I remember an old thread on the JBF where John Byrne
made a comment about how back in the day creators
considered making comic-books a job & not a "calling."
He's also often derisively referred to "fans turned pros"
as if that's a bad thing, which is a sentiment I've never
really understood. I mean, wouldn't it be better to have
someone writing and/or drawing a comic-book who really
wants to do it, & not someone who's solely
in it for the paycheck?

I figure it's like any job. I'm sure we know how the degree
to which we enjoy what we're doing is going to affect
how well we do it. Hey, if I got paid good money to be
a librarian I'd do the best job I absolutely could, but I'd
probably never be quite as good at it as Linda is because she
grew up wanting to do this. That's just natural.

So I would think that when it comes to comic-books, or
any creative endeavor, that the quality of your work will
be better depending on how much you want to do it.
Certainly for writers, who have to use their imagination
to try to come up with an interesting story every month,
I'd think those creative juices would be flowing a lot better
if you're going into it thinking "I can't believe I'm actually
getting paid to write AwesomeMan! I've wanted to do this
ever since I was a kid!" Instead of just trying to write 22
pages in time to meet your deadline.

Maybe with artists it might be easier to look at it as just a
job. In fact in some cases it might help. If some artists
approached it as if were just a job then maybe we'd have
less late books & fill-in artists.

Y'know, on another board recently we were
discussing the daily routine & work habits of Rob Liefeld vs.
John Byrne, & how Liefeld (according to a post he made on
Millarworld) spends a lot less time at the drawing board than
Byrne does, which probably explains his penchant for late
& unfinished books. Someone pointed out the fact that
Liefeld has a lot more things going on in his life than Byrne
does (a wife, 3 kids, & several movie pitches in the works),
which would explain his less than regular work schedule,
but most people have busy lives & family obligations, that's
no excuse for slackin' off on the job, right? I'm a shipper in
a warehouse, & when I'm given a package I'm expected to
ship it that day, not tomorrow, or next week, or whenever
I get around to it. And If I can't handle it I know they'll get
someone else who can. So I get my ass to work everyday
& do my darn job.

So maybe some artists could stand to have that same sort
of attitude when it comes to their workload. But even then,
I would think being a fan of what you're drawing would
definately lift the quality of your art, especially on a monthly
title. If you're drawing AwesomeMan everyday when you'd
really rather be doing something else, will you put as much
energy & detail into the page as the kid who grew up doodling
AwesomeMan sketches in his notebook in Junior High?

But then there was a thread in the creative forum on
Millaworld that made me rethink this. The thread asked
which mainstream superhereoes you would most want to
work on. Someone wrote that he wasn't a huge Batman
fan but nevertheless would like to try writing him. Another
guy said that maybe it would be better for someone
who wasn't a huge Batman fan to write him, because Batman
fans might have a tendancy to make Batman too unbeatable,
& have him defeating foes he has no business even fighting.

I've read that criticism before, specifically regarding Grant
Morrison's portrayal of Bats in JLA ("UberBat" as he's
been derisively referred to). And Chuck Dixon once made a
comment that "Batman can beat anyone, even Darkseid
& Galactus" which, as much as I love Batman (& Chuck
Dixon), is an admittedly ridiculous assertion.

So I dunno, what do y'all think of this? Would you rather
read a comic-book, of any character, written by someone
for whom that's the ultimate goal in their life, or by someone
who's just trying to pay-off their mortgage, & do you
think you'd even notice the difference? BTW, Brian Azzarello
has made a point several times that he doesn't particularly
like superheroes, & I think I could tell that, judging by his
current Superman arc, but maybe that's just me.

I'm particularly interested in hearing from the several
pros & semi-pros we have on this board. How do you
feel about what you do? Is it just a job for you, or
something more?

Well, JB is, himself, a "fan-turned-pro", but the impression I've always gotten from him is that it's the "fans-turned-pro" who forget to (as JB puts it) "check their inner fan" at the door when they sit down to do the work that stick in his craw. THAT'S how we end up with a Batman that can beat Galactus or a Peter Parker whose Aunt May knows his secret. They don't have the ability (or the desire) to say "it might be cool if we did this story, but it would effectively ruin the character(s) for the next writer."

Rob Liefeld may have a lot going on in his life, but he needs to figure out what he wants to be when he grows up. If he wants to make comics, then he needs to do that as professionally as possible. He needs to meet the deadlines. If he can't do that then he needs to find another job.

And before you come down TOO hard on those guys to whom comic book creation was "just a paycheck", remember that that list includes: Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Joe Kubert, Carmine Infantino, Curt Swan, Will Eisner, Wally Wood, John Severin, Dick Giordano, C.C. Beck and a whole host of others. Hardly what you'd call a bunch of hacks!

But, speaking of someone who's only in it for the money, what would YOU call a writer who professes to not like super-heroes, yet takes on a high-profile super-hero gig with a "practically guaranteed to sell through the roof" artist? Seems to me that a TRUE professional wouldn't write super-heroes if he didn't like them.

Batgirl could beat Galactus. Seriously.

Well, yeah. But who doesn't know THAT?

Would that fight have anything to do with the time of month? That could be a factor, I would think...

Galactus sure doesn't.

J.R., this is an interesting topic for a number of reasons. As someone who aspired to be a comic book creator as a kid, I have to say that my enthusiasm for the profession as well as the hobby of comic books waned during my teenage years -- I quit reading for over a decade, and have only been collecting comics again in the last 4 or 5 years or so. A couple of points if I may.

First, I think it's a mistake to equate enthusiasm and effort, and talent with integrity. There are a million heavy breathing fanboy wannabes out there who take comics a hell of a lot more seriously than most of the creators working in the industry today. To wit, one may yearn to be a violin virtuoso, love music passionately, even be creative enough to actually write virtuoso music, yet never achieve virtuoso skill as a lead violinist. A work ethic doesn't equal talent, nor the other way around.

Though I generally subscibe to W.H. Auden's work ethic -- a writer should write as much and publish as little as possible -- I don't think it's possible to make blanket statements about the creative process. Do I feel Michael Golden or Frank Quitely should abandon comics as a career just because they can't meet the deadlines of a regular monthly assignment? No. Do I feel Byrne's or Morrison's work is of higher quality simply because they're more prolific than other folks? No, I don't. Though your point about your shipping job is well taken, would you feel differently if you could become a multimillionaire overnight, as McFarlane, Lee, Liefield and the rest did, with relatively little effort on your part? It depends on your definition of success. It's unfortunate that the Image folks didn't have more talent, more integrity, and more of a work ethic during their time in the sun.

But your point about the Superman arc begs certain questions about Brian Azzarello. Is he forced to do a job he hates for lack of work? If he gets the exposure of working with Jim Lee, will he broaden his fanbase with a slew of new fans? If he commits his "Year of Whoredom" (Ellis's phrase), will he then be free to write comics more to his liking? Does he see it as a creative challenge that will help him grow as a writer? Does he have a wedding and house to pay for? Is he just a lazy, greedy son of a bitch? I dunno. Only Brian Azzarello knows.

I do think the problem with this kind of debate is that even if creating comic books IS in fact a calling for many creators, at some point it risks becoming simply a job. A career in comics is like being a professional athelete -- you only got about ten years to make your mark and do your best work. For every creator like Michael Golden or Jim Steranko who didn't produce as much work as I would like, I could name a dozen of creators who simply stayed in the game too long -- in some cases twenty years too long -- and are now but a pale Platonic shadow of their former glory. At some point, productivity becomes easier than creativity. Why grow as an artist if you're making good money and your legacy is secure? We have to account for that point of view.

I also think that when Byrne talks about fans-turned-pro, what he's really talking about is CONTINUITY. The whole idea of continuity means that all of your creative decisions are made in the shadow of the threat of a fanboy rampage about anything and everything you do. Some explanation, ANY explanation, has to be offered to explain any real or imagined inconsistency in every single story with an appearance by that character ever written by EVERYBODY who was ever involved with the character. There must be a minimum of 10 million appearances of Superman over the years, with writers, artists, film-makers, and radio scripts -- all of which must conform to continuity. Who would want to deal with THAT creatively? Personally, I can't get that excited about Superman, because Superman is an institution and a licensing franchise so powerful that nothing drastic will ever be done with him that cannot be undone by someone else. When you start having 5 to 10 comics a month starring Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, or the X-men, you CAN'T do anything drastic to the characters, and your readers can't put too much stake in their adventures either.

I think that in any endeavor wherein one is effectively self-employed, one must be disciplined enough to understand and commit to the requisite work schedule.

I read an article in Writers' Digest many years ago about a writer who basically punches a clock every day; he disciplines himself to be in his home-based office at a particular time in the morning, takes a lunch break, and quits at a specific time in the evening unless overtime is warranted.

I believe that comic freelancers must first understand what it is they're committing to and must then understand whether or not they can meet the commitment without working themselves to death.

I don't necessarily believe that there's a connection between fanboys and guys "just doing it for the paycheck." I'm not sure that it's quite that black-and-white. I'm not sure that "keeping the fanboy in check" is warranted either. I guess I would cite Miller's Daredevil as an example. Miller brought hard-boiled crime and mystical martial-arts into the Daredevil mythos and made it better. ( The inference that I took from Miller's run was that Matt had always had the potential for his extrasensory powers and abilities because, like Elektra, he was one of the few paladins born into this time-period. )

I would say that the above is a dire change from the boxing acrobat who gained his powers from radioactive slop in the eyes, but I have yet to hear anyone speak poorly of Miller's run on the title.

I think where the fanboy problem might creep into play is when the fanboys mess with the catalysts that keep the stories fueled to satisfy their own needs for closure. Certainly, having Aunt May find Peter's indentity / Peter marrying Mary Jane ... well, it removed an element of tragedy from the character and made the stories less desirable to read ( at least for me. ) I think this is due to some combination of a lack of understanding of the medium and/or mediocre storytelling abilities.

Having said that, I'd really hate for the storyteller(s) to lose the drive to ponder "wouldn't it be cool if?" ... ( the Hulk was grey again and could think... Swamp Thing was not a man but an elemental... Marvelman forgot his secret word... )

Mark Millar recently made this comment regarding Azzarello:
"Although some guys do the super-books to fund or sell their indie books, I'm precisely the opposite. I didn't get into comics to write crime-books. I got into it to write superhero comics. I was talking to Azzarello about this in Philly and he just didn't get it. He sees writing superhero books as 'whoring' and he says he only does them as 'favours' (he seems to owe a lot of favours right now, of course). I'm completely unembarrassed about my love of this stuff. This is what I set out to DO and they seem as pure and artistic to me as any of those bloody crime books."

And like I said, it seems as if, judging by his Superman run so far,
that Azzarello clearly has no clue as to what make Superman
special. Yet, at the same time, Warren Ellis has also stated his
dislike for superheroes, also refers to it as "whoring" & calls
costumes "pervet suites." But, in my opinion, when he does write
superheroes he's pretty darn good at it. So in some cases maybe it's
good to have someone without any preconcieved notions
about superheroes writing them, because they can bring a fresh
perspective to the genre.

And I'm certainly not saying all of the of the old greats
Frank mentioned where "hack" because it was just job
to them, the same way I don't use "fan" as a perjorative
to describe a modern creator, like Chuck Dixon, who
loves the character they're working on too much. Hey,
I think Dixon did a great job on the various Bat-books,
so maybe his enthusiasm for Batman is what made him
so good on it.

And money is not the worst motivator in the world, y'know.
I'm darn good at my job (been doing it for 7 years now), but
I'm doing it strictly for the money. I basically like the job,
& most of the people I work with, but this aint my dream.
I don't wake up with a smile on my face everyday, y'know?
But my point is, I'm good at it, & so were those guys
Frank mentioned, even if it was just a paycheck for them.
That's why I asked if y'all think you can tell the
difference by the quality of a creator's work, because I'm not
sure I always can.

It's just I'm mostly confused by the whole "fans turned pro"
argument & why some consider that a bad thing. I guess I
can see what some of y'all mean by the "cool stories" that
some fans wonder about, & then write them when they
turn pro. I know someone once wrote about BMB's
Daredevil, saying that having Matt Murdock take down
the Kingpin once & for all, & then declaring himself
the new "ruler" of Hells Kitchen, might be the "natural
outcome" of the Daredevil saga, but does that mean it
should be told? That could be a case of the "fan"
overriding the "pro." I dunno.

At the same time, I do like some of the changes we've
seen in recent years. Personally, I have no problem
with Peter & MJ being married, or with Aunt May knowing
the secret (I loved that issue). I know some, if not most,
of y'all disagree, but I think that may be due to the
"superhero generation gap" that John V. once brought up here.
See, I didn't grow up with teenage loser Peter Parker like some
of y'all did. My first exposure to Spidey were the cartoons,
where he was always happy & had friends (remember the
show Firestar & IceMan?), so for me, Spider-Man having a
happy homelife doesn't ruin the character. I'm also not
opposed to Lois & Clark being married either. So I don't
automatically think of a writer who writes those stories to
be doing something wrong.

Part of this response may actually be tangent to the discussion, but nevertheless I think it is still appropriate.

As a longtime fan of the medium, when I finally turned pro, I was the happies, most motivated person you could ever find. And, through years of setbacks, conflicts, politics and bad days, my motivation for wanting to work in the medium never flagged, and greatly assisted me in overcoming some of the obstacles thrown in my way.

It also gave me extra impetus to improve my work, even after turning pro. When I first got to work on Iron Man, just about my all-time favourite character, I made a point of pushing myself as hard as I could, both in the quality of my colouring and the speed in which I got pages done, to impress the art director at the studio so that I would be given more and more chances to work on the book.

After leaving that studio environment over a year ago, that motivation and drive continued to make me want to do the best job possible, not just for the paycheck and the credit of 'my name finally in a book', but also to ensure that my work would be at the high standard I would like to see in all books.

I know, for me, that I wouldn't have this drive if this wasn't a medium I was this enamoured with. For instance, I really enjoy animated movies, tv shows, and video games. However, as much fun as doing some of the creative design work and artwork for those mediums may be for a while, I also know that I would never devote as much time and effort to it, just viewing it as 'something on the side'.

Like all other creative endeavours, there are massive obstacles put in your way at all times when trying to work professionally in comics. Even after 'breaking in', you still have to constantly prove yourself, and you need extra motivation to get past all of those barriers. For me, it was the fact that I was and still am a huge fan of the medium and of what can be done in it. So, if I hadn't been the fan I am, I would probably have turned my back on it at my first opportunity years ago (basically, at the first chance I had at leaving Digital Chameleon to do something that paid better or was less aggravating, I would have taken it; several of these opportunities did come up, but I bypassed all of them).

Now, that is just speaking for myself, in a non-writing context. I do understand the reluctance that some people may have for 'fan' work (this has been an ongoing problem not just in comics, but in any work with a large fan base - I understand the manuscripts received for books and TV for the various 'Star Trek' incarnations are plagued with 'fannish' storylines that, while steeped in 'continuity and setting' don't actually tell good stories), and it is debatable whether a fan pro writer or artist is inherintly 'better' than a non-fan pro writer or artist. Maybe there are still a lot of writers and artists who are doing this until 'something better' comes along (like all the artists who had worked in comics until better-paying commercial art opportunities came along - none of them would ever be considered 'hack artists' - if they were, they wouldn't have gotten the better-paying gigs offered to them).

Of all the Digital Artists I worked with, the only ones who are still in the field (and, especially, getting their names in books) are the ones who really grew up loving the medium and wanting to stay in it (well, I think there are one or two who aren't huge fans, but for the most part the others are).

However, there is one hugely exploitable negative side to all of this.

Far too many times, I've seen writers and/or 'editors' on different forums looking for artists to work on their projects for free (quite often they will say 'for a percentage of the profits', but that usually still means for free), and will criticise those who actually want money for their work. They like to bring out that whole 'I thought you were a real artist, and really loved comics' homily.

Sure, most of these people are just doing submissions, and don't have a lot of money. Still, the attitude that someone will do work for free because it is something they like/love is rather disturbing. It is as if some folks think artists don't have rent and other bills to pay, for instance, and just get by on charm and talent but not money.

(unfortunately, this attitude does extend to some employers, where the promise of any sort of pay raise is met with 'you know, you shouldn't be doing this work to try and get rich', when all you want is to be able to pay your increased rent...)

...okay, I'm starting to rant and push this thread seriously off-topic. I've said my personal opinion of a pro who is also a fan, and should stop now

It's okay, Ian. Read the "Rulez" thread:

Amendment XIII

Thread drift is allowed, & in fact encouraged here.

So it's all good, & I definately appreciate your comments, like
I said I was particularly interested in professional opinions, &
you've definately given me a lot to think about.

Oh, I'd read that already - I still just get paranoid about thread drift (I've seen too many thread lawyerz in the past )

Thread drift: OK
Lawyer talk: Not OK

Ah a job for the political officer!

Well comrades - we welcome thread drift into forum, thread lawyerz will be put against a virtual wall and shot (for the good of the people).

That's a very good point you bring up there. I've seen lots of
fans complain about certain creators "not respecting continuity,"
but maybe it's those fans who get too obsessed with all of these
little continuity angles to just enjoy the stories. Hey, I tend to
notice little continuity discrepencies in all sorts of mediums. I
remember Richie's older brother Chuck from the first few episodes
of Happy Days, & that in the first episode of The Cosby Show Clair
asked Cliff why they had 4 children & he said "Because we didn't
want 5." Yet, later in the season, we suddenly met the 5th child
who had been away at Princeton. Did I let those things ruin the
shows for me? No, it's just T.V.

It's the same thing with comics. I'm not saying creators should
totally disregard continuity whenever they feel like it, but they
shouldn't be too hamstrung by it just because they don't want
to piss-off some anal-retentative fanboy who's memorized every
minute detail of X-Men continuity. I was just talking on another
board about some of the changes that Superman: Birthright
have caused, & how it can be confusing but it's best to just
not think about it. I mean, I've been reading Superman comics
for the past 20 years now, but obviously 20 years haven't exactly
passed for Superman or he'd be in his 50's, so even without
BR, several of the stories I've read couldn't be "real" anymore.
So Superman couldn't have met President Ronald Reagan in
Legends, because that would date him too specifically. No
biggie.

And I can definately see how some fans might think that
their knowledge of continuity alone should make them
professionals. Hey, I can think of a minor subplot from
Marv Wolfman's Adventures Of Superman run that I could
write a story today about, but unless the story stands well
on it's own, why should anyone give a rat's behind?

"Hey, this is the conclusion to AOS #431! I've been waiting
17 years for this story!"

Yeah, right.

Kurt Busiek & Mark Waid are 2 creators known for being major
continuity experts, but that surely isn't the primary reason
for their success. I'm sure it helps, but they've got a lot more
going for them than that. Still, respect for the general
characterizations of the characters is important. And that's
where that other group of "fans turned pros" comes in. They're
the ones who grew up reading certain characters, but then
when they write them they essentially turn then into new
characters because of the "cool" story ideas they want to
tell. Like the various Captain Marvel fans I see on other
boards who say they want Billy Batson to be more "tough"
like a street kid, because that's more "realistic."
So there's definately 2 sides to that issue.




Yeah, I know of lots of comic-pros who left to work in things
like animation, movie, T.V., & music video storyboards,
video games, & logo designs. A lot of this happened during
the "speculator bust" of the mid-90's. Lots of these guys loved
comics, but these other mediums offered more money (often
for much less work) than the comic-books industry could, so
I don't blame them. And I certainly wouldn't accuse anyone of
"selling out" for doing so.



Yeah, that attitude bugs me, too. I used to hear that in arguments
about things like Napster. When I'd point out that musicians
(whom these people often claimed to love) lose money when you
just download their song without paying for them, I'd usually get
back "REAL artists don't do it for the money." And then
they want to call groups like Metallica "greedy" when they tried
to sue Napster users.

Hey, I'd definately never advise anyone to try to get into
comic-books just to get rich. If your ultimate dream in life is
to own a 17-room mansion like John Byrne, then there's about
2 or 3 dozen other careers you should be persuing. Just
like you shouldn't try writing children's books just because
J.K. Rowling is a billionaire now. Yes, do it because you love
it first, & because you think you can make a decent living
doing it (whatever that exactly means for you), & if you end up
becoming rich, then so much the better. But if you just end
up making a "decent living" then at least be happy you're
doing that while doing something you love, which is more
than most people can say.

Just my opinion.

If I could express myself 1/10th as well as JR I would post more often....well said my man...well said.

Edward

Well, once upon a time, that was how the comic world worked. People were hired out of the commercial art world, and were just doing comics as 'just another gig' until a better prospect in that commercial art world appeared.

A lot of those folks were (and are) great artists - I wouldn't say they were selling out at all. Especially looking far enough back to the ones who couldn't have been comic fans as kids - there were no comics (at least in their present form) when they were kids

Again, going on a related note, Sci-Fi writing is probably the biggest home of fans-turned-pro out there. Probably the best account of one fans journey from fan to pro writer is in the three-volume set 'Before The Golden Age', where Isaac Asimov introduces some of his favourite sci-fi stories from when he was a kid, all the while writing about how they affected him and eventually led to his writing sci-fi on his own. A really cool partial autobiography/short story collection (it is best read along with his two-volume 'The Early Asimov' set, as it has his earliest short stories, along with more of his ongoing autobiography).

Of course, true enjoyment of those two series probably relies on the reader also being a fan of Isaac's work (as I am), but nevertheless shows how fans can rise above any sort of 'fanboy mentality' (whatever that is, I suppose) and embrace their 'calling'.

(heh, plus, reading those two series shows that even uber-successful fans-turned-pro still needed some sort of day job while they were first trying to break in - whether that is candy store employee or astrophysicist)

Now, writing comics (and indeed sci-fi) has the major problem of writers easily engaging in wish-fulfillment power-fantasies; part of the problem that fans-wanting-to-turn-pro would possibly be writing themselves into their own stories, only as an idealized, super-powered version of themselves, and indeed changing the focus of what they are writing. J Michael Straczynski talks about this in his book on scriptwriting, where a major problem that TV series have are writers who, when writing spec scripts for a pre-existing show, will incorporate a new character and have the story be entirely about them rather than about the main characters in the TV show.

It could be very easy to see how someone (say, a Spider-Man fan who would really like to hang out with Spidey in real life) could turn in a Spider-Man script, where they introduce 'SuperColossalKid', and have SCK save Spidey's life, saves New York, and even steals MJ away to his palatial orbiting mansion; it is also easy to see how Marvel would be 'less than impressed' with this idea...

Of course, that is merely the danger of fans-turned-pro. The positive side could be (but not necessarily) better continuity, more respect for the initial character concepts, perseverence in the face of overwhelming odds, and just an increased drive to do a better job, to leave their own 'stamp' on the history of their favourite character.

Hell yes!! I heartily agree with this sentiment.

Granted, nobody I know in the industry got into it thinking they were going to be rich, but I do know of people who had the idea that comic pros were supposed to be rich (and, after learning about the career of folks like Todd MacFarlane, famous :) )

Heh, earlier this year, I was invited to teach the basics of comic colouring and illustration to elementary school kids (grades 4-6), kind of a one-day seminar for several different classes. It was a lot of fun, and most of the kids seemed to enjoy it as well. Anyway, at one point, during the question-and-answer period, one little girl asked me 'why aren't you famous?'. I thought the idea that all successful artists (or at least comic book artists) being famous was pretty funny, but did explain that, in comic-book circles, I was getting a bit of a name (between the comic book work and my commission work), so that kind-of qualified. In a very very small scale, low-key kinda way To those that pay attention to colourists, anyway...
And, hey, I'm extremely happy and grateful that I do manage to make a living at this crazy job in this crazy industry. I don't see myself making massive amounts of money (like if I was an industrialist or a plumber or anything), but I can get by. And that is pretty cool

You know, Ian ... you probably could make a fortune if you became a lawyer specialising in thread drift cases ...

NOT AROUND HERE!

Why not? A true professional is being paid for a service.

John Buscema hated superheroes, but drew them often and gorgeously. Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez doesn't like superheroes, and draws other things when he can (much as Big John latched onto Conan), but when he draws 'em, he draws 'em purty.

Would a truly professional chef only cook things he likes to eat? A truly professional printer print only things he enjoyed reading?

Michael Caine's been in a boatload of movies that he wouldn't dream of going to see, but nobody wouldn't call him a professional.

kdb