For the sake of this discussion, it would seem Larsen defines "B-List" as "anything Byrne worked on when he returned to Marvel, because I say so!"

What do the sales numbers of Savage Dragon have to do with it? I thought JB's point was that the ranking of a book or the perception of the "profile" of the book was irrelevant as long as it sold enough to justify its continued existence and he loved working on it.

I thought JB's point was "don't give me grief over how She-Hulk and the rest were being ranked, because what matters is that I did a good job, people read them and enjoyed them and I enjoyed working on them. And this is the work I wanted to do and asked to do."

I thought pointing to Savage Dragon was an example of "Hey, how is you choosing to work on a relatively low profile book any different from me working on the stuff I like even though it's not X-men or FF. If working on an 'A-list' book' doesn't define you, why should it define me?"

Which is why I didn't think they were so far apart. But hey, If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

In the end, there is only one thing that has governed my choice of projects: fun.

____________________

I think that's very important. Most people hate their jobs and they only do it because they need the money.

When Jack Kirby went to DC, he worked on "Jimmy Olsen", not the most well-received of books, but does that make Kirby a B-list artist?

I can't speak for any artists/writers, but I imagine that while having a lengthy run on a title can be rewarding, being able to work on other projects helps stretch the creative muscles.  May help with preventing typecasting.

That is a shocking chart.  Only 7 titles sell more than 75,000 out of 300 titles charted --makes it pretty clear this whole comic book thing is over.  75,000 aging readers carrying the entire market.

______________________

Well, a few readers are not buying as many titles as they used to because of the 3.99 price tag. So I would say there are more than 75000 readers out there, maybe 76000 or more.

It will be a miracle if comics ever "cycle" back up to anything like healthy sales again.

--

If you mean the 22 pages a month publication, then 'No.' would be the answer. Soon, it won't be a neccesary concern.  Within the next few years the 22 page a month publication with cease to exist and publishers will go straight to trade length books. 

While I certainly wish certain books sold more copies, I think Knut has the right idea. As long as a creator enjoys working on a book and it is viable (i.e. a publisher can afford to keep publishing it and it's worth the creator's time to produce it), that's all that matters to me.

To use JB as an example, Angel:Blood & Trenches is outselling Star Trek: Crew 2-to-1. But that doesn't mean I think it's a better book - I've enjoyed the heck out of both of them. And I'm sure Savage Dragon readers feel the same way - Erik is a great talent and I'm glad he's enjoying what he is doing.

That is a shocking chart.  Only 7 titles sell more than 75,000 out of 300 titles charted --makes it pretty clear this whole comic book thing is over.  75,000 aging readers carrying the entire market.

Nope.  Less than 75,000 - consider that even if a book is listed as selling 75,000, it doesn't mean that 75,000 copies went home with 75,000 readers, it means 75,000 copies were sold, unreturnable, to stores.

And last time I checked, every store has rows and rows of unsold comics.

Not that a store is expected to have 100% sell-through; in fact the DSM was supposed to be a place where unreturnable product could have an after-shelf-life.  But it's important to remember that the sales figures on any list are just what was unloaded to the stores.  And untill a day comes where we do walk in and find empty shelves, it is in no way a representation of how many readers there are, except to say that it's a number less than the total number of books sold.