A gigantic amount of credibility is lost by writing such rubbish about art and the entertainment media.

I think these silly, grossly-unprofessional ideas about how you can't tell the creatives what to do or when to deliver go back to Guardian Devil. The industry had already made the terrible decision to hand itself over to the DSM, thus eliminating the pre-adolescent readership almost overnight. With apologies to Bill Mumy, Kevin Smith was probably the first major Hollywood celebrity recruit, and Guardian Devil - strong art (JBF dissenters notwithstanding), hip dialogue and characterisation, and an approach deeply imitative of the best Daredevil story ever, Born Again - was successful. The industry learned from this that Hollywood names (at least, Kevin Smith) worked for the diminished DSM audience, and so did adolescent content.

Hollywood creators, however, would only work in comics and for comics rates of pay on their own terms and timescales. For Guardian Devil-like returns, this was worth it, and the industry's own creators naturally fell to aping the incomers' styles, subjects and working patterns. As Guardian Devil's artist became EIC at Marvel, and one of the industry's own celebrities rose to seniority at DC, a creator-centric "business" culture became less and less evitable. Returns from the new approach diminished as the novelty wore off and as the stunts became more extreme in attempts to recapture the freshness - if you can't kill Karen again, have Wonder Woman punch someone's head off. Rape someone - but by now, that was the established character of the industry, and if you don't like it, you've already left. The post-adolescent readership hangs on, where it does, despite the repugnant storytelling and sloppy distribution, out of nostalgia and appreciation of the drawing, and the whole enterprise limps along.

This seems easily enough to describe the evolution of this apparent belief that you can't tell the creatives what to do or when. It doesn't explain the pretence that this is how the entertainment industry works, when we all know it absolutely isn't, but perhaps that's simple lying.

As for the refusal to attempt a wider readership... I don't know. It's a mystery to me. Perhaps they don't understand what "all ages" means. It doesn't have to mean kiddie. Stan wrote for all ages. You can even kill a character in comics, without having to rip out their heart and eat it.

The solution for the industry? One character: Spider-Man for Marvel, Superman for DC. All-ages (not kiddie). Weekly. In supermarkets. Even if you don't think it'll work, isn't the future of the industry worth the experiment? One comic.

Go on. Be a devil.

IMP.

What advantages do comics have over other entertainment?  Undeniably one of the chief ones was that it was serialized, that it came out on a regular basis.  That gave it a sense of immediacy; everything is happening NOW, and readers were chomping at the bit to see what happened NEXT.

Over the years you would think getting books out on time would be easier, not harder.  And it bet it has become easier to get them out on time - but you have to TRY.  You gotta plant your roots in that inner calendar that all comics fans used to have: "This week we find out how Fonebone Man gets out of that frammistat."

They pissed that away.

Alan Moore can break the rules...

There seems to be some truth to that. A certain site whose name I won't mention cites accusations of misoginy in the works of John Byrne. But Alan Moore, who can't seem to write a comic without a female character getting raped and/or beaten, is worshipped as a demi god in the industry.

Helluva world.

••

Hell hath no fury…

That and people  who call creators who add succesful minorities "racist". So annoying.

I don't bother with BCN, it's another world.