry is going thru a HUGE downward spiral.

What he is asking is where are the new ideas coming from?

Superman was a new idea at one time, where is the next Superman? What will propel and assist the industry to the next level? Are we stagnant?

I thought it was an interesting and provocotive
column.

The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I've previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who've fallen for it.

Yes, because if someone has an opinion different than yours, then obviously they've been duped into having it...

If your opinion is that you own the Brooklyn Bridge because you just bought it from a guy in a trench-coat, you've probably been duped into having that opinion.

Not all opinions are created equal, and while it's important to have an open mind, Ity's even more important that you not keep it so wide open that garbage blows in off the streets.

The new Battlestar Galactica is a con game, a desparate attempt to distract you with spaceships and robots so you don't notice the stories are all stuff you've seen before, better, right here on Earth, with serial nyumbers filed off and a thin coat of paint splashed on 'em.

Leviathan wrote:
"The sheer, lazy effrontery with which the producers completely failed to even make the slightest gesture toward giving even a semblance of a culture to the 12 Colonies is a sickening display of contempt for the audience."

Effrontery and contempt are kind of strong words, don't you think? What, do you think Moore & co., while planning the series, sat around and said, "Our viewers are a bunch of simps and idiots, so screw 'em"? C'mon, that's silly.

Besides, there actually is more than a "slight gesture toward a semblance of culture," or at least there was in the 3 episodes I've seen. At the heart of the battle with the Cylons, or example, is a religious conflict between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, with the good guys as polytheists. Can't remember having seen that kind of thing, from that angle, in television science fiction before.

Are there things which probably would be different in a distant, extraterrestrial culture which aren't (the cigarettes, the liquor, the form of government, etc.)? Sure, but why is that any more of a big deal than the fact that we hear them speaking English? (Plus, part of the premise is that there is a connection with our world, hence the various Greek names in use, so who knows, maybe there'll be an explanation for it. We have no idea when the series is set, relative to our time.)

"In science-fiction, Job One is world-building. If your world doesn't work, your story can't. And the world the new BG has given us is LA circa 2005."

While I'm sure many would agree with you, the first sentence is open to debate - sci fi can go down many different roads. The latter, what, you've never seen science fiction that functions, and is to a large extent constructed as a direct commentary on the present before? (And why just LA circa 2005? US circa 2005 is more like it - paranoia, threats of terrorism, conflict between military and the democracy.)

"Moreover, it re-uses iconic images without a thought to what those iconic images mean: re-staging the LBJ swearing-in on Air Force One without thinking about what it implies about the character of the new President, for example."

Why would the character of the next president have to match that of LBJ? Are the only significant things in the actual iconic image of LBJ's swearing in LBJ himself and his presidency? Aren't there other meanings attached to those images, that moment?

"The new BG isn't science fiction at all. It's a mediocre exercise in transplanting a couple of different genres of "mainstream drama" into a spaceship,"

What's wrong with mainstream drama? What's wrong with setting some elements of it aboard a spaceship? How does that preclude it from being sci fi?

"and hoping that moving starfields or aircars outside the window will fool an audience into believing that it's sf, and that it's good, when it is in fact neither."

Okay, I can see how you could try to argue that "moving starfields outside the window" might fool people into thinking something is sci fi when it's not, (though I don't think that's accurate here), but how would it fool them into thinking it was good? (And you're on shaky ground when you say that someing "is _in fact_ not good.")

Like I said, I've only seen 3 eps, the ones broadcast on NBC, but for my money, this is the best, most intelligent, most interesting TV science fiction set in space since Farscape. (No offense meant to the Firefly fans - that was a decent show.) So it's not your cuppa tea. Why does that make it horrible, an act of contempt, etc.?

Leviathan wrote:
"If your opinion is that you own the Brooklyn Bridge because you just bought it from a guy in a trench-coat, you've probably been duped into having that opinion."

I don't think Moore's trying to sell anyone the Brooklyn Bridge here. He's hoping you'll give up an hour of your time each week to watch a story he's telling - hardly the same thing, and a specious argument.

"The new Battlestar Galactica is a con game, a desparate attempt to distract you with spaceships and robots so you don't notice the stories are all stuff you've seen before, better, right here on Earth, with serial nyumbers filed off and a thin coat of paint splashed on 'em."

Or it's an attempt to tell a story that comments on our contemporary world, and accordingly (not out of necessity, but out of creative choice) incorporates elements of our world into the world of the story.

And again, personally, I haven't seen some of this done before on television, from this perspective (the religious conflict; seriously questionable acts committed by characters who, according to the tropes of television sci fi, should act as moral compasses, etc.)

And really, given the statements and interviews made by Moore about the show, I think you're being really unfair here. Not everyone has the same idea about what sci fi should be and what it should do. Why is that a horrible thing? Why is any attempt to put forth a different type of sci fi than the type you prefer simply a con game?

Leviathan: Okay, we get it. You have a large amount of irrational hatred for a television show. That's you ropinion. (And I'll resist the temptation to hoist you upon your own petard of opinions having differing reletive worth.)

That does not mean that those who do not agree with you have been fooled or are somehow less mentally developed than you. It means they have different tastes. It's called life, and it's going to happen quite a bit, I think you'll find, so you might want to work on adapting yourself to it...

"What he is asking is where are the new ideas coming from?"

Japan.

"Superman was a new idea at one time, where is the next Superman? What will propel and assist the industry to the next level? Are we stagnant?"

You're forgetting that the "one time" at which Superman debuted, comic books were ten cents, were situated on every street corner, far more kids read, there were millions of copies out of every issue, TV didn't exist and movies were what you went to on Saturdays. Now they're $2.99, they're in specialty shops and bookstores, kids are busy on the internet, or with video games and aren't reading that much anyway, cable TV is available 24/7, and movies are easily accessible on DVDs.

As for iconic characters, two thoughts: The last truly major iconic character I can think of created was Wolverine, and that was by Len Wein WHILE WRITING HULK. Furthermore, it is the corporate structure Larsen so reviles that helped make Superman the mythic character that he is.

"I thought it was an interesting and provocative column."

And if you throw eggs at people's front door, it's an interesting and provocative way of saying hello. Doesn't mean it isn't rude and insulting.

PAD

Another comics tradition that can be traced back to Doc Savage, in part, is the "team of experts."

That's an interesting thought. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything before Doc that would fit the bill...unless there are some folk tales. Were there any stories in Chinese mythology like the sort of Kung-Fu movies that are so popular, with teams of characters who are each experts in one form of martial arts? Or something form mythology where a team of Gods does mighty deeds with each God using his or her special powers?

I wonder why Doc Savage has never been successfully done as a comic book.

I really found this rant by Larsen, who wants to get more creator-owned books on the market... especially when I sent an entire run of TRUE STORY, SWEAR TO GOD for Image to consider reprinting in color.

It was impossible to get a hold of Larsen to begin with, with Erik never answering an email to simply ask if he'd received the package, then never letting us know what they thought. I mean, I can TAKE "sorry, this won't fit in with what we want to sell" but at least take two seconds to tell me in an email.

I was just disillusioned with Image from that point. Why blow off an indie creator with an Eisner-nominated series and then bitch about creators who aren't doing enough indy work? Dude... if you'd answer an email, perhaps they WOULD do more.

1) Jacob - Yes, it sounds like I would have been offended by several other of Larsen's columns, as well - if I had ever heard of his column before reading this thread two days ago.

2) Well, this is why I was careful to avoid attacking new Battlestar Galactica in my previous repudiation of Jonathan (the other one)'s comment. But, I will second at least part of what Leviathan is saying. From my limited exposure to new BSG (because it just didn't compell me to want to watch any more of it, any of the times I tried), I was distracted and bugged by the seemingly nonsensical EXACT CURRENT EARTH CULTURE elements which were showing up. Now, it may eventually turn out that these colonies spread out from Earth-That-Was - to borrow terminology from Firefly, that "inferior" show which also uses this premise; that would be an explanation for this Earthishness. (And, specific cultural elements of society being exactly the same in a supposedly alien culture is a lot different than a language being "translated" into English for the viewers.) Otherwise, it just seems like needlessly distracting, and possily lazy and weak, writing to me.

That said, maybe I would have a different view of the show if I had (somehow) managed to watch every minute of it. (And hearing that Michelle Forbes has shown up as Cain - while raising the question of "How many times can they play the gender-change card?" - has raised my curiosity a little again.) But, the fact that I did not, while I have watched every second of Firefly, repeatedly - Go see Serenity!!! - again speaks to the point, that we all "must" not, cannot, and will not concede that BSG is a superior television program. 'Kay?

Yes, there are elements of known culture transplanted wholesale to BSG - in large part because those elements can say something that might takes lines, even pages, of exposition otherwise. For instance, when Kara "Starbuck" Thrace wound up back on Cylon-occupied Caprica, we saw her personal vehicle - a military-surplus HMMWV. Yes, they might have draped it with fiberglas shapes to make it look all "futuristic", but then we would have had the two characters present at the time forced into a conversation whose main point was to exposit that Kara drove a military vehicle in her off-time. Using the HMMWV itself gave us that point in a single flash of airtime, without making the characters exposit all over the place.

Besides, if you're going to claim Firefly's superiority based on that, you're going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup...

(Yes, Joss was also using existing tropes to shorthand the concept of a frontier culture. See, the idea works in a number of stories, doesn't it?)

(And I promise, this is the last time I'll derail the discussion to defend any TV show... :) )

The last time that I've read a column that was that confrontational was from one of Peter's dearest friends, Harlan Ellison. The big difference is that when Harlan didn't know what he was talking about, he was the first to admit it! Also, when he criticized SF writers for allowing the Television and Film industry to rip them off and encouraged them to take a personal interest in how their works were adapted, HE LED BY EXAMPLE!

Does Mr. Larsen remember what happened when Neil Gaiman created some new characters for Spawn when he wrote for that title and had major problems getting renumerations for them? Does that make HIM a pussy?

If someone new to the comics biz was a fan of Savage Dragon and wanted to write/illustrate it, does that make him a BIG BABY?

From what I've read regarding Stan Lee's comments about Peter's work on The Hulk & Spiderman as well as his BID articles, I deeply envy Peter for receiving those praises from a legend who admittedly "paved the road that Peter's still travelling on" rather than dismiss Peter's works because his most recognizable works were created by someone else! I would feel the same way if someone else adapted Peter's original work in a film or a comic book, personal bias aside that I probably wouldn't like it as much as the original if that were to happen.

My heart goes out to you, Peter, that the publishing and movie industry still don't get it! I guess businessmen who can't see beyond a ledger never will!

For those who wish to correct me by saying that Spawn was created by Todd McFarland, not Eric Larsen, please don't. I'm well aware of that. I was just trying to make a point about creator-owned characters being treated by the Image guys, who are ALSO publishing licensed characters like..ahem... Lara Croft BTW, the same way that Larsen alledges Marvel & DC are treated these "cowards." Pot to Kettle: "What's happening, Black?"

"Fortress of Solitude - um...

Batcave?

>Savage was a superman in the original tradition - Superman was just that extrapolated to the nth degree.

But, honestly, for all the similarities which you quite correctly point out, Doc has more in common with Bats than he does Supes. Another example, even Superman eventually got married. Neither Bruce nor Doc ever did. For all that he is an alien, Clark Kent fits in more with the people he's protecting than the other two ever did. Clark Kent is Clark Kent (as Byrne made clear) and becomes Superman at need. Bruce is Bruce more as a disguise than anything else (think of him in KINGDOM COME where he is BATMAN 24 hours a day). One gets the impression that Batman takes time off as Bruce. Doc doesn't even bother. Also, Both Doc and Bats are self-made specimens of uber-humanity. Superman became so because of a combination of genetics and environment which were outside his control.

Jaime: "When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?"

Sandman & co. Unusual, but still work-for-hire owned by DC.

As far as Larsen's column, I think he's got an ok point but presented it horribly. Same old, same old. Just ignore the crap.

Just to step briefly into the digression for a moment....

Personally, I think trying to compare (and thus determine the "superior" of the two) Firefly and the new Battlestar Galactica is like trying to compare apples and oranges.

I enjoy both shows. But, it's hard to say which is "better" because - from my perspective - they're just so different.

With BSG, I come back to see what happens next. But, I'm not quite emotionally invested in the characters...I don't care much for them beyond how they facilitate the story's movement.

With Firefly, the characters are the thing for me. The story - in and of itself - serves to allow me to spend time with these people and informs their own personal stories. I am emotionally invested in them. (And, anyone sitting near me during Serenity the other night could have seen as such. "I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.")

So, for my two cents, it's impossible to say whether the orange makes a better apple than the apple, or vice versa.

It is, however, possible to prefer apples over oranges, or vice versa. :-)

which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned.

Buscema maybe, but Kirby (Captain Victory, Silver Star, Satan's Six) and Ditko (Mr. A, Avenging World, Static) certainly did creator-owned stuff. I don't know offhand if Stan Lee actually owns any of the "Stan Lee Media" characters, or Stripperella, or any of his other later work (and he might not want to admit it if he did), but no one can accuse him of just resting on his laurels.

Anyway, Larsen's obnoxious demeanor aside, doesn't anyone think it's weird that the comics industry is so dependent on all these ancient franchises? In movies, you have some remakes and the occasional long-running series like James Bond, but for the most part it's new stuff. Same with books and tv. "CSI" spin-offs are ubiquitous now, but you know in a few years they'll fade and be replaced by the next big trend. But in comics, it's Superman-Spiderman-Batman-XMen, decade after decade. That's just bizarre.

2 little things running around my head (and after the week I've had, that's a miracle)
Firstly, in regards to the article--from what I've seen it REALLY resembles the attitudes put forth by my Creative Writing II teacher (and that term is questionable) in college. First night of the course he says to us, "You WILL not be submitting any science fiction or fantasy stories because they as a group do not represent real literature." Took all I had not to leap up and drive my pen through his temple. But, this guy was a published poet, so's all he was interested in was poetry. I like poetry, I like writing poetry, I just don't like SHOWING my poetry cuz it's just a little TOO personal. But, back to the topic, while it can be more satisfying for some to work exclusively on their own creations, others like to play with other people's worlds and see where it leads. My life would be much duller had I never been introduced to Bernie the Klingon and the phaser-proof vest.

Which sorta leads to my second point, the above Galactica complaint that said the first step in science fiction is world creation. As someone who's been writing science fiction and fantasy for the last quarter of a century, I must say that the first step is really deciding what you want to say, what kind of story you want to tell. World creation comes waaaaaay down after that. It's what my brother calls the D&D Syndrome, create whole interesting complex worlds with whole interesting complex people and you're so intent on creating them that once everything's done, you can't create anything for them to do there. Don't limit yourself to anything. Just write what's in you. Don't do it to be sold, don't do it to please anyone but yourself.

And anybody else picturing Erik as Dan Ackroyd lighting Halloween costumes on fire?

"I thought it was an interesting and provocative column."

Actually, despite my earlier posting, he does have a good point. The fact that it took me three readings to see it and it's taking others longer just underscores Erik's greatest failing in the industry. It's not his poor plotting, writing or sub-par artwork. It's his mouth.

Erik is making a good point. But his manner of doing it, tantrum throwing three year old, distracts everyone but the most diehard Erik supporter from seeing it. Approach is everything sometimes. If someone came up to you and told you that you clothes looked ok but you might look better in these colors with this cut, you might respond well to them and their suggestions. You would respond less well to someone who walks to you and says, "dude, your clothes look like s**t and you have no sense of style at all!"

It is true that some new blood, icon wise, is missing of late. Erik is right about this and he's not alone in saying it. I would disagree with what, I think, he puts forth as reasons for this.

There are a great deal of reasons, in this fan's opinion, for why there are no new icons out there right now. Most of them have nothing to do with anything Erik cited.

One thing that makes an icon is age. How many awesome creations have been given the "next great icon" tag over the last two decades that, while hot for a year or so, fizzled badly with age? How many "just good" characters are out there now that have been slow, quietly building over that same time period and may reach icon statues in another decade or so?

Batman, Superman and Spider-Man were all popular when they first came out but were not icons until many years later. To look around at the present crowd of characters and decry the lack of icons is shortsighted. It's like the network executives who used to cancel any new science fiction show because it wasn't doing Trek numbers and Trek buzz after four shows. Trek had a twenty year build up, major motion pictures and a Next Generation spin off behind it. New sci-fi show X didn't. But the same network executives would often overlook the failure of Trek in its first run while killing a potential future Trek like icon. Same with M*A*S*H*. It's first season ratings would kill it these days. It became one of the greatest shows of all time. Same thing with comic book icons. They need time.

Wolverine has been cited by several people on this post as one of the last great comic icons to be created. Again, that took time. He was despised across the board by fans when he was first introduced. It took a lot of time, tweaks and fan tolerance to create the Wolverine of icon status.

Another problem we have now is the greater number of challenges facing the medium for pop culture attention. Pulp novels and comics had books, radio and movies to compete against. TV was a later addition to their competition. But the competition helped the characters become icons. Radio, movies and TV looked to pulp novels and comics to flesh out their offerings a bit. Now, while that still happens, there are many more options for Hollywood to investigate for creative inspiration.

Movies and TV shows based on video games are being made left and right. Foreign films (horror this week) are the remake flavor of the month. The relatively short history of TV is being mined for nostalgia movie and TV making in an amazing (and in the case of The Love Boat movie, terrifying) rate. And that nostalgia factor is also hurting the creation by pop culture of new comic book icons. Executives and writers of movies and TV seem to want to do their version of the heroes that they grew up with or that they think will be big with the public. There's a reason that Batman Begins was made and that Superman and Wonder Woman are in the pipeline. They're bankable, proven commodities. They create buzz and even non-comic people know them. It's a bit like Trek VS show X. Hero X would have to be a mega huge hit with mega huge buzz to get the same attention as a moderately successful Batman or Superman.

That kinda hurts the pop culture forces that help create a comic book icon. The nostalgia factor really hurts. Batman becomes Vanna White in a way. She became famous for being famous. People would by books, magazines and bad TV movies because of her while they would pass up the same items featuring lesser known actresses with far greater talent. Marketing people new that and they would create things to pander to that target audience. Why risk a payday on an unknown? Same here. Why risk a payday on Hero X when Batman is there to offer up a huge payday?

The general public's attitude towards comics plays into this as well. Batman, Spider-Man and Superman create huge buzz and are hotly awaited properties as movies because people know them. Try and explain a Crow, Spawn, V, Savage Dragon, Speedball or other lesser known by the public hero and you get far less interest (if not complete disinterest). Less interest translates to more risk and that translates into less interest to take the risk by executives. Less exposure equals less ingraining into the pop cultur