Sooooo, Rob Liefeld's at it again. Being controversial and stuff. Does anyone really believe his shtick anymore (and I'm wondering, as well, if he even does)? Complaining about editorial interference in his work at DC. This made me run off on an interesting (at least to me) train of thought. When you go to work for a big comic book publisher on one of their many pre-existing, ongoing properties; do you really expect them to let you do what ever the ---- you want?
Now, in the case of Rob Liefeld, a very "special" case if there ever was one, the obvious issue is the ego of the creator involved. By many accounts, Rob is pretty sure he is the best thing to happen to comics since Jack Kirby. So of course he bristled at an editor telling him what he should do on a comic book. "Don't you know who I am? I created Youngblood!!" "Who's that, Rob?" "Hmm. Oh yeah! Don't you know who I am? I co-created Cable!" "Whatever you say Rob. We're here to talk about your handling of these DC characters who've all been around a lot longer than Cable." But seriously, I didn't come here to talk about Rob Liefeld. It's the concept of editorially driven that I find interesting.
It seems to me that the books can go one of two ways, with many varying shades in between of course. On the one hand, you have a story or even a full fledged book that originates with a writer or artist or both, or one person doing both. That's where most creator owned and independent work lies. Which is of course implied in the term "creator owned", duh. In this case, the writer and artist are in complete control of their creation and, presumably, the editors role is mostly to keep everybody on course and hitting their deadlines. They might take creative input from their editor, but when it comes to the creative content, the creators are the final word. In the case of a company owned book, a Marvel or DC character or something like that, it would be a bit different. If the editor chooses, they can allow the talent to steer the ship. However, the editor still has final say on what can and cannot be done on the book. They would be much more of a collaborator (if they wanted) and they can veto creative decisions. In this situation, they are responsible to the company they work for on all decisions made on their books. When the s--- hits the fan, they are the ones that take the heat. Which is probably why a lot of them might choose to go the other way.
In a truly editorially driven book, the creative direction of the book is mandated by editorial. In some cases it comes from above them on the company food chain. They basically tell the writers what they want and where the book needs to go. Some people have complained that the editor basically wants a typist. That could be oversimplifying it, but I could definitely see how frustrating it could be for a writer. You have decided to create for a living and now someone is telling you what to create and how to create it. Unless you're Grant Morrison apparently; but then he presumably makes that part of his contract, and the powers that be feel his sales warrant that situation. My opinion? I think the better editors find some sort of happy medium. Especially when you are working in an established, company owned universe. First off, there are rules you have to follow. These are company assets, you can't do whatever you want. Many say though, that having rules imposed makes you work harder (and often better) to find a way to work around the rules.
Quite often filmmakers speak about how they had to come up with alternatives because of budget constraints and their alternate choices made the film better. Hell, the main reason you don't see the shark through most of Jaws is because it didn't work. That choice to work around the shark made it much more terrifying. Many musicians do their best work when others are producing. When they are given the reins a lot of them never quite match the quality of their earlier output. Some do, don't get me wrong. I think the challenges imposed on some writers have created a lot of great work.
So to move back to comics, an editor that knows he can trust his writer will let his writer loose. Within reason. Also, as long as the people above you are trusting you to do your job, you are more likely to trust the people below you. Just as having constraints put upon you can make you work harder and more creatively, knowing you are being entrusted to care for these iconic and (to the company) important properties might just motivate you to put your best foot forward. A lot of these "editorial" complaints from the folks working for DC seem to indicate the real mess is above editorials pay grade. It's unfortunate. I always felt that if I was paying someone to do a job, I should let them do it.
So which way is the better way? Whichever one produces the best story, honestly. Some classic comics have come from both styles, and every shade in between. Remember, Alan Moore made Watchmen at a big company with an editor who was in charge. He also made League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with little to no editorial input, and that turned out pretty damn well too. However, I really do think that the best editors int he business have always found a balance. A way to serve both sides of the equation. You can have happy bosses and happy creatives. It is possible. I would never fault anyone for the style of management they choose, as long as it was a job well done. Sometimes I think it's best if those of us outside the system don't hear about it. Hey, you don't want to know how hot dogs are made. You may never eat one again.
It seems to me that the books can go one of two ways, with many varying shades in between of course. On the one hand, you have a story or even a full fledged book that originates with a writer or artist or both, or one person doing both. That's where most creator owned and independent work lies. Which is of course implied in the term "creator owned", duh. In this case, the writer and artist are in complete control of their creation and, presumably, the editors role is mostly to keep everybody on course and hitting their deadlines. They might take creative input from their editor, but when it comes to the creative content, the creators are the final word. In the case of a company owned book, a Marvel or DC character or something like that, it would be a bit different. If the editor chooses, they can allow the talent to steer the ship. However, the editor still has final say on what can and cannot be done on the book. They would be much more of a collaborator (if they wanted) and they can veto creative decisions. In this situation, they are responsible to the company they work for on all decisions made on their books. When the s--- hits the fan, they are the ones that take the heat. Which is probably why a lot of them might choose to go the other way.
In a truly editorially driven book, the creative direction of the book is mandated by editorial. In some cases it comes from above them on the company food chain. They basically tell the writers what they want and where the book needs to go. Some people have complained that the editor basically wants a typist. That could be oversimplifying it, but I could definitely see how frustrating it could be for a writer. You have decided to create for a living and now someone is telling you what to create and how to create it. Unless you're Grant Morrison apparently; but then he presumably makes that part of his contract, and the powers that be feel his sales warrant that situation. My opinion? I think the better editors find some sort of happy medium. Especially when you are working in an established, company owned universe. First off, there are rules you have to follow. These are company assets, you can't do whatever you want. Many say though, that having rules imposed makes you work harder (and often better) to find a way to work around the rules.
Quite often filmmakers speak about how they had to come up with alternatives because of budget constraints and their alternate choices made the film better. Hell, the main reason you don't see the shark through most of Jaws is because it didn't work. That choice to work around the shark made it much more terrifying. Many musicians do their best work when others are producing. When they are given the reins a lot of them never quite match the quality of their earlier output. Some do, don't get me wrong. I think the challenges imposed on some writers have created a lot of great work.
So to move back to comics, an editor that knows he can trust his writer will let his writer loose. Within reason. Also, as long as the people above you are trusting you to do your job, you are more likely to trust the people below you. Just as having constraints put upon you can make you work harder and more creatively, knowing you are being entrusted to care for these iconic and (to the company) important properties might just motivate you to put your best foot forward. A lot of these "editorial" complaints from the folks working for DC seem to indicate the real mess is above editorials pay grade. It's unfortunate. I always felt that if I was paying someone to do a job, I should let them do it.
So which way is the better way? Whichever one produces the best story, honestly. Some classic comics have come from both styles, and every shade in between. Remember, Alan Moore made Watchmen at a big company with an editor who was in charge. He also made League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with little to no editorial input, and that turned out pretty damn well too. However, I really do think that the best editors int he business have always found a balance. A way to serve both sides of the equation. You can have happy bosses and happy creatives. It is possible. I would never fault anyone for the style of management they choose, as long as it was a job well done. Sometimes I think it's best if those of us outside the system don't hear about it. Hey, you don't want to know how hot dogs are made. You may never eat one again.
Sean Stoltey, writer, raconteur
and retired rabble rouser, hails originally from California's Central Coast but
currently resides in Southern California's BEAUTIFUL--San Fernando Valley.
Screenwriter, Comic Book author, these are things he does because he's too poor
to be a Producer or Publisher.
Sean has been reading comics,
watching movies, reading books and selling his soul (or at least his hearing)
to Rock'n'Roll for as long as he can remember. He has been discussing and
arguing about these things for almost as long.
So now he has come here to throw
his opinions in your face as well and hope that, even if you don't agree,
hopefully you will enjoy them. For the record: Kirk was the greatest Enterprise
Captain, Han was the only one that shot, Led Zeppelin was the greatest Rock
band to walk the Earth and Keith Richards is the coolest undead person to walk
the Earth. Coolest living people are my sons and my Mom and Dad. My Dad F---in'
rocks, and my Mom can kick your ass.
You can ask Sean anything at http://www.formspring.me/WWest3001 contact
him via twitter @WWest3001 or boring old e-mail at SeanStoltey@yahoo.com
.jpg)
