Author |
|
Mark Haslett Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 19 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 6867
|
Posted: 14 November 2023 at 8:09am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
I've been reading a ton of Elsewhen lately. John Byrne's great revisit to characters and storylines that began so long ago prompt all kinds of thinking about comics. Where have they gone? What caused all the changes? What could have been different?
There have been many talks over the years about the great "collaboration" between Claremont and Byrne. There have been many hopeful expectations of a reunion. All of these kinds of starry-eyed thoughts about the work produced when John Byrne and Chris Claremont made comic books together are generally uninformed about the frustrations that John has shared about that time. It is common to find fans who don't know the X-Men book was near cancellation during most of their run. Chris' style, of scripting whatever he feels the in the moment, regardless of previously-made plans, led to so many ARRGH moments for John that it wasn't really a "collaboration." It was more... something else. John realized that what Chris wrote in the end was the characters that fans liked, so if John DIDN'T like it, then he didn't like the characters and should move on.
Still, John has often been happy enough to point out that his departure seemed important to the success of the book. After he left, Chris went on to great sales success doing all the stories that John had refused to be part of -- in the order he remembers hearing them.
So, in a way, the original Chris Claremont run and John's Elsewhen give us a window into two ways of writing the same characters in something like the same time and space.
Comparing what we get in Elsewhen with what Chris wrote is a bit like seeing two philosophers lay out competing theories of existence: One universe is guided by obeying the gravity creative choices which established the universe in the first place. The other leans always toward surprise-twists, escape-velocity, character growth, change, redemption and ever-more open-endedness.
I am trying to be fair and more or less objective in this preamble. The point I'm leading to is that the entire industry seems to have taken a large cue from the "open-ended-ever-changing" approach that Chris Claremont chose.
It was incandescently successful for a while, but --being fundamentally un-conservative --it eventually trained the audience to want all the toys broken. Then, after the audience got what it wanted, the entire field was left a bit broken and adrift-- and still looking for more things to break.
Implying that this stems from the way Chris wrote the X-Men must be an overstatement. But, considering the outsized impact that book had on the creators of the last 30-40 years, it doesn't feel like a ridiculous idea.
What is more surprising (to me) is to see how effective Elsewhen is at putting all the toys back together. It takes almost no effort to imagine the Marvel universe being a structurally sounder place today if X-Men comics had been less successful and more protective of its mission-statement.
It is pointless to wish for the past to change, but it does seem that we are at a time when (for what it's worth) we can look back and see the past more clearly. I hope that if a superhero comic book industry ever gets going again (HA!), that it takes some of the many lessons that we can see to heart (HA!)
Many things have contributed to the current state of affairs, but Elsewhen has much to teach -- if anyone out there is listening!
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Michael Penn Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 12 April 2006 Location: United States Posts: 12891
|
Posted: 14 November 2023 at 12:59pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
QUOTE:
The point I'm leading to is that the entire industry seems to have taken a large cue from the "open-ended-ever-changing" approach that Chris Claremont chose. |
|
|
JB has discussed many a time and oft that (in his opinion) the ideal in comicbooks is the "illusion of change." I believe seeing that principle in his work over the years is fairly evident. But it's also key that he moved on from one series to the next, to the next, to the next. Mr. Claremont worked on the X-MEN about four times as long as JB. It's good for comicbook creators to move on, I think, before they intentionally or not forgo the illusion of change for actual change.
It must also be said, though, that if Mr. Claremont's "actual change" approach did influence the entire industry, and arguably overall not for the better, that stems in part because very few writers coming after him possessed his formidable talent. At the top of his game, Chris Claremont was a great comicbook writer, and I say that as admittedly not a fan of what he did with the X-MEN post-JB.
Edited by Michael Penn on 14 November 2023 at 1:06pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 134275
|
Posted: 14 November 2023 at 1:26pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
A sizable portion of the success of the X-Men must be attributed to the changes in the marketplace. As a mass market product shifted to a niche product, we saw the irony of fewer venues producing more sales. But those sales were not across the board. Only select product—titles, writers, artists—were able to benefit. As the “audience” shrank fewer and fewer people ruled the success of a title. In the days of Lee and Kirby, for instance, 200,000 units sold pretty much represented 200,000 readers. A title could lose 10,000 readers and the result would not be devastating. But in the context of the DSM and the spreading speculator mentality, that same 200,000 might mean 50,000 people each buying 4 copies. If 10,000 stepped away the sales would plummet. This mentality also led to people continuing to buy titles even after they had lost interest due to a drop in quality. “I have to keep buying in case it gets good again. I don’t want a hole in my collection!” Of course, this reduced the likelihood of a book “getting good again”, since the publishers had no way of measuring who was buying what, and why. Couple this with those retailers who ordered what THEY liked, often ignoring the needs of their customers, and we see the marketplace becoming ever more obsessed with artificially “hot” books.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Michael Penn Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 12 April 2006 Location: United States Posts: 12891
|
Posted: 14 November 2023 at 3:25pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
It is interesting to speculate (no pun intended) on how the dramatic change in how sales "success" was assessed influenced comicbook creators to continue practices wholly unlike those established by the originators and older generations.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Mark Haslett Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 19 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 6867
|
Posted: 14 November 2023 at 5:36pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
I have been fascinated by the upside/downside impact of the "Fan-turned-Pro" creative-mentality ever since I've learned of it here.
I think the general observation I would make is that there is a kind of right/left split in fan-turned-pro thinking. Some guys are conservative and want the company-reserves to last beyond them, and other guys are really non-conservative and don't seem to care what happens in a few months time.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Michael Penn Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 12 April 2006 Location: United States Posts: 12891
|
Posted: 14 November 2023 at 6:22pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Since I stopped reading over 40 years ago, I don't know the answer to this: but I wonder how many "conservers" (or whatever the term might be) were pros in the 80s, 90s, and on. Less and less, until today... virtually none?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 134275
|
Posted: 15 November 2023 at 3:25pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
The sequence of events is chilling to behold. The Direct Sales Market was created as a way for dealers—not yet “retailers”—to get product at discount prices in order to build a back issue stockpile for future sale, either at reduced or inflated prices. A kind of “industrialization” of the long-boxes-in-a-van approach. As comic shops began sprouting up, publishers realized this approach was a way to save certain low-selling titles from cancellation. Since the product that went to the DSM was non-returnable, it was pure profit for the publishers. Of course, it didn’t take long for those publishers to see this Golden Goose approach could be applied to all the titles, and the DSM was transformed from an aftermarket to the main venue. Profits soared, even on low selling product. But this radically altered the shape of the marketplace. Never before had the retailers been allowed to dictate what they sold. Almost overnight the buying audience shrank from a few hundred thousand to tens of thousands. The success or failure of product was now dictated by what the shops ordered, not what potential customers might buy. And when the bloom went off the DSM due to speculators realizing the books they were hoarding were never going to be really “worth” anything, shops went out of business and it became an actual chore to seek out the “local” comic shops, sales plummeted. This time with no safety net, siince traditional venues had been abandoned.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steven Queen Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 28 February 2020 Location: United States Posts: 955
|
Posted: 15 November 2023 at 5:08pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
Hard agree on the DSM changing the landscape and produced a distorted focus of "collectability" instead of actual quality.
Tying that to Claremont's style -- shock value and cheap gimmicks created an illusion of "more collectable". It was dog & pony stuff of little substance or gravitas.
I disagree with the premise that Claremont was a great writer. He was not. After JB left the book, the stories went to trash immediately. Seriously, they were so bad, not even Dave's art could save them. I stopped buying after a few years(!) of inertia and zero enjoyment.
Much is made of the end of JB's run (i.e. the Death of Phoenix), but there was that amazing sweet spot which started in the Savage land when the art and story was in harmony. Like a flower unfolding, it came into full bloom around the Proteus saga and wilted when Jean died. ELSEWHEN makes it abundantly clear which member of the Claremont/Byrne "team" was carrying most (if not all) of the water.
When you see these pages, doesn't it still make your heart skip a beat?

Edited by Steven Queen on 15 November 2023 at 5:10pm
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Craig Earl Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 13 July 2019 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1478
|
Posted: 15 November 2023 at 6:36pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
I disagree that Chris Claremont's stories 'went to trash immediately' after JB's departure, but the consistently high quality present during their collaboration was gone for sure.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Rebecca Jansen Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 12 February 2018 Location: Canada Posts: 4635
|
Posted: 16 November 2023 at 1:12am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
QUOTE:
the X-Men book was near cancellation during most of their run |
|
|
I think I've assumed when it went monthly it must've been officially above water at that point, but could that have been something done to try to improve sales?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
|
Richard Stevens Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 04 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 1979
|
Posted: 16 November 2023 at 11:42am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
We all have a good understanding of why JB left the X-Men from this very board. Can anyone recommend a reliable account of why Claremont wound up leaving years later? I have my suspicions, but never read up on why.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
|
Brian Miller Byrne Robotics Member

Joined: 28 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 31542
|
Posted: 16 November 2023 at 12:15pm | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
He and Bob Harris didn’t get along so well.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|